How mnay wives had Arjuna - Page 3

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

Vrish

@Vr15h

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 10 years ago

#21

Since we are discussing the Mahabharata in general, and the Kurukshetra war in particular, useless is indeed defined by whether somebody helped the Pandavas or not. Balarama was certainly not one of their well wishers - given the way he wanted Krishna to join the war against them.

We're not discussing how wonderful a king Babruvahana actually was for Manipura, or how great a statesman Balarama was for Dwarka in Krishna's absence. They may well have been great in those areas. We're talking about the warriors who were a great help to the Pandavas, such as Satyaki, vs detractors like Balarama who wanted his family to join the war against the Pandavas just b'cos he was so proud of Duryodhan.

Conversely, if you think that the Kauravas were the right side here, then the test would be whether rulers were useful to the Kauravas or not. Like Yuyutsu was totally useless to the Kauravas, since he deserted them & joined the enemy

Babruvahana was biologically Arjun's son, and like Abhimanyu, Ghatotkacha, Iravana or Shrutakarman, he would under normal circumstances have been one of the warriors. However, due to his adoption, he was not obligated to do that, which made him unavailable to the Pandavas, who needed all the warriors that they could get. Similarly, Balarama, as Subhadra's brother, would normally have been obligated to support the Pandavas, but chose not to. Therefore, his relationship w/ the Pandavas did them no good. Which is the technical definition of 'useless'.

Edited by .Vrish. - 10 years ago

Quote

india2050

@india2050

Voyager

Posted: 10 years ago

#22

Originally posted by: poseidon2
@ red

even shrutkirti was not killed in fair fight. abhi was atleast killed in his senses while shrutkirit was killed in his sleep. but that time arjun didnt loose his calm right ?

Abhimanyu was Arjun's favorite son and I agree. Arjun mourned Iravan and understood why Yudi was ok asking for only 5 villages.

How did you conclude that Arjun did not lose is calm seeing Shrutkirti killed? The Pandavas desparately went in search of Ashwathama to bring him to justice. Bhima was the more short tempered and went first and all the others followed, even the mild Yudhisthir was pretty angry

Edited by india2050 - 10 years ago

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

india2050

@india2050

Voyager

Posted: 10 years ago

#23

Originally posted by: poseidon2
obviously !! because he didnt take any terrible vow on shrut's death like he did on abhi's death. he didnt even think of the consequnces of his vow. because of his vow krishna had to do one more treachery of fake solar eclipse. under the pretext of his son's loss , he even killed an unarmed karna.

arjun didnt swear to kill alambusha , the one who had killed iravan. however he sweared to kill jaydrath and killed an unarmed karna because they were involved in killing abhimanyu.

the job of killing alambusha was done by ghatotkach. ghatotkach took revenge of his cousin's death but arjun as a father only took revenge of his 1 son's death and not of remaining 2.

on this basis i am saying that he was highly biased and partial.

Just because he did not take any terrible vow does not mean that he was not angry or upset at his other sons death. You are putting it in too much black and white.

Going by your Ghatotkatch argument:

If Arjun was so concerned don't you think he should have killed Dushasan's son as he was the one who struck the fatal blow that killed Abhimanyu, but he did not did he? Ashwathama, Drona, Kripacharya and Kritavarma were also responsible for Abhimanyu's killing but Arjun did nothing to them.

Pandavas did go after Ashwathama and once it was known that he is a Chiranjeevi, ensured that he is caused the maximum damage possible

It was war time and stresses and strains can only be felt by the persons actually in that situation not like people like us who are just sitting/reading and trying to conclude.

Quote

Vrish

@Vr15h

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 10 years ago

#24

Originally posted by: poseidon2
here on the forum only someone had posted that karna last rites were done by duryodhan. now by blood yudhishthir should had done , but by karma duryodhan did it.

No, he didn't!!! For the umptyth time, Duryodhan died totally unaware of Karna's Kunteya identity. None of the people who died on the battlefield - except Bheeshma - knew. It was only during the funerals that Kunti revealed that to Yudisthir, and the reason she did was that otherwise, Karna would not have gotten any funerals from anybody - all his brothers & sons were dead (Vrishaketu is unmentioned in Vyasa).

All the funerals were done after the war - other than that, for the first 18 days, all the bodies were left rotting on the field. It was only after it was complete that Yudisthir & Yuyutsu made arrangements to do all the funerals for the Pandava & Kaurava sides respectively. That's easily deduced from the gruesome descriptions by Gandhari of all the bodies being food for the birds of prey, and all of that. What they showed in the previous serial - Abhimanyu or Drona getting a sweet funeral on the night of their deaths - was another piece of BRC fiction

It's perfectly not just possible, but likely as well, that had Duryodhan performed Karna's funeral, Kunti wouldn't have bothered ever telling her sons who Karna really was.

Edited by .Vrish. - 10 years ago

Quote

varaali

@varaali

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 10 years ago

#25

Originally posted by: poseidon2
[
how are you so sure that not a single funeral was done in the 18 days of war ? so brc who came up with such a brilliant show are showing fiction , but obviously the citations you provide are the ultimate truth huhh 😆. if you can say that what brc showed is fiction and fake then how can you vouch for the authenticity of your citation provider ? cant that person upload fiction and fake things on the internet 😉.

thinking logically , was it even possible to fight properly if there are thousands of bodies lieing on the ground ?

@ bold : So far, in these discussions, KMG's English translation has been used for providing citations. KMG's translation is fairly exact.

Of course you are welcome to quote from the Sanskrit MB too.

And yes- no funerals were performed in the 18 days. Vyasa- who otherwise has given a blow-by blow account of the War (literally) has made no mention of any funeral being performed.

Secondly, performing a funeral does not conclude with simply lighting the pyre. Certain ceremonies have to be performed for the next 12 days too. It would have not been possible then for the warriors to be on the battlefield the day after the funeral. Hence all funeral ceremonies were suspended till the War got over.

Edited by varaali - 10 years ago

Quote

Vrish

@Vr15h

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 10 years ago

#26

Originally posted by: poseidon2
how are you so sure that not a single funeral was done in the 18 days of war ? so brc who came up with such a brilliant show are showing fiction , but obviously the citations you provide are the ultimate truth huhh 😆. if you can say that what brc showed is fiction and fake then how can you vouch for the authenticity of your citation provider ? cant that person upload fiction and fake things on the internet 😉.

thinking logically , was it even possible to fight properly if there are thousands of bodies lieing on the ground ?

In case you didn't know, the MB was written by Ved Vyasa, not BRC. 😈

Had we been conducting these discussions in Sanskrit, we'd be citing Vyasa himself, not KMG. Since we're not, we have to look for the best translations available. As Varaali mentioned, KMG is as close to Vyasa as possible. Yeah, one can discuss whether the Vyasa accounts that we are discussing have themselves been altered over time.

However, even if that were to have been the case, it wouldn't make BRC even remotely authentic. Unless he had a direct phone line to Vyasa or Krishna or anyone else in heaven w/ whom he could verify anything that he chose to show. It's like if you were near the scene of an accident/crime, and cops interrogated you on what happened. Let's say I was nowhere near it. Later on, your accounts to the cops may or may not be accurate, but it's safe to say regardless that any account of mine would not be accurate.

Same w/ BRC. MB was not his creation, so people are fully justified censuring him when he made up things out of whole cloth. Just like they are doing now to Swastik Productions.

Quote

varaali

@varaali

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 10 years ago

#27

Originally posted by: Atiratha

In that case what's the point of FORMATION.. Wheel shape, Crescent shape, Bird shape, at the end I could just say,
"Excuse me, I want to fight with one only please... !"

.

Quoting from Bhishma Parva :

Then the Kurus, the Pandavas, and the Somakas made certain covenants, and settled the rules, O bull of Bharata's race, regarding the different kinds of combat. Persons equally circumstanced must encounter each other, fighting fairly. And if having fought fairly the combatants withdraw (without fear of molestation), even that would be gratifying to us. Those who engaged in contests of words should be fought against with words. Those that left the ranks should never be slain. 3 A car-warrior should have a car-warrior for his antagonist; he on the neck of an elephant should have a similar combatant for his foe; a horse should be met by a horse, and a foot-soldier, O Bharata; should be met by a foot-soldier. Guided by considerations of fitness, willingness, daring and might, one should strike another, giving notice. No one should strike another that is unprepared 4 or panic-struck. One engaged with another, one seeking quarter, one retreating, one whose weapon is rendered unfit, uncased in mail, should never be struck. Car-drivers, animals (yoked to cars or carrying weapons) men

p. 3

engaged in the transport of weapons, 1 players on drums and blowers of conches should never be struck. Having made these covenants, the Kurus, and the Pandavas, and the Somakas wondered much, gazing at each other.

Q E D (quod erat demonstrandum)

Edited by varaali - 10 years ago

Quote

Debasree

@debasree04

Sparkler

+ 3

Posted: 10 years ago

#28

Originally posted by: .Vrish.
^^^ Actually, Mahabharata has nothing about Duryodhan or Balarama's desires. It's there in Shrimad Bhagvatam.

In SB too, Duryodhan didn't make any request, nor did he know about it. It was Balarama who wanted to give Subhadra to him, since he was his favorite. Krishna didn't like the idea, and so he gave Arjun the idea of abducting & marrying her.

It was important, b'cos had Subhadra married Duryodhan, Krishna would have been forced to side completely w/ the Kauravas. As it is, he had to split his contributions, thanks to Samba forcibly marrying Lakshmanaa.

But one thing - Arjun had just 4 wives, which certainly didn't make him someone who's greatest achievement, aside from warfare, was marriage, as some critiques sometimes observe. It was common for princes to have 10 or even more wives - however many they thought they could handle. Leaving aside Krishna, Vasudev had 8 wives. Arjun's number - 4 - was barely 1 more than Bhima (3), 2 more than YNS (2). Of these 4, Chitrangada's son was like Bahlika - inherited his maternal kingdom, and took no part in the war, so was useless to him.

Sorry but i know Arjun-Chitrangada's son name is Babrubahan 😕

Quote

varaali

@varaali

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 10 years ago

#29

Originally posted by: debasree04

Sorry but i know Arjun-Chitrangada's son name is Babrubahan 😕

Bahalika was Shantanu's elder brother who was adopted into his mother's family. He inheirited his mother's kingdom. That's how Shantanu became the king of hastinapura.

Babruvahana was like Bahalika- in the sense that he too was adopted by his maternal grandfather and inherited his mother's kingdom- rather than his father's.

Quote

Debasree

@debasree04

Sparkler

+ 3

Posted: 10 years ago

#30

Originally posted by: varaali

Bahalika was Shantanu's elder brother who was adopted into his mother's family. He inheirited his mother's kingdom. That's how Shantanu became the king of hastinapura.

Babruvahana was like Bahalika- in the sense that he too was adopted by his maternal grandfather and inherited his mother's kingdom- rather than his father's.

Thanx for this clarification 😃

Quote

1 2 3 4 5

Top