Please try to answer - Page 8

The argument about removing verses that contradict modern science in the Mahabharata raises a conflict between the evolving nature of modern science and the stable, unchanging principles within Vedic knowledge. While modern science undergoes continual changes in its theories and explanations, Vedic knowledge has a consistent and fixed framework applicable under any circumstance or time. This is evidenced by the accurate predictions made by Vedic calendars like Panchang about planetary positions and eclipse timings without relying on artificial satellites.

On the exclusion of incidents from the Mahabharata, such as the reference by Yudhishthira after Draupadi's marriage, mentioning the story of Prachetas and Marisha, the rejection of these incidents contradicts their presence in various Vedic scriptures compiled by Ved Vyasa himself. The authenticity of these incidents is reinforced by their existence in multiple scriptures, which establishes their credibility and should not be dismissed.

Another example of excluded verses is the battle between Arjuna and decoits after Lord Krishna's departure, an incident detailed in the Vishnu Purana. The exclusion of this incident from the BORI CE creates a gap in the narrative. Ved Vyasa, being the compiler of not only the Mahabharata but also the 18 Puranas, supports the argument that if any event from the Mahabharata contradicts multiple Puranas by the same author, it should be considered an interpolation.

Continued in the next post

Ved Vyasa, based on the three qualities (gunas) of Prakriti,composed 6 Satvik, 6 Rajasik, and 6 Tamasic Puranas containing historicalrecords. The Tamasic Puranas aim to uplift people from the Tamasic (ignorance)state to the Satvic (pure) state. In texts like Shiva Purana and Linga Purana,you find stories of individuals such as fallen souls, prostitutes, and sinnerswho elevated themselves to SatvaGuna by renouncing bad activities andworshiping Lord Shiva. The Rajasic Puranas elevate individuals in the mode ofpassion, interested in material pleasure, and usually depict stories of kingsseeking such pleasures, later realizing the impermanence of material joy andseeking liberation.

For those already inclined towards the Satvic mode, notdriven by material desires but seeking liberation, Vyasa composed the SatvikPuranas. These Puranas primarily describe the divine pastimes (leelas) of theSupreme Lord in His Satvik Sagun (virtuous divine) form during incarnations onEarth. By immersing oneself in these stories, individuals focus on the divine,even in their final moments, as promised in the Bhagavad Gita, leading toliberation.

Even after compiling the Puranas, Ved Vyasa wasn't entirelysatisfied, leading him to create a comprehensive epic. He pondered over thearrangement of the incidents mentioned in the Puranas for three years. Aftercareful contemplation, he penned down the epic, with Lord Ganesh transcribingit, known today as the Mahabharata.

In the Mahabharata, Ved Vyasa expressed that he had composedvarious topics, including Vedic mysteries, rituals, Upanishads, Puranas,history, the nature of life, duties of different classes, and more.

The above thing that I said, vo toh I have heard, I am not sure about the 3 year time period of Ved Vyasa pondering over the incidents.

This highlights that Mahabharata is the quintessence of allVedas, Puranas, and other scriptures. When you read sub-stories (Upakhyans)within the Mahabharata, you might recognize them from other Puranas because theMahabharata serves as an all-encompassing epic, even containing the Ramayanawithin its narrative. This inclusion of the Ramayana in the Mahabharata offersspecific details not found in Valmiki's Ramayana. Nonetheless, the study ofTulsidas is appreciated for capturing incidents from both Valmiki's Ramayanaand the special Ramayana mentioned in the Mahabharata.

Originally, Ved Vyasa composed the Mahabharata with60,00,000 verses. He published versions with 30,00,000 verses for the Devas(gods), 15,00,000 for the Pitrilokas (ancestors), 14,00,000 for the Gandharvas,and a shorter version of 1,00,000 verses for the mortal world. Notably, theMahabharata was narrated to different audiences: by Narada to the gods,Asitadeval to the ancestors, Sukdeva to the Gandharvas, Yakshas, and Rakshasas,and Vyasa's disciple, Vysampayana, presented the epic to humans, specificallyKing Janmejaya, the grandson of Abhimanyu.

In the Mahabharata's Adi Parva (the Book of Beginning),there's a clear mention that the version meant for human beings comprises1,00,000 verses. Vaishampayan Rishi, Ved Vyasa's disciple, affirmed this totalverse count in the presence of Ved Vyasa and King Janmejaya.

It's interesting to note that traditional stories oftendon't start with "Once upon a time" as fairy tales do. Instead, theyusually begin with a genealogical tree starting from the first man, Manu, up tothe character in focus, providing details about the time and circumstances inwhich the incidents occurred. This is observed in both Puranas and Itihasaslike Ramayana and Mahabharata.

Continued in the next post.

Just a min, let me post something, uske baad reply karti hoon.

It appears that there are discrepancies and omissions within the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute (BORI) version of the Mahabharata, particularly in its treatment of specific verses, incidents, and references concerning Lord Krishna. These omissions involve critical moments, such as Draupadi's prayers to Lord Krishna during her disrobing in the Sabha Parva and the dialogue between Bhishma and Shishupal regarding Lord Krishna's divine nature during the Rajasuya Yagya.

Additionally, the exclusion of the chapter detailing the birth of Lord Krishna, the sole mention of it in the entire Mahabharata, seems noteworthy and concerning in the BORI Critical Edition.

The names used to refer to Krishna throughout the Mahabharata, such as Vaasudev, Narayan, Janardana, Keshava, Madhava, Madhusudana, Hrishikesh, and Achyuta, signify various aspects and attributes associated with Lord Krishna, showcasing the depth and diversity of his character throughout the epic. The removal of key verses and chapters that highlight these aspects can lead to confusion and inconsistencies within the text.

The various names attributed to Lord Krishna carry profound meanings:

*Note I am not sure about the meanings of all the names, corrections are always welcome.

1.

Vasudev: The Lord of all 8 Vasus.

2.

Narayan: The Lord whose dwelling place (Ayan) is Water (Nara) or the One who supports all living beings (Nara/Jivas).

3.

Janardana: The Lord who troubles bad or wicked individuals.

4.

Madhava: The Husband (Dhava) of Mother Lakshmi (Maa).

5.

Hrishikesh: The Controller (Esh) of the Senses (Hrishika).

6.

Achyut: The Lord who has never fallen from his position (undefeated).

7.

Madhusudan: The Killer of the Demon Madhu.

8.

Keshava: The Killer of the Demon Keshi.

The Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute (BORI) Critical Edition (CE) of the Mahabharata does not include verses explaining how Lord Krishna received specific names like Keshava or Madhusudan. Despite removing certain verses that might provide these explanations, the BORI CE retains numerous instances where Lord Krishna is addressed by these names.

It's crucial to consider the Puranas, supplementary texts authored by Ved Vyasa, to find answers if the BORI CE lacks certain verses. The various names used for Lord Krishna in the Mahabharata, like Keshava, Madhusudan, and others, affirm his identity as Vishnu himself.

The Mahabharata includes references where Krishna's divine form as Lord Vishnu (Narayan) with four arms is displayed, notably in the incident of the Universal Form shown to Arjuna, and when the hunter Jara mistakenly shot an arrow at Krishna's foot and witnessed his multi-armed form.

Prominent Vedic scholars, including Adi Shankaracharya, Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya, and Saint Gyaneshwar, have accepted the supremacy of Lord Krishna, as depicted in the Mahabharata.

If one supports the removal of verses regarding Lord Krishna's extraordinary deeds, as per the BORI CE, it's essential to consider whether the workers at BORI possess more Vedic knowledge than revered ancient scholars like Adi Shankaracharya, Sri Ramanuja, Madhvacharya, and Saint Gyaneshwar.

Both the Ramayana and Mahabharata, classified as Itihasas, detail the Leelas (divine plays) of Lord Vishnu. They follow a similar theme where demons take birth in royal human families, causing distress. The Devas seek Narayan's assistance through prayers, and Narayan promises to incarnate to restore Dharma. Removing Raam from the Ramayana or Krishna from the Mahabharata would render these epics incomplete, as both narratives unfold Vishnu's Leela from birth to departure.

However, it's noted that the BORI CE does not include Krishna's birth incident, while the Valmiki Ramayana details the birth and departure of Lord Rama. This absence in the BORI CE might be seen as an incomplete portrayal of Krishna's narrative.

Continued in the next post.

Last post sorry

The absence of birth details of Krishna in the BORI CE despite the mentions of birth details of other significant characters like Vyasa, Pandu, Dhritarashtra, Vidura, Pandavas, Kauravas, Draupadi, and various Rishis has raised questions. If the BORI CE doesn't contain these specific verses, it might need to consider referring to the Puranas, as the 18 Maha-Puranas were also composed by the same author, Ved Vyasa, to address such missing information.

Regarding the battles of Karna and Arjuna, while it might seem unfair for Karna to have been defeated when he was weaponless, an examination of the circumstances during the battle shows a different perspective. In the final battle between Karna and Arjuna, Karna, as the captain of the Kaurava army, did not take the opportunity to order a new chariot when his was rendered immobile, unlike Dronacharya, who replaced his chariot multiple times during his fight with Bhima. Instead, Karna requested Arjuna to wait for 48 minutes, possibly hoping for another warrior to engage Arjuna in battle, allowing Karna to escape, similar to what he had done in previous encounters.

Furthermore, ancient texts such as the Harivamsa Purana and Vishnu Purana depict instances where Krishna, at the age of 7, promises Indra that no enemy can defeat Arjuna while Krishna is present. The texts suggest Krishna's support for Arjuna in battles and the assurance that the Pandavas, including Arjuna, would be returned safely to Kunti after the Mahabharata war.

However, the BORI CE might lack these specific battle descriptions, which might contradict other texts like the Harivamsa Purana, Vishnu Purana, and the account by Ved Vyasa himself in the Mahabharata.

The ancient Vedic scholars, including Adi Shankaracharya, Sri Ramanuja, Madhvacharya, and Saint Gyaneshwar, acknowledged the supremacy of Lord Krishna as depicted in the Mahabharata, validating his role and influence throughout the epic's events.

The absence of Krishna's birth details in the BORI CE, despite the detailed mention of other important characters' births, remains a point of inquiry and contemplation, highlighting the complex nature of textual analysis and variations in ancient texts.

Sorry for sooooo many posts, disagreements are welcome, I did not mean to hurt anyone, just putting a diff POV.

***Note this was not my answer, I agree with this.

Also I agree that CE is a good source, but it should not be considered an ultimate authority.

Originally posted by: wayward

See, frankly I don't think the way we tend to classify identities as straight or not-straight isn't entirely correct. It is continuous spectrum and people land anywhere in that. Also, there isn't just straight and gay/lesbian right. There are also so many other terms like bisexuality, pansexuality, demisexuality etc. Along the same lines, I do not think the MB era also classified sexuality as rigidly into boxes as we sometimes tend to do now.

Just by proposing that Krishna and Arjun were romantically inclined towards each other one does not and cannot trivialize or nullify their other relationships (they were both clearly not monogamous even before this became an issue). Also, I agree with you on the point that we need not make everything about physical relations, though even then you have alloromantic asexuals who are perfectly alright with having a romantic connection just without the physical part of it (even this in itself is a huge spectrum).

The calling people gay part, is a much bigger and deep-seated societal issue where somehow the very existence of LGBTQIA+ individual is perceived as a slight and hence the mere words taken as insults. I personally do not understand why Krishna/Arjun possibly not being heterosexual affects the day-to-day of any devotee.

Throughout history 95+ percent of all characters fictitious or real, have been heterosexual. So, I feel it is important to call out every insinuation and undertone we see in these older texts, even if it's just to prove that this isn't a fad or a 'lifestyle', and people's preferences, throughout history, have always been on a spectrum. Every little bit of tolerant speech and actions in these texts counts.

See, it is not about insulting or not insulting someone

but calling someone gay simply is not fair, you know this is the reason ki boys are or (try to become) unnecessarily rough and tough although they are not, if someone calls them metrosexual then I it is some what acceptable, metrosexual means those who love activities associated to female (I guess this is the meaning please feel free to correct me).

We all know that Krishna and Arjun loved activities like dancing which was rarely seen uss time ke ladko mei, but saying ki they were simply gay is thoda saa mushkil.

As far as I know gay people are one who are not interested in making romantic relations with girls, again please feel free to correct me. But as far as we know they (Krishna and Arjun) were always interested in in female, 2-3 times to Arjun himself got smitten by girls, first with Draupadi, then by Chitrangada (I am not sure about this, but as far as I have read mujhe toh yahi samajh aaya) and then finally with Subhadra.

So gay thoda zyada nahi hojaega?

OK suppose we are saying that sexuality is fluid but then also it is not itna fluid ki aaj someone is gay, kal that same person is not, then again parso he is back to being a gay.

Again I am not sure, but I have heard few people saying that you have some feeling from your childhood only ki in which sex you are interested, (not sure).

But still I think itna zyada bhi fluid nahi hota hoga ki every 2-3 years par change hota jata hoga.

If we are looking Urvashi wala thing then why cannot we see this as how great human he was, he did not even hesitated in taking that role even if we ignore the curse thing, it is not easy I guess.

And one more thing, Draupadi loved Krishna, matlab that romantic wala love.

matlab why only Draupadi? usiko har kisi insaan ke saath associate karne lagte hain hum, koi karn ke saath koi kisi ke saath.

Why a girl and a boy cannot simply be friends? Whats wrong in that? Then we say that how will the society progress, jahan ladki ladka dekha vahan unko ship karna start kar diya.

vaise I have a question, this is genuine wala.

In India there was no concept of uncle and aunt, we use to call chacha chachi, mama mami bua mausi phupha mausa and so on.

So Draupadi ke bacche must be calling Krishna as mama only naa? I mean taking name would have been disrespectful, so mama or chacha or kaka or something like that.

If they were calling mama phir toh..........

@wayward

@BrhannadaArmour

My intention was not to hurt you both, I am sorry if I did so, actually I feel very bad if I hurt someone.

Also does anyone knows about the performance by Sri Parshwanath Upadhye of Arjuna? What was it all about?

Originally posted by: IWasHareeshFan

vaise I have a question, this is genuine wala.

In India there was no concept of uncle and aunt, we use to call chacha chachi, mama mami bua mausi phupha mausa and so on.

So Draupadi ke bacche must be calling Krishna as mama only naa? I mean taking name would have been disrespectful, so mama or chacha or kaka or something like that.

If they were calling mama phir toh..........

No, it was not disrespectful to address elders by their first names only. You can find out more about kinship terms in the Relatives in Mahabharata topic. If you want to ask questions about what characters called their relatives, please send a PM to Satrangi_Curls to ask her to reopen that topic.

No, the Draupadeyas would not have used the words māmā, cācā, kākā for Kṛṣṇa because they didn't speak Hindi. They spoke Saṃskṛta, and their mother called herself Kṛṣṇa's priyā sakhī, not his sister. It would have been all right if they had called Kṛṣṇa their mātula because Subhadrā, their father's/uncle's wife, would have been called their mother in that society. However, it was more polite to refer to their fathers' friend Kṛṣṇa as their father. They were training in his home, after all.

We should all read the text to examine our assumptions about the society depicted in Mahābhārata. No, dancing was not uncommon for boys/men. Dancers performed every day in the battle camps of warriors like Yudhiṣṭhira, the Dhārtarāṣṭras, Aśvatthāman etc. Apart from dancing as a metaphor for agile or furious fighters like Abhimanyu, Yuyudhāna, Droṇa, Aśvatthāman, Dhṛṣṭadyumna, and Yudhiṣṭhira, warriors actually danced amidst their army, hugging each other (Droṇaparvan 165.63):

Bhīmasenas tato rājan Dhṛṣṭadyumnaś ca Pārṣataḥ

varūthinyām anṛtyetāṃ pariṣvajya parasparam

Shedding tears, or even bawling for one's parents while lying on one's back with both arms raised, was perfectly consistent with masculine morality (Āraṇyakaparvan 281.94):

evam uktvā sa dharm'ātmā guru-vartī guru-priyaḥ

ucchritya bāhū duḥkh'ārtaḥ sasvaraṃ praruroda ha

These fictional characters' behaviour may reflect the values of the society in which the earliest authors of Mahābhārata lived.