|| Indian Mythology:: Doubts & Discussions ||

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

proteeti

@sambhavami

Stunner

+ 12

Posted: 9 years ago

#511

Originally posted by: Aradhana87

That one I read but Dussehra is never celebrated in february or march.

That's what we were joking about, that the seasons might have changed. 😃

Quote

proteeti

@sambhavami

Stunner

+ 12

Posted: 9 years ago

#512

Originally posted by: SenRazia
Hey guys I'm new here but I'm a big BIG fan of Indian History and mythology.. This is seriously one of the most educative and useful forums!!

Hello @SenRazia! Glad to meet you! 😃 Why don't you introduce yourself here?

Quote

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

varaali

@varaali

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 9 years ago

#513

Originally posted by: Surya_krsnbhakt
Well, if you see on page 63, I had posted the things done by Rama's Sena during the 10 months Sita Devi was in Lanka. So according to Valmiki Ramayana, Hanuman went to and fro Lanka in the moth of Phalguna, which is February to March. And So Rama returned to Ayodhya in Chaitra, which is March to April, not during Dipavali, October-November time. I have also posted a question at the end of the post... what about Dipavali?

Nope. You 've got it all wrong.

As per Valmiki Ramayana Rama and Co reach Nandigrama on the sixth day of the Shukla paksha of the month of Ashwini . (Ref Yuddhakanda / 125/24)

From www.valmikiramayan.net

drakShyasi = you can see; raaghavam = Rama; adyaiva = here itself today; bharadvaajaanuJNaatam = when he has been duly permitted by Bharadwaja the sage; uShitvaa = after spending; muneH = vachanaat = at the instance of the sage; raajaniim = for a night; paN^chamiim = of the fifth lunar day (of the bright half of the month of Ashvayuja).

"You can see Rama here itself today, when he has been duly permitted by Bharadwaja the sage, after spending, at the instance of the sage, for a night of the fifth lunar day (of the bright half of the month of Ashvayuja)."

Edited by varaali - 9 years ago

Quote

Surya Sundarraj Sriram

@Surya_krsnbhakt

Dazzler

Posted: 9 years ago

#514

Originally posted by: varaali
n

Nope. You 've got it all wrong.

As per Valmiki Ramayana Rama and Co reach Nandigrama on the sixth day of the Shukla paksha of the month of Ashwini . (Ref Yuddhakanda / 125/24)

From www.valmikiramayan.net

drakShyasi = you can see; raaghavam = Rama; adyaiva = here itself today; bharadvaajaanuJNaatam = when he has been duly permitted by Bharadwaja the sage; uShitvaa = after spending; muneH = vachanaat = at the instance of the sage; raajaniim = for a night; paN^chamiim = of the fifth lunar day (of the bright half of the month of Ashvayuja).

"You can see Rama here itself today, when he has been duly permitted by Bharadwaja the sage, after spending, at the instance of the sage, for a night of the fifth lunar day (of the bright half of the month of Ashvayuja)."

Ah.

Thanks for that. But then how does it explain the Vanara's searching, which would have taken nearly 1 year and 4-5 months then?

(Besides, not to bother you, but in all places, Ashvajuja is given in brackets. Why?)

Edited by Surya_krsnbhakt - 9 years ago

Quote

varaali

@varaali

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 9 years ago

#515

The entire search and rescue mission plus War take place in the month of Bhadrapada.

The rainy months that are referred it the Kishkinda kanda are not 4 months, but 4 pakshas (covering the months of Ashadha and Sravana-)

Quote

Surya Sundarraj Sriram

@Surya_krsnbhakt

Dazzler

Posted: 9 years ago

#516

Originally posted by: varaali
The entire search and rescue mission plus War take place in the month of Bhadrapada.

The rainy months that are referred it the Kishkinda kanda are not 4 months, but 4 pakshas (covering the months of Ashadha and Sravana-)

But it is specifically mentioned that they gather during Ashvayuja and start their search during Margashirsha.

I shall post a reference later. it must be there, see my post on page 63.

Quote

proteeti

@sambhavami

Stunner

+ 12

Posted: 9 years ago

#517

I remember reading somewhere that whatever Krishna did (or did not do) for the Pandavs was actually a plan to rectify a long-standing injustice.

I did some digging around, and I found out about the Devayani-Yayayi-Sharmishtha story. There, the kingdom is passed not to the rightful heir Yadu but to the youngest, Sharmishtha-putra Puru.

So that makes things a bit simpler, i.e. Krishna's actions directly and indirectly were aimed at rectifying that age-old mistake, which he does accomplish when Parikshit sits on the throne.

So that means,

The Kuru dynasty was indeed finished when all three sons of Shantanu (Bheeshma, Chitrangad and Vichitraveerya) died childless.

Then, the son of Shudra-Brahmin Ved Vyaas and the Kshatriya Kashi princess Ambalika, Pandu is born, who is married to Yadava Kunti.

Pandu is childless, so the Shudra-Brahmin-Kshatriya lineage is done with.

Kunti gets her five sons from the Devas with Brahmin-like qualities.

Of them, Arjun marries the Yadava Subhadra.

Abhimanyu dies in the war, but his son Parikshit is almost a Yadava.

So, when Parikshit comes to reign, he rules over Hastinapur (virtually) jointly with the Yadava ruler Vajra who has his capital in Mathura. Thus, finally after thus eons that error of Yayati is corrected by the Mahabharata and the two friendly Kings rule over almost the entire continent of India.

Now, this is just my assumption based on whatever little poking around I've done. I might have gone wrong anywhere. This thing has been bugging me since a long time, and I really want to get to the end of this. So, help me? 😳

Edited by Radhikerani - 9 years ago

Quote

draupadidevi

@draupadidevi

Explorer

Posted: 9 years ago

#518

Your point of argument is highly appreciable. But this may be one point of interpretation. Actually Yadu was dethroned because he had disobeyed his father's request and Puru got the opportunity because of his selfless devotion to his father. Though during the epic age it was a general norm to appoint the eldest son as the next heir of the throne but in extreme cases the ruler had the authority to judge the whole issue from moral and logical perspectives. It happened in the case of Puru and Yadu. Yudhisthir was appointed as the crown prince not only of him being the eldest son of the Kuru clan but he and his brothers had proved their ability. So we can not explain Pariksht's appoint as a redress of any injustice rather if Krishna Vasudeva was present during the Yajati he would do the same. Please remember that he initiated the destruction of his rotten clan by himself.

We may interpret the Pariksht-Vajra era as a coincidence and here we can get the justification for Arjun-Subhadra marriage.

Quote

Janaki

@RamKiSeeta

Achiever

+ 6

Posted: 9 years ago

#519

Proteeti, your explanation makes sense and is quite interesting!

I never agreed with Yayati's decision to crown Puru over Yadu. In fact, I found Yayati as a character quite selfish. He was so obsessed with his materialistic life that he wanted his sons to sacrifice their youth to keep him young. What kind of father asks his son for such a sacrifice? Yayati was not justified in his request and thus I do not fault Yadu for refusing him. Puru may have been a selfless son, but Yayati was no virtuous father.

The eldest son and heir is only not made King if he behaves unrighteous, but what wrong did Yadu commit? He merely refused to indulge his father's selfish lifestyle. I think it was very wrong of Yayati to dethrone his son. It was not at all justified.

So I always was happy that Krishna chose to be born into Yadu's lineage instead of Puru's. He glorified Yadu's clan and yes, in the end, it is Yadu's descendant that regains Yayati's kingdom, as it should have happened eons ago.

Quote

proteeti

@sambhavami

Stunner

+ 12

Posted: 9 years ago

#520

Originally posted by: draupadidevi
Your point of argument is highly appreciable. But this may be one point of interpretation. Actually Yadu was dethroned because he had disobeyed his father's request and Puru got the opportunity because of his selfless devotion to his father. Though during the epic age it was a general norm to appoint the eldest son as the next heir of the throne but in extreme cases the ruler had the authority to judge the whole issue from moral and logical perspectives. It happened in the case of Puru and Yadu. Yudhisthir was appointed as the crown prince not only of him being the eldest son of the Kuru clan but he and his brothers had proved their ability. So we can not explain Pariksht's appoint as a redress of any injustice rather if Krishna Vasudeva was present during the Yajati he would do the same. Please remember that he initiated the destruction of his rotten clan by himself.
We may interpret the Pariksht-Vajra era as a coincidence and here we can get the justification for Arjun-Subhadra marriage.

Yes, I agree with you, but was the curse really an extreme situation? No offence, but personally I feel Yayati should have abdicated the throne in favour of Yadu because at that point it was he, who was at fault, and not any of his children. Also, Shukrachaarya had mentioned specifically that the curse won't shift unless someone would volunteer.

Given how Yadu's dynasty flourishes after him, it is clear that he was an extremely able ruler. When all the brothers displayed similar capabilities, was it not logical to appoint the eldest, which was also in confirmation with the prevalent norm?

Quote

1 ... 50 51 52 53 54 ... 56

|| Indian Mythology:: Doubts & Discussions || - Page 52

Related Topics

Explore Topics