Originally posted by: draupadidevi
Your point of argument is highly appreciable. But this may be one point of interpretation. Actually Yadu was dethroned because he had disobeyed his father's request and Puru got the opportunity because of his selfless devotion to his father. Though during the epic age it was a general norm to appoint the eldest son as the next heir of the throne but in extreme cases the ruler had the authority to judge the whole issue from moral and logical perspectives. It happened in the case of Puru and Yadu. Yudhisthir was appointed as the crown prince not only of him being the eldest son of the Kuru clan but he and his brothers had proved their ability. So we can not explain Pariksht's appoint as a redress of any injustice rather if Krishna Vasudeva was present during the Yajati he would do the same. Please remember that he initiated the destruction of his rotten clan by himself.
We may interpret the Pariksht-Vajra era as a coincidence and here we can get the justification for Arjun-Subhadra marriage.
Originally posted by: ..RamKiJanaki..
Proteeti, your explanation makes sense and is quite interesting!
I never agreed with Yayati's decision to crown Puru over Yadu. In fact, I found Yayati as a character quite selfish. He was so obsessed with his materialistic life that he wanted his sons to sacrifice their youth to keep him young. What kind of father asks his son for such a sacrifice? Yayati was not justified in his request and thus I do not fault Yadu for refusing him. Puru may have been a selfless son, but Yayati was no virtuous father.The eldest son and heir is only not made King if he behaves unrighteous, but what wrong did Yadu commit? He merely refused to indulge his father's selfish lifestyle. I think it was very wrong of Yayati to dethrone his son. It was not at all justified.So I always was happy that Krishna chose to be born into Yadu's lineage instead of Puru's. He glorified Yadu's clan and yes, in the end, it is Yadu's descendant that regains Yayati's kingdom, as it should have happened eons ago.
Originally posted by: ..RamKiJanaki..
Proteeti, your explanation makes sense and is quite interesting!
I never agreed with Yayati's decision to crown Puru over Yadu. In fact, I found Yayati as a character quite selfish. He was so obsessed with his materialistic life that he wanted his sons to sacrifice their youth to keep him young. What kind of father asks his son for such a sacrifice? Yayati was not justified in his request and thus I do not fault Yadu for refusing him. Puru may have been a selfless son, but Yayati was no virtuous father.The eldest son and heir is only not made King if he behaves unrighteous, but what wrong did Yadu commit? He merely refused to indulge his father's selfish lifestyle. I think it was very wrong of Yayati to dethrone his son. It was not at all justified.So I always was happy that Krishna chose to be born into Yadu's lineage instead of Puru's. He glorified Yadu's clan and yes, in the end, it is Yadu's descendant that regains Yayati's kingdom, as it should have happened eons ago.
@AAS in adbhut Ramayan which is more Sita centric. Sita kills sahastra Ravan which is very similar to shatanan Ravan.
Siya ke Ram had shown Sita taking maha Kali roop and killing sahastra Ravan.I don't know if sankat Mochan Mahabali hanuman will show hanuman killing shatanan Ravan.But it is not in the original epic. Just a story that has emerged over the years.Others might provide better answers.
comment:
p_commentcount