|| Indian Mythology:: Doubts & Discussions ||

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

Surya Sundarraj Sriram

@Surya_krsnbhakt

Dazzler

Posted: 10 years ago

#481

Originally posted by: Urmila11
Regarding Balaram, I too have a confusion. To me he does seem to be an innocent mind who believes in every word even they are Duri's words. In Van Parva I have seen both him and Krishna weeping to see Pandavas in grief. There Balaram even suggested Yudhi to stop exile at midway and start war with the help of Yadav army. But when the exile ended, the same Balaram scolded Yudhi in Udyoga Parva in front of all. There he said that Duri, Shakuni did not do anything wrong. Then Satyaki protested and Balaram became silent. I cannot understand this part. How did his POV change? Who changed it? Duri? I mean did Duri meet Dau and tell him something (lie of course) and Dau believed in them innocently? Otherwise I don't see any valid reason behind it. Also the fact that he did not protest against Satyaki's words shows me that he actually knew the real fact beforehand but somehow his knowledge was twisted in between. This makes my doubt stronger.
Please do not misunderstand me, I am a devotee of Lord Shesh. This is just a question from my researcher mind. I know that he was doing his leelas but why was this acting necessary?

Like I said, Baladeva's leelas are not understandable to mere mortals like us!

But anyway, I think the reason is the same, he wanted to perform his other leelas of liberating Romaharshana, oh and killing Palvala, and visiting the temples of India.

Since I haven't read the Mahabharata in detail (I only know the basic plot and few subplots), i can't profess to have deep understanding of Balarama's words.

Can we look at it like this? If Balarama, the same Balarama who invited Yudhi to take his army and fight Duryodhana, shrugs of the actual war, would it look believable to Dury and Shakuni?

And if he had participated, he couldn't have executed his leelas to his full extent. Therefore, he had to give a valid reason. So, he pretended to support Duryodhana and oppose Yudhi's 'war mongering', so that Yudhi also could understand Balarama's unwillingness to participate, whereas Duryodhana would understand it as Balarama's support of him - the only reason of non-participation being Krsna, who was Arjuna's charioteer, therefore, Balarama couldn't join the enemy's army.

Satisfying the judgement of both the armies, and giving justifiable reasons for non-participation, he was able to remain a non-participant in this task, and complete the other half of the avatara purpose. That is, while krsna was doing Dukshritam Vinasha, he was doing Sadhunaam Paritrana, and together, they were executing Dharma Samsthapana.

I hope Krsna is satisfied with this interpretation of his leelas.

Quote

Semanti Chakraborty

@DharmaPriyaa

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 10 years ago

#482

Thank you Surya. Now it makes sense. I love your last para 👏 yes, they were doing Dharma samsthapana together.

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

Janaki

@RamKiSeeta

Achiever

+ 6

Posted: 10 years ago

#483

Balarama and Krishna are two very complex incarnations of God. In comparison, Ram and Lakshman were much simpler to understand, not because they were any less in prowess or valor, but because they behaved as humans throughout their life in order for other humans to understand and relate with them.

Balarama on the other hand, leaves us feeling quite perplexed. My view on the whole Duryodhan issue is - I don't think Balarama ever supported him or his actions. After all, how could he ever support the insult of an innocent woman, or the robbery of his cousins' hard-earned kingdom? I just think Balarama respected his skill in mace fighting. Balarama was an impartial teacher who treated everyone the same regardless or their choices or actions. To him, Duryodhan was the student he was proud of for achieving mastery in his special skill. Bheem was also very skilled too, of course, but he relied more on his strength and was often prone to anger and impulsive behavior if anyone endangered or insulted his family (bring to mind anyone we know and love from the Ramayana? 😉). Bheem was fiercely loyal to his family and he'd do anything to protect them, even if it meant breaking the rules of warfare. This was something Balarama could not tolerate.

It's actually quite interesting that Balarama could not tolerate the same behavior he himself displayed as Lakshman in his previous incarnation. Lakshman too was fiercely loyal and couldn't take it if anyone behaved in an unrighteous way, especially towards his brother. He was prepared to use the brahmastra against indrajit, even if it meant breaking rules of warfare, but Ram stopped him. To Bheem and Lakshman, upholding righteousness was the goal of the respective wars they fought, even if it meant fighting unethically at times. The end justified the means.

It's almost as if Ram and Lakshman switched personalities in their next incarnation. Ram became Krishna, who taught people that sometimes unjust people must be dealt with in an unjust way, because ethics will never work on them, while Lakshman became Balarama, who was a staunch follower of rules quite like Ram.

Anyway, back to Balarama - I don't think Duryodhan was his favorite person in the world. He never supported his intent behind the war, and he remained neutral because choosing either side would be against his ethics. He could not outright support Duryodhan's side, because he knew it was the side of adharma and supporting it would be equal to supporting adharma. Moreover, he could never be opposite Krishna in anything. He was Krishna's shadow, Krishna's protector, his best friend. He loved his little brother fiercely, far more than he ever loved Duryodhan. And yet he could not join the Pandavas because Duryodhan was still dear to him, even though he knew the Pandavas' side represented Dharma, and he did not want to give his beloved student the dilemma of facing his guru in battle and fighting him.

Balarama was a very complex character. It's hard to say what he truly felt or thought, but it's wrong to think he ever supported Duryodhan or Duryodhan's side in the war. He never supported adharma, he only liked Duryodhan for being "student of the year". Duryodhan was to him like Arjun was to Dronacharya.

Quote

Vrish

@Vr15h

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 10 years ago

#484

Regarding Balarama, in Udyog Parva, it's mentioned that he urged both Duryodhan & Arjun not to go to war. But if one reads Shalya Parva - the part where Balarama arrives at the scene, they spend a few chapters describing what he did just before, and there, it's said that before the war, he urged Krishna to join the Kaurava side. So in Vyasa's work, we have all the 3 possible accounts of what Balarama could have done in the real story - support the Pandavas, be neutral, support the Kauravas.

So to paraphrase Eminem, will the real Balarama please stand up?

Quote

proteeti

@sambhavami

Stunner

+ 12

Posted: 10 years ago

#485

A really nice explanation Janudi! Loved it and agree with all you've said.

And, OMG, Vrish Bhaiya, this makes the things much more complicated! I'm getting confused! I think Vyaas Dev was (*catching my ears*) confused himself, so as to how to explain Balraam's neutrality in the war! Or maybe, he kept forgetting what he had wrote earlier. After all, keeping up with Ganeshji is not a cakewalk!

Quote

Janaki

@RamKiSeeta

Achiever

+ 6

Posted: 10 years ago

#486

I wonder how long Ram and Lakshman traveled in the jungles before reaching Kishkindha. We know for sure that Sitaji was in Lanka for a total of 10 months, and out of those 10 months, 4 months were wasted in inactivity due to the monsoons after Sugriva's rajyabhishek. So where did the other 6 months go?

How long did Ram and Lakshman travel on foot to reach Kishkindha?

How long did the vanar sena search for Sita on foot after the monsoons, before Hanuman reached Lanka?

We know Hanuman was in Lanka for only 1 1/2 day, and to travel there it took him only a few hours, right? After Hanuman returned to Kishkindha, Ramji and the vanar sena travelled to the banks of the ocean right away, but how long did it take them? They all travelled on foot, so it might have taken them a month or two, or maybe some weeks.

It took 8 days to build the bridge and 11 days to battle with Ravan's army, so all the significant time of Sita's abduction had to have happened before then.

I wonder if Valmiki Ramayan has these details. Does anyone know?

Quote

proteeti

@sambhavami

Stunner

+ 12

Posted: 10 years ago

#487

I'm sorry, I'm of no use when it comes to Ramayan...I haven't even read the Valmiki version completely (I'm trying, though...)!
But most of the other books that I've read say that the Vanar Sena searched for Seetaji for one month before Hanuman&Jambavaan and co. came across Jatayu's brother(?).

Quote

Surya Sundarraj Sriram

@Surya_krsnbhakt

Dazzler

Posted: 10 years ago

#488

Originally posted by: ..RamKiJanaki..
I wonder how long Ram and Lakshman traveled in the jungles before reaching Kishkindha. We know for sure that Sitaji was in Lanka for a total of 10 months, and out of those 10 months, 4 months were wasted in inactivity due to the monsoons after Sugriva's rajyabhishek. So where did the other 6 months go?
How long did Ram and Lakshman travel on foot to reach Kishkindha?
How long did the vanar sena search for Sita on foot after the monsoons, before Hanuman reached Lanka?

We know Hanuman was in Lanka for only 1 1/2 day, and to travel there it took him only a few hours, right? After Hanuman returned to Kishkindha, Ramji and the vanar sena travelled to the banks of the ocean right away, but how long did it take them? They all travelled on foot, so it might have taken them a month or two, or maybe some weeks.

It took 8 days to build the bridge and 11 days to battle with Ravan's army, so all the significant time of Sita's abduction had to have happened before then.

I wonder if Valmiki Ramayan has these details. Does anyone know?

In Aranya Kanda, after listening to Jatayu's words, they travel westwards through a dense jungle called Krauncha Vana, which stretches many km, so even counting their speed, they must have taken at least a week to cross the jungle. Then the fight Kabandha, and are directed to Sugreeva's ashrama. They proceed further west, towards Shabari's ashrama, which must have taken another week.

Then just nearby them is Pampa Lake, a few km away I think. That would have been a day or two journey.

They reach Rishyamuka hill.

So till now they have travelled for approximately two to three weeks (if we take into account their resting hours, their trysts with jungle animals and rakshasas.) Resting for a day in Rishyamukha, where Rama pierces the Sala trees, they travel for one more day to Kishkindha.

After fighting with Vali, SUgreeva once more flees to Rishyamukha and back, so that is two more days. on the way, they halt at Saptajana Ashrama. Add another day.😆

Vali's funeral occurs, which then takes a few days, for all the rituals (?) put together.

So that is roughly a month, and then the rainy season starts. So five months are done. (Phew!)

After that, Hanuman and Sugreeva despatch Nila to summon all the Vanaras within half a month.

Due to Sugreeva's carelessness, some more days lapse. So they are summoned in end of Ashviyuja month, and wasted the whole of Kartika month, and then in Margazhi, they are summoned once more.

The vanaras search for a month.

So we have seven and a half months done.

The vanaras waste half more month in Svayamprabha's cave. Thus, eight months over.

Then Hanuman, takes his travel to Lanka and comes back in a day, and it takes the vanaras fifteen days to come back?

Eight and a half months over.

It takes maximum half to one month to go to Lanka with the army?

Nine and a quarter (😆) months over.

Then the war.

That is it. Ten Months!