Portrayal of Krishna in MB and SBh - Page 2

Speaking purely from rational POV, FP is correct. SB is thought to be a a much later text after Krishna was accepted as God. In fact, core MBh is thought to have no divinity whatsoever. Linguistically speaking, only 1st 4 chapters of Bhagavad Gita are thought to be part of original MBh, the rest being later interpolation.

Well I cannot talk about whole how people react to difference in potryaal of krishna in sbh and mahabharat

But what ever I see with my eyes and heard people do consider Lord krishna as their ideal / mahapursh / god . Because I see many people keep geeta book respectfully in pooja room. They don't touch geeta book with out taking bath and don't touch srimadh bhagwat too without taking bath and even brush their teeth or rinse their mouth before reading geeta book and shree madh bhagwat because for them geeta and srimadh bhagwat is holy granth and all these things reaction show that those people who I have seen with my eyes and heard that they consider Lord krishna as God

And I think those who consider krishna as God then will see no difference between krishna in mahabharat and krishna in srimadh bhagwat but yes when people read about krishna in mahabharat it creates curosity to know more about lord krishna leela as there is less description of Lord krishna leela in mahabharat so they refer to shree madh bhagwat so they organize shree madh bhagwat katha ( which is for one week) or go to listen shree madh bhagwat katha to know more about glory of Lord

krishna with devotion

And I think it is mention in shree madh bhagwat that ved vyas was not satisfied even after composing mahabharat and purans he thought some things is missing and he was restless and I think with the advice of narad muni ved vyas wrote shree madh bhagwat

Originally posted by: proteeti

Okay I am very curious to know your opinions on this one:

Suppose we take both the scriptures of Mahabharata and Srimad Bhagavatham at their face value.

Then, SBh was narrated to Parikshit, and MB was narrated to Janmejaya.

Excellent Q's, Pro! 👍🏼

@bold

OMG? 😲 I never knew this.

What was the need to narrate different scriptures to Parikshit and later on to his son Janmejaya ? 😕

Wouldn't narrating the same one which his father heard suffice? 🤔

However I read in shree madh bhagwat that murkhon ne shree krishna ko manushaya samajh liya hai

I will share skandh number and chapter number where this line is written

It is written in skandh number 10 chapter no 23 that is grace on yag wives that yagpatinyon pur kripa

Where Lord krishna send his friends to bhraman that mera naam lekar un bhramon se bhaat ( rice) maang lena

When Lord krishna friends request bhraman to give them bhaat these bhraman did not pay attention to those children

And then shuk dev told to parishit that those bhraman was child in their knowledge but they think themselves very high learn people and then shuk dev addresses those bhraman as murkh ( foolish) ki murkhon ne bhagwan shree krishna ko bhi ordinary human maana aur Lord krishna ki respect nahi kiya

Here shuk dev want to say that Lord krishna is always God but there were people in mahabharat as well in shree madh bhagwat that due to their arrogance they don't think Lord krishna as God

Krishna comes out as God in both texts. But, the prime focus of Mahabharata isn't the bhakti aspect. In SB, however, focus is exclusively on Krishna followed by his devotees.

Shreemadh bhagwat is summary of all God katha except Lord krishnha which is written in detail . Shreemadh bhagwat was written because it is said that in kaliyug no body have much time to read all holy granth of God like vishnu puran shiv puran ganesh ank

So ved vyas compile all God katha in one holy granth book shreemadh bhagwat and write summmary of God katha so that one can read or heard about God katha with in limit time

Another thing mahabharat and shreemadh bhagwat was written in dwapar yug but both mahabharat and shreemadh bhagwat were narrated in kaliyug

Because kaliyug enter when parikshit was left alone in forest

Shreemadh bhagwat was narrated to parikshit then at time kaliyug has just started then a time people have more faith in God because at that time there was not much bad effect of kaliyug

And mahabharat was also narrated in kaliyug but it is not clear it is narrated just after parikshit death or after when kaliyug pass 30,,40years ?

If mahabharat is narrated just after kaliyug pass 1week mean just after parikshi death then at that time people might consider Lord krishna God in mahabharat text too but it is narrated after kaliyug pass 40years then kaliyug might showing his bad effect due to its passing age and due to bad effect of kaliyug people might have started doubt whether Lord krishna is God or not

Some how age of any yug also change people reaction , belief, thought about God

Thanks everyone for your valuable inputs. I really appreciate all POVs! So maybe people were too much free and gullible at the same time. 😆

Originally posted by: Swetha-Sai

Excellent Q's, Pro! 👍🏼

@bold

OMG? 😲 I never knew this.

What was the need to narrate different scriptures to Parikshit and later on to his son Janmejaya ? 😕

Wouldn't narrating the same one which his father heard suffice? 🤔

So far as I remember, Janmejaya was somewhat of a baby. I remember reading one part in my Bengali version where Parikshit before dying appoints his Proime Minister as the regent until Janmejaya grows up.

Also, Janmejaya specifically asks his ministers ke "What happened to my Dad that he died?" If he doesn't at all remember what happened he also probably doesn't remember SBh. Hence, the requirement of MB retelling later.

As far as why nobody else told him these stories: due to the prevailing oral tradition based education system, storytelling was high-end art. Not everybody could do it. So, it was always recommended that if you needed info/story/entertainment/anything you go to the sages who were professionally trained for this specific form of conversation/storytelling.

Most such Veda/Purana retelling used the 8-syllables in a quarter Anushtupa chhanda as the rhythm. (It is still used for Veda-patha today).

Just my two cents.

I do think the stories about Krishna's tryst with cream and butter and women is not true. Now one may ask then what about MB Krishna's childhood. I don't know but even if we take it as he was raised by Yashoda and Nandalal, then too stories where a young man steals clothes of women while they're bathing doesn't give much a pretty picture of Krishna. I don't think this whole picture goes with the Krishna we know in Mahabharat.

Now coming to Geeta and MB, Mahabharat we know today is a product of time and tales. In fact, as Dr Bhaduri clearly states it isn't written by one person is VYASA. Vyasa is more like a post IMO, and the whole epic was definitely not by Parashar's son aka Krishna Dwaipayana. That's why probably VYASA is said to be immortal. That's why Dr Bhaduri always mentions "Mahabharat's poet" in his writings, not Vyasa or any other name.

Hence, it is obvious that not all those who contributed to the epic are of the same opinion. Some stuck to Krishna's exceptional intelligence and some made a God out of him. Hence so many contradictions. Now, from my reading, I do feel initial narratives did not show Krishna as divine or an incarnation or having magical abilities. Later authors did add onto this, and Bhagwat Geeta is a much later piece of writing. Scholars including Iravati Karvye states that only first few chapters of the Bhagwat Geeta is part of the epic.

Hence, I believe painting figures like Ram and Krishna in divine light is the doing of later writers and authors and a result of the arrival of several Gods and Goddesses in Hinduism.

Having said that, time has done it's job. I too like to see things without divine perspectives and in a rational way. But apart from completely unbelievable things (hiding the sun, holding Govardhana in a finger, giving supply of saree from nowhere which are absolutely impossible) if we completely remove everything remotely unnatural, the epic loses its essence.

For example, the concept of Karma, reincarnation, rebirth, the importance of words and vows, values which today we cannot relate to should not be completely removed. Numerous authors today have given the epic it's form and the story that it is today. If we remove most of what it is today, then the story doesn't remain as fascinating as it is. Krishna is an exceptional figure, and he'll remain so and he doesn't NEED to be divine to be exceptional :)