|| Indian Mythology:: Doubts & Discussions ||

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

Janaki

@RamKiSeeta

Achiever

+ 6

Posted: 13 years ago

#81

Originally posted by: visrom
I had a question with respect to the timelines of Ramayan and Mahabharat.

Rishi Vishwamitra was doing penance when Menaka came to distract him and they both had a daughter - Shakuntala. She married Dushayant and had a son named Bharat. As per B R Chopra's Mahabharat, Bharat named Shantanu his successor. So the Pandavas and Kauravas are 6 generations below Dushyant.

But during this time, Vishwamitra became a Brahmarishi and went to Ayodhya to take Ram and Lakshman to Mithila. As per this, I feel Ram and Shantanu should have lived around the same time.

Do you think there is some kind of an overlap in the timelines? I find it confusing. Could you please tell me your views?

Shantanu was not the successor of Bharata, so I guess BRC showed it wrong. I searched for Shantanu on wikipedia and this is what I found. Shatanu definitely descended from whomever was Bharata's successor, but I don't think he was the direct successor. Since the Rig Veda is used as a source here, I guess it's accurate?

Shantanu (Sanskrit: ?????) was a Kuru king of Hastinapura, who is mentioned in the great epic of the Mahabharata. He was a descendant of the Bharata race, of the lunar dynasty and the ancestor of the Pandavas and the Kauravas. The Rigveda (X.98.11) mentions Shantanu.^[1] He was the youngest son of King Pratipa of Hastinapura and had been born in the latter's old age. The eldest son Devapi suffered from leprosy and abdicated his inheritance to become a hermit. The middle son Balhika devoted his life to conquer Balkh.^{[citation needed]} Shantanu become the king of Hastinapura by default.

Quote

Janaki

@RamKiSeeta

Achiever

+ 6

Posted: 13 years ago

#82

There was a huge gap between Bharata and Shantanu...here's the complete order of his descendents before Shatanu. This is again from wikipedia, so if I'm wrong someone please correct me.

Bharata gave his name to the race of which he was the founder. And it is from him that the fame of that dynasty has spread so wide. In the Bharata race there have been born many godlike monarchs gifted with great power and devoted to truth and honesty. It is in Bharata's dynasty that, later, righteous men like the Pandavas were born.

Bharata begat upon his three wives nine sons in all. But none of them were like their father and so Bharata was not at all pleased with them. Their mothers, therefore, became angry and slew them all. The procreation of children by Bharata, therefore, became vain. The monarch then performed a great sacrifice called "mourisoma" and through the grace of Bharadwaja obtained a son named Bhumanyu.^[5]^[6] Then Bharata, the great descendant of Puru, regarding himself as really possessing a son, installed that son as his heir-apparent.

Bhumanyu married Vijaya, the daughter of Dasarha.^[4] He begat upon her a son Suhotra.

Suhotra married Suvarna, the daughter of Ikshvaku. To her was born a son named Hasti who founded the city called Hastinapura.

Hasti married Yasodhara, the princess of Trigarta, and of her was born a son named Vikunthana

Vikunthana married Sudeva, the princess of Dasarha, and by her was born a son named Ajamidha. Ajamidha had four wives named Raikeyi, Gandhari, Visala and Riksha.

In his wife Riksha, Ajamidha begat Samvarana.

Samvarana married Tapati, the daughter of Vivaswat and begat a son named Kuru. Kuru was exceedingly virtuous, and therefore, he was installed on the throne by his people. It is after his name that the field called Kuru-jangala has become so famous in the world. Devoted to asceticism, he made that field (Kurukshetra) sacred by practising asceticism there.

Kuru married Subhangi, the princess of Dasarha. He begat on her a son named Viduratha

Viduratha took to wife Supriya. He begat upon her a son named Anaswan.

Anaswan married Amrita, the daughter of the Madhavas. And of her was born a son named Parikshit.

Parikshit married Suvasa, the daughter of the Vahudas, and begat upon her a son named Bhimasena.

Bhimasena married Kumari, the princess of Kekaya and begat upon her Pratisravas.

Pratisravas's son was Pratipa.

Pratipa married Sunanda, the daughter of Shibi, and begat upon her three sons, viz., Devapi, Santanu and Valhika. Devapi, while still a boy, adopted the ascetic course of life and entered the woods as a hermit. Santanu became king.^[7]

Quote

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

visrom

@visrom

Stunner

+ 4

Posted: 13 years ago

#83

So, the Bharat dynasty was far before Dashrath and Ayodhya and Ramayan as per this time line?

Also as per your post there is an Ikshvaku in the Bharat dynasty, who is also said to be an ancestor of Dashrath. This Ikshvaku's grandson founded Hastinapur? This is fascinating. How come there is no mention of Hastinapur in Ramayan?

Edited by visrom - 13 years ago

Quote

Vrish

@Vr15h

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 13 years ago

#84

I dunno whether there is any co-relation b/w the times that Dushyant lived and the time that Dasharath lived. I think a reading of Adi Parva might reveal that (I haven't read much of it myself). In it, the termination of Shatrughan's dynasties in Mathura & Vidiisha is described. Unlike Shrimad Bhagvatam, the Mahabharata is more or less chronological, so if the description of the end of Shatrughan's dynasties precedes Dushyant, one has one's answer.

LJR is correct that what was shown in BRC was not accurate. Particularly the first episode where Bharat (Shakuntala-nandan, not Kaikeyi-nandan) declared that his sons were unworthy and announced Bhumanyu as his successor. Actually, contrary to the whitewash that the Mahabhashana did to almost all characters, good & bad, Bharat was a narcissist who whenever his queens presented him w/ a son, he'd tell them that that didn't look like him 🤢, and the queens, fearful that he'd get rid of them, would kill the unwanted babies 😡 So later, when there was the risk of his dynasty going extinct, he performed an yagna & pleased the Marutt gods who gave him a son named Vitatha, who continued his race.

Vithata was not a mere common citizen. Once when Brihaspati forcibly tried to impregnate an already pregnant brother's wife Mamata, his seed was denied entry & expelled by the fetus she already had. This seed gave birth to Vitatha, who was rejected by both Brihaspati (the original deadbeat) and Mamata. So the Marutt gods raised him, and gave him to Bharata when the time came, and he was made the successor to the dynasty.

No word on whether Vithata resembled Bharat 😈

My source here ain't online - it's from a book 'Who is who in the Mahabharata' by Subash Mazumdar

Quote

Janaki

@RamKiSeeta

Achiever

+ 6

Posted: 13 years ago

#85

Vrish, that's a really different account of King Bharat that you just wrote. Even without taking BRC's MB into consideration, Bharat was said to be a big Dharmatma under whose rule no one was ever unhappy. I read a translation of the Mahabharata and in it, it described Bharat as a righteous King whose people all loved him, and he was so righteous that he never let attachment for his sons override his judgment (unlike Dhritarastra). He did not appoint any of his nine sons as his heir because they were all incompetent. They were the ones who were narcissistic and selfish, not King Bharat. Upon the advise of his Guru, Bharat performed a yagna and beget a 10th son who was embodied with all the good qualities of an ideal King. This was Bhumanyu.

I feel King Bharat set a really good example to all the monarchs after him who let their sons be Kings despite having bad qualities. It is true that our scriptures do not say that the eldest son of a King has to be the next ruler...he is only the next ruler if he is competent. Otherwise, his brothers would be heirs, and even if they are incompetent as in the case of Bharat's sons, then someone else whom the King deems competent becomes the King. Except in King Bharat's case, it was not a random person off the streets. It was actually his 10th son born for the purpose of becoming the rightful heir.

One thing I find disturbing though is Bharat's wives killing their own sons...just because they're not competent heirs does not mean they deserved to die.

Quote

Janaki

@RamKiSeeta

Achiever

+ 6

Posted: 13 years ago

#86

Originally posted by: visrom
So, the Bharat dynasty was far before Dashrath and Ayodhya and Ramayan as per this time line?

Also as per your post there is an Ikshvaku in the Bharat dynasty, who is also said to be an ancestor of Dashrath. This Ikshvaku's grandson founded Hastinapur? This is fascinating. How come there is no mention of Hastinapur in Ramayan?

Yeah, King Bharata ruled during the Satya Yuga as per my understanding, and since his son was not Shantanu, there's no way he and Rama could have coincided with each other.

It's indeed interesting that Ram's dynasty and the Pandavas' dynasty share a link through Ikshvaku. I never knew that either.😊

Quote

Vrish

@Vr15h

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 13 years ago

#87

Originally posted by: JanakiRaghunath
Vrish, that's a really different account of King Bharat that you just wrote. Even without taking BRC's MB into consideration, Bharat was said to be a big Dharmatma under whose rule no one was ever unhappy. I read a translation of the Mahabharata and in it, it described Bharat as a righteous King whose people all loved him, and he was so righteous that he never let attachment for his sons override his judgment (unlike Dhritarastra). He did not appoint any of his nine sons as his heir because they were all incompetent. They were the ones who were narcissistic and selfish, not King Bharat. Upon the advise of his Guru, Bharat performed a yagna and beget a 10th son who was embodied with all the good qualities of an ideal King. This was Bhumanyu.

I feel King Bharat set a really good example to all the monarchs after him who let their sons be Kings despite having bad qualities. It is true that our scriptures do not say that the eldest son of a King has to be the next ruler...he is only the next ruler if he is competent. Otherwise, his brothers would be heirs, and even if they are incompetent as in the case of Bharat's sons, then someone else whom the King deems competent becomes the King. Except in King Bharat's case, it was not a random person off the streets. It was actually his 10th son born for the purpose of becoming the rightful heir.

One thing I find disturbing though is Bharat's wives killing their own sons...just because they're not competent heirs does not mean they deserved to die.

Nothing that you wrote here contradicts my account that preceded it. Just b'cos someone was a good ruler doesn't mean that he was necessarily nice to his relatives. Take Duryodhan. He was the worst cousin one could have, but his reign wasn't marked by tyranny, or corruption, or other vices that would make the righteous flee. When Dhritarashtra left for exile, the citizens of Hastinapur thanked him for the years he ruled. Well, that was almost entirely Duryodhan's reign, the Pandavas hardly got a chance to do anything during the time that Yudhisthir was yuvraj of Hastinapur. So it was really Duryodhan that people were thanking. Other great example - Rama. He was a perfect king, except to Sita. Forgetting about his compulsions for the moment, can anyone honestly claim that Sita, as a subject of Rama, received justice? Everybody ignores that aspect by insisting on viewing her as the queen. I don't want to rehash it, except to point out that the fact that Rama was a great king doesn't mean that he wasn't unjust to Sita.

So in the above story of Bharata, if his wives killed all his sons after they were born, that by no means implied that he was not a great, or even good ruler. He could have been perfectly fine w/ everybody, except those unfortunate enough to be born to him. And if they were all killed shortly after they were born, I doubt they'd have had the opportunity to be even selfish, let alone narcissist.

Quote

Mina Rati Desai

@...Mina...

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 13 years ago

#88

i have a question !!

in new ramayan after the rajyabhishek of shri ram and sita maiya, they showed bharat ji being crowned as yuvraj, but i was really confused about this because wasn't a king's eldest son crowned as yuvraj?😲 ram ji must have known that he would have two sons later on, so why did he make bharat ji yuvraj instead of waiting for the birth of luv kush?

Quote

Janaki

@RamKiSeeta

Achiever

+ 6

Posted: 13 years ago

#89

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

Nothing that you wrote here contradicts my account that preceded it. Just b'cos someone was a good ruler doesn't mean that he was necessarily nice to his relatives. Take Duryodhan. He was the worst cousin one could have, but his reign wasn't marked by tyranny, or corruption, or other vices that would make the righteous flee. When Dhritarashtra left for exile, the citizens of Hastinapur thanked him for the years he ruled. Well, that was almost entirely Duryodhan's reign, the Pandavas hardly got a chance to do anything during the time that Yudhisthir was yuvraj of Hastinapur. So it was really Duryodhan that people were thanking. Other great example - Rama. He was a perfect king, except to Sita. Forgetting about his compulsions for the moment, can anyone honestly claim that Sita, as a subject of Rama, received justice? Everybody ignores that aspect by insisting on viewing her as the queen. I don't want to rehash it, except to point out that the fact that Rama was a great king doesn't mean that he wasn't unjust to Sita.

So in the above story of Bharata, if his wives killed all his sons after they were born, that by no means implied that he was not a great, or even good ruler. He could have been perfectly fine w/ everybody, except those unfortunate enough to be born to him. And if they were all killed shortly after they were born, I doubt they'd have had the opportunity to be even selfish, let alone narcissist.

I think I didn't make myself exactly clear. By contradiction, I mean that in your version, all of Bharat's sons were killed after birth itself, so there was no way they could be narcissistic, whereas in the version I read, they all grew up to become Princes and Bharat was dissatisfied with them because of their narcissistic personalites.

Also, there is a difference between being a good King and a Dharmatma. Duryodhan may have been a good administrator (he wasn't King though, since Dhritarastra was still ruling), but he was not a Dharmatma because of the ill deeds he did in his lifetime. Shakuntala's son Bharat is said to be a Dharmatma. He receivied his education under Maharshi Kanva and had all of Aryavrat named after him. Those who are just 'good Kings' don't receive such a boon.

Also, in the case of Shri Ram, I don't think we can include Sita as his praja, because a King and Queen are both equal in terms of ruling...Ram always considered Sita his equal, and a queen is not part of a King's praja because she helps him rule them. Also, while Ram's decision to exile Sita was solely his unlike what RSR and ASR showed, it was also Sita's later on when she did not rebel against him and agreed with Lakshman that what Ram had decided was correct.

And one thing which I always stick true to is that God cannot be unjust. Ram and Krishna did quite a few things in their avatars that can be considered controversial by people, and if ordinary humans did that, yes they would be unjust, but God did things for a reason and he is beyond being just and unjust, so I have never accepted the argument that Sita's Agni pariksha and exile were unjust decisions by Ram, because they all happened for a reason and most importantly, Ram was an avatar of God. We cannot analyze his actions like we do with normal human beings. That is why Shri Krishna is the only completely white character in Mahabharat. Even he broke several rules throughout his lifetime, but why don't people call them unjust or sins? That's because he's God and God cannot be sinful or sinless.

This is why I don't think Lord Ram is a good example to take...he was Maryada Purushotham and beyond right and wrong. Instead, we should compare Bharat to other human Kings, since he was not any avatar of God.

Anyway, getting back to the topic at hand, I think we should look to the actual Mahabharat to see what it says about King Bharat. Everywhere I've read of him says only good things about him, so I was really surprised to read your account. Is it from an actual translation of MB or just someone's interpretation/analysis?

Quote

Vrish

@Vr15h

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 13 years ago

#90

RamSitaKiDasi

The serial showed it correctly, except for one detail. Rama first offered Lakshman the post of yuvraj, but Lakshman declined. Rama kept offering it, but he kept declining. Finally, Rama offered it to Bharat.

6.128.91-92. saH mahaayashaaH= that renowned; raaghavaH= Rama; paramodaaraH= of a very generous nature; nihataariH= having destroyed his enemies; shaasan= and ruling; akhilam= the entire; raajyam= kingdom; shashaasa= enjoyed (it); parayaamudaa= with great delight; raamaH= Rama; dharmavatsalaH= affectionate of righteousness; uvaacha= spoke; lakShmaNam= to Lakshmana; dharmajJNaH= the knower of righteousness. (as follows).

That renowned Rama, of a very generous nature, having destroyed his enemies and ruling the entire kingdom, enjoyed it with a great delight. Rama, affectionate of righteousness, spoke to Lakshmana, the knower of righteousness (as followers):

6.128.93. dharmajJNa= O Lakshmana, the knower of what is right!; aatiShThaH= rule; mayaa saha= with me; imam= this; gaam= earth; puurva raajaadhyuShitaam= as ruled by the earlier kiings; balena= with the help of army; dhR^itaa= Installed; yauvaraajye= in the office of Prince Regent; tvam= you; udvahasva= bear; mayaa tulyam= like me; taam dhuram= that burden (of sovereignity); yaa= which (was borne); pitR^ibhiH= by our forefathers.

"O Lakshmana, the knower of what is right! Rule with me, this earth, as ruled by the earlier kings, with the help of an army. Installed in the office of Prince Regent, bear like me, the burden (of sovereignty), which was borne by our forefathers."

6.128.94. sarvaatmanaa parhanuniiyamaanaH= eventhough in all ways, being repeatedly entreated; yadaa= when; saumitriH= Lakshmana; nopaiti= did not give; yogam= his consent; niyujyamaano.api= nay, even being appointed; yauvaraajye= to the office of prince Regent; mahaatmaa= the great-souled Rama; tataH= thereupon; abhyaShiNchat= consecrated; bharatam= Bharata.

When Lakshmana did not give his consent, even though being repeatedly entreated in all ways, nay even being appointed to the office of Prince Regent, the great-souled Rama thereupon consecrated Bharata.

Actually, as per the rules of succession, after the king's eldest son, his younger sons would be in the line of succession. So the priority to the throne of Ayodhya was Rama, Bharat, Lakshman & Shatrughan. Since Rama didn't have any sons @ the time, Bharat automatically became yuvraj. (Similarly, in the Mahabharata, after the Pandavas won the war and Yudhisthir became king of Hastinapur, Bhima became his yuvraj.)

One thing I did find curious/interesting was that even after Kush & Luv were united w/ Rama, the latter did not make Kush yuvraj. In fact, even after Lakshman's passing, when Rama resolved to follow him, he asked Bharat to succeed him. Bharat refused to take the throne a 2nd time, and suggested that Kush be given Ayodhya, and Luv South Kosala. Rama agreed to that, and then crowned them accordingly. (Again, similarly, Bhima remained yuvraj until Yudhisthir abdicated, and then the throne was handed over to Parikshit).

One thing you are right about - the idea of having an yuvraj is to have either a 'deputy-king', if you will, for the present, or a future-king for the future. I think that in both cases, Kush & Parikshit should have been made yuvraj ahead of being crowned, so that they could hit the ground running when they became kings. It's something like being the vice captain of a cricket team - while you do want your next best leader to be the captain should the current captain be unavailable for a match/tour, it's even better to have someone somewhat younger than the current captain, so that after the current captain steps down, he can lead for a few years.

P.S. LJR, the book I took it from was a brief biography of about all the dramatis personae that one can find in the Mahabharata. If I see what Adi Parva has to say, I'll reproduce it here. Or maybe someone else can.

Edited by .Vrish. - 13 years ago

Quote

1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... 56

|| Indian Mythology:: Doubts & Discussions || - Page 9

Related Topics

Explore Topics