Friday, November 22, 2024

The truth about Parshuram (2nd chapter).

=
Introduction; My desire to at least debunk 3 fake myths that are based around the overrated character of parshurama. First i will prove he did not win against Sahastrarjun through merit, second goal is to prove that parshuram had a limited life-span (he was no chiranjeevi/immortal).
3rd objective will be too prove that parshuram losing his powers (after a fight with raam) is a fake claim made by obsessed bhakts of his that dismiss real facts.

After that i will compare Parshurama with other Maha-Bharat warriors. But not with pandav arjuna cause that deserves a separate post.
=
SAHASTRARJUN VS PARSHURAMA.
According to Puranas;
"Thereafter, for slaying Bhārgava in the battle the king took up the trident that had been given to him by Datta and that had never been futile. He took it up with due chanting of mantras. That trident had the lustre of a hundred suns. It could not be checked by Suras or Asuras. Aiming it at Rāma, he hurled it with his entire strength. The trident fell on the head of Bhārgava, O lord of the Earth. Due to the impact that he was hit by the trident, Bhārgava became pained. He became unconscious, O prominent king, remembering Hari. When Bhārgava fell there, all the Devas became agitated due to fear. Keeping Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Maheśvara in front they all came there. Lord Śaṅkara who has great knowledge and who is the conqueror of Death, himself resuscitated Bhārgava by means of the Sañjīvanī Vidyā. Regaining his consciousness, Rāma saw the Suras in front of him. O leading king, he bowed down to Brahmā and other suras with devotion." [end]
Logic - so parshuram was miserably defeated by mard sahastrarjun, he got resurrected by sanjeevani vidya. It's unfair.

According to archeologists:
[Image]
Logic; Parshuram fought Sahastrarjun only when he was past physical prime or peak as a warrior. So he waited for years till after he would become an aged person. That must be what it was meant in MB's vana parva when its mentioned Vishnu spent years doing tapasya, he was actually waiting for sahastrarjun to get older.

Quote: "And on that occasion, all that was for the good of the world of beings, was communicated by the lord of gods; and the blessed god worshipped by the world, to do all that was necessary, went to the delightful Vadari wood which was his own chosen retreat for practising penances."
[end]
Logic - here a tridev himself needed to do tapasya. Because that tridev (vishnu)'s base level power was not adequate to kill sahastrarjun, their is no way parshuram could fairly beat a character that vishnu himself needed to train to surpass, cause vishnu is tougher than his own avatars.
=
According to indonesian ramayana (text not corrupted by india’s british masters) parshurama killed him after sahastrarjun heard a rumor that his beloved wife died so sahastrarjun let down his guard (he lost a desire to live a good life).
Logic - This source might be dismissed by other fans & hindus, that is a fine decision to make, but people should realize that kmg mahabharat (which is more authentic than BORI CE) was written or translated in 1896, while indonesan stories were written before any british raaj era. So the fact this source is older means it deserves to be acknowledged in a debate/discussion. Anyways cause Parshuram had no real victory outside of his incident against Sahastrarjun so it makes more sense to say that Parshuram cheated or his victory was a fluke.

So Parshuram did not defeat Sahastrarjun he just ended the life of a man who wanted to die (he had no interest being alive anymore). It is not impressive in anyway or something which can be used for gauging his ability as a warrior.
=
According to Mahabharat quotes Sahastrarjun lost against Parshuram cause of a curse only.
[Begin]
Apava, O mighty-armed king, seeing his retreat consumed by the powerful Kshatriya, cursed that monarch in wrath, saying "Since, O Arjuna, without excepting these my specious woods, thou hast burnt them, therefore, Rama (of Bhrigu's race) will lop off thy (thousand) arm." The mighty Arjuna, however, of great prowess, always devoted to peace, ever regardful of Brahmanas and disposed to grant protection (unto all class), and charitable and brave, O Bharata, did not think of that curse denounced on him by that high-souled Rishis. His powerful sons, always haughty and cruel, in consequence of that course, became the indirect cause of his death.
Logic - the power of this curse would change the fate of a upcoming battle so even when sahastrarjun made parshuram faint or killed parshuram (with a trishula) then still parshuram needs to come back to life so the curse of Apava can become true. Parshuram won due to unfair advantages. He is not selfmade instead parshuram was a guy that achieved status due to nepotism factors.
=
Their exist many hints of Sahastrarjun's superiority over Parshuram in both epics of Ramayana/MB.
Parshuram admits indraputra Arjuna is better than himself;
"This child of thine, O Kunti, will be equal unto Kartavirya in energy and Siva in prowess. Invincible like Sakra himself he will spread thy fame far and wide."
https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01124.htm
Logic - if a warrior whose hailed as a equal of kartavirya is considered better than parshuram its fair to say kartavirya himself was superior too.

Cross reference; "Arjuna is even greater than what Jamadagni's son hath described him to be."
The point here is not comparing parshuram to pandav arjun but rather the objective is to prove if pandav arjun was born to be a equal of sahastrarjun & the same pandav arjun was better than bhishma (who fairly defeated parshuram) its fair to say that sahastrarjun was superior to parshurama too then.
=
2ND MYTH TO BE DISPROVED BY ME:
Addressing the fake-concept of him being a immortal/Chiranjeevi. I will debunk this garbage/rubbish claim that his devotees have made immediately.

Here is a quote from the 13th night of Kurukshetra where the pandavas get informed by Narada Muni that Parshuram's death is also scheduled, basically his lifespan is limited too.
Quote; "Even the great ascetic Rama, the hero worshipped by all heroes, that son of Jamadagni, of great fame, will die, without being contented (with the period of his life). Rooting out all evils from the earth, he caused the primeval Yuga to set in."
[Ending]

2nd quote;
"By making gifts of Gold, Rama became cleansed of all his sins, and finally attained to a high place in heaven that is unattainable by other men."
Logic - He is already dead spending time in swarga lok under Indra Dev. So he wont be a teacher for any future avatar like Kalki.

So now hopefully at least 10 percent of the hindu population will accept parshuram is not immortal.
=
3rd DEBUNK.
A common argument his devotees made "parshuram lost his connection to vishnu during the fight with ram" as an excuse for his beating at the hand's of Bhishma in Mahabharat people try to say he wasn't at his peak or prime as a warrior.

I will now provide genuine quotes which prove my case that Parshuram actually gained back all power he lost.
[Quote]
"And behold there, O Yudhisthira, the tirtha of Bhrigu that is celebrated over the three worlds and adored, O king, by great Rishis. Bathing here, Rama (of Bhrigu's race) regained his might, which had been taken away from him (by Dasaratha's son). Bathing here, O son of Pandu, with thy brothers and Krishna, thou wilt certainly regain that energy of thine that hath been taken away by Duryodhana, even as Rama regained his that had been taken away by Dasaratha's son in hostile encounter."
[End]
2nd quote;
"And after the expiration of a year, the Pitris, beholding Rama dwelling there deprived of energy, his pride quelled, and himself sunk in affliction."
3rd Quote;
"Bathing in all the tirthas of that stream, thou wilt regain thy energy! There Parshuram, in that river is the tirthas where your ancestor Bhrigu, in the celestial age had practised ascetic penances of great merit."
"Thus addressed by them, Rama, O son of Kunti, did what the Pitris bade him, and obtained back at this tirtha, O son of Pandu, the energy he had lost."
Note: this's crystal clear proof that Parshuram after losing to Ram had gained back any energy and power he had lost in that fight. So the excuse of him not being at full power/potential during his beating at hand's of Gangaya, will not work here.

Possible theory - maybe Parshuram had to wait until Raam passes away/dies to get back his power. It was a very rare case in treta yuga cause Vishnu had to divide his soul into 2 bodies (apart from his own), so raam/parshuram would each have 1/3rd of his power.
If u do math then parshuram gives 32 percent to raam leaving 1 % for himself (to stay alive) then he just waits until raam's death so the soul could return to him since raam's body will cease to exist. It could make sense if raam's soul separated from his body before the battle of parshuram vs bhishma so parshuram was already at full power during the time of this duel.
=
COMPARING parshuram to the mahabharat warrior's i mentioned i would compare him too.
Bheem vs Bhishma;
"Bhima alone, approaching Bhishma, encountered him in battle. Then in that encounter between Bhima and Bhishma, a fierce and terrible uproar arose among all the troops (of the Kauravas). The Pandavas then, filled with joy, uttered leonine shouts. During that destructive carnage, king Duryodhana, surrounded by his uterine brothers, protected Bhishma in that battle. Then that foremost of car-warriors, Bhima, slew Bhishma's charioteer. Thereupon the steeds no longer controlled, ran away from the field with car."
Logic: do not make up excuses for him, the coward bhishma had multiple kourav brother's & princes to aid him, they could have protected his driver but failed. Bhishma if not beaten was still forced to retreat, so it counts against him. Vrikodara Bheem fired an arrow so quickly that Bhishma could not deflect it in time or prevent it from reaching his driver.
Suyodhana vs Bheem.
{quotE}
"Aiming a terrible shaft blazing as Death's rod, the Kuru king, excited with rage struck Bhimasena between his two breasts. Deeply pierced therewith, and greatly pained, he sat down on the terrace of his car. And while seated on the terrace of his car, he swooned away. Beholding Bhima thus unmanned, the illustrious and mighty car-warriors of the Pandava army, headed by Abhimanyu could not bear it."
Logic - it's confirmed that suyodhana was superior to not only parshuram but even bhishma too.

Suyodhana (when he has divine armor) vs Panchal prince's;
"Yudhamanyu, excited with wrath, quickly sped, in that battle, thirty shafts at the centre of thy son's chest. Then Uttamaujas also, excited with wrath, pierced Duryodhana's charioteer with shafts decked with gold, and despatched him to Yama's abode. Duryodhana also, O monarch, then slew the four steeds as also the two Parshni charioteers of Uttamaujas, the prince of Panchalas. Then Uttamaujas, in that battle, becoming steedless and driverless, quickly ascended the car of his brother, Yudhamanyu. Ascending on the car of his brother, he struck Duryodhana's steeds with many shafts. Slain therewith, those steeds fell down on the earth."
"Upon the fall of his steeds, the valiant Yudhamanyu then, by a mighty weapon, quickly cut off Duryodhana's bow and then (with another shaft), his leathern fence. That bull among men then, thy son, jumping down from that steedless and driverless car, took up a mace and proceeded against the two princes of Panchala. Beholding that subjugator of hostile town, thus advancing in wrath, both Yudhamanyu and Uttamaujas jumped down from the terrace of their car."
"Then Duryodhana armed as he was with a mace, pressed down into the earth with that mace that foremost of cars furnished with gold, with steeds and driver and standard. Thy son then, that scorcher of foes, having thus crushed that car, steedless and driverless as he himself was, quickly ascended the car of the king of the Madras."
Yes duryodhana was able to destroy the chariot of his enemy by using a mace but duryodhana failed to use his arrow skill to cut or deflect the arrows of yudhamanyu that disarmed him. So its evident of duryodhan's inferiority compared to yudhamanyu as an archer. But this same duryodhana was able to cut the bow of bheem six times & hit him so fatally with arrows that he fainted. While Bheem was able to fire arrows with such quick speed that Bhishma failed to deflect them & they would result in a embarrassing retreat for bhishma.

Yudhamanyu lost to kripa:
"Yudhamanyu, piercing Kripa, quickly cut off his bow. Then Kripa, that foremost of all wielders of weapons, taking up another bow, felled Yudhamanyu's standard and driver and umbrella on the Earth. At this, the mighty car-warrior Yudhamanyu retreated on his car, driving it himself."

Conclusion - So at last even kripa was superior to Parshuram & Bhishma. If the battle does not involve arrows but is focused mainly on astras only then should kripa, bheem, duryodhan, yudhamanyu and uttamoujas be labelled superior to parshurama/bhishma.
Posted by at No comments:

Monday, November 11, 2024

Debunking misconception's based on Mahabharat (unfocused on Karna).

1. "Yuyutsu's mother was not the wife of Dhritarashtra she was a mere maid"
Reality: She was more than just some maid, the Mahabharat describes her as a clear wife more than once.
Quote 1:
“Dhritarashtra had one son named Yuyutsu born of a Vaisya wife.”
"And Yuyutsu who was Dhritarashtra's son by a Vaisya wife, was also over and above the hundred.”
Quote 2:
The mighty son of Dhritarashtra by his Vaisya wife, said, "Let not the play commence. Let there be peace."
Quote 3:
“Met Yuyutsu, the son of Dhritarashtra by his Vaisya wife.”
Quote 4:
“Yuyutsu of great intelligence, who was Dhritarashtra's son by his Vaisya wife,”
I do not believe that more quotes or evidence is required to justify my own counter claim that Yuyutsu's mother was a legal, respected bride of shri Dhritrashtra Maharaj, she was not a concubine or low ranked female at all.
2. "Dhritarashtra's only wife is Gandhari"
Reality: He had more than one wife [apart from the mother of yuyutsu].
Quote 1:
“Thou art my eldest son and born also of my eldest wife.”
Logic - He calls Duryodhana the son of his eldest wife meaning all other wives were younger than Gandhari. But more importantly this's proof those wives actually existed.

Quote 2:
“I who have my affections fixed on a thousand things such as sons, kingdom, wives, grandsons, and relatives?”
Logic - He said wives meaning more than one wife.

Quote 3:
"Thou must also salute all the aged dames and those who are known to be possessed of merit, and those who are like mothers to us, meeting them gathered together in one place. Thou must tell them, O Sanjaya, these words at first Ye mothers of living sons, I hope, your sons comfort themselves towards you in a kindly, considerate, and worthy way. Thou must then tell them that Yudhishthira is doing well with his sons."
Logic; their were females in dhritrashtra's family (besides "kunti" & "gandhari") who held the status of being a mother to the pandava's, so they may have been his concubines/junior-wives. Dont get me wrong i never implied that kunti would be his bride or spouse, i was informing readers of other women who are maternal figures for the pandavas, this'd exclude the wife of Vidura & the dead princess Madravati too.
I am not counting Yuyutsu's mother, she was definitely a wife of Dhritrashtra but apart from her their had to have been a third woman who is his spouse, maybe a concubine or a nameless bride of dhritrashtra that did not get her name mentioned.
Cause she was irrelevant in the story, why would Janamejaya care to mention her when she likely did nothing besides pleasing dhritrashtra physically and stayed behind a closed palace crying over corpses?

I doubt any of the candidates for "mother to pandavas" would be a wife of vidura but even if a vidura patni was included then still its clearly implied their was more than just 2 women that existed besides kunti/gandhari/yuyutsu's mata.
=
3. "Krishna did not have more than 8 wives, he never had sixteen thousand"
Reality: He did have 16,000, it is described multiple times outside of Adi Parva too.
Quote 1:
"And, O king, the portions of the tribe of Apsaras which I have mentioned already, also became incarnate on earth according to Indra's commands--And sixteen thousand portions of those goddesses became, O king, in this world of men, the wives of Vasudeva."
Quote 2:
Parvati spoke "Do thou take from me also eight boons which thou choosest. I shall certainly grant them to thee." Bowing unto her with a bend of my head, I said unto her, O son of Pandu "I solicit from thee non-anger against the Brahmanas, grace of my father, a hundred sons, the highest enjoyments, love for my family, the grace of my mother, the attainment of tranquillity and peace, and cleverness in every act!" Uma said "It shall be even so, O thou that art possessed of prowess and puissance equal to that of a celestial. I never say what is untrue. Thou shalt have sixteen thousand wives. Thy love for them and theirs also for thee shall be unlimited. From all thy kinsmen also, thou shalt receive the highest affection. Thy body too shall be most beautiful. Seven thousand guests will daily feed at thy palace."
Quote 3:
"Thou shalt become the foremost of all spouses, numbering sixteen thousand, O Kesava."
Quote 4:
"Those ladies who had, before this, the very Lord of the universe for their protector, were now lordless. Seeing that Partha had come for protecting them, they all set up a loud wail. 16,000 ladies had been wedded to Vasudeva."
Quote 5:
"16,000 women had been married to Vasudeva as his wives. When the time came, O Janamejaya, they, plunged into the Sarasvati. Casting off their (human) bodies there, they re-ascended to Heaven. Transformed into Apsaras, they approached the presence of Vasudeva."
Conclusion - It was not 16,100 or 16,108 it was most likely 16,001 wives or 16,008 wives. As 16 thousand would be the apsaras while the other 8 are his queens (Rukmini and others).

But the final quote indicates after their abduction by robbers/looters then these widows committed suicide.
=
4. "All 100 sons of Dhritarashtra were killed by bhima only"
Reality: Bhima killed no more than 80 sons of Dhritarashtra.
Because ten were slain by Arjuna but one was murdered by bhagwan Satanika. That leaves about eighty nine remaining but some of those 89 also escaped bhima's wrath, their death's occurred cause of different reasons. Its also a possibility that Yuyutsu was not the only kaurav who survived. their were other survivors too.

Droupadi's beta murdered a son of Dhritrashtra;
"Satanika, excited with great wrath deeply pierced Dushkarna in the chest. And thereupon the latter fell down on the earth like a tree struck with lightning. Beholding Dushkarna slain, five mighty car-warriors, O king, surrounded Satanika on all sides, from desire of slaying him."

Arjuna kills 10;
"He was then surrounded by ten heroic and foremost of warriors thy sons, all of whom were Duhshasana's juniors in age. Afflicting Arjuna with their shafts like hunters afflicting an elephant with burning brands, those heroes, with outstretched bow, seemed to dance, O Bharata, (on their cars)."
I REMOVED TEXT TO MAKE IT LESS LONG TO READ
[quote]
"Then with some broad-headed arrows he cut off and felled their heads decked with lips bit and eyes blood-red in rage."
[End]
Conclusion - as all readers can see clearly apart from the suicide incident (of day 17) their were at least 11 kauravas that did not get slain by overrated Bheem.

After karna died then on the 17th after noon a bunch of kauravas committed suicide. 
Suicide quote (shalya parva); "Their foremost of heroes slain, themselves thrown into confusion and mangled with keen arrows, thy sons, O king, upon the slaughter of the Suta's son, fled away in fear. Deprived of weapons and coats of mail, all of them lost their senses and knew not in which direction to fly. Casting their eyes on all sides in fear, many of them began to slaughter one another."
Passage [karna parva]
"Their foremost of heroes slain, their troops thrown into confusion, themselves mangled with keen arrows, thy sons, after the fall of Karna, O king, fled away in fear. Divested of weapons and armour, no longer able to ascertain which point of the compass was which, and deprived of their senses, they crushed one another in course of their flight and looked at one another, afflicted with fear."
And after Sakuni's death a unknown amount was alive, so their were kaurava brothers and prince's that lived longer lives compared to even Suyodhana.
Quote;
"Beholding Shakuni lying headless on the ground and all his limbs drenched with gore, thy warriors, rendered powerless with fear, fled away on all sides with weapons in their hands. At that time, thy sons, with cars, elephants, horse and foot entirely broken, heard the twang of Gandiva and fled away with colourless faces, afflicted with fear and deprived of their senses. Having thrown down Shakuni from his car, the Pandavas, O Bharata, became filled with delight."
My guess - maybe these nameless raj kumars disguised themselves with hair dye & became the white haired/grey haired courtiers that were in the kourava tents before they went with Yuyutsu to flee the camp. But cause their is no concrete proof that these guys died its fair for me to claim they are the kaurava brothers that remained alive, they lived the rest of their lives out in disguise to prevent detection and ensure that the pandavas could not locate them.
=
5. "Bhishma was never the king of Hastinapur"
Reality: He was the king, as a matter of fact he became king twice. This's mentioned at minimum a total of six time's in Mahabharata.
1st quote: "Santanu's son, the Vasu born of Ganga, named Devavrata resembled Santanu himself in personal beauty, in habits and behaviour, and in learning. And in all branches of knowledge worldly or spiritual his skill was very great. His strength and energy were extraordinary. He became a mighty car-warrior. In fact he was a great king." https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01101.htm
2nd quote (although his brother was king it was Bhishma who was manipulating, his younger bro was a puppet): "And Vichitravirya, placing himself under the command of Bhishma, ruled the ancestral kingdom." https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01102.htm
3rd quote (he was directly the ruler when his sibling was young): "after Chitrangada was slain, his successor Vichitravirya being a minor, Bhishma ruled the kingdom" https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01103.htm

4th quote (taking advantage of his nephews childhood): "O king, virtuously ruled by Bhishma, the kingdom was adorned with hundreds of sacrificial stakes. And the wheel of virtue having been set in motion by Bhishma, and the country became so contented that the subjects of other kingdoms, quitting their homes, came to dwell there" https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01110.htm

5th quote: "Beholding him excited with wrath, O king, I was deprived of my senses."
Logic; Duryodhan tells Bhisma about what happened to him, a reader can see how he addressed his grandpa as king so people need to stop being dumb. Now of-course the readers might assume that this means bhishma was the king of hastinapore (during kurukshetra war) but the clear explanation here is that Duryodhan was adressing him as a "former king" of hastinapore, that is more logical & realistic to believe.

Quote Six; "He that was born of the energy of the Vasus, when he, that ruler of the earth, hath once more been united with the Vasus."
Logic - ruler of earth, guess what it indicates. A piece of land is owned & lorded over or governed by the overrated bhishma.
=
6. "Draupadi was a incarnation of Sachi not Sree/Lakshmi"
Reality: Draupadi was a incarnation/avatar of Sri meaning Lakshmi.
Quote 1:
"And he also appointed that woman of extraordinary beauty, who was none else than celestial Sri (goddess of grace) herself, to be their common wife in the world of men."
Quote 2:
"And the celestial Sri herself who had been appointed as their wife is this Draupadi of extraordinary beauty."
Quote 3:
"Indeed, the faultless Krishna sprung from Prishata's race hath been pre-ordained to become the common wife of five husbands. The celestial Sri, having undergone severe ascetic penances, hath, for the sake of the Pandavas, had her birth as thy daughter, in the course of thy grand sacrifice."
Note; i was never a fan of pooja sharma (the-actress) so if anybody chooses to copy my content the minimum they can do is choose to not put a image of pooja sharma with this quote, cause she does not deserve it & is one of the worse actresses ever.
=
7. "Parshuram did not lose to Bhishma"
Debunking the misconception.
KMG has evidence the man clearly was defeated.
Quote;
"Seek the protection of Bhishma himself! Thou hast no other refuge now! Shooting mighty weapons Bhishma hath vanquished me!"

BORI CE has a screenshot as proof.
Source;
Conclusion - parshuram devotees need to stop playing favoritism just cause they don't wanna admit his defeat.
=
8th misconception 'The game of dice or gambling dyooth did NOT have a connection to modern day chess'
Debunk - It actually did.
Quote;
"And moving upon chess-boards beautiful pawns made of ivory, of blue and yellow and red and white hue, by throws of black and red dice."
Conclusion; it is better to actually read MB before you blurt out fake opinions.
=
9. "Krishna was king of Dwaraka"
Reality: Actually he wasn't, neither was he seated on the throne, coronated, or considered the main authority/boss of the Yadavas/Vrishnis. The king was Krishna's grand father Ugrasen.
Krishna was not considered a king.
Quote 1:
"There came Ugrasena also, the powerful king of he Vrishni race, accompanied by his thousand wives and followed by sweet singers."
Quote 2:
"Indeed, O slayer of Madhu, as a wife is to one that is without virile power, as a fine show is to one that is blind, so is this royal worship to thee who art no king."
Quote 3;
"Next he proceeded to the beautiful city of Dwaravati protected by the heroes of the Vrishni race. When the beautiful sacrificial horse of the Kuru king reached Dwaravati, the Yadava youths, used force against that foremost of steeds. King Ugrasena, however, soon went out and forbade those youths from doing what they meditated. Then the ruler of the Vrishnis and the Andhakas, issuing out of his palace, with Vasudeva, the maternal uncle of Arjuna, in his company, cheerfully met the Kuru hero and received him with due rites. The two elderly chiefs honoured Arjuna duly."
So basically never make the mistake of calling krishna the word or title "dwaraka deesh" he was never a ruler of dwaraka.

10. "Krishna liked Rukmini the most out of all his wives"
Reality: Actually the correct statement is that Krishna liked Satyabhama out of all his wives the most and not Rukmini.
Quote:
“And the slender-waisted Satyabhama, the favourite wife of Krishna and the daughter of Satrajit, then asked Draupadi in private,”
"Formerly I served Krishna's favourite queen Satyabhama, and also Draupadi, the wife of the Pandavas and the foremost beauty of the Kuru race."
I do not believe more evidence is required for this fact.
=
11th misconception "The five villages asked by pandava's included Hastinapore and Indraprastha"

Droupadi's words:
[Quote]
"Let only five villages be granted to us Avishthala, and Vrikasthala, and Makandi, and Varanavata, and for the fifth, any other. O thou of mighty arms, O Kesava, even this was the message that was to have been delivered to Duryodhana and his counsellors. But, O Krishna, O thou of Dasarha's race, hearing those words of Yudhishthira, endued with modesty and anxious for peace, Suyodhana hath not acted according to them."
[completeD]

Dialogue of Vidur; "The five Pandavas, O king, desire only five villages. Thou, however, dost not wish to give them even that." https://sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05087.htm

Krishna's own dialogue:
"Let the kingdom be thine. Relinquish but five villages (to the Pandavas). O best of kings, without doubt they deserve to be supported by thy father. Though addressed thus, that wicked soul do not still give you your share. I, therefore, see that chastisement, and nothing else, is now the means that should be employed against those sinful persons."
You can thank the gutter tv serial of "Dharmakshetra" for spreading this rumor that 5 villages also included indraprastha or hastinapore.
=
12. "Dhritrashtra had only one-hundred-one sons"
Proof their were more than just 101 son's of Emperor Dhritrashtra.
Quote;
"They properly burned upon those fires that blazed forth with libations of clarified butter in torrents over them, the bodies of Duryodhana and his hundred brothers."
Analysis - It's stated that 101 not 100 were burned here. So not counting yuyutsu their were at minimum 101 kauravas, a unknown amount had come out of Gandhari & a unknown came from other nameless spouses/brides of Dhritrashtra. If yuyutsu gets included then according to this above quote the total number for sons would be 102 (that Dhritrashtra is father too).

Janamejay asked his question the 1st time;
[quote]
Janamejaya said "O illustrious one, tell me the names of Dhritarashtra's sons according to the order of their birth beginning from the eldest." Vaisampayana said "O king, they are as follows: Duryodhana, and Yuyutsu, and also Duhsasana; Duhsaha and Duhshala, and then Durmukha Vivinsati, and Vikarna, Jalasandha, Sulochna, Vinda and Anuvinda, Durdharsha, Suvahu, Dushpradharshana; Durmarshana, and Dushkarna, and Karna; Chitra and Vipachitra, Chitraksha, Charuchitra, and Angada, Durmada, and Dushpradharsha, Vivitsu, Vikata, Sama; Urananabha, and Padmanabha, Nanda and Upanandaka; Sanapati, Sushena, Kundodara; Mahodara; Chitravahu, and Chitravarman, Suvarman, Durvirochana; Ayovahu, Mahavahu, Chitrachapa and Sukundala, Bhimavega, Bhimavala, Valaki, Bhimavikrama, Ugrayudha, Bhimaeara, Kanakayu, Dridhayudha, Dridhavarman, Dridhakshatra Somakirti, Anadara; Jarasandha, Dridhasandha, Satyasandha, Sahasravaeh; Ugrasravas, Ugrasena, and Kshemamurti; Aprajita, Panditaka, Visalaksha, Duradhara, Dridhahasta, and Suhasta, Vatavega, and Suvarchasa; Adityaketu, Vahvasin, Nagadatta and Anuyaina; Nishangi, Kuvachi, Dandi, Dandadhara, Dhanugraha; Ugra, Bhimaratha, Vira, Viravahu, Alolupa; Abhaya, and Raudrakarman, also he who was Dridharatha; Anadhrishya, Kundaveda, Viravi, Dhirghalochana; Dirghavahu; Mahavahu; Vyudhoru, Kanakangana; Kundaja and Chitraka. There was also a daughter named Duhsala who was over and above the hundred. And Yuyutsu who was Dhritarashtra's son by a Vaisya wife, was also over and above the hundred. Thus, O king, have I recited the names of the hundred sons and also that of the daughter."
Logic - notice that pramatha/pramathi were missing from this list. One thing un-noticed appears to be that before "viravahu" got a mention the character 'vira' received a mention, he never appears in any other verses or chapters.

Janamejayas question answered a 2nd time;
"Their names, O king, according to the order of birth, are Duryodhana, Yuyutsu, Duhsasana, Duhsaha, Duhsala, Jalasandha, Sama, Saha, Vinda and Anuvinda, Durdharsha, Suvahu, Dushpradharshana, Durmarshana and Durmukha, Dushkarna, and Karna, Vivinsati and Vikarna, Sala, Satwa, Sulochana, Chitra and Upachitra, Chitraksha, Charuchitra, Sarasana, Durmada and Durvigaha." "Vivitsu, Vikatanana, Urnanabha and Sunabha, then Nandaka and Upanandaka; Chitravana, Chitravarman, Suvarman, Durvimochana; Ayovahu, Mahavahu, Chitranga, Chitrakundala, Bhimavega, Bhimavala, Balaki, Balavardhana, Ugrayudha; Bhima, Karna, Kanakaya, Dridhayudha, Dridhavarman, Dridhakshatra, Somakitri, Anudara; Dridhasandha, Jarasandha."
"Satyasandha, Sada, Suvak, Ugrasravas, Ugrasena, Senani, Dushparajaya, Aparajita, Kundasayin, Visalaksha, Duradhara; Dridhahasta, Suhasta, Vatavega, and Suvarchas; Adityaketu, Vahvashin, Nagadatta, Agrayayin; Kavachin, Krathana, Kunda, Kundadhara, Dhanurdhara; the heroes, Ugra and Bhimaratha, Viravahu, Alolupa; Abhaya, and Raudrakarman." "Dridharatha; Anadhrishya, Kundabhedin, Viravi, Dhirghalochana Pramatha, and Pramathi and the powerful Dhirgharoma; Dirghavahu, Mahavahu, Vyudhoru, Kanakadhvaja; Kundasi and Virajas. Besides these hundred sons, there was a daughter named Duhsala. All were heroes and Atirathas, and were well-skilled in warfare. All were learned in the Vedas, and all kinds of weapons. And, O, king, worthy wives were in time selected for all of them by Dhritarashtra after proper examination. And king Dhritarashtra, O monarch, also bestowed Duhsala, in proper time and with proper rites, upon Jayadratha."
[End]

Those that have the capability to understand English will also conclude that Duryodhana's brothers who are named "Tuhunda" "Vayuvega" "Sukundala" "Virochana" "Ayobhuja" "Vahusali" "Vijaya" "Virata,", "Dala", Ugrayayin & "Satyavrata" were absent in the 2nd list of names here. The fact these 9 guys were missing from the list mean's in total their were 111 kourav brothers excluding Yuyutsu himself. Both paragraphs above mention Mahavahu twice.

Existence of those brothers.
Vijaya;
[Quote]
"Thy sons, Durjaya, Jaya, and Vijaya, resisted Nila, and the ruler of the Kasis, and Jayatsena, three against."
[End]

Virata;
"Those shafts, sped by that strong bowman, Bhimasena, felled thy sons, those mighty car-warriors, from their vehicles. Anadhriti, and Kundabhedin, and Virata, and Dirghalochana, and Dirghavahu, and Suvahu, and Kanykadhyaja. While falling down O bull of Bharata's race, those heroes looked resplendent like falling mango trees variegated with blossoms in the spring. Then thy other sons, O monarch, fled away, regarding the mighty Bhimasena as Death himself."
Note - all text in the parenthesis was removed by me cause it got in the way.

Alive after the 17th night;
"Dala, and Satyavrata, and Dussala, all of whom are possessed of great might, stay on the field, desirous of battle."
[eNd]
Logic; So Dala & Satyavrata would be 2 more brothers that came out of nowhere.

Swayamvar saga;
[Quote]
"Duryodhana, Durvisaha, Durmukha and Dushpradharshana, Vivinsati, Vikarna, Saha, and Duhsasana; Yuyutsu and Vayuvega and Bhimavegarava; Ugrayudha, Valaki, Kanakayu, and Virochana, Sukundala, Chitrasena, Suvarcha, and Kanakadhwaja; Nandaka, and Vahusali, and Tuhunda, and Vikata; these, O sister, and many other mighty sons of Dhritarashtra."
[End]
So Tuhunda, Virochana, Vahusali, Vayuvega & Sukundala were 5 more bros of Duryodhana.

Importance of another character;
[quote] "Reposing the cares of thy state on Dussasana, Durvisaha, Karna, and Suvala's son, thou desirest the continuance of thy prosperity, O Bharata. These, however, are far inferior to the Pandavas in knowledge, in virtue, in capacity for acquiring wealth, and in prowess." [end]
Logic - for Durvisaha to receive a mention by Krishna in the same line with the other pillars of adharma (sakuni, karna/duhsasana) that means he must have been a very prominent character. The name durvigaha may have been a mistranslation of durvisaha in adi parva. Maybe durvisaha was the 5th pillar of adharma.

Attempt of counting the kouravas:
If vayuvega was a different name for the same guy (vatavega) then due to presence of multiple other brothers the total count (for sons of dhritrashtra) equals 112 at minimum. The 102nd is Dala, 103rd would be Satyavrata, 104th is Vijaya, 105th is Virata, 106th is Pramathi, 107th is pramatha, 108th is Tuhunda, but Ugrayayin was 109th & 110th was Virochana, 111th is ayobhuja lastly vahusali was the 112th brother. Their could be 113 technically since a guy called "Satwa" was mentioned.
=
13. "Bheema killed 6 aukshounis"
I can provide a argument for the sake of debunking this one. Very few times was a numeral given for his kill count.
Their's also a sub misconception that he killed 3 aukshounis at day 17 below are quotes which would be used by his fan's to prove this;
[Quote]
"Full three akshauhinis of Duryodhana's soldiers had been assembled together (in front of Bhima). They have all been checked by that lion among men, Bhimasena, in wrath."
"Seeing thy army fly away from Bhimasena, the mighty Karna, O king, rallied it with great efforts. The mighty-armed Karna, having rallied thy son's host, proceeded against the Pandavas, those heroes difficult of defeat in battle."
Logic - if they died karna would not have been able to rally them.
Basically; This part said bheem fought 3 aukshounis on day 17 means he held them back or made them retreat it does not suggest that he killed them.

Arjuna's speech:
"After the fall of heroic Bhagadatta, of the Kamboja chief Sadakshina, and of Duhshasana, the carnage did not still cease! Beholding even diverse heroic and mighty kings, each owning extensive territories, slain in battle, the carnage, O Krishna, did not still cease! Beholding even a full Akshauhini of troops slain by Bhimasena in battle, the carnage did not still cease, in consequence of either the folly or the covetousness of the Dhartarashtras!"
Here on the eighteenth day Bheem did not kill an aukshouni at all, if you read carefully u can understand arjuna's language here, he was referring to incidents that happened in the past seventeen days of the war.
Misrepresentation of this quote could create confusion & lead to more misunderstanding's like people thinking that bhagadatta/sudakshina/duhsasasana all died at the same day.

Conclusion: either during one of the former days bheem slaughtered an aukshouni or his combined kill count for those seventeen days was a full aukshouni (218,700). That is only based on words of arjuna though my personal belief is that his kill count was abit higher than that.
=
HOW MANY WERE ACTULLY KILLED BY HIM ON DAY 17?
5'100 casualties;
"Having slain those 3,000 excellent horses of Subala's son in that way, he rode upon another car, and filled with rage proceeded against the son of Radha."
"Indeed, jumping down from his car with great fury, Bhima began to slay thy troops, O king, like the wind destroying the clouds of autumn. Suddenly the son of Pandu, that scorcher of foes, filled with wrath, routed seven hundred elephants." 
"That chastiser of foes, the son of Kunti, next pressed down two and fifty elephants of great strength belonging to the son of Subala. Scorching thy army, the son of Pandu then destroyed a century of foremost cars and several hundreds of foot-soldiers in that battle." "Then five hundred car-warriors, cased in excellent mail, rushed towards Bhima with loud shouts, shooting thick showers of arrows on all sides. Like Vishnu destroying the Asuras, Bhima destroyed with his mace all those brave warriors with their drivers and cars and banners and standards and weapons."
"Thus afflicted by them, Bhima of great strength, O king, quickly slew fifty foremost car-warriors with five hundred others, amongst those sons of thine that advanced against him."

11,000 more:
"Bhima hath, in addition, slain a 1,000 elephants and 10,000 Kamboja mountaineers, and is uttering loud roars in battle like a lion after slaying innumerable smaller animals."
215,300:
"Piercing that mighty host with straight shafts, Bhima came out of the press like a fish coming out of a net, having slain 10,000 unretreating elephants, 200,200 men, O Bharata, and 5,000 horses, and a hundred car-warriors. Having slaughtered these, Bhima caused a river of blood to flow there."
10-thousand casualty's;
Having slain 10,000 horses and numerous foot-soldiers, Bhima ran hither and thither in rage, armed with his mace. Then, O Bharata, thy troops, beholding Bhima mace in hand, thought that Yama himself, armed with his fatal bludgeon, was in their midst.

Bheem's final rampage: "Armed with sword and mace, Bhima careered like a hawk and slaughtered those 25,000 warriors of thine." https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m09/m09003.htm

The total is 266 thousand, 400 warriors that were murdered by Bheem only at day 17 not in different days or battle's.

I believe in the full 18 day + 1 night war (cause bhima was inactive in the souptika parva so he was not involved in the nocturnal phase war against Ashwathama) he killed more than 2 aukshounis but much less than six aukshounis. He never got anywhere near that number of casualties.
=
14. "Kindama was not engaged in beastiality"
Reality: Actually he was engaged in this vile sexual act of a human having intercourse with a animal (deer). Some readers and enthusiasts get super excited and try to lie or comment without any knowledge that the deer Kindama was having intercourse with was a human in the guise of a deer.
But that's not the truth.
1st Quote:
One day Pandu, while out a-hunting, saw a deer covering its mate. That was really a Rishi in the form of a deer. Seeing the deer in that attitude, he killed it with his arrows, before its desire was gratified.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01096.htm
2nd quote:
"I am a Muni of the name of Kindama, possessed of ascetic merit. I was engaged in sexual intercourse with this deer, because my feelings of modesty did not permit me to indulge in such an act in human society. In the form of a deer I rove in the deep woods in the company of other deer."
https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01119.htm
=
15th "hanuman was tougher than all kourava brothers"
Reply - Alot of mahabharat fans believe that the kourav brothers were weak or that they sucked in combat & did not have any access to astra vidya but the truth is the opposite.

Kaurav brothers knew celestial weapon's.
{quote}
"Chitrasena and Kundabhedin and Vivinsati, and Durmukha and Duhsaha and Sala, and Vinda and Anuvinda and Sumukha and Dirghavahu and Sudarsana, and Suhasta and Sushena. and Dirghalochana, and Abhaya and Raudrakarman and Suvarman and Durvimochana, approaching, encompassed Bhimasena."
{complete}
[Quote]
Those heroes, displaying celestial and mighty weapons, covered Bhima with shafts, like clouds shrouding the risen sun.
[End]
Note - they could kill Hanuman. The kourava brothers had the power and skill requirement for using divya asthras.
=
Misconception 16 that "Satyavati was a fisherman's biological daughter." This can easily be debunked but i should not have to go through the effort of doing the debunk when things would be simple if people just read Adi Parva instead of watching fake tv shows.

Satyavati was adopted by that fisherman he was not her DNA related father.
{Begin} The fish-smelling daughter of the Apsara in her piscatorial form was then given by the king unto the fishermen, saying, "Let this one be thy daughter." That girl was known by the name of Satyavati. {End}

Dumbing things down to make it all easy to understand:
King Vasoo gave his semen to a hawk, the hawk carried that semen across the skies but got stuck fighting another hawk over a misunderstanding. Between that duel the semen fell into the Yamuna river & reached the mouth of a apsara residing their whose name was Adrika. She was in the mode of a fish at the time, despite being a fish that was caught by a fisherman this female apsara (Adrika) was not cooked or eaten or killed yet.
Out of her womb/stomach came 2 human babies, one was Matsya the other was Satyavati. That is the true story of the origin behind Satyavati's lineage & birth. It can be guessed that the guy named "Matsya" here is not actually Virata, instead it is the biological father of Virata, in turn making Virata the nephew of Satyavati.
The reason Matsya does not mean Virata here is that Virata had a couple of biological brother's like Satyadirti, Suryadatta/Madiraswa, so if they are brothers to him then it makes more sense for them to be the offspring of his father Matsya. Otherwise how else do u explain the absence of these brother's when the babies came from Adrika?

Too long did not read; Satyavati was the biological daughter of a apsara who had the semen of king Vasoo, she was offered to king Uparichara but he rejects her despite being okay with accepting Matsya (her biological brother) so satyavati was raised by a fisherman instead. Her brother later becomes the king of Matsya (captial-city was 'Upapalavya') & his sons are Virata, Madiraswa, Suryadatta etc.

Eventually Virata became his heir & the future sole monarch of Matsya, but he married the sister of Kicaka so this deed led to Virata being demoted into becoming a puppet ruler. Throughout all of mahabharat their was zero interaction between Satyavati and her nephew Virata.
=
17th misconception is that draupadi had been using the name Sairandhri during her incognito/hiding trial (virata parva) but the truth is different, here is evidence to support my claims.

Sairandhri was the name for a caste not used as a name for any women/person.
Quote;
"From the union of Magadhas of a certain class with women of the caste called Sairindhri, there springs up another caste called Ayogava."

Droupadi's alias name was Malini not Sairandhri during the incognito phase.
Quote;
"I wander about alone, earning good food and dress; and as long as I get these, I continue to live in the place where they are obtainable. Draupadi herself called me Malini (maker of garlands)."
Logic - it should be simple enough for those that have the basic skill of reading & understanding language that she did not use the fake name forced upon her by tv serial writer's (sairandhri) so hopefully fans that are blessed with common sense will understand the truth now.
=
18th Misconception "Yudisther only lied once and that was about ashvathama dying."
Debunk; Actually he lied many more times, he was a natural born liar, now i am not anti yudisther or a hater of yudisther, but to analyze him unbiasedly i have to put on my mature adult glasses.
Lie 1:
About his name in virat parva.
[Quote]
Yudhishthira, came before Virata & addressed him, saying, "O great king, know me for a Brahmana who, having lost his all hath come to thee for the means of subsistence. I desire, O sinless one, to live here beside thee acting under thy commands, 1 O lord. The king then, well-pleased, replied unto him saying, 'Thou art welcome. Do thou then accept the appointment thou seekest!" And having appointed the lion among kings in the post he had prayed for, king Virata addressed him saying "O child, I ask thee from affection, from the dominions of what king dost thou come hither? Tell me also truly what is thy name and family, and what thou hast a knowledge of." Yudhishthira said "My name is Kanka, and I am a Brahmana belonging to the family known by the name of Vaiyaghra. I am skilled in casting dice, and formerly I was a friend of Yudhishthira."
[End]

Lie 2:
To Shalya.
[quote]
"O valiant one, hear what I submit to thee. O great king, thou art equal to Krishna on the field of battle."
Logic - he could not honestly believe that Shalya was a equal to Krishna, i mean come on the only ones that have a chance of being that are Arjuna, Aniruddha, Shiva, Brahma or Indra, theirs nobody else that was in his level.

Lie 3.
Age of a corpse;
"This is our mother, aged one hundred and eighty years. We have hung up her dead body, in accordance with the custom observed by our forefathers."
Logic - if the age is true then it still count's as a lie cause the woman in their was not their mother and if their is no corpse (just weapons) then its a lie that a corpse was inside that object.

Lie 4;
"And those bowmen, looking wan and wearing beards and equipped with swords, entered Matsya's dominions leaving the forest, giving themselves out as hunters."
Note: the man was masquerading as a hunter.

Yudisther's evil side;
"And the warlike Yudhishthira, that represser of foes, unfastened the undecaying string of that bow with which he had defended the field of Kurukshstra"
Logic - yudisther despite being a protagonist was also a warmonger and violent character, its written he had a off screen battle before virat parva. So he was clearly not a perfect person.

He lied about Abhimanyu being a unskilled fighter;
"How could good come to a child of tender years, unskilled in battle, in such a situation of great danger. Like a horse on proud mettle, he sacrificed himself instead of refusing to do the bidding of his master. Alas, we also shall today lay ourselves down on the bare earth, blasted by the glances of grief, cast by Arjuna filled with wrath."
Logic; yudhisthir also made a claim that he and other people would lay themselves on bare earth, i wonder if this turned out to be a lie as he probably did not do this later on.

Lie 6:
Gandhari, filled with wrath at the slaughter of all her sons and grandsons, enquired after Yudhishthira, saying "Where is the king?" After she had said these words king Yudhishthira, trembling & with joined hands, approached her & said these soft words "Here is Yudhishthira, O goddess, that cruel slayer of thy sons! I deserve thy curses, for I am the cause of this universal destruction. Oh, curse me! I have no longer any need for life, for kingdom, for wealth! Having caused such friends to be slain, I have proved myself to be a great fool and a hater of friends." Unto Yudhishthira who spoke such words, who was overcome with fear, and who stood in her presence, Gandhari, drawing long sighs, said nothing.
[Ending]
Clarification - yudisther was right in choosing to get his kingdom back because he and his brothers worked hard to convert a barren land (khandavaprasth) into a prosperous one (sakraprastha) & they did a campaign (rajasuya) to make it even richer, while the kouravas/karna failed to do anything remotely similar, even the overrated hanuman & shri raam did not convert a barren land into a fertile one.

Still that does not change the claim i have made that Yudisther lied many times, he was not a honest person. For gandhari's character i think she is biased, if she had any anger she should've directed it against bheem not yudisther or arjuna. She gave yudisther a sore nail on his toe when that should have been the fate of Bheem instead but it seems like she was too much of a coward to target him.
=
19th Dhritrashtra was not a villain.
He got referred to as a sinless character by Vaisampayana:
{Start}
"The Suta Sanjaya then, deeply agitated, entered the abode of the king and beheld that foremost of monarchs, that lord of men, having wisdom for his eyes. Beholding the sinless monarch, that chief of Bharata's race, seated, surrounded by his daughters-in-law and Gandhari and Vidura and by other friends and kinsmen that were always his well-wishers."
{donE}
"Having disregarded Vidura, as also his own sire, this reckless, foolish, and wicked prince hath succumbed to death, in consequence of his disregard of the old."
Logic: According to Gandhari clearly Dhritrashtra had a disagreement with Suyodhan but Suyodhan did not care about his opinion.

He freed convict's from jail; "King Dhritarashtra liberated prisoners and pardoned those that were condemned to death."

Words of god.
"Let the affection thou hadst for the Pandavas be revived in thy bosom, and let it, O bull of Bharata's race, lead to the establishment of peace. Deprived of their father while they were infants, they were brought up by thee. Cherish them now as becomes thee, O bull of Bharata's race, as if they were thy own sons. It is thy duty to protect them. And especially it is so when they are distressed."
Facts to conclude from this quote; Dhritrashtra literally raised the pandavas, he had genuine love or affection for them, all most likely before the incident where Kanika gave him advice in adi parva (after the drupad war/guru-dakshina incident was over).
Shameful that in TV serial's a guy like this gets presented as a totally negative character without redeeming qualities, but a fudhu like bhishma will get white-washed or defended when he is unworthy of such benefits.

Who dhritrashtra was in his former zindagi?
Heavenly mode.
Quote:
"Behold Dhritarashtra, the king of the Gandharvas, possessed of great wisdom. Know that this one was the eldest brother of thy sire."
Logic - this implies that he was a contemporary of Chitrasena or Sailusa because their were multiple gandharv kings not only 1 or 2. A different meaning could be that Dhritrashtra was a amsha avtaar or incarnate of a gandharva king.

Other quote;
"Dhritarashtra obtained the regions, so difficult of acquisition, that belong to the Lord of treasures."
Logic - Basically he was a noble servant of Kuber (treasure lord) according to this quote, but it is not known whether Dhritrashtra was a yaksha, guhyaka, kimpurush, kinnara or gandharv. It's possible he was a rakshasas or ape too since tribes of rakshasas & apes served kuber & lived within his territory.
=
20th misconception is that indian's think duryodhan was never a king of hastinapur & only dhritrashtra ever was the ruler.
It will be debunked by me now.

Though Dhritrashtra was on the throne Hastinapore was controlled mainly by Suyodhana.
{Quote of suyodhan}
"I have properly governed my own kingdom. I have enjoyed diverse kinds of enjoyable articles."

Shree Dhritrashtra himself admitted it:
"Having been the sire of a king and a king myself, O Sanjaya, how shall I pass my days as a slave obedient to the commands of Pandu's son!"
Duryodhan ruled Hastinapur Dhritarashtra did not:
"Thou didst not keep thy soul under restraint, but suffered thyself to be ruled by Duryodhana. That which has come upon thee is due to thy own fault. Why then dost thou seek to slay Bhima?"
Quote:
"Those two kings Salya and Duryodhana embraced each other. And having thus greeted Salya, Duryodhana came back to his own city."
Note; Vaishampayan/Souti both consider him a king not a heir apparent/prince.

Conclusion - just in certain affairs the word/opinion of Dhritrashtra was valued more so he had a certain degree of control/influence over the kingdom. However majority of the responsibilities that come with status of a monarch are handled by duryodhan he did the job that dhritrashtra failed to do even if they were dhritrashtra's responsibility more than his.
=
21st misconception will have to do with karna. It is to prove that dhritrashtra was aware of karna being the son of kunti not radha.

Proof that Dhritrashtra heard the conversations karna had with kunti and krishna both.
Quote;
"Informed before of his brotherhood (with the Pandavas), the Suta's son is again, compassionate. Remembering also his words to Kunti, how could he fight with Bhima?"
[End]

Udyog Parva
Word's of emperor Dhritrashtra: "O Sanjaya, in the midst of all the princes and the servants, the slayer of Madhu took Karna upon his car and went out (of our city). What did that slayer of hostile heroes, that one of immeasurable soul, say unto Radha's son? What conciliatory words did Govinda speak unto the Suta's son? Tell me, O Sanjaya, what those words were, mild or fierce, that Krishna, possessed of a voice deep as that of newly-risen clouds during the rainy season said unto Karna?"
Sanjaya's reply "Listen to me, O Bharata, as I repeat in due order those words, both intimidating and mild, agreeable and consistent with virtue, true and beneficial, and pleasing to the heart, which the slayer of Madhu, of immeasurable soul, said unto Radha's son."
He informs Dhritrashtra of all details concerning their conversation even the revelation/information that Karna is a biological offspring of Kunti & is brother to the Pandava's. Clearly Dhritrashtra & Sanjaya both knew karna was the blood relative of yudisther & arjuna.

Conclusion; so it's clear like water that Dhritrashtra was aware of this overhyped secret. Which is probably the reason why in the 1964 movie (that had Dara Singh in the lead role of Bheem) even abhimanyu/karna called eachother uncle-nephew cause they didnt care about relationships.
=
22nd misconception; Their is a misunderstanding that Bhishma was equal to/better than Indra, but the truth is opposite. Proving that Devraaj Indra was better than overrated bhishma.

First point - Indra refused to pour rain waters upon the land of hastinapur, bhishma could never force him despite using power against Parshuram he could not use the same power against Indra.
Quote;
"During this period, he became very much attached to his wives and accordingly had an attack of phthisis. Upon his death, there was anarchy in the kingdom and the chief of the gods poured not a drop of rain (on the realm)."
Logic - bhishma was a helpless kutta infront of Indra.

Second point - Indra was able to knock out Arjuna, this was something Bhishma could never do.
Quote:
"Indra saw all this, and desiring to save his friend's son, the wielder of the thunderbolt, by raising a violent wind, deprived Arjuna of consciousness."
As a matter of fact Bhishma failed to kill a elephant on day 1 of Kurukshetra, thats how weak his arrows were.

Third/final point - Bhishma got possessed by asuric ghosts and spirits but Indra was never a victim of such possession.
Quote;
"Other Asuras will also possess Bhishma and Drona and Kama and others. Possessed by those Asuras, these heroes will cast away their kindness and fight with thy foes."
[pause-break]
"Bhishma, Drona, and Kripa at their head, having their faculties influenced by the Danavas, were not so affectionate towards the sons of Pandu as they had been."
Bhishma was weak compared to Indra.
=
Misconception 23 "on the pandav side nobody survived apart from yuyutsu, the five brothers, krishna & satyaki."
Debunk:
This's false, i can easily counter it with Yudisther's answer to Dhritrashtra's question (from stri parva) but i digress and will choose a different strategy.

[Quote]
"Yudhishthira of great wisdom commanded Yuyutsu of Kuru’s race, and all his servants headed by Indrasena."
Point; Indrasena is the name for a servant of the pandavas. He has many other appearances in MB so he likely participated in the war as a charioteer and survived.

"And Indrasena, and others already mentioned, went to the Yadavas, and looking after the horses and the cars of the Pandavas passed their time happily and in privacy."

Their Viceroys/governors were alive;
[quote]
"Pandavas obtained numerous agreeable services from their feudatories and followers."

Dhresthadyumna's charioteer.
Quote;
"The driver of Dhrishtadyumna's car gave intelligence to king Yudhishthira of the great slaughter that had been caused during the hour of sleep."
Logic - this was well shown in the MB serial of Chandraprakash Dwivedi (ek aur mahabharat 1997) that a driver survived from the mayhem/massacre.
In aswamedha parva the nation's which previously took the side of pandavas (in kurukshetra) still had monarchs & royalty controlling them.
Cedi:
"Turning round in course of his wanderings at will, the mighty steed came upon the beautiful city of the Chedis called after the oyster. Sarabha, the son of Sisupala, endued with great strength, first encountered Arjuna in battle and then worshipped him with due honours."
Logic - kashi was also mentioned in the chapter if u read further & kashi was a state which showed its support mainly to pandavas. Andhra tribe was also mentioned in that link, it was yet another pro pandava state which fought in kurukshetra, so the amount of death in kurukshetra is exaggerated by ignorant & biased fans.

Magada;
"Beholding him arrived within his dominion, O monarch, the heroic son of Sahadeva, observant of Kshatriya duties, challenged him to battle. Coming out of his city, Meghasandhi, mounted on his car and equipt with bow and arrows and leathern fence, rushed towards Dhananjaya who was on foot."

LASTLY those 3 hunters that always collected animals for Bhima's meals & gave him the location of Suyodhana, these three guys were also part of the pandav camp/army, they most likely survived/did not die.

Bheem had a group of friends that he used to socialize with after kurukshetra;
"Through deceitful servitors he caused the commands of his uncle to be disobeyed. Recollecting the evil counsels of the old king and some acts of his, Bhima, one day, in the midst of his friends, slapped his armpits, in the hearing of Dhritarashtra and of Gandhari."
Logic - what was once a quote used by pandava haters to promote hate has become a weapon i can use too prove my claims.

24th misconception about Sanjaya being labelled a BIASED reporter/author:
His anti pandava statement.
15th day;
"The Pandavas had three crooked-minded mighty car-warriors amongst them. Bhimasena and the twins (Nakula & Sahadeva). These addressed Dhananjaya loudly."
Logic - sanjay had the courage & will to talk of 3 members of royalty (from the winning side nonetheless) as if they were cowardly cheaters.

Sanjaya being pro kourava.
14th night.
[begins]
"Ten of thy sons, each of whom was equal unto Rama, the son of Dasaratha, in prowess, began to afflict Bhima. They were Nagadatta, and Dridharatha, and Viravahu, and Ayobhuja, and Dridha, and Suhasta, and Viragas and Pramatha, and Ugrayayin. Beholding them Bhimasena became filled with rage. He then took up a number of arrows, each capable of bearing a great strain. Aiming at each of them one after another, he sped those arrows at them, striking each in his vital part. Pierced therewith, they fell down from their cars, deprived of energy and life, like tall trees from mountain cliffs broken by a tempest. Having with those ten shafts slain those ten sons of thine, Bhima shrouded the favourite son of Karna with showers of arrows."
[done]
My comment - he compared them to shri RAAM of all people.

If sanjaya was really biased then the true victims of that bias are pandav warriors not kaurav warrior's.
=
Posted by at 1 comment:

Wednesday, October 30, 2024

Debunking the achievements of Hanumana (except for lanka daahan).

Here i will discuss & debunk all the incidents provided by hanu devotees which they believe makes him look mighty. Like him eating the SUN, or lifting the mountain of medicine or him making Ravan bleed or the BS claim of him being the vanara general or withstanding an assault from the brahmastra.

This post's actual title is "Putting a end to the hanumana topic [Part 7]"
=
STARTING THE POST.
According to Ramayan's Yuddh Kandam he was not a general.
[quote] "Here is Nila the army-general himself, the son of Agni the Lord of Fire. Here is the son of Vayu the Lord of Wind well known as Hanuman." [end]

Quote; "As directed by Raghavana, Neela the commander-in-chief and the foremost of the monkeys, ordered the monkey-troops suitably. Then, Gavaksha, Sharabha, Hanuma and Angada looking like mountains, reached the gate, taking the mountian-tops."
Logic; hanutati's rank was below Nila's, clearly hanuman was never considered to be the best of vanaras at all, he was average at best.

A common claim of hanuman fans is "that same hanuma made ravan bleed with 1 punch":
Whenever hanu-bhakts find themselves boxed into a corner with no way out they bring up this point all the time. The ultimate goal in bringing up this point is for them to deflect from something that simply can not be defended. In this case it is the weaknesses, flaws and poor fighting skills of hanumanji. This can not be defended so hanuman bhakts either lie all the time or give an illogical argument.

Krishna - who i judge based on his fighting skill's was made to bleed/swoon by simple arrows fired by Duhsasan & even the most overrated bhadva whose name is "Karna" if these 2 were able to do that to a top tier mard/warrior like Krishna then what is incredible about hanuman doing it to Ravan when he is offguard & focusing on Laxman's body?

Ravan was certainly not as powerful as Krishna. So the achievements those guys had in doing it to krishna should put them above Hanuman. Cause hanuman lost against ravan multiple times.
=
EVIDENCE FOR wounds of krishna.
3rd day:
"Bhishma with great strength pierced both Vasudeva and Dhananjaya with keen shafts all over their bodies. And mangled by those shafts of Bhishma, those two tigers among men looked like two roaring bulls with the scratches of horns on their bodies."
[end]

[again]
"The enraged Bhishma caused him of Vrishni's race to shiver."
Logic - here the reference to "vrishni's race" was for Krishna so dont pretend it was Cekitana or Satyaki or his 10 sons.

Duhsasana was the attacker in day 10.
[Quote]
"Dussasana in that battle pierced the son of Pandu with 3 arrows & Vasudeva with 20. Then Arjuna, excited with rage upon beholding him of Vrishni's race thus afflicted, pierced Dussasana with a hundred shafts."
[Done]

Injury's in Bhagawatam.
Rukmi achieved this.
[quote]
"Rukmī grabbed another bow and struck Lord Kṛṣṇa with five arrows. Although hit by these many arrows, Lord Acyuta again broke Rukmī’s bow."
[End]

Krishna's bow has been cut by king Shalva.
[Quote]
"Śālva then managed to strike Lord Kṛṣṇa’s left arm, which held His bow Śārṅga, and, amazingly, Śārṅga fell from His hand."
Logic; not just a simple bow but rather a divine-bow handled by a GOD himself, yet still it's felled by a underrated enemy. That too in which type of source? A purana (of all sources) which is biased in favor of Vaishnavism & sri krishna. Yet they admit Sri Krishna's bow had fallen.
=
Parshuram was knocked out by bhishma's attack: "I shot at Rama a powerful and heart-piercing arrow endued with great speed. Afflicted with that shaft, Rama then, his bow loosened from his grasp, fell down upon the earth on his knees, reft of consciousness!"
Elephant's were able to tank/with-stand his attack.
Act of Bhishma: "The son of Santanu made the terraces of many cars empty, that best of car-warriors showering arrows, cut off many heads. Endued with energy equal to that of the Sun himself, he shrouded the very Sun with his arrows. And he removed his enemies from around him in that combat like the rising Sun dispelling the darkness around. And in that battle, O king, arrows were shot by him in hundreds and thousands that were powerful and possessed of great impetuosity and that took in that conflict the lives of numberless Kshatriyas. And in that combat he felled heads, by hundreds, of heroic warriors, O king, and elephants cased in thorny mail, like summits of mountains by heaven's bolt."
Survival of elephants: "Infuriate elephants rushed hither and thither, and car-warriors by hundreds were slain. And car-warriors, along with their cars, were crushed on all sides."
Logic - if a elephant rushes then thats a clue to the fact a elephant was alive so the arrows of bhishma are not fatal.
Conclusion; parshuram's durability remains inferior to a elephant of the pandav army.

Hanutati himself was bleeding a couple of times in ramayana.
(1st-Example) Devi Lankini knocked Hanuman out:
"Thereafter that Lanka made a great sound causing terror and hit Hanuma, the best among Vanaras, with her palm quickly. Then that tiger among Vanaras, the powerful son of Vayu, being hit powerfully by Lanka made a great sound. Thereafter that Hanuma became dizzy with anger and folded his fingers of left hand."
http://valmikiramayan.pcriot.com/utf8/sundara/sarga3/sundara_3_frame.htm
Logic - don't talk about hanutati beating her later pay attention to how hanutati got swooned & became dizzy, how he was knocked out like a wimp.
Other example/incident; "The two generals stood by the side of the illustrious Hanuma. Praghasa pierced Hanuma with a sharp-pointed spear and Bhasakarna attacked him with a dart. With his limbs wounded by those two demons, that Hanuma with his body-hair anointed by blood, became enraged, with his blaze similar to that of a rising sun."
Conclusion: not just the personalities of god-head (parshuram/krishna) but even hanuman undergoes pain during a battle.
So nothing impressive in Ravan bleeding just cause hanutati did a sneak attack on ravan when ravan was busy lifting a weight (laxman).
=
TAIL CHAPTER.
The achievement of his tail being too heavy for Bheem to lift should be addressed now. Their exist's a minor possibility of Bhima holding back during his attempt of lifting Hanuman's tail (he was not using his full physical might).
1st reason is that Hanu spoke respectfully to Bhima so Bhima would not behave in an agressive manner towards him.
Evidence:
'Out of kindness, O hero, do I dissuade thee. Do thou hearken unto my words. Thou canst not proceed further from this place. Therefore, O lord, do thou desist. O chief of men, to-day in very way thou art welcome to this place.'
Logic - hanu adressed bheem as a hero. If a person spoke respectfully to you then you would not wish to cause them any real harm, the same mindset could be bheem's here.

The other reason he might've been holding back is cause hanuman was a user of illusion/magic (maya). Which shall be explained later in this very post itself.

Bhima's attempt:
'Then with both arms he pulled it, resembling the pole reared in honour of Indra. Still the mighty Bhima could not raise the tail with both his arms. And his eye-brows were contracted up, and his eyes rolled, and his face was contracted into wrinkles and his body was covered with sweat; and yet he could not raise it. And when after having striven, the illustrious Bhima failed in raising the tail, he approached the side of the monkey, and stood with a bashful countenance.'

Reason provided by hanutati;
[quote]
"O son of the Kurus, this path is impassable to mortals. For this, O Bharata, as also with the view that none might defeat or curse thee, have I obstructed thy passage to this path trod by the immortals. This is one of the paths to heaven, for the celestials; mortals cannot pass this way."
Basically their was no way hanuman would allow his dear brother (Bheem) risk his life or potentially die trying to cross a forbidden path (guarded by hanutati).

Inconsistency that occur's immediately after:
"The monkey with his arms again embraced Bhimasena. And O Bharata, on Bhima being embraced by his brother, his fatigue went off, and all (the powers of body) as also his strength were restored. And having gained great accession of strength, he thought that there was none equal to him in physical power. And with tears in his eyes, the monkey from affection again addressed Bhima in choked utterance."
Logic - this quote is proof that bheem was tired if bheem was not fatigued then this quote implies that hanutati was the one who is tired.
The quote has other important facts to consider, it shows that Hanuman hugged bheem, so imagine how much the weight of Hanuman's chest/abdomen were compared to his tail? Logically its heavier than his own tail correct?

Modern calculation; "20-25% of the weight is occupied by the chest 25-30% of the weight is occupied by the abdomen."
=
Possible reason behind bheem failing:
Obsessed bhakts of hanutati will try to paint this incident as 1-sided by making it look like the tail part of hanu's body was very light compared to the full-weight of his body. The bitter fact is probably that hanutati used magic to make his tail much heavier than it normally is to make it unmovable. A similar power is wielded by Suyodhana too, he could hold his breath for a extended time period & he could make (water in a lake) still (immobile/frozen). While yudisther had his own magic/maya powers. Its possible for hanuman to also have similar abilities because this incident occurred a very long time after the story of Ramayana ended.

Type of magic:
Either hanuman made his tail immobile (still/moveless) or he increased its weight to a maximum degree or the 3rd option (he tricked bheem via mind control into thinking he was using his full power when he was really using only a fraction.

Yudisther could change his own body-weight; "Do ye not entertain any fear of this wretched Rakshasa, I have checked his speed." https://sacred-texts.com/hin/m03/m03156.htm
Word's of vaisampayana: 'Yudhishthira made himself ponderous to the Rakshasa. And being oppressed with the weight, he could not proceed rapidly as before.'
Note; Jatasura lifted yudisther, the twins & Droupadi together (all 4 people) up before but now somehow just yudisther alone became too heavy of a load to carry/abduct, so clearly foul play is involved here, yudisther's bodyweight/mass grew somehow.

By the time of MB Hanutati had the ability to disappear, vanish & re-appear.
Quote 1: 'Having said this unto Pandu's son, and also pointed him out the way. Hanuman vanished at that spot.' https://sacred-texts.com/hin/m03/m03150.htm

Quote 2; 'When that foremost of monkeys had gone away, Bhima, the best of strong men, began to range the huge Gandhamadana along that path.' https://sacred-texts.com/hin/m03/m03151.htm
Conclusion - all this clearly hints that hanuman had magical abilities, so him being able to change the weight of his tail or him tricking bheem into believing fake lies (he could convince bheem that he was utilizing his full power to lift the tail but the truth is bheem was not using his full power) is definitely a possibility.

Evidence Bhima was not at his full power:
"And as he drank of the waters, like unto nectar, his energy and strength were again fully restored; and he fell to plucking and gathering Saugandhika lotuses of excellent fragrance."
[complete]
Logic - this quote is after the meeting with hanuman it proves that Bhima needed to regain power/stamina he formerly lost.

Other possible reasons why "Bheem could not move or lift his tail":
1 - The battle with kubera's krodha vasa sena happened before hanuman met Bhima, but the narrator (Souti/Vaisampayan) got events mixed up so the chronology has been badly affected but point is that Bhima would be tired or wounded after this battle so he was not at full physical strength.

Countering any BS claim that hanubhakt supporters have made below (they believe that warriors do not get fatigued, tired or exhausted in a battle). Here is the debunk before i move on to the next reason why bheem failed to lift his tail.
Raam was tired of walking & running because he had to roam several areas in AryaVarth.
[Quote]
"Greatly fatigued, Rama (Scion of Kakutstha) accompanied by Seetha as the third (Lakshmana being the second) who was accustmed to all comforts, happily spent that night at the lovely hermitage of Bharadwaja."
[End]

Hanuman gets tired very easily.
[Quote]
"The son of Air-god Hanuma whose glossiness is like that of a mountaintop and who is a mastermind in scrutinising every inscrutable forest, then spoke to all of the formidable Vanara-s. We all have searched the southern quarter including those places that are enmeshed with meshes of mountains, and we are overly fatigued, but Maithili is unnoticed."
[End]
Proof pandavas would become tired:
Quote;
"O king, a confidential agent of mine residing in Dwaraka came to me. He had seen Arjuna, that foremost of Pandu's sons. Indeed, the latter has been very much emaciated with the fatigue of many battles. O puissant monarch, that agent of mine informed me that the mighty-armed hero is very near to us."
[end]
Note - Arjuna is the toughest pandava brother so this passage is confirmation that even bheem could become tired.
Proof (that Arjuna was tougher than Bhima);
"Amongst all the Parthas, Phalguna is the strongest."

Quote;
"Both Nakula & Sahadeva are fatigued, having fought with the wretched Dhartarashtras and their followers!"
Logic: This quote is from before duryodhan hit sahadeva in the head with a lance only for ulook to the do the same. Sahadeva earlier proved his power against a vanar superior to hanutati called "Mainda"
=
Droupadi was tired of traveling;
Krishna addressed Yudhishthira, saying "We see footpaths here, and various fields. From this it appears that Virata's metropolis is still at a distance. Pass we here what part of the night is still left, for great is my fatigue."

Dhritrashtra praises her;
[Quote]
"O Radheya, they are mighty warriors and naturally able, they are now devoted to ascetic austerities. King Yudhishthira will not suffer his wrath to be awakened, but Bhimasena is naturally passionate. The daughter of Yajnasena is energy's self. Full of pride and folly, ye are certain to give offence. Endued with ascetic merit she will certainly consume you, or perhaps, those heroes, armed with swords and weapons!"
"Nor, if from force of numbers, ye seek to injure them in any respect, that will be a highly improper act, although, as I think, ye will never be able to succeed."
"The mighty-armed Dhananjaya hath returned thence to the forest. While unaccomplished in arms, Vivatsu had subjugated the whole earth before. A mighty warrior as he is and accomplished in arms now, will he not be able to slay you all?"
[End]
Comment; he warns karna & believes even droupadi might be a threat for him. Point here is that she was believed to be a serious fighter more dangerous than angaraja yet she was vulnerable to becoming tired.
Ashwathama was a victim of tireness too:
"Those car-warriors headed by Kripa, filled with grief, took leave of the king & went away to a place far removed from that spot. Having proceeded far, they beheld a banyan under whose shade they stopped, greatly tired & exceedingly anxious about the king."
{ending}

A trio of brave warriors that were deemed maharathis, two were brahmins that practiced semen retention (they were bachelors) still end up craving beverages.
Quote;
"They themselves became thirsty. Overpowered by wrath and vindictiveness, those great bowmen could not put up with what had occurred, burning as they did with the slaughter of the king."

More evidence;
"Heavy with sleep, they laid themselves down on the bare earth. They had been exceedingly tired & greatly mangled with shafts. The two great car-warriors, Kripa & Kritavarma, succumbed to sleep."
Logic - Kritvarman defeated Bheem twice on day fourteen. So a warrior greater than bheem was vulnerable to fatigue.

Hanuman was tired so easily:
"He again continued his flight. But, he very soon became weak and exhausted. Then Mount Maināka emerged from the ocean and fed Hanūmān with fruits and roots. He reached Laṅkā at dusk."
{end}
Conclusion: so not hard in thinking that bhima would become tired too. Or that guru Drona was tired at day 14.
=
WHY HE FAILED TO LIFT THE TAIL;
2 - Indonesian Mahabharat is more authentic/reliable so its version of events is correct & the kmg/bori version is fake. Basically their Bheem & Hanumana just kick eachother they do not engage in a tail movement challenge.

Reference]
"In the long final scene, Bima angrily marches forth and meets Hanoman, who kicks him over. Bima then does the same to Hanoman. Their divine father Beiyu intervenes to reconcile them. Beiyu has exactly the same form as Bima except for the god-spot on his forehead."
[End]
Logic work's - that their was no win or loss, they had a draw.

In Ramayan this Hanutati's whole body was dragged around by foot soldier's.
[Quote]
"That Ravana, who was endowed with an extraordinary energy, saw Hanuma the foremost of monkeys, being dragged hither and thither by demons."
Bheem is not inferior to the lankan infantry men, so him being unable to drag or move Hanuman's tail makes no sense at all.

I incline to agree with indonesian mahabharat here as for this incident it makes much more sense.
=
3rd reason is that this tail incident could be a mistranslated one.
Clues in Mahabharat.
This chapter said Bhima had a fight with hanuman:
{Quote}
"Bhima's meeting on his way, in a grove of bananas, with Hanuman, the son of Pavana of great prowess; Bhima's bath in the tank and the destruction of the flowers therein for obtaining the sweet-scented flower his consequent battle with the mighty Rakshasas and the Yakshas of great prowess including Hanuman; the destruction of the Asura Jata by Bhima; the meeting with the royal sage Vrishaparva; their departure for the asylum of Arshtishena and abode therein: the incitement of Bhima by Draupadi. Then is narrated the ascent on the hills of Kailasa by Bhimasena, his terrific battle with the mighty Yakshas headed by Hanuman; then the meeting of the Pandavas with Vaisravana."
Logic - since kmg vana parva does not describe any physical duel it only describes an attempt of lifting his tail that either means this quote (from Adi Parva) is unreliable/fake or it means that the text of Vana Parva was tampered with.
Other issues with the text: hanumana was clearly a vanara not a rakshas or yaksha, but he gets lumped in with both groups in the quote.
4th reason for why bhima failed to lift hanumans tail; Maybe his expertise in lifting came down to push strength and not pull strength. Pulling is different from pushing.

The only other reason i can think of is that the whole incident of him trying to lift hanu's tail & failing in doing so) is a interpolation so that is why it makes no sense.
=
Even if hanuman did overpower or defeat or humiliate bheem then it is not important because of the fact that bheem was not what he is commonly believed by hindus & indians to be, meaning he is not physically the "most powerful man" alive in mahabharat at all, he did not possess the most physical strength in any way.
Many other characters existed who possessed the strength of ten thousand elephants like king Paurava, Jarasandha etc, surely jarasandha could not have been very far from bheem when he was able to put up a fight for fourteen days straight. Even duryodhan is mentioned to have that much strength (10,000 elephants).

Identity of the puru king. According to puranas his name was "Venudari" (friend to Emperor Jarasandha) and in Mahabharat his name was "Viswagaswa" (individual whose conquered and subjugated in the rajasuya war by pandavas).
Quote:
"So also king Paurava who was endued with the might of 10,000 elephants, hath, with all his followers, been slain by Pandu's son Arjuna."
Quote:
"Thence, surrounded by the kings and the peoples he had subjugated, the hero marched against king Viswagaswa that bull of Puru's race. Having vanquished in battle the brave mountaineers, who were all great warriors, the son of Pandu, O king, then occupied with the help of his troops, the town protected by the Puru king."

Maharaj Dhritrashtra;
"Dhritarashtra sought for Bhima, like a blazing fire ready to burn everything that would approach it. Indeed, that fire of his wrath, fanned by the wind of his grief, seemed then to be ready to consume the Bhima-forest. Ascertaining the evil intentions cherished by him towards Bhima, Krishna, dragging away the real Bhima, presented an iron statue of the second son of Pandu to the old king."
"Understanding that thou wert filled with rage, O bull of Bharata’s race, I dragged the son of Kunti away from within the jaws of Death. O tiger among kings, there is none equal to thee in strength of body. What man is there, O mighty-armed one, that would endure pressure of thy arms? Indeed, as no one can escape with life from an encounter with the Destroyer himself, even so no body can come out safe from within thy embrace. It was for this that yonder iron statue of Bhima, which had been caused to be made by thy son, had been kept ready for thee."
Logic - even if we assume that krishna's praise was a exaggeration it still does not change the fact he believed dhritrashtra could kill bheem (assuming that bheem was off guard & would not keep his muscles/bones tightened when dhritrashtra hugs/embraces him) still dhritrashtra can be considered one of the top men when it came to physical strength in the epic, if not the toughest (like Krishna said) then at least in the top ten.

10,000 elephant strength is not exclusive to Bhima:
"Others (of their class) possessed strength equal to that of ten thousand elephants. Others, again, were endued with the impetuosity and might of the very wind. They have all perished in battle, slain by men of their own class. I do not behold the person (save one of their own class) who could slay any of them in battle."
Comment: clearly yudhisthir mentioned that many warriors had the power of 10,000 elephants.

Bhishma restrained vrikodara;
Bhimasena began to grind his teeth in rage, the monarchs beheld his face resembling that of Death himself, at the end of the Yuga, prepared to swallow every creature. And as the hero endued with great energy of mind was about to leap up impetuously, the mighty-armed Bhishma caught him like Mahadeva seizing Mahasena. And, O Bharata, Bhima's wrath was soon appeased by Bhishma, the grand-sire of the Kurus, with various kinds of counsel. And Bhima, that chastiser of foes, could not disobey Bhishma's words. But, O king, even though Bhima was angry, the brave Sisupala depending on his own manhood, did not tremble in fear. And though Bhima was leaping up impetuously every moment, Sisupala bestowed not a single thought on him, like a lion that recks not a little animal in rage. The powerful king of Chedi, beholding Bhima of terrible prowess in such rage, laughingly said "Release him, O Bhishma! Let all the monarchs behold him scorched by my prowess like an insect in fire." Hearing these words of the ruler of the Chedis, Bhishma, that foremost of the Kurus and chief of all intelligent men, spoke unto Bhima.
Explained; Bheem was being egged on & repeatedly provoked by sisupala so it makes no sense for him to just allow bhishma to keep him in check even if he wanted his grandfather's reputation/honor to be kept safe. The reason being that if Bheem was truly that concerned of the type of pain he could commit against bhishma then a easy solution is to lie to him & say "hey pitamah i promise i will not attack sisupal or fall for his taunts, but release me i need to go to the bathroom" then bhishma would set him free & seeking a moment bheem could easily get near sisupal and attack him. But he choose to do neither and the reason was cause bheem was physically incapable of releasing himself out of bhishma's grasp here.

I have already explained arjuna's superiority over bhima so i will not repeat it.
Conclusion - So just cause hanuman was better compared to Bhima that does not mean he was better than other mahabharat warriors when it came to physical strength.
=
Rubbish claim of hanu bhakt's - "He survived the brahmastra"
Reply: I will explain why this is not impressive.

Because Vibhishana & even Jambavan also survived it.
[Quote]
"Looking at Jambavan, the son of Brahma, who was naturally bequeathed with old age, an elderly person, with his body conspicuous of hundreds of arrows and a valiant person looking like an extinguishing fire, Vibhishana approached him and spoke."
[End]
Logic - hanutati probably just ducked behind a rock or tree while Indrajit's weapons were being casted on the field.

It's stated he shot golden maces & arrows at hanu/other vanaras not brahmastra:
[Begin] "Tearing asunder the principal monkey-warriors by maces and arrows, which were of golden colour, that Indrajit rained a multitude of showers of arrows equal to sun's rays on Rama and Lakshmana." [complete]
Comment - it'd appear like the story of him using brahmastra against hanuman (during yuddh kanda not sundara) was invented by devotees to make hanuman's loss look less embarrassing.
A mace doesn't come out of the brahmastra. So it can be guessed that he only used it against Raam/Laxman. If a character is not the target of Meghanada's brahmastra then it becomes easy for that character to survive it.

The Sundar Kanda part has been addressed before, the reason of hanutati surviving was due to a 2nd restraint/bind placed upon him, it was the casual goof/mistake done by foot soldier's that resulted in him being safe. But hanuman was not grateful to the foot soldiers for doing that for him.

Here it is again;
Sarga 48 "That powerful Hanuma, tied with those chords of hemp and bark, was relieved of the missile, since the bondage of that missile does not indeed coexist with another bondage." Sarga 51 "Hanuma, liberated from the missile being dragged away by the demons and afflicted by the ties of ropes, could not realize that he was liberated from the missile."
=
Hanu's peak lifting achievement is overrated:
"And the youthful monarch was endued with wonderful prowess and a physical frame hard as the thunderbolt, so that he could, taking up the mountain Mandara with its forests and bushes, support it on his arms."
Maybe his physical lifting strength was greater compared to Hanutati. Cause hanu lifted a small peak but not a hill or a mountain.

Ghatotkatch could easily use magic to make himself appear to be a mountain:
"He assumed the form of a high mountain, crowded with cliffs and trees, and possessing fountains from which ceaselessly flowed spears and lances and swords and heavy clubs. Beholding that mountain-like mass of antimony, with countless weapons falling from it, Drona's son was not at all moved. The latter invoked into existence the Vajra weapon. The prince of mountains, then, struck with that weapon, was quickly destroyed."
Lifting mountains is not a great or impressive achievement. Unless the mountain which is referenced is 1 of the ultra level mountains, like Mandara (where Shiva resided once) or Mahameru.

Arjuna as Nara was capable of doing this;
"Ye both, by your might, hold the universe."
So his physical strength was more than just holding a planet, since the universe means more than just a solar system.
=
Hanuman being on the flag or chariot/umbrella of Arjuna is fake, but his devotees will say that he protected Arjuna or was seated on a flag-staff device/part of the vehicle. I have already made a post (multiple years earlier) detailing which times, chapter's, incident's & battles this "ape" was mentioned.
Guess what? Never was the name of "maruti" or "hanuma" stated in those chapters.
So i reached the obvious conclusion's that it was EITHER a different ape (possibly Mainda cause he was the only other vanara still alive) OR it was a illusion of Vishwakarma (a fake manifestation of a vanara to intimidate a warrior that is on the-opposite-side of the battlefield).

My post however had only analyzed the quotes from Kurukshetra but not the possibility of the ape being present on Arjuna's chariot during Rajasuya Parva, Virata Parva etc.
Below is a list of possible 'counter-quotes' that might be used by hanuman bhakts. I will also provide a list of debunks that i have come-up with.
1 [begin]
"Arjuna having on his banner the sign of devastator of the gardens of Lanka's lord."
[eNd]
Debunk; this only means the spokesperson think's the ape is a individual who burned garden's of lanka it is not a way of them claiming they think its Hanuman. Reason being that lanka was burnt in yuddh kanda too, their were many vanaras apart from hanumana who were involved.

{Quote}
"When the troops of monkeys, with torches in their hands, attacked Lanka on all sides, the diversely eyed demons who were holding the position of guards, suddenly fled away. Those monkeys, feeling gladdened, threw fire to the towering gates, attics, streets, various byways and mansions. Then, the fire consumed thousands of houses of demons. Mansions of mountainous forms fell down on the ground."
{completE}
Analysis; no names have been stated to identify the vanaras that committed the burning apart from Sugriva & hanutati.

From this: 'Seeing those monkey-chiefs, standing at the gate, with flaming torches in their hands, Ravana was enraged with fury.'
Logic - it can be assumed that clearly their were more than just 2 vanaras that did the burning so nothing wrong with my point of assuming that the MB character was referring to a different vanara who may have burned the gardens of lanka.

For those who believe that garden's were not burned;
"That City of Lanka at night with its house-tops being burnt ablaze with flames, looked like Kimshuka trees in full bloom."
Conclusion; it was not hanuman who was referred too by the MB character.

Even if it's assumed the spokesman believed that apart from hanutati nobody else had burned lanka then still a different argument could be provided in return that the image on top of the flag looked like hanumana but was not really him, instead it was a ape who had identical appearance.

Or it was a illusion of vishwakarma (that would convince onlookers that hanu was present on the vehicle).
=
Proof the animal or ape/vanara/painting/portrait associated with arjuna's chariot/flag was not hanumana himself.
Narrative: "Varuna also gave two inexhaustible quivers, and he also gave a car furnished with celestial weapons and whose banner bore a large ape."
Note - just ape is stated nothing about it being hanumana or a son of vayu dev.

Passage of text; "And there sat upon that flag-staff a celestial ape of form fierce like that of a lion or a tiger. Stationed on high, the ape seemed bent upon burning everything it beheld. And upon the (other) flags were various creatures of large size, whose roars and yells caused the enemy's soldiers to faint." https://sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01228.htm
Basic's - hanuman was not mentioned by name here either, also this's proof their were other creatures (or drawings of creatures) on the staff or flag of arjuna's chariot, so the ape/vanara was not the only beast who was present. You could also carefully read the battles of virata parva & kurukshetra, nowhere did this 'ape of arjuna's vehicle' BURN any of his opponents during a fight with them.

Rajsooya Yudh.
Quote;
"Making this earth tremble with the sound of his drums, the clatter of his chariot-wheels, and the roar of the elephants in his train."
Note - here attention was only given to the roars of elephants in arjuna's army, not a random ape from the flagstaff of his chariot.
Gandharv War: 'Pandavas thus cased in mail, and mounted on those chariots furnished with flagstaffs and armed with bows and arrows, looked like blazing fires.' https://sacred-texts.com/hin/m03/m03242.htm
Note; where is the special importance to the banner of arjuna's chariot? Maybe cause it was not special in anyway Vaisampayan/Souti refused to elaborate upon the vehicle or it's flag this time.
=
Apes can be summoned by roudrastra: "as soon as it had been hurled, there appeared on the scene by thousands, forms of deer, and of lions, and of tigers, and of bears and of buffaloes, and of serpents, and of kine, and of sarabhas, and of elephants, and of apes in multitudes."
[end quote]
Logic; It's entirely a possibility the ape on arjuna's flag-staff was one that manifested as a result of a roudrastra that either Arjuna himself or a different being utilized. This could easily happen as Krishna, Shiva both possessed the weapon.
Here apes were mentioned as living alongside gandharvas of Kuber's empire;
[Start] "And they also saw hillocks teeming with various minerals, thronged with Vidyadharas, inhabited on all sides by monkeys and Kinnaras and Kimpurushas, and Gandharvas, and filled with peacocks, and chamaras, and apes, and rurus, and bears, and gavayas, and buffaloes, intersected with a network of rivulets, and inhabited by various birds and beasts, and beautified by elephants, and abounding in trees and enraptured birds."
Comment - after the word chamaras & before the word rurus. Maybe one of them was the portrait of the vanara decorated as the banner of Arjuna's vehicle.

Garood was on arjuna's flag;
"And Agni gave unto the son of Pritha the excellent bow Gandiva and a quiver that was inexhaustible, and a war-chariot bearing the figure of Garuda on its standard."
So it was not hanuman. Rather it was garuda instead, yet hindus gave all credit to hanumana instead.
=
Hanuman alternating or shapeshifting his physical size is not impressive.
Iravan also edited his own form/appearance:
"That Naga, O king, assumed a huge form mighty as Ananta himself. With diverse kinds of Nagas then he covered the Rakshasa."
Logic - he basically turned himself into seshnaag (who is at minimum superior to hanutati).
A user of antardhan astra could do it.
[Quote]
"By the Antardhana weapon all these were made to disappear. Now the beloved one of his preceptor (Arjuna) appeared tall and now short; now he was seen on the yoke of his car, and now on the car itself; and the next moment he was on the ground."
[Ending]
Basically - Karna, Drona, Arjuna all three had the weapon so they could also change their own form, appearance/physicality.
=
Claim of hanubhakt's "he ate the entire sun itself aka Surya Dev".
Debunk:
Sarga 21 "Thereafter, when you were a boy you have see the just risen sun in the vast of forest, and deeming it to be a just ripen reddish fruit, and thinking it to be a best catch, you hopped up and flew towards sun on the sky."
Sarga 22 "Even on your flying up three hundred yojana-s, oh, brave monkey, and even when sun's radiation puffed and blown you down, you did not get into any anguish as were indefatigable."
Sarga 23 "Oh, mighty monkey, even on seeing you who are coming near the vault of heaven, Indra is captivated by anger and by his effulgence he catapulted his Thunderbolt at you."
Sarga 24 "Then, your left cheekbone, zygomatic arch, is broken when you fell down on a highest mountaintop, from thereupon your name-phrase is indeed averred as Hanumaan."
{Ending]
Logic - clearly its stated that he only made an attempt but failed in doing so, he did not eat, consume, swallow, or chow down upon the sun itself.
People say hanuman is a god because many people believe him to be one. Well my reply to that is their are even more people who worship "Allah" & prophet Muhammad, and Jesus Christ. These 3 infact have more followers than all gods in hindu religion/sanatan dharma combined.
Point - number's dont mean everything. Just having more followers than Indra will not make Hanuman more divine. Hanuman is factually not a god but Indra is one.

Him not being a form, son, amsha/avtaar (of Lord Shiva) has already been explained by me in a former post from 2021;
Reminder - hanuman having bhakt's or temples or devotees does not mean anything. The amount of supporter's that this namard hanuman has is irrelevant, it's not a valid point. Their are more Muslim's and Christian's than their are Hindus. Numbers dont decide which religion is best in life. Hanuman was never labelled a god as per Ramayana or Mahabharat.
Neither was he some incredible warrior as his bhakt's hype him up to be.

I have not used any gaalis or disrespectful language in this post the only exception being that i have called him "hanutati" as opposed to his true name. But overall i did well & was civil for most of the time in the post.
Posted by at 2 comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)