Discussion Week 1 : Bhishma's bhishma Pratigya - Page 2

I speculate that an earlier version of the story was that Śaṃtanu wanted a marital alliance with Vasu “Uparicara,” who belonged to a rival branch of the Kuru dynasty, established in Śuktimatī (Cedi) and controlling territory that extended from Magadha in the east to Matsya in the west. How would Śaṃtanu have held on to the Kuru kingdom in that neighborhood? Satyavatī was Vasu’s daughter and obviously Śaṃtanu’s marriage to her would have been a deal to unite the interests of the two Kuru branches.

Harivaṃśa tells us that Kṛtaka, son of Cyavana, had been chosen by Śaṃtanu’s elder brother Devāpi as the beneficiary of yajña. Vasu was Kṛtaka’s son according to the genealogies found in Purāṇas and some manuscripts of Mahābhārata. So, Śaṃtanu’s own claim to rule an independent Kuru kingdom was shaky unless he married the granddaughter of the king whom Devāpi supported.

Satyavatī’s beauty, ferry-boat, fisherman adoption etc., Śaṃtanu telling Devavrata that he would like to have more than one living son, i.e. a royal wife of childbearing age, and forty-year-old Devavrata’s vow of celibacy may all be details that were added to romanticize the story of a political rivalry.

Originally posted by: DelusionsOfNeha

Haa, matlab Jo teen generation baad karna pada wo pehle hi kar dete to Mahabharat hoti hi nahi 🤣

Originally posted by: Abhaythevampire

mahabharat to uske baad bhi hui na! Vo kaha rukni thi 🤣

Practically bhishma pratigya is the basis of Mahabharat. In nutshell.

Originally posted by: DelusionsOfNeha

Practically bhishma pratigya is the basis of Mahabharat. In nutshell.

Pratipa of Hastinapur had 3 sons: Devapi, Bahlika, Shanthanu.

Devapi had leprosy, so he was not given the throne.

Bahlika got some land from Pratipa, and Jarasandh also donated land to Bahlika as reward for not joining with Panchal against Magadha.

Remaining land was Hastinapuri proper which went to Shanthanu, the youngest.

So Bheeshma pratigya does not make sense politically. Hastinapuri already had a history of favoring younger sons and a history of division.

I suspect Bheeshma pratigya was put in there to romanticize what was plain politics between Uparachira Vasu and Shanthanu

Satyavati was Vasu's daughter. She was a Chedi princess, who was adopted by Matsya Raj, then married to Shanthanu. I suspect Devavrath needed to be sidelined for the alliance to happen. But later on, all the fluff was added to make it look like a grand drama.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Pratipa of Hastinapur had 3 sons: Devapi, Bahlika, Shanthanu.

Devapi had leprosy, so he was not given the throne.

Bahlika got some land from Pratipa, and Jarasandh also donated land to Bahlika as reward for not joining with Panchal against Magadha.

Remaining land was Hastinapuri proper which went to Shanthanu, the youngest.

So Bheeshma pratigya does not make sense politically. Hastinapuri already had a history of favoring younger sons and a history of division.

I suspect Bheeshma pratigya was put in there to romanticize what was plain politics between Uparachira Vasu and Shanthanu

Satyavati was Vasu's daughter. She was a Chedi princess, who was adopted by Matsya Raj, then married to Shanthanu. I suspect Devavrath needed to be sidelined for the alliance to happen. But later on, all the fluff was added to make it look like a grand drama.

Why didn't divide the kingdom between bhism and chitrangada/vichtraveer?

Originally posted by: M.Wheeler

Why didn't divide the kingdom between bhism and chitrangada/vichtraveer?

That part is very clear.

Vasu asks DashaRaj to go to Shanthanu with a proposal for Satyavati. Dasharaj asks for Satya's children to inherit. There were no ifs, ands, or buts.

Satyavati brought with her the backing of Chedi and Matsya. Devavrat's mom, Jahnavi, was the daughter of a king-turned-rishi who presumably couldn't bring any political backing to Hastinapuri.

Then there's the Vasishta Varuni aspect to it. Some Indonesian versions say Parashara was actually married to Satyavati and asked her to go marry Shanthanu. Clearly, the ex-spouses were on good terms. She was on good terms with the Vasishta Varunis even in Indian version. So she brought the backing of a major brahmin clan as well.

Tbh I have always admired Bhishma's sacrifice but as Krishna says in the war, Bhishma was more tied up to his idea of Dharma and not Dharma itself. He took such a drastic step just to ensure his father's happiness but didn't think of the happiness of the people his dynasty was to serve.

Regarding who was responsible for his decision, it was definitely Satyavati's ambition abled by her father. Shantanu was just too selfish to care otherwise.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

That part is very clear.

Vasu asks DashaRaj to go to Shanthanu with a proposal for Satyavati. Dasharaj asks for Satya's children to inherit. There were no ifs, ands, or buts.

Satyavati brought with her the backing of Chedi and Matsya. Devavrat's mom, Jahnavi, was the daughter of a king-turned-rishi who presumably couldn't bring any political backing to Hastinapuri.

Then there's the Vasishta Varuni aspect to it. Some Indonesian versions say Parashara was actually married to Satyavati and asked her to go marry Shanthanu. Clearly, the ex-spouses were on good terms. She was on good terms with the Vasishta Varunis even in Indian version. So she brought the backing of a major brahmin clan as well.

Make sense. I actually never bought into fisherman putting forward this condition. Considering those times Shantanu could easily marry Satyavati without Dashraj s permission.

Why do you think Devrath went along with that pratigya story?

Originally posted by: M.Wheeler

Make sense. I actually never bought into fisherman putting forward this condition. Considering those times Shantanu could easily marry Satyavati without Dashraj s permission.

Why do you think Devrath went along with that pratigya story?

Propaganda was always a big part of power. The story suited Bheeshma. He outplayed Satyavati in the end. Looked like the ethical elder and ruled Hastinapuri without taking responsibility for any of the bad things which happened under his watch. His performance in dice hall where he argued Panchali was in fact a slave is evidence enough.