Monday, May 6, 2024

Why Vibeeshan was a negative character.

=
The reason is obviously because he has all the attributes of a negative person, he was not a respectable individual at all. He was greedy, opportunistic, biased & hypocritical. Proof that Vibeeshan was not a positive, supportive or decent person will be shown in this article.
I will only use Ramayan, Mahabharat & Uttar Kanda here not puranas.

Vibeeshan abandoned his wife in lanka & his children/offspring their too;
[quote]
"I, leaving my sons and my wife, have come to take refuge with Rama."
[End]
Point - he could have brought them along as many councilors also joined him on his journey away from lanka's border and straight into Rama's abode.
Why its bad: It can be assumed that in lanka these people rotted, went through discrimination, shame & a bad reputation cause of vibeeshan's treachery.

Vibeeshan's behavior during previous abductions committed by Ravan:
"Dashagriva with his son and Bibishana returned to his dwelling and caused all the captives, who were crying and sobbing, to be brought down; and the virtuous Bibishana, being aware of his intention regarding those women, who were noble and veritable pearls, the offspring of the Gods, Danavas and Rakshasas, said to his brother."
Note; vibeeshan did make a statement right after the quoted text, but it was to highlight the fact Madhu abducted Kumbhinasi. It was not for discouraging ravan from committig a future crime or with a intention of freeing these women that he abducted. It is clearly described in the first line that vibeeshan caused female prisoner's to be brought off the vehicle.
=
Vibeeshan supported ravan despite knowing what past crimes he did. Here's a list of incidents done by Ravan which people label as crimes, all of them occur in a time period when Vibeeshan was in his court as an adviser & servant or minister. They are referenced in uttar kanda, yuddh kanda both.

1 - The humiliation of Vedavati leading her to commit suicide.
2 - The rape of Rambha at hand's of Ravan.
3 - The abduction of multiple women from devalok and nagalok.
4 - Murdering ten million aryan kshatriyas.
Vibeeshan had knowledge and context of all crimes only the incident of Punjiksthala was hidden from his mind/brain/memory.

But Vibeeshan only choose to rebel or speak his mind or abandon lanka or do whatever form of protest when he felt that a victim of Ravan (the victim in this case would be "Seetha") has connections to powerful people (Ram & the vanara lord Sugreeva).
=
Details of Anaranya incident.
Ravan remembers it;
Rama the son of Dasaratha is the man I think of whom Anaranya born of Ikshvaku dynasty formerly spoke, saying "O, the worst of demons, the worst of your race and the wretched one! In my race will be born a man who will slay you in battle with your sons, ministers, army, horses and charioteer."

Amount of soldier's in his army;
"The king with his army set out, in an attempt to slay Ravana, with his elephants numbering ten thousand, his horses a million, his chariots in their thousands and his infantry, which, O Prince, covered the whole earth. And that force rushed out to fight with its infantry and cavalry and a terrific and extraordinary struggle ensued between the King Anaranya and the Lord of the Rakshasas."
Note - his cavalry by itself was a million, but its mentioned his infantry fought aswell, so the death toll on his side would be more than just one million.

Proof it was eradicated:
"The army of that monarch, having fought for a long time and manifested supreme courage, was entirely destroyed as a libation poured into a fire is wholly consumed. Coming in contact with those ranks projecting flames, the remaining battalions were completely annihilated."
Logic: If u can read then i dont need to provide any commentary, cause the quote speaks for itself.

CONCLUSION - So vibeeshan understands the basic fact that Ravan provoked anaranya for a battle, invaded his kingdom, killed one million animals/humans, yet still vibeeshan agrees to feed his wife and offspring with food grown in lanka (a city ruled by Ravan). He also tries to give advice to ravan sometimes, advice that could prevent him from dying at the cost of embarrassment.
=
The name of Vibeeshan's father in law;
"Bibishana received as wife the virtuous Sarama, the daughter of the King of the Gandharvas, the magnanimous Shailusha, and she had been born on the shores of the Lake Manasa."
Note - this's only as per uttar kanda, because if you remove uttar kanda then the name of Vibeeshan's wife & father in law is not available.
According to uttar kanda when Bharat was deployed for a campaign then he encounters many gandharvas possibly the father of Vibeeshan's wife.
[Quote]
"Caught in the noose of destruction, three hundred thousand Gandharvas were slain in an instant, cut to pieces by that hero. The inhabitants of the Celestial Region were unable to remember such a fearful conflict in which, in the twinkling of an eye, so vast a number of warriors perished. The Gandharvas all being slain, Bharata, the son of Kaikeyi entered those two opulent and magnificent cities."
Analysis - of course theirs always a chance that Sarama's father was not among the gandharvas here but when u think about it does it not seem ironic that Sarama's father Sailusa did not get mentioned in Mahabharat? That is a sign he passed away, now either its due to death by natural causes or death by violence.
Even if Sarama's dad was not involved then still Vibeeshan supported a king like Raam who dispatched his brother to wage war against the race of gandharvas (a species that vibeeshans wife hailed from). Its like if Rana Pratap's wife was from Gujarat but he supported a monarch who wanted to conquer the human citizens of Gujarat. Think of it from that perspective and u will see how Vibeeshan can't be considered positive by any standard.
=
Vibeeshan did not have a good natured heart cause he felt like his nephew (Indrajeet) should be hung or killed just for disagreeing with him in a verbal affair/dispute in the conversation of lanka's councilors in Yuddh Kanda (when they were deciding what action they should take).
Full statement;
"In the guise of a son, O, Indrajit, you are an enemy of Ravana putting on the mask of a well wisher in that even hearing (from me) of his destruction at the hands of Rama, you are blindly agreeing with him. You surely are fit to be killed."
"Nay, he too is fit to be killed, who brought you, a reckless boy here today and ushered you foolishly in the proximity of counselors. O, Indrajit! You are a stupid, irresolute, without humility, rude natured; unwise; evil person, inexperienced and highly evil minded. You are speaking in this manner because you are an immature boy."
Logic; Obviously this bhuzdil kutta vibeeshan made a mistake saying this, he wanted the best warrior of lanka to die so then Ravan's army would have less of a chance to defend itself.
=
Vibeeshan was a victim of jealousy.
Quote; "And the warriors, learned in the Vedas and diligent in ceremonial rites, all lived with their father in the Gandhamadana. And there they beheld Vaisravana seated with their father, possessed of riches and borne on the shoulders of men. And seized with jealousy, they resolved upon performing penances."
Logic: Ravan wasn't the only person who envies Kuber, above it says "seized with jealousy THEY resolved upon performing penances"
DEBUNKING THE Statement of Soorpanakha;
"The virtue-souled Vibheeshana too is my brother, but he does not behave like a demon."
Logic - this line could easily be used by vibeeshan fans (or anyone that wants to argue against the case i make) that Vibeeshan was a follower of dharma & a kind hearted soul. Still their exists 2 obvious issues with it.
One: It comes from the mouth of a known liar (Surpanakha) who also didnt tell her brother Ravan the truth, she claimed she wanted to abduct Seetha for him so she could add onto his harem's glory (antar pura or enjoyment chamber). But in reality she wanted to murder Seetha so Raam/Laxman would be attracted to her instead.
Two: Actions speak louder than words, their had not been a mention of a single decent or positive deed committed by Vibeeshan which proved him to be a virtuous, righteous, noble character. Not just before he joins Raam but even after he joins Raam then still Vibeeshan did not do a single positive thing that benefitted mankind.
=
Ravan's espionage network predicted Vibeeshan would go against him eventually.
Quote:
I have seen Kumbhakarna and others, perfectly naked and with crowns shaven, decked with red wreaths and unguents, and running towards the southern direction. Vibhishana alone, with umbrella over his head, and graced with a turban, and with body decked with white wreaths and unguents, I beheld ascending the summit of the White hill. And I saw four of his counsellors also, decked with white wreaths and unguents, ascending the summit of that hill along with him.
Comment - i am sure trijata's words were overheard by another person cause the ashok vatika is not very huge. Overall my point is that the only reason Vibeeshan was even able to make it to Raam's camp in one peace without any struggle (no lankan/rakshas prevented him) is cause they never deemed him to be a true threat to themselves, if they did take him seriously then they would have captured or eliminated him easily.

Details of Vibeeshan's reign over lanka.
[Passage]
"The virtuous and intelligent son of Madri having arrived at the sea-shore, then despatched with great assurance messengers unto the illustrious Vibhishana, the grandson of Pulastya. And the monarch willingly accepted the sway of the son of Pandu, for that intelligent and exalted king regarded it all as the act of Time. And he sent unto the son of Pandu diverse kinds of jewels and gems, and sandal and also wood, and many celestial ornaments, and much costly apparel, and many valuable pearls. And the intelligent Sahadeva, accepting them all, returned to his own kingdom."
[Finish]
Comment; under vibeeshan's reign lanka did not have even a tiny portion of the splendour, power, or status that it had under the reign of Ravan.
=
Vibeeshan too fell prey to a emotion called anger, he did not have control over his feelings.
[start]
"Hearing those harsh words from Ravana, Vibhishana who advocates justice, wielding a mace in his hand, soared high into the sky, along with four other demons. Then, the illustrious Vibhishana who became angry also spoke these words to king Ravana, his brother after moving into the sky."
[ending]
Logic; vibeeshan only had the courage to speak against ravan or give him a reply if he was not in close proximity of him cause he feared him, so to move away from a danger zone he jamp up in the sky (asuras can walk on clouds through magic) and then choose to bark like a harami kutta.

Vibeeshan literally encouraged Ravan to protect lanka with guards instead of peace;
"As an elder brother, bear the words spoken by me, who desire your welfare. Guard this city and yourself along with demons, by all means. Let all be well with you. I am departing. Be a happy person without me."
Logic - if he wanted raam to get seetha back then why did he speak like this? Maybe he was trying to convince others to join him by pretending to be a really nice guy during his end phase.
As per chutiya hanuman, this's among the real reasons why Vibeeshan seeked an audience with Raam.
[Begin]
"It is indeed appropriate for him to arrive at this place and time, by seeing the prowess in you and the wickedness in Ravana. It is worthy of his judgment."
[Done]
Logic - clearly it was Raam's prowess, vibeeshan would not care if it was a negative terrorist or a criminal, he does not side with a person based on if they are a dharmatma or not. I am not claiming that Raam is a terrorist or a villain i am trying to get this point across that Vibeeshan supports people only if they have power, not if they have a just cause or good reason/motive for their own actions.
=
The vanara military force consisted of plunderers, terrorists, looters and cowards, but Vibeeshan aided them in their deeds.

The 2nd burning of Lanka;
[quoTe]
"Getting scorched in fire, beautiful women, while lying fast asleep in their seven-storeyed mansions, gave up all connection with their ornaments and screamed loudly."
"The noise of the women-folk, who were burnt by fire and covered with smoke, roaring loudly, was heard upto one hundred Yojanas (or eight hundred miles)."
Note - here women were slaughtered, it did not matter if they were widows or innocent civilian's that never wished ill on Seetha, still they were burnt alive without a chance of cremation/proper funeral rites, they committed no crime to deserve that.

Evidence of looting.
"And the monkey warriors began to pull down pillars made of precious stones and the terraces and tops of palatial mansions. And breaking into fragments the propellers of catapults and other engines, they began to cast them about in all directions. And taking up the Sataghnis along with the discs, the clubs, and stones, they threw them down into the city with great force and loud noise. And attacked thus by the monkeys, those Rakshasas that had been placed on the walls to guard them, fled precipitately by hundreds and thousands."

Proof their treasury was depleted by a significant amount;
"Rescuing me, whose treasury has become completely diminished, you protect this city of Lanka, where only the children and the aged are left over."
Logic - ravan had no reason to be dishonest he told the truth, and the only logic is that this wealth was taken by the vanaras during their invasion. Cause when lanka is being invaded then ravan is paying the soldiers to fight, but that wealth goes in their homes, yet it obviously wont stay in their homes after they get killed. Because if that wealth remained within the homes of the families of soldier's then Ravan would not claim his treasury was getting depleted.

Vandalism of property.
"Having crossed the ocean and arrived at Lanka, Rama caused its extensive and numerous gardens to be devastated by his monkeys."
[End]
Comment; Vibeeshan helped barbarians like that get in lanka yet devotees of raam, hanutati have the nerve to protest against modern day terrorism and rioters.
=
Murdering a freedom fighter who is also his uncle Prahasth.
Quote: "Vibhishana, taking up a huge and mighty javelin furnished with a hundred bells, inspired it with mantras & hurled it at the head of his adversary. And by the impetuosity of that weapon rushing with the force of the thunderbolt, Prahasta's head was severed off, and he thereupon looked like a mighty tree broken by the wind. And beholding that wanderer of the night, Prahasta, thus slain in battle, Dhumraksha rushed."
1st of all Prahasth was defending his country, 2nd of all Prahasth was a uncle of Vibeeshan even if his mother isn't kaikesi, because in MB vibeeshan's mother was a rakshasi that is the cousin sister of Kaikesi, he still shares a blood connection with Prahasth.

Evidence;
"Prahasta, Akampana, Vikata, Kalikamukha, Dhumraksha, Danda, Suparshva of great energy, Samhradi, Praghasa, Bhasakarna, Raka, Pashpotkala, Kaikasi of gracious smiles and Kumbhanasi. These, we are told, were the offspring of Sumali."
MB supports the claim:
"Our great kinsmen also, Prahasta and others, have already been slain by him."
Basically - prahasth was their kinsman.
Name of mother;
"Malini had a son named Vibhishana."
Logic - the character Malini does not receive mention in Ramayan, but it can be assumed that since her name has the term Mali then its entirely possible she is related to one of the 3 sons of sukesha since all of them have MAL in their names (Malyavan, Mali, Sumali).
=
Help's Laxman cheat by doing a group attack;
"The son of Sumitra then, under Vibhishana's guidance, rushed towards that wrathful son of Ravana coming back, from desire of battle, to lead the attack. And Lakshmana, excited to fury and receiving a hint from Vibhishana, and desiring to slay Indrajit who had not completed his daily sacrifice."
Logic: nobody calls vibeeshan a crook warrior, or a chaali, or a cheater.

In all of aranya kanda's 2nd half, during the incidents where Surpanakha provokes Ravan to abduct Seetha their was no mention of Vibeeshan protesting against this act or advising Ravan to steer him in the right path. Besides tv serials theirs no authentic mention of it, in valmiki's ramayana the character of vibeeshan fails to make an appearance until Sundara Kanda.
=
Vibeeshan's double faced personality.
"These two lions among men, on whom depended the positon aspired by me, are lying insensible, waiting for the dissolution of the body. Deprived of the hope now of becoming a king, I am as one dead, eventhough surviving; while my rival Ravana sees his vow fulfilled and gets his desires realised."
Logic - this's after Meghanad won his battle against both brother's. Which caused Vibeeshan to admit his greed for a kingdom. He didnt care about getting Seetha back, he didnt care about ending the life of a murderer and rapist, he only cared about his attachment to a throne.

Quote;
Rama spoke to Vibhishana as follows "Let the obsequies of your brother be performed and let these crews of women be consoled." Reflecting with his intellect, the intelligent Vibhishana, the knower of virtue, thereupon, spoke to Rama, the following words, which were in conformity with righteousness and self-interest "I am not obliged to perform the obsequies to him, who had abandoned the vow of virtue, who was cruel, who killed human beings, who was a cheater and who had longed for others' wives."
Logic: Just 2 chapters ago he was lamenting for Ravan & claimed to feel sorry for his death so thats all the more motive to actually do his funeral rites, but now hes pretending to be a hater of ravan again which makes no sense. Vibeeshan unnecessarily created more drama, discussions, arguments that were not needed, he loved to waste time.
Turns out when vibeeshan eventually does become lanka's lord then he does nothing besides wasting time.
Vibeeshan physically harmed his own vanara & bear allies:
"Vibhishana, who knew what was right, began to disperse the crowd there quickly." "Crowds of bears, monkeys and demons, dispersed on all sides, bounced for a distance, from their nearness to the palanquin. While those warriors were being driven away, there was a very great sound, resembling the roar of a sea, lashed by a storm."
Rama enraged as he was spoke the following words with a reproach to the highly intelligent Vibhishana "Why disregarding me, are these people harassed by you? Stop this exertion. They are my own people."

Vibeeshan tries to bribe Raam by giving him servant girls;
"These women with lotus-like eyes, who are skilled in the art of decoration, came with bathing accessories like garments, ornaments, sandal-pastes and beautiful garlands of various kinds. They will assist you in bathing O Rama!"
Think he said they would assist him in bathing, that means they could indeed touch his naked body, including his manhood/genitals, this was clearly pimping.

Final act of lund chooser;
"Thereupon, that Sugreeva along with the monkeys gladly ascended that wonderful Pushpaka, the aerial car. Vibhishana together with his counselors also ascended it."
Logic - this was right after he got coronated as lanka's monarch/king, his duty was to help rebuild lanka since the war ended, instead what he did was give precious minerals to the vanara invaders and then choose to go to Ayodhya through this pushpak vimana, leaving lanka's throne vacant again, their subjects are now leaderless.
=
List of his crimes;
1 - Helping Meghanada, Ravan etc both bring widowed and captured women down from the vehicle so they could step foot in lanka as slaves of Ravan.
2 - Staying in the borders and country of a monarch that was a mass murderer (explained how Ravan led his army to kill anaranya's ten million men).
3 - being obedient to Raam or allied with him despite the attack on gandharvas (same species of his wife Sarama).
4 - Left all his own children and his wife too in lanka when he abandoned it, despite knowing they would rot in lanka facing discrimination, blame and potential abuse.

5 - When Meghanada encourages the rakshasas to retaliate, have self respect & stand up for themselves then Vibeeshan said Meghanad should be killed for this action.
6 - After Laxman & Ram both lose to Meghanad then the true colors of Vibeeshan get revealed that he was more worried about failing to get lanka's throne not failing to rescue Seetha from captivity.
7 - He did not protest the burning of innocent civilians, women & houses in the war of lanka.

8 - After the death of ravan then vibeeshan claims ravan was a disgusting person that did not deserve respect, his thought process/mid only changed once Raam began to praise ravan after his death, since raam wanted it Vibeeshan had to do the last rites of ravan although in his heart he secretly did not desire it. But in order to look convincing vibeeshan goes on a praise spree singing praises for Ravan this tells u readers how much of a manipulative, hypocrite vibeeshan was. He changes his beliefs like a juggler moves objects around.
9 - Vibeeshan assumed that Raam would not want Seetha to be seen in public so he began violently trying to remove Vanara soldier's, rakshasas and bears too from the scene, this act of Vibeeshan was considered a crime by Raam but he did not want to ruin his own happiness by punishing vibeeshan so he let it slide after a conversation.

10 - Then Vibeeshan graduated to the rank of a PIMP by trying to bribe Raam.
11 - According to Vana Parva he was jealous of Kuber.
12 - People insult Arjuna for killing Bhishma (who they consider a grandfather) nobody insulted vibeeshan for the murder of his uncle prahasta.

13 - Gave Laxman the clue he needed to attack Meghanada when he was vulnerable, since Meghanada killed most of the vanaras (a race of terrorist and looters) he should be considered a positive individual but Vibeeshan wanted the death of this heroic patriot.
14 - And at last he left the people of lanka alone, instead of helping them rebuild after war he took a vacation to ayodhya.

CONCLUSION; Vibeeshan was an opportunist, coward, traitor & a incompetent husband. This greedy politician should be compared to the hunchback in the film 300 (2006) & not legends like Yuyutsu.
Posted by at No comments:

Monday, April 29, 2024

Part 3 (why SPK is a good show for Arjuna fan's & anti karnian's).

Hopefully this's the last post i will make regarding SPK unless i try to compare it with star plus's fake bharat show.
Intro - in order for anything to qualify as a point for why this was a good show for karna haters and arjun fans would be if that point is a anti karna, anti bhishma or a pro pandav point.
=
Reason 11;
In Episode 44 of the show a kid/child Sahadeva was introduced, the youngest pandava brother. Gandhar king Sakuni literally said that seeing Sahadeva carry an axe reminds everyone of Parshuram so vishnu avtaar bhagvan parshurama was equal to child Sahadeva before the madri putra was trained by Kripa, Drona etc.

Basically the show gave the pandavas extra power and made all of them more impressive compared to their counterparts in other tv serials. Also equating parshuram to BACHA SAHADEV means that the writers have downplayed the power of bhishma considering his best achievement (defeating parshuram) is now unimportant due to sahadev being considered a 2nd Parshurama.
=
Reason 12:
Point being accurate is that this tv serial did not show the digvijay conquest of karna in its fullest or in a elaborate manner at all. Because what they did is only focus on the invasion of panchal and a inconclusive skirmish with dwaraka besides those two battles not a single war had been shown in episodes which were supposed to be about karna's digvijay so another let down for fans of karna. Even later on this conquest was deemed irrelevant by characters in the tv serial itself.
=
Reason 13; The character of Vikarna was only shown once when he was a child, when Duryodhan fought a tiger/jaguar or lion as a kid. This's a good thing because Vikarna was not shown later on during the Dyooth Sabha Parva incident, meaning he is not shown protesting the disrobing/abuse of Droupadi, the reason why that is good is because then Bheem killing all kaurava brother's and sparing none can be justified as the audience/viewers will believe not even one kaurav brother choose to help the pandavas in distress.

So Bheem [ketan karande] can't be considered or called or labelled an evil soul/being now.
=
14th reason; is that Gautam's Karna opposes Duryodhan each time instead of siding with him, its like he basically always thought the pandavas were a positive group and the kauravas were negative.
In the 6:42 mark of this episode Karna (Gautam Rode) began opposing the conspiracy of giving the pandavas a barren land like khandava.
=
15th reason is that Gautam Rode's Karna was not a man of his word, he wasn't honest, his integrity is unreliable.
First at 19:24 he said that on the next arrow their will be samb's head but in 19:48 he holds himself back basically choosing to not go along with a threat he himself made, proving that he was a liar.
=
REASON 16 Karna lost other times too this's ignoring any fight he had with arjuna or abhimanyu.

Defeat's i have not addressed yet:
1 - Madhyam (character of Rumi Khan).
At the 0:56 mark child karna bows down to this character's threat and chooses to touch his feet even asking for the donation of permission (anumati patrah) so he can leave the territory. Despite the fact he cut off karna's uncles hand.
2 - Bhisma (during shona's arrest).
It is from episode number 61.
3 - Bhishma again (during shona's death).
4 - Jarasandha (in episode 125).
Even when Karna start's fighting back then bhagwan Jarasandha was the one who had the upper hand.
To see how the last laugh belonged to bhagvan Jarasandh.
=
5 - He bows down to his own son Vrishasena (episode 192).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQLaxLVFzow Instead of fighting him karna just gave up. At the 16:19 mark of this episode duryodhan saw the dropped weapon/bow and asked karna if he was okay (implying that he believes karna is in danger).

6 - Was defeated by Ghatotkaca even though the demon exerted his power on others (episode 268).
If it had not been for my man duryodhan (shaleen bhanot) of course gautam rode (karna) would be squashed like a bug by Ghatotkaca's foot.
=
7 - Did not protect Duhsasan the brave brother of Duryodhan (episode's 275 & 276). Technically karna did not lose a fight here but clearly karna choose inaction, as a general he failed, he was supposed to protect the kaurava prince and choose to do nothing in this case.

8 - His fight with Ghatotkaca in the wedding of Abhimanyu;
Ghatu hit's karna more times than he hit back.
=
9th - Episode 221.
After barbareek begins destroying the kauravas then they will be inferior in ability/strength compared to the pandava's, that means despite the presence of karna & bhishma they would be weaker than the pandavas.
Explaining the chronology cause the scene of barbareeks character occurs before bhishma chooses to ban karna from participating in the war. So karna being at bhishma's side made accurate sense.
=
REASON 17;
According to this TV SERIAL Arjuna was better than Karna when it came to courting woman, females & girl's. Arjuna didn't have just Droupadi, he also had 3 other lovers.

One was Urvashi and the other is Malini (a yakshini) from episode 155 of the tv show. Subhadra is mentioned but not shown on screen. Karna only had 2 (Supriya/Vrushali) but Arjuna had 4.

This tv serial also gave arjuna's character a weapon called "Vaishnav Astra" in his arsenal during episode 159.
=
REASON 18
How it (the-show) did a disservice and injustice to karna is that it did not cover his life accurately at all, the following point's prove my claim perfectly.

The friendship of Jarasandha & Karna was absent/ignored in the show.
KMG {quote}
"The ruler of Magadha, having by conciliation and honours obtained Karna for a friend, had challenged all the Kshatriyas of the world, except the Kauravas and the Yadavas, to battle."
{end}
Logic - they were supposed to be close friends but karna's friendship with him was not shown.

Countering any possible arguments of karnians:
Their claim "jarasandha became friends with karna after their fight in anga desh"
My reply - Actually it was made clear in the ending of their fight in the episode that Karna/Jarasandha only considered eachother allies, though Karna did respect him according to the SHOW he did not view jarasandha as a true friend he just considered him a neighbhor that he has to be nice too.

Like karna (GAUTAM RODE) often spent a lot of screen time in hastinapur the fact is he never once visited magadh except in two episodes (125 and 126). And even then it was only cause duryodhan sent him their to make another alliance with Jarasandha.

Yes their is a episode where Jarasandha himself arrives to ANGA for attending karna's wedding but even then it was not a friendly gesture to participate in his friend's happiness instead it was to convince karna to side with him in a war against Krishna.

And then once the war does happen Karna remained a mute spectator and after Jarasandha lost he said "who can hope to defeat the side which has you vasudev/natwar?" he does not back jarasandha up or take the side of a friend. When according to KMG mahabharat they were supposed to be friend's.

This incident works even more against Karna because he failed to keep a promise, if it was Bhishma in a tv serial then the actor presenting him would have taken his promises more seriously he would be shown more respect unlike karna in this show.

I DONT THINK theirs another argument that could be brought up by the karna bhakts regarding this matter but its clear that the jarasandha/karna friendship did not get any relevant coverage in this show but they can give KUNTI 100 scenes with karna because the actress might have a crush on Gautam Rode.

So they show the kunti x karna relationship more but dont focus on the RADHA/KARNA relationship cause the low caste suta woman is not important only the high caste, white washed, kshatriya female (kunti) matter's for the director/script-writer (who claims to be a fan of karna).

The tv serial focused more on DRAUPADI but not on the 2 wives of Karna.
=
Even though starplus mahabharat sucked they had one minor excuse to never show karna in the land of anga desha. Their excuse was that after the division of hastinapur and before the death of Jarasandha basically Karna was no longer king. He gave up his crown to the feet of Duryodhana in one episode and said he wanted to be a ordinary citizen from now on (then he chooses to accept anga's crown again as a part of a conspiracy).

But in the SPK tv serial they never show karna in anga desh besides a couple scenes before the character of krishna entered in the show, basically after lakshagraha they stop showing karna in anga desh. That means that spk failed in where starplus succeeded.

FINALLLY as mentioned before his digvijay campaign was not shown well at all.
Dhritrashtra in 5:56 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yejw6LzOo7g&t=116s Dhritrashtra told the kauravas and karna that arjun gained the answer to the power/army that karna amassed from the digvijay in just one weapon pashupatastra].

Duryodhan's statements in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZvl0FA9wuo At 13:51 he said each peaceful agreement would be broken by the kingdoms that karna won. So the digvijaya had zero impact in the fictional universe of SPK.
=
Posted by at No comments:

Friday, April 26, 2024

King Vahika's bloodline.

=
Intro; this post will deal with a lesser known dynasty of warriors and character's in mahabharat that were not very important or relevant. One (bhurishravas) is given footage in the 85th episode of Chopra's fake serial but he was never shown before or after that episode. When he is killed then none of the actors in the serial talk to bhurishravas like he was a relative or not, so even the viewer's/audience would not know that bhurishravas had a family connection to the kauravas, pandavas & karna.

The closest any other tv serial got in mentioning these character's was in episode 162 of the Shri Krishna serial, their Sanjaya mentioned that Srikandi fought with king Bahleek (vahika) but no scene was shown, like karna losing to chitrasena in that serial was not shown just only mentioned by bhishma (sunil nagar).

I guess not much blame can be accorded to tv serial writer's, directors and cast members for the crime of not showing vahika, somadatta, bhurishravas etc. Because they are like special appearance characters who have cameo roles, they have very minor additions to the story. Its like the appearance of amitabh bachchan in the film 'Dost' (1974) or SlumDog Millionaire. So it wasnt worth showing, the budget also exists, so why hire more actors and have to pay the salary for another one that isnt going to have more than 2 relevant scenes.

Somadatta had a scene where he fought Sini for the hand of Vasudeva's wife & another where he basically died fighting Satyaki during the war. One fact which makes little sense is that Somadatta had no children before Bhurishravas (he was the first born) so he chose to remain child-less for a certain length of time despite the fact that he was in the same age generation as bhishma.
Even if its presumed that Somadatta was in the age range of Satyavati's sons (Chitrangad/Vichitravirya) then still he should have been a father before his fight with Sini based on the pressure of continuing his family blood line & gene pool. The fight with Sini happened in a time when Vasudeva got married and Vasudeva was in the same generation of Kamsa/Dhritrashtra (men that are at minimum 1 generation youger to Somadatta).

Credit to MRINAL RAI for the first picture in this post.
=
Besides Bhurishravas their were other sons of Somadatta.

1st Bhuri.
[quote]
"Having pierced the Satwata hero with three shafts, O monarch, Bhuri, then, smiling the while, cut off his foe's bow with a sharp and broad-headed shaft. His bow being cut off, Satyaki, O king, maddened with rage, hurled an impetuous dart at the broad chest of Bhuri. Pierced with that dart, Bhuri fell down from his excellent car, covered with blood, like the sun dropping down from the firmament. Beholding him thus slain, the mighty car-warrior Aswatthaman, O Bharata, rushed impetuously against grandson of Sini."
[complete]
Logic - it was impressive that he was able to cut off Satyaki's dhanush/bow.

Bhuri was among the group which attacked Abhimanyu;
"Bhuri, and Bhurisravas, and Sala"

Sala is mentioned as being alive on night 14:
Duryodhana, on that night, O king, addressing his obedient brothers, Vikarna and Chitrasena and Suparsva and Durdharsha and Dirghavahu, and all those that followed them, said those words "Ye heroes of great valour, struggling with resolution, all of you protect Drona from the rear. The son of Hridika will protect his right and Sala his left."
Comment: so is vikarna so this quote cant be deemed as a genuine one, its a retcon or translation error/mistake.
=
Killed by Upa pandav's;
[quotE]
"The illustrious son of Somadatta pierced each of the sons of Draupadi, those great bowmen, with five arrows, and once more with seven arrows. Much afflicted, O lord, by that fierce warrior, they were stupefied and knew not for some time what to do. Then that crusher of foes, Satanika, the son of Nakula, piercing Somadatta's son, that bull among men, with a couple of arrows, uttered in joy a loud roar. The other brothers then, struggling vigorously, quickly pierced the wrathful son of Somadatta, each with three straight shafts. Then the illustrious son of Somadatta, O monarch, sped at them five shafts, piercing each of them in the chest with one shaft."
"Then those five brothers, thus pierced by that high-souled warrior with his shafts, surrounded that hero on every side and began to pierce him deeply with their shafts. Then the son of Arjuna despatched with keen shafts, the four steeds of Saumadatti to the region of Yama. And the son of Bhimasena, cutting off the bow of the illustrious son of Somadatta, uttered a loud shout and pierced his foe with many sharp arrows. The son of Yudhishthira then, cutting off Saumadatti's standard, while the son of Nakula felled the enemy's charioteer from his niche in the car."
"Then the son of Sahadeva, ascertaining the foe to be on the point of leaving the field in consequence of the brothers, cut off, with a razor-faced arrow, the head of that illustrious warrior. That head, decked with ear-rings of gold, fell on the earth and adorned the field like the sun of brilliant effulgence that rises at the end of the Yuga. Beholding the head of the high-souled son of Somadatta thus fallen on the ground, thy troops, O king, overcome with fear, fled in all directions."
[enD]
Note - in the MB of madhvacharya it is mentioned that Sala was the one who these upa pandavas murdered. But before anyone labels them cowards for doing a group attack, hindus need to remember that laxman/hanutati always engaged in group attacks and cheated in battles during the yuddh kanda chapter's of Ramayana.
=
SALA was a son of Somadatta not a brother.
[Quote]
"Somadatta of the Kuru race with his three sons, all mighty chariot-fighters and heroes, Bhuri, Bhurisrava & Sala."
[Ending]

Confirmed by bhagvan Arjuna;
"O eldest brother of Sala, equal to what I bear to king Yudhishthira the Just, or Bhima, that foremost of all mighty persons, or Nakula, or Sahadeva, is the love I bear to thee. Commanded by me as also by the illustrious Krishna, repair thou to the region of the righteous, even where Sivi, the son of Usinara, is."
Comment - though i doubt arjuna was entirely honest, cause if he loved bhurishravas then he would not let Satyaki Jee murder him like that. The quote does basically mean though that Somadatta had no son before bhurishravas birth.

Regarding how he died i see no reason to deny that the character who the upa pandavas murder on day fourteen is clearly SALA not any other person.
=
Somadatta had 2 sons alive after bhurishravas died;
"I swear, O Satwata, by my two sons, by what is dear to me, and by all my meritorious acts."
Logic - i do not know if somadatta was mentioning two dead sons or two alive sons.

After Somadatta spoke those word's then Satyaki claimed that he already ended Salas life;
[1st quote]
"Thy son, the mighty car-warrior Bhurisravas, O king, had been slain. Sala also, and Vrishasena, have been crushed by me."
"I swear by Krishna's feet and by all my good acts that, filled with rage, I shall, with my shafts, slay thee with thy sons in battle."
Comment - But since the word 'son's' is stated by Satyaki that means after sala/bhurishravas both were already dead then two more sons were alive, that means besides bhuri their was another son of somadatta.
=
Despite abdicating the throne and any of his rights to it Vahika remained involved in the politic's of Hastinapura during the reign of Dhritrashtra too.
Quote;
"O thou of great wisdom, Bhishma and thy father and Vahlika (formerly) gave unto the Pandavas their share (of the kingdom) from fear. O chastiser of foes, never think of disunion with them. Thou beholdest today the fruit of that (peaceful) cession in the fact of thy sovereignty over the whole earth, with all its thorns removed by those heroes."
=
Stri Parva;
"Behold, Pratipa’s son Bahlika, that mighty bowman possessed of great energy, slain with a broad-headed shaft, is now lying on the ground like a sleeping tiger. Though deprived of life, the colour of his face is still exceedingly bright, like that of the moon at full, risen on the fifteenth day of the lighted fortnight!"

Santanu was a vassal ruler that was only in charge of hastinapur cause his older brother let him control that region;
"With Vahlika's permission, O prince, Santanu of world-wide fame, on the death of his father (Pratipa), became king and ruled the kingdom."
Logic - dhritrashtra was the incarnation of a gandharva, he was knowledgeable & well informed on the personal relationship and history that his family members had with eachother, so theirs no reason to dismiss this quote.

Respect Bhishma had for Vahika.
QUOTE;
My uncle of Kuru's race king Valhika, said that the maiden so brought away and not wedded with due rites should be set free. That maiden, therefore, was recommended to Vichitravirya for being married by him according to due rites. Doubting my father's words I repaired to others for asking their opinion. I thought that my sire was exceedingly punctilious in matters of morality. I then went to my sire himself, O king, and addressed him these words from desire of knowing something about the practices of righteous people in respect of marriage. Bhishma speaks "I desire, O sire, to know what in truth the practices are of righteous people." I repeated the expression of my wish several times, so great was my eagerness and curiosity.
After I had uttered those words, that foremost of righteous men my sire, Valhika answered me, saying, "If in your opinion the status of husband & wife be taken to attach on account of the gift & acceptance of dowry and not from the actual taking of the maiden's hand with due rites, the father of the maiden (by permitting his daughter to go away with the giver of the dowry) would so himself to be the follower of a creed other than that which is derivable from the ordinary scriptures. Even this is what the accepted scriptures declare. Persons conversant with morality and duty do not allow that their words are at all authoritative who say that the status of husband and wife arises from the gift and acceptance of dowry, and not from the actual taking of the hand with due rites. The saying is well-known that the status of husband and wife is created by actual bestowal of the daughter by the sire (and her acceptance by the husband with due rites).
The status of wife cannot attach to maidens through sale and purchase. They who regard such status to be due to sale and the gift of dowry are persons that are certainly unacquainted with the scriptures. No one should bestow his daughter upon such persons. In fact, they are not men to whom one may marry his daughter. A wife should never be purchased. Nor should a father sell his daughter. Only those persons of sinful soul who are possessed, besides, by cupidity, and who sell and purchase female slaves for making serving women, regard the status of wife as capable of arising from the gift and acceptance of a dowry. On this subject some people on one occasion had asked prince Satyavat the following question, 'If the giver of a dowry unto the kinsmen of a maiden happens to die before marriage, can another person take the hand of that maiden in marriage? We have doubts on this matter. Do thou remove these doubts of ours, for thou art endued with great wisdom and art honoured by the wise. Be thou the organ of vision unto ourselves that are desirous of learning the truth.'
Note; he constantly referred to Vahika as his sire instead of Santanu. But the whole chapter is hard to read as the mention of a prince named Satyavat basically was a ending to the conversation Vahika had with Bhishma.

Later mention of vahika vadha:
"Thy grandsire Bahlika, possessed of great might and prowess, hath, with all his followers, been slain by Bhimasena."
Comment; not just him but even his follower's were killed.

I think the real reason that people of hastinapore (pandu, dhritrashtra, bhishma etc) never interfered with plans of Jarasandha or Kamsa, or tried freeing the prisoners in mathura (Devaki/Vasudeva) was because Vahika was the true ruler of Hastinapore and Vahika basically is a friend/ally of Jarasandha, so through vahika basically Jarasandha controlled hastinapore too.
=
Who was bhurishravas in his former life?
[Quote]
"Go thou then, without delay, into those pure, regions of mine that incessantly blaze forth with splendour and that are desired by the foremost of deities with Brahma as their head, and becoming equal to myself, be thou borne on the back to Garuda."
Logic - their exists a very minor possibility of him being Garuda.
Bonus; Since Jayadratha was mentioned as censuring Satyaki for killing bhurishravas i think its possible that though the death of bhurishravas was an adharma still it was also a strategy to lure out Jayadratha from his hiding spot, so the pandavas could draw him out and he would become vulnerable to arjuna's attack.

According to Maharaj Suyodhan this was the reality;
"Somadatta's son does not resist the Parthas."
Logic - you know what this means? It means that the same bhurishravas (who is praised and wanked by karna bhakts) was also pro pandava & partial for them instead of the righteous kaurava brothers.

More proof Bhurishravas was pro pandava.
Quote;
Bhurisravas, and Kripa, and Drona's son, and the ruler of the Madras, and Uttamaujas and Yudhamanyu, and Kesava, and Arjuna these great car-warriors among both the Kurus and the Pandavas loudly cheered Bhima, saying "Excellent, Excellent" and uttered leonine roars. When that fierce uproar, making the hair stand on end rose, thy son Duryodhana, O king, quickly said unto all the kings and princes and particularly his uterine brothers, these words "Blessed be ye, proceed towards Karna for rescuing him from Vrikodara, else the shafts shot from Bhima's bow will slay the son of Radha. Ye mighty bowmen, strive ye to protect the Suta's son." Thus commanded by Duryodhana, seven of his uterine brothers, O sire, rushing in wrath towards Bhimasena, encompassed him on all sides.
Logic - surely if he liked karna then he would not have praised Bheem here, do not bring up shalya, because its a fact Shalya only became pro karna during the 17th day after bhargavastra was released by him.

A man that praises Bhima (the guy that murders brothers of duryodhana) can't be considered respectable in eyes of true karna fans especially when bhurishrava fought from the same team those dead princes/brothers were in.
=
Who did Dresthadyumna kill?
"Then the son of Samyamani pierced the Panchala prince incapable of defeat in the battle with ten shafts, and his charioteer also with ten shafts. Then that mighty bowman severely pierced, licked with his tongue the corners of his mouth, and cut off his enemy's bow with a broad-headed shaft of excessive sharpness. And soon the prince of Panchala afflicted his foe with five and twenty arrows, and then slew his steeds, O king, and then both the protectors of his wings. Then, O bull of Bharata's race, Samyamani's son, standing on that car whose steeds were slain, looked at the son of the renowned king of the Panchalas. Then taking up a terrible scimitar of the best kind, made of steel, Samyamani's son walking on foot, approached Drupada's son staying on his car."
"And the Pandavas, soldiers and Dhrishtadyumna also of Prishata's race beheld him coming like a wave and resembling a snake fallen from the skies. And he whirled his sword and looked like the sun and advanced with the tread of an infuriate elephant. The prince of Panchala then, excited with rage, quickly taking up a mace, smashed the head of Samyamani's son thus advancing towards him, sharp-edged scimitar in grasp and shield in hand, as soon as the latter, having crossed the shooting distance, was near enough to his adversary's car."
"And then, O king, while falling down deprived of life, his blazing scimitar and shield, loosened from his grasp, fell down with his body on the ground. And the high-souled son of the Panchala king, of terrible prowess, having slain his foe with his mace, won great renown. And when that prince, that mighty car-warrior and great bowman, was slain, loud cries of oh and alas arose among thy troops, O sire. Then Samyamani, excited with rage upon beholding his own son slain, impetuously rushed towards the prince of Panchala who was incapable of defeat in battle."
Point's; The character named 'Samyamani' is never mentioned before or after this chapter. So it is not known whether Samyamani was a epithet/nickname for Somadatta or Sala. Therefore it is not possible to determine the identity of the individual that Dresthadyumna kills here.
=
Impressive military ACHIEVEMENTS of Somadatta/Vahika, i will not include the nepotism factor (bhurishrava) cause he is overrated & was defeated by many people and was not relevant in my outlook at all so he wont recieve attention now. Both Vahika and his son (Somadatta) fought during night time but Bhishma never did.

Vahika killed a monarch named Senavindu.
Quote.
That foremost of Sutas Senavindu, having consumed many foes in battle, hath, at last, O king been slain by Bahlika.

King Senavindu was a person that opposed Arjuna in the Rajasuya War so he was deported from his own borders by Arjuna after losing a war to him. It is a possibility that due to the similarity of their names maybe Sasavindu was the father of Senavindu or a ancestor to him.
[Quote]
"Arjuna snatched out the kingdom from Vrihanta, but having made peace with him marched, accompanied by that king, against Senavindu whom he soon expelled from his kingdom."

Vahika KOED Bhima on the 14th night.
"Beholding his son fallen into a swoon, Valhika rushed at Satyaki scattering showers of arrows like a cloud in season. Then Bhima, for Satyaki's sake, afflicted the illustrious Valhika with nine shafts and pierced him therewith at the van of battle. Then the mighty-armed son of Pratipa, Valhika, filled with great fury, hurled a dart at the chest of Bhima, like Purandara himself hurling the thunder. Struck therewith, Bhima trembled (on his car) and swooned away. The mighty warrior then, recovering his senses, hurled a mace at his opponent. That mace snatched away the head of Valhika, who, thereupon, fell down lifeless on the earth, like a tree struck down by lightning."
Analysis - unfortunately though this character Vahika was the longest living among every other warrior he still did not have much besides these 2 achievements, cause his life was not explored well in MB, ved vyaas and vaisampayan/souti refused to give him attention.

Satyaki vs Somadatta (1st round).
{QuotE}
"Having thus addressed each other, with eyes red in wrath, those foremost of men began to shoot their shafts at each other. Then with a thousand cars and ten thousand horses, Duryodhana took his station, encompassing Somadatta, Sakuni also, filled with rage, and armed with every weapon and surrounded by his sons and grandsons as also by his brothers, that were equal to Indra himself in prowess (did the same). Thy brother-in-law, O king, young in years and of body hard as the thunder-bolt and possessed of wisdom, had a hundred thousand horses of the foremost valour with him. With these he encompassed the mighty bowman Somadatta. Protected by those mighty warriors, Somadatta covered Satyaki (with clouds of shafts). Beholding Satyaki thus covered with clouds of straight shafts, Dhrishtadyumna proceeded towards him in rage and accompanied by a mighty force."
"Then, O king, the sound that arose there of those two large hosts striking each other, resembled that of many oceans lashed into fury by frightful hurricanes. Then Somadatta pierced Satyaki, with nine arrows. Satyaki, in return, struck that foremost of Kuru warriors with nine arrows. Deeply pierced in that battle by the mighty and firm bowman (Satyaki), Somadatta sat down on the terrace of his car and lost his senses in a swoon, Beholding him deprived of his senses, his driver, with great speed, bore away from the battle that great car-warrior, the heroic Somadatta. Seeing that Somadatta, afflicted with Yuyudhana's shafts, had lost his senses Drona rushed with speed, desiring to slay the Yadu hero. Beholding the Preceptor advance, many Pandava warriors headed by Yudhishthira surrounded that illustrious perpetuator of Yadu's race from desire of rescuing him."
Analysis; clearly the man lost but the important thing is duryodhan/sakuni believed somadatta was worthy enough to deserve their protection so they tried helping him.

Somadatta vs 2 champion warrior's
[Quote]
Then Somadatta, once more filled with rage upon beholding Satyaki in that battle, covered the latter, O Bharata, with a dense shower of arrows. Then took place a battle, fierce and exceedingly wonderful to behold, between thy warriors and those of the foe, both parties being solicitous of victory. Fighting on behalf of Satyaki, Bhima pierced the Katirava hero with ten shafts. Somadatta, however, in return, pierced that hero with a hundred arrows. Then Satwata, filled with rage, pierced with ten keen shafts endued with the force of the thunder, that old warrior afflicted with grief on account of the death of his son, and who was, besides, endued with every estimable virtue like Yayati, the son of Nahusha. Having pierced him with great force, he struck him once more with seven arrows. Then, fighting for the sake of Satyaki, Bhimasena hurled at the head of Somadatta a new, hard and terrible Parigha. Satyaki also filled with rage, shot at Somadatta's chest, in that battle, an excellent shaft, keen and equipped with goodly wings and resembling fire itself in splendour. The Parigha and the shaft, both terrible, fell simultaneously upon the body of the heroic Somadatta. That mighty car-warrior, thereupon, fell down.
Logic; him being able to survive this can be seen as a praiseworthy achievement. And he did fight back against bheem injuring him with 1 hundred arrows.

3rd times the charm;
"Beholding Somadatta shaking his large bow, Satyaki, addressing his driver."
"Beholding the Satwata hero thus advancing quickly in battle Somadatta, O king, fearlessly turned towards him. Scattering showers of shafts like the clouds pouring torrents of rain, he covered the grandson of Sini like the clouds covering the sun. Satyaki also in that encounter fearlessly covered that bull amongst the Kurus with showers of shafts. Then Somadatta pierced that hero of Madhu's race with sixty shafts in the chest. Satyaki, in turn, O king, pierced Somadatta with many whetted arrows."
"Mangled by each other with each-other's shafts, those two warriors looked resplendent like a couple of flowering Kinsukas in the season of spring. Dyed all over with blood, those illustrious warriors of the Kuru and the Vrishni races looked at each other with their glances. Riding on their cars that coursed in circles, those grinders of foes, of terrible countenances, resembled two clouds pouring torrents of rain. Their bodies mangled and pierced all over with arrows, they looked, O king, like two porcupines. Pierced with countless shafts, equipped with wings of gold, the two warriors looked resplendent, O monarch, like a couple of tall trees covered with fire-flies."

"Their bodies looking bright with the blazing arrows sticking to them, those two mighty car-warriors looked in that battle like two angry elephants decked with burning torches. Then, O monarch, the mighty car-warrior, Somadatta, in that battle, cut off with a crescent-shaped arrow the large bow of Madhava. With great speed also, at a time when speed was of the utmost consequence, the Kuru hero then pierced Satyaki with five and twenty shafts, and once again with ten. Then Satyaki, taking up a tougher bow, quickly pierced Somadatta with five shafts. With another broad-headed arrow, Satyaki also, O king, smiling the while, cut off the golden standard of Valhika's son. Somadatta, however, beholding his standard cut down, fearlessly pierced the grandson of Sini with five and twenty arrows. Satwata also, excited with rage, cut off with a razor-faced arrow the bow of Somadatta, in that encounter. And he also pierced Somadatta who then resembled a snake without fangs, with a hundred straight arrows, equipped with wings of gold."
"The mighty car-warrior Somadatta, then, who was endued with great strength taking up another bow, began to cover Satyaki (with showers of shafts). Satyaki too, inflamed with rage, pierced Somadatta with many shafts. Somadatta, in return, afflicted Satyaki with his arrowy showers. Then Bhima coming to the encounter, and fighting on behalf of Satyaki, struck Valhika's son with ten shafts. Somadatta, however, fearlessly struck Bhimasena with many whetted arrows. Then Satyaki, inflamed with rage, aiming at Somadatta's chest, shot a new and terrible Parigha equipped with a golden staff and hard as the thunder. The Kuru warrior, however, smiling the while, cut off that terrible Parigha advancing with speed against him in two parts. That formidable Parigha of iron, then, thus cut off into two fragments, fell down like so many crests of a mountain riven by thunder."
"Then Satyaki, O king, with a broad-headed arrow, cut off in that encounter Somadatta's bow, and then with five arrows, the leathern fence that cased his fingers. Then, O Bharata, with four other shafts he speedily despatched the four excellent steeds of the Kuru warrior to Yama's presence. And then that tiger among car-warriors with another straight shaft, smiling the while, cut off from his trunk the head of Somadatta's driver. Then he sought at Somadatta himself a terrible shaft of fiery effulgence, whetted on stone, steeped in oil, and equipped with wings of gold. That excellent and fierce shaft, shot by the mighty grandson of Sini, quickly fell like a hawk, O Lord, upon the chest of Somadatta. Deeply pierced by the mighty Satwata, the great car-warrior Somadatta, O monarch, fell down (from his car) and expired. Beholding the great car-warrior Somadatta slain there, thy warriors with a large throng of cars rushed against Yuyudhana."
In his old age Somadatta used a large bow, it can be inferred that it had a massive weight, so he must have been physically fit. Here somadatta put up a good resistance against Satyaki, outperforming anything vahika did against satyaki.
Bhima tried to interfere here again but Somadatta beat him back, atleast somadatta did not rely on boons like hanuman, bhurishravas etc.
=
Reasons why i believe Somadatta was elder to Bhishma.
Reason 1 - bhishma's father Santanu was younger than Vahika (father to lord Somadatta).
Quote;
"Unto that lion among kings, who ruled his kingdom virtuously were born three sons of great fame and resembling three gods. Of them, Devapi was the eldest, Vahlika the next and Santanu of great intelligence, who, O sire, was my grandfather, was the youngest. Devapi, endued with great energy, was virtuous, truthful in speech, and ever engaged in waiting upon his father."
[End]
Reason 2 - bhishma's father Santanu impregnated Ganga for the 8th time, meaning that at least 72 months passed after their first meeting (9 multiplied by eight).
Quote;
"The monarch was so enraptured with his beautiful wife that months, seasons, and years rolled on without his being conscious of them. And the king, while thus enjoying himself with his wife, had eight children born unto him who in beauty were like the very celestials themselves."
[End]
Logic: so if bhishma is child number 8 born after 6 years of a couple's married life/intercourse then clearly that was alot of time for Vahika (a man older to Santanu) to get his bride and spouse and start impregnating her.

Reason 3 - Somadatta's baahoos (daughter in laws) were mothers, so he had biological grandsons.
Quote;
There the mother of Bhurishrava, that faultless lady, overcome with grief, is addressing her lord Somadatta, saying "By good luck, O king, thou seest not this terrible carnage of the Bharatas, this extermination of the Kurus, this sight that resembles the scenes occurring at the end of the yuga. By good luck, thou seest not thy heroic son, who bore the device of the sacrificial stake on his banner and who performed numerous sacrifices with profuse presents to all, slain on the field of battle. By good luck, thou hearest not those frightful wails of woe uttered amidst this carnage by thy daughters-in-law like the screams of a flight of cranes on the bosom of the sea. Thy daughters-in-law, bereaved of both husbands and sons, are running hither and thither, each clad in a single piece of raiment and each with her black tresses all dishevelled."

Conclusion - not just Shri Vahika but even Lord Somadatta were older members of the kuru family, so the clown bhishma does not deserve his title of "eldest kuru" when Br Chopra's Mahabharat tv serial actor (the man in kripa's role) said "jyesth kuru putra toh ganga putra bhishma hai yuvraaj.." then he was clearly making a huge mistake.

If starplus mahabharat was so keen on creating saas bahu crap then that would have been the perfect excuse to give more screentime to members of the Vahika family.
=
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, April 25, 2024

Was Ravan's deed with Rambha truly that bad?

=
Though uncle x niece and cousin x cousin relationships do not qualify as incest according to the dictionary definition & most human beings for me cousin marriages and niece x uncle (or aunty x nephew) are still just as bad. So i consider those to be the equivalent of incest.
=
Cousin Marriage was a normal thing in human history.
MACEDON.
Antiochus married his mother;
"Antiochus married his stepmother, Stratonice, daughter of Demetrius Poliorcetes. The ancient sources report that his elderly father reportedly instigated the marriage after discovering that his son was in danger of dying of lovesickness."
Note - they were not biologically related but she still was a secondary spouse of his dad.

Antiochus's daughter married a cousin.
[Quote]
"Apama married her maternal third cousin the Greek King Magas of Cyrene. The maternal grandmothers of Apama and Magas were paternal first cousins. The fathers of their grandmothers were brothers."
2nd Quote;
"Magas then married Apama II, his third maternal cousin and one of the daughters of Seleucid King Antiochus I Soter and Stratonice of Syria. Antiochus I used his marital alliance to foment a pact to invade Egypt. Apama II and Magas had a daughter called Berenice II, who was their only child."

Alexander's younger sister married his mothers brother;
"A large, international, extravagant wedding between Cleopatra and her uncle Alexander I was held in 336 BC."
His older sister did this;
"May still have been alive at the time of her daughter's marriage to Philip's nephew Amyntas IV."
"Cynane's father gave her in marriage to her cousin Amyntas, by whom she had a daughter and by whose death she was left a widow in 336 BC."
Explanation - the mother's name is Audata, the sisters name was Cynane. She shared the same father as Alexander.

Macedonian conclusion - that is 4 examples i have given that show such affairs & relationship's that are these days deemed to be taboo/illicit during the modern yuga (1900-2024) were fairly accepted and common during ancient eras.
=
PERSIA.
1st ('Parysatis' x 'Ochus')
She was the half-sister of Xerxes II, Sogdianus, and Darius II. She married her half-brother Darius II and had 13 sons, of which four survived to adulthood: Artaxerxes II, Cyrus the Younger, Ostanes, & Oxathres. Along with a daughter Amestris.
[Ending]
Logic - the name Ochus was the original name for "Darius II" here the true definition of incest is used as it was a sibling x sibling relationship instead of cousin marriage incidents (what i normally use as my claim that inbreeding was common).

2nd {Amestris & Terituchmes}
"Terituchmes, loved one of his half-sisters more than his intended bride Amestris, Darius II and Parysatis's daughter."
Note - it's probably only a one way attraction, like Terituchmes was aroused by Amestris but Amestris never liked Terituchmes (atleast not in a romantic way).
3rd (a monarch with too many spouses and offspring);
"Artaxerxes II had more than 115 sons from 350 wives."
Comment - yes it is not incest but still counts as a quote which validates the claim that Ravan was not a negative as his hate club claims he is. Ravan is considered a debauch cause he was a womanizer with over a hundred spouses or cause he's accused of being a rapist.
But in reality he was not that different compared to any other historical monarch of the human species. Though ravan's military power and physical strength was much greater than the average monarch's when it came to actions/crimes he was not different from them at all.

4th (Darius was the second person in Eurasia to be called great after "Cyrus" before "Xerxes" & "Alexander").
Yet he did this;
[quotE]
"Darius married his niece Phratagune, with whom he had two sons, Abrokomas and Hyperantes."
"Phratagune's father gave her in marriage to his brother, her uncle, Darius the Great. This was ostensibly because Artanes had no male heirs and marrying his daughter to his brother, and offering his entire estate as her dowry, would enable his fortune to remain in the family."
I think i should leave the persian topic their and move to another ethnicity/dynasty.
=
MUGHALS.
1st example;
[quote]
"He married twice, both of whom were princesses of the Imperial family and his cousins. He had two sons and two daughters."

2nd example;
"Bairam Khan was assassinated by a band of Afghans in 1561. After his death, Salima was subsequently married to her first cousin, Akbar."
Note: Since bairam was somewhat of a father figure/guardian for Akbar this's similar to him marrying his own mom, but in terms of DNA they were cousins.
3rd;
"Shuja first married Bilqis Banu Begum, the daughter of Rustam Mirza (son of Murad Mirza and grandson of Akbar), on the night of Saturday, 5 March 1633."

4th (cousin's together again);
"When Sipihr Shikoh, son of her eldest brother Dara married Aurangzeb's daughter Zubdat-un-Nissa in 1673, Gauhar Ara and her maternal cousin Hamida Banu Begum arranged the wedding ceremony."

5th (uncle x niece);
"The marriage of Dara's granddaughter Salima Banu Begum (whom Gauhar Ara had adopted/raised) & Aurangzeb's fourth son Prince Muhammad Akbar."

6th.
Quote;
"Nadira was a half-cousin of her future husband, Dara Shikoh, as her father was the older half-brother of Shikoh's father."
Explanation; Her father was a grandson of Akbar (Parviz Mirza) her mother was a grand-daughter of Akbar (Jahan Begum) and her father in law is a grandson of Akbar too (Shah Jahan)
=
MOURYANS.
Chandragoopt's wife Durdhara is a cousin. If he did marry a daughter of a Nanda monarch then it was probably someone that isn't helena or durdhara but rather a nameless woman who is referred to by the name "Nandini" so Durdhara was never a child of dhananand or a sister of dhananand.

Quote;
"Chandragupta Maurya was married off to his distant cousin, from his maternal side, one of his eldest uncle’s daughter, Durdhara."
[End]
Ashok got his daughter married to a nephew.
Quote;
"Sangamitta's parents were Emperor Ashoka and his first wife, Devi, who was a Buddhist."
"She was married at the age of 14 to Agribrahma, a nephew of Emperor Ashoka, who was also an Arhant."
Logic - i guess we can see where the mughals drew inspiration from, they were inspired from the mauryans! Who were in turn inspired by the kauravas.
=
INDIA.
Sasavindu.
He had 1 lakh wives;
"That high-souled monarch had one hundred thousand wives."
And 100 million sons;
"From each of those wives were born a thousand sons. All those princes were endued with great prowess. They performed millions of sacrifices."
In santi parva its bhisma that mentions Sasavindu in Drona Parva it is Narada who spoke of him.

An alternate quote said he had 10 thousand wives:
[quote]
"Sasavindu had ten thousand wives. Upon each of them their lord begat a thousand sons, and so the tale reached ten hundred thousands. Those sons refused to call anybody else save themselves as Prajapatis. The ancient Brahmanas bestowed an appellation on the creatures of the world, derived from Sasavindu. That extensive race of the Prajapati Sasavindu became in time the progenitor of the Vrishni race."

Note: agreed that it is not incest, cousin relationship or niece/uncle marriage, but clearly it is not a good thing at all, now with so many new humans born guess what? It will be harder for them to find a spouse that is not a child of their father, who knows how many daughters they had? Clearly this was a disgusting mistake, i dont see how Sasavindu was a more dharmic, positive character/individual than Ravan. For his overpopulation decision & lack of birth control i do think it would have been a better decision for the environment and burden of the Earth that Vishnu made his priority to be the destruction of king Sasavindu instead of Sahastarjun/Ravan cause those 2 guys didnt do this much damage to the human race, sometimes creation is also a bad move.
=
Duryodhan's kashi wife.
"O Karna, proceeding to the city of Kasi, alone with thy bow, thou hadst crushed the kings in battle for procuring a bride for the Kuru king!"
Logic - since it is mentioned that karna went alone that means duryodhana was not with him this time, another difference (from the kalinga incident) is the name of Kasi being mentioned istead, so clearly duryodhana had more than one wife, besides his kalinga wife their was a daughter of balram & a raaj kumari of kashi state. The kuru king here is likely duryodhan unless their are people who actually think dhritrashtra ordered karna to get a wife for himself from kashi, even if this was a wife of dhritrashtra instead then it is worse. Cause that mean's that Dhritrashtra wanted to get a spouse from the household of his own mother (Amvika was a kashi princess too).
Proof that Dhritrashtra is the son of a kashi kumaree;
"Dhritarashtra excelled all in personal strength, while in the three worlds there was no one equal to Vidura in devotion to virtue and in the knowledge of the dictates of morality. And beholding the restoration of the extinct line of Santanu, the saying became current in all countries that among mothers of heroes, the daughters of the king of Kasi were the first."
Logic:
Dhritrashtra's mother had 2 sisters (amva/amvalika) & one brother (the grandfather of duryodhan's wife), so duryodhan's wife had the same great grandfather as he did (the father to ambika, ambalika, amba etc). Thus they had 12.5 % (one eighth 1/8) DNA that matched, still a gross relationship.

Some might compare this to Bheem's wedding (Valandhara) but they ignore that Bheem is not a biological son of Pandu (the one whose blood line connects with kashi royalty) so it isn't the same, not a case of cousin marriage at all.
=
Arjuna & Subhadra unfortunately were cousins before becoming husband/wife. I assume that subhadra was the daughter of a wife that Vasudeva had after being set free from jail, since Devaki/Rohini were not his only wives.

Still Subhadra's father Vasudeva had the same biological father that Arjuna's mother Kunti did, so he and subhadra share the same grandparent's (king Surasena), meaning 25 percent of their DNA matches eachothers.

I am a fan of arjuna but not a very big fan or a tard, so i admit he did this, my assumption is that it was to ensure that the Yadavas do not abandon the side of the pandava's and not out of romantic feelings at all. He wanted to bind the yadava clan into a matrimonial alliance. I have to be unbiased and admit that this was also a negative deed conducted by him. Due to hatred for karna's fanbase i often ignore the flaws of Arjuna's character too.
=
BRITISH.
"Queen Victoria and Prince Albert were first cousins, having shared the same grandfather."

"Queen Victoria’s uncle, King George IV, married his first cousin Caroline."

"King Edward VII also married his cousin, albeit a more distant one."

"King George V married his cousin, in this case, his second cousin, Mary of Teck."

"King Henry VII, himself married his cousin Elizabeth of York, who shared a great-great-grandparent, John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, which makes them third cousins."
=
HAPSBURG.
[Quote]
"The kings of the Spanish Habsburg dynasty (1516-1700) frequently married close relatives in such a way that uncle-niece, first cousins and other consanguineous unions were prevalent in that dynasty. In the historical literature, it has been suggested that inbreeding was a major cause responsible for the extinction of the dynasty."
Quote;
"From 1527 to 1661, when Philip II and Charles II were born respectively, the Spanish royal families had 34 children, 10 (29.4%) of them died before 1 year, and 17 (50.0%) of these children died before 10 years."
Quote;
The highest levels of inbreeding in major populations have been found in urban Pondicherry (South India) and among army families in Pakistan where 54.9% and 77.1% of marriages are consanguineous, respectively…In Pondicherry 20.2% of marriages are uncle-niece and 31.3% first cousins, whereas in the Pakistan study 62.5% of marriages are between first cousins.

Quote:
"There were many marriages between first and third cousins within the Hapsburg family, as well as between uncles and nieces and more remote family members. This meant that down the generations, with no let up on the amount of intermarriage, the degree of genetic inbreeding gradually built up."

{Quote}
"Philip III was the product of extensive inbreeding. His father, Philip II, a product of marriage between first cousins, married his niece, Anna of Austria, herself the product of a cousin couple. Philip III in turn married his first cousin once removed, Margaret of Austria. This pattern would continue in the next generation, ultimately culminating in the end of the Spanish Habsburg line."
=
EGYPT.
1st example;
"Shamaa stated that Ahmose had two main wives, pointing out that they were his sisters."

2nd example;
"Their belief that the king and queen are considered gods, and it was normal for a god to marry his sister."
Logic - this link/article is from Feb 2021, while the one below (which can sometimes be used by historian's to refute the information in the previous link) is of the date August 2020.

So we can assume the author changed their mind & no longer believes that it was normal to call your wife the word "sister" as she is another human being of your species/ethnicity so in that sense she's your sister too due to her being of the same race.
https://www.egypttoday.com/Article/4/91024/Incestuous-marriages-did-not-prevail-in-Ancient-Egypt Or i guess another way of looking at it is that since in Greece the 2 character's that were gay lovers (patroclus/achilles) were also brothers in arms so they would call eachother "bro" etc.
3rd example:
"The marriage of Amenhotep III to his daughter Sitamun. Some historians say that she is his sister, the daughter of Thutmose IV, not his daughter."

4th example.
Quote:
"The second bizarre confirmed incestuous incident is the marriage of Akhenaten to his third daughter."
"As for the third, it is the marriage of Ramesses II to at least two of his daughters, according to Selim Hassan."

6th
"Research including tests on the pharaoh's mummy, discovered in 1922 in the Valley of Kings, showed that his parents had been siblings and he had only paternal grandparents."

7th;
The study revealed that King Tut's parents were siblings, a trend which might have continued in Tut's marriage. "There are rumors that Tut's wife was his sister or half sister. If this is true we have at least two successive generations that had interfamilial marriages, and this is not a good thing" Pusch says.
=
Understand my intentions of highlighting these incident's, quotes and passages is NOT justification for Ravan's deeds. My goal is not about making it look like he is a heroic figure or to support incest, my goal is to inform all readers (of this article) and hindus that Ravan was not different (when it comes to his controversial action's) compared to all monarchs of human history and mankind.

What he did is not very different in comparison to what divine character's and god like figures did either as even Krishna married cousins (daughters of his father's sisters) according to Bhagavatam.
=
2 separate account's of the Rambha X Ravan incident.
Markandeya's viewpoint;
"O timid lady, entertain thou no fear on account of Ravana, who is censured by the whole world, for, O daughter, thou art safe from him on account of Nalakuvera's curse. Indeed, this wretch had been cursed before for his having violated his daughter-in-law, Rambha. This lustful wretch is not able to violate any woman by force."
Note; according to him she was his daughter in law not Ravan's niece in law.

Uttar Kanda:
Dashagriva answered her in smooth accents, saying "You have said you are my daughter-in-law! For those who have but one husband, this argument is valid but in Devaloka, the Gods have established a law that is said to be eternal, that Apsaras have no appointed consorts nor are the Gods monogamous!" Thus speaking, the Rakshasa, who had stationed himself on the mountain ridge, inflamed with desire, ravished Rambha and, when she was released from his embrace, her garlands and her ornaments spoiled and torn away, she resembled a river where a great elephant, disporting himself, muddying the waters, has borne away the banks.
Logic; this argument provided by Ravan does hold weight cause apsaras are just that, they do not have husbands, neither are they limited to just one individual. Their very existence was basically to be porn stars.
Their is a 3rd in Jain Ramayana;
Nalakūbara’s wife, Uparambhā, fell in love with Daśāsya and sent a woman-messenger who said to him “Uparambhā, like the Śrī of victory embodied, wishes to dally with you. Her mind has been carried away by your virtues. Only in body does she remain there. She will make the vidya Āśālī, the guardian of the wall, as well as herself, submissive to you, honored sir. By it you will capture the city and Nalakūbara and the divine cakra, Sudarśana, will fall to you here.”
Note: here Daśāsya is another nickname of Ravan.

Golden words of Ravan;
"Fair lady, honor your husband who has shown respect to me. You are now in the place of a guru to me because of giving me the vidyā. I look upon other married women as sisters and mothers. You are the daughter of Kāmadhvaja and Sundarī. Do not let any stain come from you, inimical to both families."
Logic - i do hope the sundari here is not Malayavan's wife, cause that would mean Ravan's aunt Rambha married his nephew Nalakuvera.

The story goes that she taught Ravan the wisdom of "Āśālikā" through which he's able to get rid of the flame walls in Durlangha (capital town of Nalakuvera's AOE). After this Vibeeshan captured Nala Kuvera himself. A O E mean's area of control.

If you read the link for this chapter it is Vibeeshan who advised Ravan to try his hand in deciet and told him to just make a false promise to Rambha that he would make love to her after the battle is over, but then once the city is won Ravan refused to even touch Rambha let alone copulate with her. But ravan haters misunderstood this as him raping her.
=
Rambha was older than Ravan in age cause she existed in the yuga of Visvamitra. Her engaged future husband Nala Kuvera was a son of Kuber but Kuber himself (despite being ravan's brother) was not in the same generation/age-group at all. Kuber was much old compared to Ravan so his son would be also elder or possibly the same age as Ravan

Quote: "On hearing the sentence of Indra she adopted an unexcelled physique, and on becoming a pulchritudinous damsel she started to entice Vishvamitra with giggly grins. [1-64-8]"
My Claim: How can she be so pure when she is willing to arouse men that are not Nalakuver (the man who she claims to be engaged to)?

Mahabharat has a cross reference to the incident;
"For disturbing his devotions, the famous celestial nymph Rambha of fine bracelets, was cursed and metamorphosed into a rock."
Finally Rambha did not have a blood connection to Ravan, they did not share a common parent/ancestor, so it was not incest. If anything ravan's real crime would be spread of HIV/STD's but him violating Rambha is not a deed which can be used to defame or dishonor his character.

Main CONCLUSION: The reason ravan's haters point out to the rambha incident so often is cause they desire to distract ramayana readers from the other incidents which ca be seen as embarrassing for overrated characters.
Examples would be parshuram slaughtering his own mother, his bhakts would not want u to pay attention to parshuram's crime instead they'd want u to focus on 'ravan x rambha' similarly the devotees of hanuman will ignore the fact punjiksthala (hanuman's biological mother) was conquered by ravan instead they highlight incidents like the death of aksha kumar instead.
Because Parshuram doing something incorrect is not acceptable so they ignore it & hanumans mother getting EFFED by Ravan is also embarrassing for hanutati and his devotees so they give attention to rambha instead of punjiksthala.
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)