Personally, I haven't read Ved Vyasa's works to a great extent but I have tried to understand whatever I have read so far. Most of the stuff I've read are translations and descriptions - usually followed by my search for more info on the same story. Since the discussion is on Vyasa's works, I'll restrict my opinions o his works alone.
First of all, I tend to believe the works that give me the least number of doubts. A litte bit of thiking and analysis of the characters in any story will make the situation clear, like, why a person did what he did even if it was his consequence of his whim or thoughtlessness. I used to try to find logic when I want to choose the work I believe in but I feel that this criterion should be omitted for Mahabharata. The Mahabharata and the related stories are based more on the choices a person made and its consequences rather than the choices to be made. As for Hari Vamsa, it seems to be a catalog or list of facts and events rather than a epic or novel.
This is a guess of mine and I may be wrong. It may be that Vyasa was interested in writing as much as possible on the Kurus and Yadhus and may have been researching on their lineage. If this is true, he may have written more as and when he got more information and hence he may have written different versions in his own works.
Thus, I stick to my method of following what gives me the least number of doubts. I am willing to piece together parts from different works so as to get a clearer picture. I believe that restricting myself to a single work will only narrow down my view. For example,the Pandavas were said to travel South on pilgrimages and expeditions. The versions of the South may give more details on their journeys. I am not too rigid in what I believe though I am strong in my own opinions. If anyone manages to convince me otherwise, I do change my opinions too.
Sorry if this explanation was too boring. I tried to put in the right words 😳
Edited by Vibhishna - 13 years ago
