Also, no Vidur/Yudhisthir would have meant that Bhima would have been the eldest of the Pandavas, and the ruler. Note that even Bhima was older to Dury, even though they were born on the same day. Dury's claim was on the basis of Dhritarashtra over Pandu, rather than he himself being older than either Yudhisthir or Bhima.
Had Bhima been the ruler of the Pandavas, that story would have been great: I wrote my own fictional Mahabharat w/ that as a given. 😆
Also, no Vidur/Yudhisthir would have meant that Bhima would have been the eldest of the Pandavas, and the ruler. Note that even Bhima was older to Dury, even though they were born on the same day. Dury's claim was on the basis of Dhritarashtra over Pandu, rather than he himself being older than either Yudhisthir or Bhima.
Had Bhima been the ruler of the Pandavas, that story would have been great: I wrote my own fictional Mahabharat w/ that as a given. 😆
God, things would've been so different! I can't imagine Bheema putting up most of the stuff Yudhishtira did, starting with poisoning. He would've cracked a skull or two.
No polyandry for sure 😆. Bheema and Panchali would've ruled the empire and lived happy ever after, dispatching one villain after another.
OTOH, none of us would've known anything about them.
Agree fully on Keechak
On Vidur, if one excludes the idea that he was the one who fathered Yudhisthir thru Kunti, nothing changes. Yeah, he'd keep advising Dhritarashtra and the Kauravas not to make enemies of the Pandavas, but got ignored. The Dyut sabha - he might as well not have been there, since everything Duryodhan wanted to do, he did! On Varnavarta, it's true that he helped the Pandavas disappear: the Pandavas would have escaped anyway, since they smelled the lac and therefore set the house on fire themselves one night earlier. Only difference would have been that it would have been known that they had escaped: the entire populace couldn't have faked their grief
On Dushashan, if Patnaik thinks that Gandhari had just 2 sons, why does Vyasa list out 100 names? She definitely had at least 3 - Vikarna was prominent in the dyut sabha as well. Although the story about her having a miscarriage and 100 sons and a daughter being created out of that - that does require some explaining. What's possible is that she and Dhritarashtra had quite a few sons, but at a certain point, they stopped and called it 100, since there were so many.
Yeah I don't completely believe Pattanaik, but he says something very interesting, here quoting from Jaya -
I find his point about the symbolic "imagination" of Vyasa as quite interesting. Yeah maybe what he says isn't very logical but it is good study of symbolism. What he said in the last point makes sense to me. Another theory is test tube babies but I don't see why even then a woman would want 100 sons? I understand 10,but 100 😆
From Jaya-
Contrary to popular projection, both Gandhari and Kunti are viewed by Vyasa as ambitious women who knew the value of sons in a royal household.
The traditional Hindu blessing for brides has always been, ‘May you be the mother of a hundred sons.’ Gandhari holds Vyasa to that blessing. But she wants a daughter too. Thus the Kuru household had a hundred and five sons (hundred
Kauravas and five Pandavas) and one daughter, Dusshala, who was so indulged by the entire household that her husband,Jayadhrata, was forgiven repeatedly despite his immoral behaviour.
Scholars wonder if the story of the miraculous birth of Gandhari’s children is a record of occult secrets known to ancient sages. Maybe they could transform the remnants of a miscarriage into live children by incubating them in magically charged pots of ghee. Or maybe it is all a poet’s imagination. The latter is suggested when the Rishi called upon to createa Gandhari’s hundred children is none other than Vyasa, the poet of the epic.
Rationalists believe Gandhari had only two sons, Duryodhana and Dusshasana, who are the only two of the hundred to play a significant role in the epic. They were probably twins, the ‘two-year’ pregnancy probably meaning ‘twin’ pregnancy.
I also don't believe that Karna was around to poison Bhima. This would have been way before the tournament, and if Karna was involved in something like this earlier, Duryodhan would have known him: he wouldn't have asked him his name.
Note that one of Gandhari's 100 sons had the same name Karna, and he could have been the one involved in that plot. Also, the plot could have involved more of Duryodhan's brothers, since they all feared and hated Bhima, who did bully them.
Also, there is nothing the the epic that shows whose charioteer Adhirath is. In fact, there are so many theories that we've ourselves thrashed out here - one says that he was actually a Suta king near Anga, another that he was someone elses charioteer. Also, if we are using modern probabilities in determining what really happened, Karna's basket couldn't have taken it far w/o Karna dying of either hunger or fear: it's likely that it didn't go far b4 Adhirath retrieved it. If that's true, Karna may have grown up somewhere near Kuntibhoj's kingdom, rather than anywhere near either Hastinapur or Anga. Reason he was at Hastinapur was that he was an adult by then, and had gone there to seek his fortune
When Karna Arjun war happened, it was then that Krishna narrates him his sins. The Bheem poisoning is very much mentioned in that list. He would not have listed the sin done by Duryodhan's brother to this Karna
Aside I find this excuse very lame, why would of all the brothers of Duryodhan, only Karna be named at all the times when Duryodhan is into his plotting/ getting defeated? If he was so important then he should have been at par with Dusshashan in the epic which he definitely isn't.
About knowing Karna, Duryodhan was definitely his fellow student at Drona Ashram. It has been clearly mentioned that the Karna the son of the Suta was a student, so this one is definitely not the brother. Duryodhan and Karna knew each other very well before the Rangbhumi.
All the hundred sons have been named I don't think they were fictional
If not for test tube then might be that Gandhaari wasn't one single woman, there were multiple sisters of Shakuni married to Dhritrashtra all being the princess of Gandhar were called Gandhaari. Eventually by the time the story was written down the memory had faded and all these Gandhaaris became one lady who was supposed to have given birth to 101 children.
2 year pregnancy is a very much common mistake. Especially in the villages where the people don't have much scientific knowledge, have repeated miscarriage and repregnancy which they consider to be the same being prolonged.
Also, no Vidur/Yudhisthir would have meant that Bhima would have been the eldest of the Pandavas, and the ruler. Note that even Bhima was older to Dury, even though they were born on the same day. Dury's claim was on the basis of Dhritarashtra over Pandu, rather than he himself being older than either Yudhisthir or Bhima.
Had Bhima been the ruler of the Pandavas, that story would have been great: I wrote my own fictional Mahabharat w/ that as a given. 😆
But going by Bheema's character he wouldn't have staked humans, so in that case Mahabharata would have been very different
Vyasa - Hastinapuri falls to Jarasandh. Krishna would have made some other arrangement or ended up dead.
Jarasandh - Kuru line would have gone on as in MBh. Vyasa would still want Panchali to marry Yudhishtira. Krishna may or may not have contested in Panchali swayamvara. I think his ultimate aim was same as Vyasa's - to build a unified empire, so he might have still held off as empire could only be built by Kuru or Panchala.
Uloopi - nothing would change.
Without Vyasa Pandu and Dhritrashtra wouldn't have been born so nothing would have happened at all
In the absence of Jarasangh no one would have been the Samrat so the politics of pre Mahabharata era would have been very different
Uloopi I don't think any difference. Maybe without Iravan's death Ghatochkach wouldn't have got so angry and so fierce as to compel Karna to use Indrast on him, so probably she did have some importance
Originally posted by: HearMeRoar
Vyasa - Hastinapuri falls to Jarasandh. Krishna would have made some other arrangement or ended up dead.
Jarasandh - Kuru line would have gone on as in MBh. Vyasa would still want Panchali to marry Yudhishtira. Krishna may or may not have contested in Panchali swayamvara. I think his ultimate aim was same as Vyasa's - to build a unified empire, so he might have still held off as empire could only be built by Kuru or Panchala.
Uloopi - nothing would change.
Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism
Without Vyasa Pandu and Dhritrashtra wouldn't have been born so nothing would have happened at all
In the absence of Jarasangh no one would have been the Samrat so the politics of pre Mahabharata era would have been very different
Uloopi I don't think any difference. Maybe without Iravan's death Ghatochkach wouldn't have got so angry and so fierce as to compel Karna to use Indrast on him, so probably she did have some importance
Vyasa - He was father of Pandu, Dhruti and Vidur
Jarasandh -
Wasn't there a connection between Krishna's involvement with Pandavas and Bhima killing Jarasandh? I am not sure
If he wasn't an emperor then it would have been either Kuru or Panchal
Uloopi - She got Arjun out of Brahmcharya, don't know how important it would have been in Arjun's marriage to Subhadra but he wouldn't have married Chitra
Her son is worshipped in South India, I remember he is married to Krishna as well, I don't know how but I read Krishna married Iravan
comment:
p_commentcount