Thursday, May 16, 2024

Alexander could have conquered the Nanda empire.

=
INTRO: At minimum half of this post will be about proving how credible and reliable or trustworthy the historical records of the macedonians/greek's are.
=
First i must prove why greek sources can be used & should be considered authentic/genuine for the topic of this post.
1st reason they are genuine - the greek and roman historians claim Alexander did things they disagree with, it is described in great detail that Alexander did an atrocity like the burning of Persepolis which was considered a mistake (bad move) by his own fans and sycophants. Many of these historians had the courage to speak against alexander and claim they dont agree with him because they wrote their articles and accounts after he died, since alexander isn't alive their was no need to fear alexander or lie to gain a favor/award from him.
Examples of such deed's are Alexander murdering Parmenion, Attalus, Cleitus. Also Alexander killing his older cousin "Amyntas IV" so clearly Alexander was not always seen as the good guy even by the citizens he ruled over. Im sure that this information would have been altered if westerners had their own AGENDA to push, cause it doesnt look like someone who killed their baby brother, their older innocent cousin, or their father's other wives should be seen as a "great" soul.

2nd reason is: Because these writers admit many disgusting realities of being in a royal family, that internal marriages were common like uncle wedding niece, cousins marrying cousin's etc, and the fact Alexander's father Philip disliked him. If the author's wanted to lie to save the face of their hero alexander then they could have chosen to rewrite history and make it seem like his father valued him or held alexander in a positive light.
But instead they stick to the truth and admit that even alexander's relatives had multiple flaw's & that he had a negative relationship with them.
This's evidence from a greek source that Alexander did not like his own father cause he felt he was getting in the way of his own success & attempt of making a name for himself.
1st;
"There were indeed periods of intense strain and conflict between Alexander and Philip that led to situations which could be perceived as a form of exile or estrangement."
2nd;

Another one admits a weakness/flaw of Alexander;
[quotE]
"Alexander, although strong testimony against Philotas came to his ears, endured in silence and restrained himself, either because he had confidence in Parmenio's good will towards him, or because he feared the reputation and power of father and son."
Note; the historian wrote how a possibility existed of alexander fearing the father-son duo that worked under him as military leaders. The name of Parmenion has been miswritten as 'Parmenio' by the way but its just a casual error, it does not make the source any less reliable.
=
They also admitted that Alexander was injured by a nameless enemy in the Mallian Campaign, if they wanted alexander to be seen as a DEVTA/GOD they would not have said that, rather to make alexander seem more impressive and tough they could say that one hundred men together were the reason behind his injury, or that a tough king like Porus/Dhananand was the one that injured alexander instead.

3rd reason is that historian's admit Alexanders older brother Arrhidaeus had many learning disabilities, surely in order to maintain a good image such a defect in a royal prince would have been kept secret and not become public information available to every citizen of Greece right? They would not admit he was mentally hampered and a liability to his family members. Such a flaw could be misused to always insult macedon's people that their ruler is the brother of a mentally impaired man.

The foreign historians (anyone that isn't indian/russian) admit and accept facts like the indos province was the most populous/rich province of the Persian Empire:
"The Indians made up the twentieth province. These are more in number than any nation known to me, and they paid a greater tribute than any other province, namely three hundred and sixty talents of gold dust."
{ending}
So India was praised by persian's, greeks and romans too, we know more of ancient india mainly due to accounts/record's kept & stored safely by non indian's.
=
4TH;
If they lied about Chandragupta's statement then Plutarch and others could have spread many other lies what was the need to inform greeks that alexanders army was tired after just fighting porus? The tired army still fought against the Mallavas (in the Gedrosian desert) despite their homesick illness, this contradiction would make sense only if it was a realistic account of events as it mirrors what happens in real life that though u are tired u will still choose to put in effort as it was the only way those soldier's could make it back home otherwise the mallian's could murder them.

Example of a believable rumor that Macedonian's could have spread but choose not too is:
"Alexander defeated the nanda empire & was the reason why the 7 brothers of Dhananand got killed after that he coronated prince Dhananand into king Dhananand the ruler of Magadh, because dhananand helped him conquer magadh, the reason dhananand betrayed his country was cause he desired the throne of magadh its former ruler was his oldest brother. Now that alexander died in babylon this indian king Dhananand has decided to rebel against greek reign"
And this would have a high chance of being believed by many ignorant citizens. Because the Greeks were involved in a civil war, so they had a excuse to not attack magadh or usurp Dhananand. Also cause nothing is written in india regarding the 7 nanda chiefs that were in between Dhananand & Mahapadma (their were seven other monarchs besides them) even indian historians would not be able to dispute the claim of Macedonians that alexander killed the nameless brothers of dhananand.

So then why would the greeks (IF THEY ARE DISHONEST) not choose to create a similar propaganda story/hoax to make Alexander seem even more impressive? Im sure the answer is not because a young man like me is more cunning when it comes to spreading rumors than they are.
=
FIFTH/FINAL REASON.
They gave indian states (which i believe just had their own independent identity and did not identify as india ever) enough praise to the point where Taxila (Gandhar) was considered a equal of Egypt.
Quote:
"Taxiles, we are told, had a realm in India as large as Egypt, with good pasturage, too, and in the highest degree productive of beauti­ful fruits. He was also a wise man in his way, and after he had greeted Alexander, said."
Logic - but local indians, deshbhakts, patriots and other obsessed/biased individuals refuse to consider king Omphis's nation (taxila) to be a metropolis or praise it at all, some downplay and underrate his power/luxury and state he was a weak king (just cause he did ot believe in akhand bharat varsh or choose to fight alexander).

Greek historians claimed that Heracles could not win over a fortress which housed normal dark skinned human beings from Afghanistan.
Quote;
"Alexander's desire to outdo his kinsman Heracles, who allegedly had proved unable to take a fort that the Macedonians called Ἄορνος Aornos."
[End]
Logic - if they can show a god failing to win a conflict and admit such a incident what makes the indians doubt greek honesty & integrity? Alexander had inferior status compared to Heracles.
They admitted Alexander's horse died;
"Of these cities, he named one Bucephalia, after Bucephalas, the horse which fell during the battle with Porus (he was an excellent war-horse and was always used by Alexander in his fights) and he called the other Nicaea, after his victory."
Note - u know it is embarrassing for a cavalry rider/man if their horse died even if its in the battlefield right? So why not rewrite this part of history too?

The claim of "these historians being dishonest" is a false accusation in my viewpoint. Yes it is possible that greek writers could be victims of ignorance or MISUNDERSTANDINGS but in my opinion they would say what they believe is true/correct/right most of the time.

I think i do not need to provide more points regarding whether the Greeks were genuine or not. Only the spartan historians/authors can be discredited but the people who wrote alexander's history were not spartan, they were macedonian, roman, greek etc.
=
NOW I CAN COME TO WHY THE NANDAS ARE NOT A REAL THREAT FOR ALEXANDER & WHY HE CAN DEFEAT ALL NANDA RULER'S.

1st reason is:
According to plutarch the famed Chandragupta basically admitted that Alexander could conquer the Nanda empire.
Quote;
"Sandrocottos [Candragupta] himself, who was then but a youth, saw Alexander and afterwards used to declare that Alexander could easily have taken possession of the whole country, since the king [i.e. one of the Nanda kings of the Gangetic valley] was hated and despised by his subjects for the wickedness of his disposition and the meanness of his origin." 

So most likely the account which mentions that Chandragupta believed Alexander would have beaten Dhananand is a genuine statement and not a fake cooked up story by Plutarch. Because i have provided many reasons for why the greek records are reliable and genuine above before i quoted Plutarch's claim surrounding chandragupta's opinion.
But of course just one king saying Alexander will win is not enough, so i will provide other reasons on why Alexander should win.

2ND REASON.
The pro nanda empire fans (or maybe just haters of alexander) have basically 2 points, one is the numerical advantage (how the Nanda Army is bigger) and the other is the whole hype surrounding elephantine units.
In this part i will address the comment about elephants only and then in my reason 3 part i will talk about why the population difference does not matter when it comes to army's fighting eachother.

Alexander led armies to victory against those army's which also had presence of elephant's before like the persian empire used indian war elephants against alexander but failed obviously, so did porus have 200 elephants and he failed too.
Since most indians will deny porus's defeat i will have to highlight the persian army instead, its mentioned in this passage of text that they had fifteen elephants.
"He also had 15 Indian elephants supported by Indian chariots."
[End]
Now of course that is a tiny number in comparison to the nandas, i agree with such a counterargument, but it does not change the fact that elephants are not a new thing that alexander had to deal with, so a intimidation factor does not exist here.

Decades after he died Alexander's comrades and generals were involved in a civil war, one called Selucus was able to defeat a contingent of war elephants used against him by Antigonus.

Alexander also had access to war elephants:
Quote.
"Substantial loot was gained, with 4,000 talents captured, the King's personal chariot and bow and the war elephants. It was a disastrous defeat for the Persians and one of Alexander's finest victories."
IF elephants are a true issue then he can train and utilize those same creatures of his own, its possible he could garner support of more elephants than the amount which existed in the Nanda Empire. Keep in mind alexander died before the roman empire was created & cause of the roman empire many animal species became extinct, so during alexander's era the Barbary Lion existed too. He could have amassed a dangerous army of them.
=
3rd reason; Alexander being outnumbered is irrelevant.

List of battles where alexander fought a enemy that he was outnumbered against:
1st - Battle of Issus (333 BCE).
2nd - Battle of Gaugamela (331 BCE)
4th ten thousand vs fifteen thousand; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Cyropolis
Note - still Alexander end's up winning this battle with very little casualties in his army.
Final Campaign:
"Next Alexander undertook a campaign against the Sydracae & the people known as Mallian's. Both were populous and warlike tribes. They were mobilized in force, 80 thousand infantry, 10,000 horse rider's and 700 chariot's."
Note - that is 90,700 defenders against alexanders army (which at this point can't be greater than 40 thousand). Also alexander's army had low morale and was homesick by this point.
=
9 other examples of armies that were led by OTHER LEADERS that won against armies that had a numerical edge.

7 thousand persians defeat 50 thousand egyptian's at 525 BC:

40 thousand roman's defeated 100,000 armenians; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tigranocerta

31,600 Romans defeat an army of 300 thousand; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Cyzicus
40,000 men defeated 200 thousand byzantine soldier's:

Romans again beat an army that was double their own size; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chaeronea_(86_BC)

Thirty thousand vs Seventy five thousand yet the winner was the one with less troop's;

Ignoring estimates of the "Modern Consensus" greeks were outnumbered in this battle (according to all other account's of this incident) but still won fairly against the Achaemenid generals (Masistius & Mardonius);

During January 5th 1659 the battle of khajwa, Aurangzeb had over 90 thousand men his rival Shuja had a little over 30 thousand. I agree that aurangzeb won due to a numerical edge but still his army suffered more casualties (they lost 11,000) while Shuja's despite losing still had less casualties in comparison to the larger force (nine thousand).
Thus proven that a larger army does not mean everything.

In the 1550s Humayun [another Moghul emperor];
During this war Humayun's army won despite being numerically inferior.
=
Alexander's father (Philip) himself also had a incident in his life where his army was better in numbers but still failed & was beaten, proving that being outnumbered does not mean u will be defeated in a war same way having more soldiers or a larger army is not a guaranteed advantage.
[Quote]
"Philip's army was more numerous and had siege engines. However, since Perinthus was receiving constant aid from Byzantium and the Achaemenids, the siege was difficult to maintain. Eventually, Philip had found the challenges of successfully besieging the city too much, and so withdrew."
Note - again this also proves the fact greek historian's were UNBIASED cause they admit alexander's father lost, but these days even anime fans like dbz fans refuse to admit the weaknesses of Bardock (father of goku).
Alexander at minimum had the same skill lvl as Philip II so i dont see any reason why the result would be any different against a numerically big army of Dhananand.
=
Not only did Alexander hold greater experience, he was also more versatile and capable. He is unlike any other enemy faced by the Nandas before.
Explanation:
While it is true that all battles the Nanda Army was involved in are not described in detail or elaborated by any text of indian or foreign literature its still believed that every city/kingdom in the upper half of the indian subcontinent submitted to them.
Following order's of the Nanda monarch. So it can be assumed before bowing down they tried to resist or fight, ancient indian armies had chariots, elephants and horses, but were mainly infantry based. So those are the types of armies that the Nanda Army had fought against.
But Alexander's army was the most experienced of its time up until that point, they had fought enemies from greece, armenia, turkey, persia, bactria, sogdia, till afghanistan/paurava. They travelled the furthest distance that any other army of that time period had. And Alexander was highly skilled in organizing his army into VYOOHAS (arrangement phalanxes).

Their has been no evidence of the magadh leaders (Dhananand, Bhadrasaal, Amatya Rakshas) being able to achieve anything similar to him. It is not known which battle they fought but accusations have been made that all they really did was just forcibly extort and tax their own subjects and villagers. So their only achievement is taking money by force from random citizens in their territory.

Its likely that most of the battles which earned the nanda empire a status to the point where all north indian kingdoms (except for the north western part which had taxila, gandara, ashvaka, youdheya, madraka, vahika, porus's land etc) happened in the TIME period of dhanananda's predecessors.

His father Mahapadma Nand & his older brothers (Sukalpa, Bhutapala, Kaivarta, Govishanaka) but not dhanananda himself. They're the ones who built a empire that dhananand lost. One last point is that an empire close to magadh existed in Indian territory, it was either north of magadh or east of it, the name was Gangaridhai Empire.

That same time Dhananand was controlling magadh itself but he had a powerful neighbhor that was his enemy. If he could not get rid of that individual (despite having more soldier's) then how could u expect him to get rid of Alexander who plans tactics in a unseen & unpredictable style?
=
Online argument against a supporter of the Nanda Empire (a fan of history) who is most likely a biased deshbhakt.

The screenshot was taken during may 16th 2024 (10:29 PM). Meaning he did not reply after even 2 months of time passed by.
=
Posted by at No comments:

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 a million Aryan kshatriyas.
Vibeeshan had knowledge and context of all crimes only the incident of Punjiksthala was hidden from his eye/vision etc.

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.

Key point; THE MANASA RIVER WAS A PART OF NORTHERN ARYA VARTH.

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 splendor, power, or status that it had under the reign of Ravan. Instead he had to submit against a young recently established state of the pandavas.
=
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 salary 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 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:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)