Mahabharata Related Discussions

First Previous

Page

Frequent Posters

Vrish

@Vr15h

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 12 years ago

#131

Well, this would easily have been one of the 99 occasions that Shishupala committed crimes against Krishna. Not all of them, or even most, were from Sabha Parva. Krishna himself recounts some of them:

And after Sisupala had ceased, Krishna addressing all the kings in the presence of the Pandavas, spoke these words in a soft voice.--'Ye kings, this wicked-minded one, who is the son of a daughter of the Satwata race, is a great enemy of us of the Satwata race; and though we never seek to injure him, he ever seeketh our evil. This wretch of cruel deeds, ye kings, hearing that we had gone to the city of Pragjyotisha, came and burnt Dwaraka, although he is the son of my father's sister. While king Bhoja was sporting on the Raivataka hill, this one fell upon the attendants of that king and slew and led away many of them in chains to his own city. Sinful in all his purpose, this wretch, in order to obstruct the sacrifice of my father, stole the sacrificial horse of the horse-sacrifice that had been let loose under the guard of armed men. Prompted by sinful motives, this one ravished the reluctant wife of the innocent Vabhru (Akrura) on her way from Dwaraka to the country of the Sauviras. This injurer of his maternal uncle, disguising himself in the attire of the king of Karusha, ravished also the innocent Bhadra, the princess of Visala, the intended bride of king Karusha. I have patiently borne all these sorrows for the sake of my father's sister. It is, however, very fortunate that all this hath occurred today in the presence of all the kings. Behold ye all today the hostility this one beareth towards me. And know ye also all that he hath done me at my back. For the excess of that pride in which he hath indulged in the presence of all these monarchs, he deserveth to be slain by me. I am ill able to pardon today the injuries that he hath done me. Desirous of speedy death, this fool had desired Rukmini. But the fool obtained her not, like a Sudra failing to obtain the audition of the Vedas."

From the above account, it seems that Sisupala may have invaded and burnt Dwarka at the time Krishna & Satyabhama were fighting Narakasura. Although that would have begged the question - wouldn't Balarama have easily trounced Sisupala? And if not, wasn't it a golden opportunity for Sisupala to abduct Rukmini and ravish her, just like he did to Akrura's wife and the princess of Visala above?

Also, Krishna condemns Sisupala as an 'injurer of his maternal uncle', but Krishna himself killed Kansa, and encouraged Yudhisthir to kill Shalya. So for him to suddenly berate someone else for opposing his uncle seems a double standard, even if Vasudev was no Kansa or Shalya.

But bottom line - in the time b/w Krishna's marriage to Rukmini and the Rajasuya yagna, Sisupala had plenty of opportunities to do his misdeeds, especially since Jarasandha was emperor. His misdeeds probably ended after the death of Jarasandha, and when Bhima, on his conquests, arrived at Chedi, Sisupala welcomed him and joined him in his campaigns for further conquests. That friendship ended at the Rajasuya yagna when Krishna was given the honors, and Sisupala & Bhima almost came to blows.

Quite a different image from the one they showed in DBSK - that of a cross dressing prince 😆

Quote

Surya Sundarraj Sriram

@Surya_krsnbhakt

Dazzler

Posted: 12 years ago

#132

Vrish, from the accounts you gave, it seems Sisupala committed a number of crimes, including raping two three princesses. So the big question is, when did all this happen and why isn't it in Srimad Bhagavatam?

Quote

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

Vrish

@Vr15h

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 12 years ago

#133

SB does a pretty poor job in giving a historical detailed description of events. For instance, one would never know that Devaki had a swayamvara, unless one reads the Mahabharata in the Jayadrath vadh parva, and reads about the enmity b/w Satyaki & Bhoorishrava.

These events had to have happened in the timeframe I suggested above. Although, question would have arisen - if Shrutasrava - Sisupala's mother was still alive, couldn't Krishna have approached her, pointed these things out to her and persuade her to relieve him of his vow?

I think Sisupala embarked on this after he was maddened at the abduction of Rukmini. He was a vassal of Jarasantha, and as long as Jarasandha was emperor, he could do whatever he liked in the rest of the country. That also gave him other allies like Shalva, Paundrak, Dantavatra and so on, which made him even more emboldened.

Quote

Vrish

@Vr15h

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 11 years ago

#134

Ok, I just saw the new promo of the new StarPlus serial of Shakuni deciding to plot the destruction of Hastinapur out of vindictiveness at the Kurus getting Gandhari married to the blind Dhritarashtra.

One thing I do wonder - does this have any basis in any of the texts? I know that there is a school of thought that theorizes that the reason Shakuni did everything he did was not out of a mere love for his nephews - as has been depicted throughout the main story - but rather, out of a vindictive desire to destroy the family that sought his sister for their blind and useless scion, rather than for the king himself - Pandu. But has this theory been forwarded by any of the texts of the Mahabharata or related literature? It's certainly not there in the Mahabharat itself, but how about other places, like Hari Vamsa or anywhere else?

Personally, I do find it unlikely for several reasons. One is that Shakuni threw his own lot completely w/ Duryodhan: if he was interested in seeing the Kurus destroyed, he'd have tried to do that without sacrificing his own family - in the war, he lost all his brothers and sons. Also, Shakuni was only prominent in the game of dice, and really played only a cameo role in the Mahabharata in Sabha Parva and Shalya Parva: it was BRC that started the trend of making him seem larger than life and making him probably the chief antagonist (rivalling Dhritarashtra) of the story. But the original Mahabharata doesn't have Shakuni as the main plotter of either Duryodhan's attempt to kill Bhima, nor the house of lac, nor the various plots against the Pandavas during their exile, nor in the selection of the commanders of the war. During the war, Duryodhan took the advise of his major warrior allies: Drona was appointed at the suggestion of Karna, Karna and Shalya were appointed at the suggestion of Ashwatthama. Nowhere did Shakuni play a role: he didn't even suggest Bheeshma.

Also, Gandhari was perfectly happy w/ her marriage to Dhritarashtra, so why would Shakuni sabotage that? Again, the deification of Gandhari is another fictitious trend started by BRC, that's belied by the evidence. If Dhritarashtra was supportive of Duryodhan, Gandhari turned a blind eye to his misdeeds, and indeed, supported his royal aspirations, and was not concerned about the Pandavas, as shown in every serial. It's true that she refused to bless Duryodhan w/ victory, but that was the only thing she did right.

So Shakuni, most likely, did everything he did out of love for his sister, but not in the way that this serial is theorizing. Shakuni did everything he did for Duryodhan b'cos he perceived that Gandhari too wanted it. Again, contrary to the serials, Gandhari never asked him to leave Hastinapur (in fact, there's nothing to suggest that he was there all the time, except for the dice game) and if she did, he'd have had to. The truth seems to be that Shakuni, like Dushashan or Dhritarashtra (and Gandhari) wanted Duryodhan to be the sole inheritor of the Kuru empire, and so did everything he did to get hold of it.

Quote

Janaki

@RamKiSeeta

Achiever

+ 6

Posted: 11 years ago

#135

@Vrish,

I think both versions could be true. I think Shakuni may have initially been moved by revenge against Bhishma and the Kuru Vansh, but once he began working with his nephews against the Pandavas, he may have been driven by genuine interest for their welfare. Like you said, he would not have sacrificed his own family if it was just revenge that drove him. It had to have been genuine loyalty and love towards his sister's family that made him do what he did. So...I do not believe it is just revenge that made him who he was. The promo of the new Mahabharat took the "revenge" aspect of his character out of proportion, but yes, it was probably part of it.

Quote

Anandneelakant

@Anandneelakant

Beginner

Posted: 11 years ago

#136

HI

Traditional Mahabharata retelling have always written as a good vs evil story. The Kauravas are said to be evil incarnate and Duryodhana might be the most hated villain for the past four thousand years in India, after perhaps Ravan.

In my first book, Asura, tale of the vanquished, the story of Ravana and his people, I had explored the side of Ravana and told Ramayana from the perspective of Asuras.

In my new book, Ajaya, epic of Kaurava clan, book I, Roll of the dice, I am seeing the entire Mahabharata from the side of Kauravas. It is not easy to take the side of losers. Victors write history, and we have been fed with propaganda in the name of religions, scriptures and popular mythology about the evil nature of Duryodhana and his friends. Off late, a few great works of literature had made Karna a bit more acceptable. However, Duryodhana is always damned. How true is this in the original Mahabharata. Vyasa tells the story without taking sides. I believe the great sage had written the epic for warning people about the evil of war. That is why he named the story as JAYA or victory and a more ironic name he could not have chosen. The victory of Pandavas in Mahabharata war was a Pyrrhic victory and resulted only in death and tears on either side.

I am attempting to view Mahabharata in a purer form, without getting swayed by the religiousity of the great epic. I am just trying to shine the light from a different angle, write the story from the other perspective. As the angle of light is different, the black may become grey and the pure white may turn ashen, but that is to be expected.

I am also trying to open up a discussion forum here and I invite everyone to participate in this debate. Yes, I want more people to read my work but more importantly, I believe it is better for everyone if we know about the two great epics of our country in a deeper manner and draw their own conclusion, without getting swayed with prejudice and preconceived notion of evil and good,

A brief introduction of my book

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an5lcg4teOQ- Video trailer

http://www.amazon.in/AJAYA-Epic-Kaurava-Clan-ROLL-ebook/dp/B00H9IZ5TW/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1387624960&sr=1-1&keywords=ajaya+kindle

THE MAHABHARATA ENDURES AS THE GREAT EPIC OF INDIA. But while Jaya is the story of the Pandavas, told from the perspective of the victors of Kurukshetra; Ajaya is the narrative of the unconquerable' Kauravas, who were decimated to the last man.

***
At the heart of India's most powerful empire, a revolution is brewing. Bhishma, the noble patriarch of Hastinapura, is struggling to maintain the unity of his empire. On the throne sits Dhritarashtra, the blind King, and his foreign-born Queen - Gandhari. In the shadow of the throne stands Kunti, the Dowager-Queen, burning with ambition to see her firstborn become the ruler, acknowledged by all.
And in the wings:
* Parashurama, the enigmatic Guru of the powerful Southern Confederate, bides his time to take over and impose his will from mountains to ocean.
* Ekalavya, a young Nishada, yearns to break free of caste restrictions and become a warrior.
* Karna, son of a humble charioteer, travels to the South to study under the foremost Guru of the day and become the greatest archer in the land.
* Balarama, the charismatic leader of the Yadavas, dreams of building the perfect city by the sea and seeing his people prosperous and proud once more.
* Takshaka, guerilla leader of the Nagas, foments a revolution by the downtrodden as he lies in wait in the jungles of India, where survival is the only dharma.
* Jara, the beggar, and his blind dog Dharma, walk the dusty streets of India, witness to people and events far greater than they, as the Pandavas and the Kauravas confront their searing destinies.

Amidst the chaos, Prince Suyodhana, heir of Hastinapura, stands tall, determined to claim his birthright and act according to his conscience. He is the maker of his own destiny - or so he believes. While in the corridors of the Hastinapura palace, a foreign Prince plots to destroy India. And the dice falls...

ANAND NEELAKANTAN
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anand_Neelakantan

Quote

Navya

@navya2007

Inactive

Posted: 11 years ago

#137

Originally posted by: .Vrish.
From the SOC thread

I've read this account, but as usual, doing my periodic analysis of Bhagadatta, Narakasura, Krishna & Arjun somehow makes this 'aged' problem of Bhagadatta seem fallacious. I'll use both MB and SB for this analysis.

For starters, let's assume, for the sake of this discussion, that Krishna & Arjun were approximately the same age. Since Krishna was b/w Bhima & Arjun age wise, this is a somewhat valid approximation.

Now, when is Bhagadatta first mentioned in SB? It was following the killing of Narakasura. Following his death, Bhoomi Devi brought Bhagadatta to him, and took refuge in him. Krishna installed Bhagadatta on his father's throne, and asked him to return everything that his father had ransacked - Aditi's earrings, Varuna's umbrella, Indra's elephants and so on. And of course, the 16,100 concubines of Narakasura.

In that description, Bhagadatta was described as young, a boy, who was brought to Krishna's refuge. He certainly was not the same age as Krishna. Krishna apparently gave him the Vaishnav astra (not narrated in SB, but narrated in MB in the 12th day of the war, in Drona Parva), so obviously, Bhagadatta was much younger to Krishna.

Consequently, it would turn out that he'd be much younger to Arjun as well. Yet, he had to keep his eyes open w/ his handkerchief, while Arjun had no such problems. The age of the Pandavas & Krishna were probably in their 60s (Dronacharya's age was 85), and so Bhagadatta would have been in his 50s or 60s. And yet, the description of him is that of someone who was probably in his 90s, if not older.

Somehow, it's just not adding up.

Hi!

Actually during the dwapara yuga, the lifespan of a human was 1000 years, whereas now in the kali yuga it is 100 years (max). Though the serials don't mention age and show that the characters are youthful, which they are on a dwapara yuga timescale, age of Arjuna is said to be 80 years at the time of the Kurukshetra war.

Hope this helps. You can reference the time calculations here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuga

Quote

1 ... 10 11 12 13 14

Mahabharata Related Discussions - Page 14

Related Topics

Explore Topics