Who was the heir to the Throne after Yudhishtira? - Page 8

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

No age is explicitly mentioned in MBh except Drona's. Not Krishna's, not Bheeshma's.

If Bheeshma fought like he did in Kurukshetra, there are only 2 possibilities: 1. It was magic/related to divinity ie, faith. Which is entirely acceptable, but it cannot be taken as science. 2. He was not 100+

Being 100+ isn't difficult for one having Iccha Mrityu vardaan.

If we take as science many things would not be possible

Originally posted by: RamKiSeeta

I guess Abhimanyu, based on the citations posted?

Probably because he's the nephew of Krishna himself, so as God's descendant, he was the heir.

But before Mahabharata war no one actually knew that He was God

Anyhow that proves my point in the other thread. Son of king being the next king wasn't a rule hence Duryodhan's claim can't be discarded

Originally posted by: RamKiSeeta

I guess Abhimanyu, based on the citations posted?

Probably because he's the nephew of Krishna himself, so as God's descendant, he was the heir.

But before Mahabharata war no one actually knew that He was God

Anyhow that proves my point in the other thread. Son of king being the next king wasn't a rule hence Duryodhan's claim can't be discarded😉

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Being 100+ isn't difficult for one having Iccha Mrityu vardaan.

If we take as science many things would not be possible

And I respect faith. By definition, it supercedes science.

Which is why I end my arguments there because at that point, I'm not talking about the same thing as the other person.

God is God; anything is possible. No explanation or reasoning is needed for the faithful (including me) to accept it. But I really don't think such things should be twisted into a scientific possibility (not you). Then, the story becomes faithful to neither science nor religion.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Of a dark complexion, with white locks hanging down to his ears, that old man of five and eighty years of age, used, for thy sake only, to career on the field of battle with the activity of a youth of sixteen.

Here. Drona's age is mentioned in text. 85.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m07/m07189.htm

Also, Kripa and Kripi are explicitly mentioned as twins adopted by Shanthanu. Ie, Shanthanu was still alive when Kripi was born. Ie, Kripi was born latest when Vichitraveerya was a child. Ie, Bheeshma's gen.

Ok that's true thanks

Still she could have married someone younger to her and Dronacharya was younger. Just giving a logic

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Can you provide citation from MBh for Krishna's age?

MB isn't very detailed about the life of Krishna, but as per my knowledge a group of researchers had presented this paper in 2004 that he died around the age of 120. Most historians are also of that view.

But let me check on citation from MB if I could get any

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

MB isn't very detailed about the life of Krishna, but as per my knowledge a group of researchers had presented this paper in 2004 that he died around the age of 120. Most historians are also of that view.

But let me check on citation from MB if I could get any

Researchers generally do what we do. Search the text and count numbers. Then, we run into the problem of discrepancies like 13 month exile mentioned for Arjuna at the beginning of the text followed by 12 years in later sections. Then, there is the problem of ANIRUDDHA being present at Panchali swayamvar which would make Arjuna old enough to be her grandfather as he was supposed to be of similar age to Krishna.

Either Vyasa lost the handle on the plot or he had many, many editors with their own agendas in later centuries.

I asked about Krishna's age in MBh TEXT because I'm fairly certain there isn't any mention of any of the main characters' ages except Drona.

Abhimanyu, if younger than Upapandava was declared crown Prince then how come they fought war for family dispute? What made Yudi denounce his son? Why didn't he serve under Duryodhana?

Originally posted by: NoraSM

Abhimanyu, if younger than Upapandava was declared crown Prince then how come they fought war for family dispute? What made Yudi denounce his son? Why didn't he serve under Duryodhana?

We aren't sure that Abhimanyu was younger

But maybe they decided not to have the sons of Panchali as king since the citizens might put some character assassination of the paternity of them (reasons similar to what Ramji had to abandon Sitaji)

Completely an assumption

Originally posted by: NoraSM

Abhimanyu, if younger than Upapandava was declared crown Prince then how come they fought war for family dispute? What made Yudi denounce his son? Why didn't he serve under Duryodhana?

Because maybe upandavas were not Krishnaa s son but were adopted by her along with abhimanyu and all the other pandava sons. Maybe upandavas s mothers belonged to lesser known kingdoms as compared to dwaraka who were one of the biggest ally of pandavas so they made abhimanyu crown prince instead.

This seems a much more plausible theory. Because i don't think anybody was aware of krishna s divinity at that time

Or only prativindhya was her son. Since she only specially says his name while freeing yudhishtra from slavery and not any of her other sons