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 he 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.
"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
=
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.
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 Kuruksehtra, 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."
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."
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.
=
No comments:
Post a Comment
?