Pandu Putra Arjun Ka Mahal- Thoughts and Perspectives of Parth

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

Semanti Chakraborty

@DharmaPriyaa

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 8 years ago

#21

Srutha I agree with you in this regard.

The epic Mahabharat can be seen from several perspectives. If you think the story is mainly based on Shaanta Ras, then Yudhishthir is the Nayak. If you treat it as Veer Ras then Bheem and Arjun will be Nayak. So yes, I also think that Pancha Pandavas were Nayak and Draupadi was the Nayika, the Shakti which inspired them. And Krishna is the Mahanayak, the superhero who was the supervisor of the heroes.

As for the story revolves round Arjun, I think Krishna's main aim was Dharma Sansthaapan for which Dharmaraj is needed the most. Yes before the Dharma Sansthaapan He must vinaash the dushkritaam for which He used Bheem and Arjun, but it was not they who was going to sit on the throne of Dharma Rajya. Arjun was His Sudarshan, Bheem was His Koumodaki which punished evil to make way for Dharma. Yudhishthir was His Panchajanya with whose auspicious sound He inaugurated His Dharma Rajya. This is what I understand.

Quote

Srutha

@SriMaatangi

Sparkler

+ 4

Posted: 8 years ago

#22

I agree with every word you say 👏👏

The Lord who is impartial can ever be partial to anyone. He loves all the Pandavas, in different ways, but the love which comes is unconditional.

He is to you what you are to Him. As Parth loved the Lord like a sakha, the Lord gave Parth the same type of love, multplied infinitely.

Quote

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

Ramya

@Ramya_98

Sparkler

+ 7

Posted: 8 years ago

#23

Srutha and Sema di, i find both of your perspectives beautiful. But Arjuna has the largest part to play in the epic. As much as his character is described,none other is. All his wives have been given importance while the lesser known wives of the other pandavas are not mentioned much like Devika, Jalandhara etc. Even karna and duryodhana's wives aren't named. His character and all his ventures are greatly detailed. His birth is described like no other accompanied by all the prophecies. Yes, all of them were his instruments but Arjuna was his greatest and dearest instrument. That's why Arjuna had the lord as his charioteer and lord hanuman on his banner,because he was the one capable of leading,capable of defeating the enemy and restoring dharma. I do not mean to say that the others weren't capable but he was the most of all. Also all the future rulers were Arjuna's descendants.

Quote

Ramya

@Ramya_98

Sparkler

+ 7

Posted: 8 years ago

#24

Originally posted by: KrishnaPriyaa
I agree with every word you say 👏👏
The Lord who is impartial can ever be partial to anyone. He loves all the Pandavas, in different ways, but the love which comes is unconditional.
He is to you what you are to Him. As Parth loved the Lord like a sakha, the Lord gave Parth the same type of love, multplied infinitely.

This is so well said! The lord is indeed impartial! 👏👏And he loved them all.

Quote

Srutha

@SriMaatangi

Sparkler

+ 4

Posted: 8 years ago

#25

Again, I can accept alost all that you say here as well, but the biggest part of the epic is played by Shri Krishna Himself. Parth's birth was described for he is the one who receives the Gita. Arjuna was not the Lord's greatest and dearest instrument. The Lord is impartial, each Pandava is equally dear to Him. Parth is undoubtedly great, but he wasn't perfect.

The Lord agreed to be Parthsarathy because He knew Parth wold need Him more than the others, for it was Parth who had to face Pitamah. Parth had the most emotional investment. The reason Hanuman is found on His banner is two fold:

1. Hanuman being there shows the presence of the wind in the chariot. Hanuman being in Bhima's chariot makes no sense, for Bhima is Vayuputra.

2. Shri Krishna was in the chariot. Shri Rama is Hanuman's Lord. Shri Krishna and Shri Rama are the same.

Restoration of Dharma is not possible with only Arjuna. It would be like saying that Lakshmana is the reason for Ram Rajya, when in fact Rama Rajya was Shri Rama's.

Quote

Ramya

@Ramya_98

Sparkler

+ 7

Posted: 8 years ago

#26

Originally posted by: KrishnaPriyaa

Parth is not the only one who was the instrument. Five of the brothers were His instruments. Parth is not the lead character. The epic does not revolve around him. If you look at it, there was more of Dharmaraj than Parth in the Sanskrit version. Nara, as in man, not the sage. The sage Nara is Lord Narayan Himself. And Parth is not Lord Narayana.
@bold- He meant it that He was in each of them. He means that in a way, Parth was more like Him, but He isn't.

No,Parth is not lord narayana, but he is the incarnation of Nara. Shiva and Indra both say this at different instances. Shiva when he bestows the boon to jayadratha on being able to overpower the 4 panadavas in battle and Indra to sage lomasha while Arjuna is in indraloka and the sage doesn't like him seated with Indra.

Quote

Srutha

@SriMaatangi

Sparkler

+ 4

Posted: 8 years ago

#27

But here, Nara is not the sage. Nara is the man. The student to the teacher in Narayana. Arjuna is the student to Shri Krishna's Geeta Saar.

The sage Nara is a form of Lord Narayana Himself.

Quote

Ramya

@Ramya_98

Sparkler

+ 7

Posted: 8 years ago

#28

Originally posted by: KrishnaPriyaa
Again, I can accept alost all that you say here as well, but the biggest part of the epic is played by Shri Krishna Himself. Parth's birth was described for he is the one who receives the Gita. Arjuna was not the Lord's greatest and dearest instrument. The Lord is impartial, each Pandava is equally dear to Him. Parth is undoubtedly great, but he wasn't perfect.
The Lord agreed to be Parthsarathy because He knew Parth wold need Him more than the others, for it was Parth who had to face Pitamah. Parth had the most emotional investment. The reason Hanuman is found on His banner is two fold:
1. Hanuman being there shows the presence of the wind in the chariot. Hanuman being in Bhima's chariot makes no sense, for Bhima is Vayuputra.
2. Shri Krishna was in the chariot. Shri Rama is Hanuman's Lord. Shri Krishna and Shri Rama are the same.

Restoration of Dharma is not possible with only Arjuna. It would be like saying that Lakshmana is the reason for Ram Rajya, when in fact Rama Rajya was Shri Rama's.

Okay, don't agree on dearest, yes the lord is impartial.Probably i went off board there but he was the greatest weapon without a single air of doubt. And as i already said all 5 were important but without Arjuna could they really have acquired the kingdom? If restoration of dharma wasn't possible only with him,was it possible without him?😉
As bhagawatam is to krishna so is mahabharata to arjuna and Gita with an equal contribution of both.

Quote

Srutha

@SriMaatangi

Sparkler

+ 4

Posted: 8 years ago

#29

Originally posted by: ramya06
Okay, don't agree on dearest, yes the lord is impartial.Probably i went off board there but he was the greatest weapon without a single air of doubt. And as i already said all 5 were important but without Arjuna could they really have acquired the kingdom? If restoration of dharma wasn't possible only with him,was it possible without him?😉
As bhagawatam is to krishna so is mahabharata to arjuna and Gita with an equal contribution of both.

Parth was as important as the other four were to the restoration of Dharma. Each of them were warriors, each skilled with their own weapons. Parth was a full blooded warrior. And I never said that they could have done it without him. All I say is that just Parth is not responsible for it. In the end, it was Bhima who killed his cousins, not Parth.

@Bold- agreed to the Krishna part, but not to the MB or the Gita part. Shri Krishna is the very Gita. Gita is the song of God for a reason 😳

Quote

Ramya

@Ramya_98

Sparkler

+ 7

Posted: 8 years ago

#30

Originally posted by: KrishnaPriyaa
But here, Nara is not the sage. Nara is the man. The student to the teacher in Narayana. Arjuna is the student to Shri Krishna's Geeta Saar.
The sage Nara is a form of Lord Narayana Himself.

If he wasn't Nara the sage,why does Indra describe Nara-Narayan on the very instance i mentioned above?