'Mahabharat- Different Versions -Perspectives'

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

Bhaskari

@bhas1066

Navigator

Posted: 11 years ago

#281

Thanks Leadnitrate.
always wanted to read this book. thanks for putting so much effort and time in writing these here from the book.

Quote

@DrModel

Rocker

+ 3

Posted: 11 years ago

#282

One day, as they sat on the steps of their hermitage built above the lake, Pandu's sons had an illustrious visitor. He arrived out of the blue, as if he had walked across the azure water. He seemed no more than sixteen summers old,but the rishis who were with the Pandavas prostrated themselves at his feet. One of those hermits whispered the name of the remarkable visitor, "Markandeya." Yudhishtira rose and prostrated and his brothers and Draupadi did, as well; the ageless one laid his palm on their heads in blessing. It was by Siva's boon that Markandeya looked so young, for the Lord had blessed the muni with eternal youth. Markandeya sat with them on the asrama's wooden steps.

They saw he gazed across the lake's rippling water and a smile lit his fine face, making him seem not sixteen but even thirteen years of age. Then, Yudhishtira made bold to ask, "Anyone who has come to see us in exile has either been sad or angry at our condition. You alone, Markandeya, smile so wonderfully! Tell us why you smile, Muni, I am intrigued by your smile." Markandeya laughed: a child's laugh and an ancient's.

The rishi said, "Don't mistake me, Yudhishtira, I also grieve to see you like this. Yet, when I see you here with your wife and your brothers, I am reminded of another great soul. That memory makes me smile. You remind me of Rama of Ayodhya: of how Kaikeyi banished him and he went into the deep Dandaka vana, with Lakshmana and Sita. He, too, couldeasily have stayed behind. His people were with him and he could have had his father's throne for the asking. Why, Dasaratha begged him to take it. But just like you, Yudhishtira, he would never leave the path of dharma. I am much older than I seem, Pandava and with my own eyes I saw Rama upon the slopes of Rishyamooka, clad in tree-bark and deerskin, with the Kodanda in his hand, Lakshmana beside him and seeking Sita frantically.

Rama, also, was like Indra born into the world: he was so noble, so splendid. His courage was immaculate; his wrath made the earth tremble. He could dry up the ocean and bring the stars down from the sky. Yet, he would not even think an evil thought, he was so pure." Yudhishtira realized the remarkable seer's smile had been one of adoration. Markandeya nodded to himself, "Yes, the truly great kings of this world live on in men's memories not because of conquests, power or wealth, but because they walked the path of dharma unswervingly. Why, because of such men, the sun moves in his orbit and his shores contain the sea. Think of Bhageeratha or Harishchandra, think of Rama. Yes, I smiled because you remind me so much of Rama. He was also banished to the forest and fate tried him sorely. But, at last, he returned to Ayodhya and he ruled the world."

Menon, Ramesh (2006-07-20). THE MAHABHARATA: A Modern Rendering, Vol 1 . iUniverse. Kindle Edition.

Quote

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

@DrModel

Rocker

+ 3

Posted: 11 years ago

#283

Agastya once remarked to Yudhishtira, "How happy I am that you have come to me. Do you know, a yuga ago, another kshatriya came to my asrama in the Dandaka vana? He, also, had his brother with him and his wife followed him into exile. He too had been banished from his kingdom with treachery." Agastya stared at Yudhishtira as if to probe his deepest heart. Then he smiled. He seemed to have satisfied himself about the king who sat before him."Yes, indeed, you do remind me of the prince of Ayodhya. Though that was another yuga, when men lived much longer than they do now.

But men's hearts don't change very much and you are so like that kshatriya. Yudhishtira, though he faced many trials, he survived his exile, went home to Ayodhya and ruled the earth for twelve thousand years. And what a glorious time that was for the world: Ramarajya, the rule of Rama." He took the Pandava's hand, "Don't worry, my son. You will also rule the earth again one day, soon and as wisely as Rama did.

Menon, Ramesh (2006-07-20). THE MAHABHARATA: A Modern Rendering, Vol 1 . iUniverse. Kindle Edition.

Quote

@DrModel

Rocker

+ 3

Posted: 11 years ago

#284

Originally posted by: LeadNitrate
part of the reason why Matsya kingdom was chosen for their agyatvas was that Virat was an ace dice player.
yudi learnt from him while serving him as kanka.

BUT it is said here he got the mantra from a sage

http://www.india-forums.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=3932467&TPN=34

Quote

@DrModel

Rocker

+ 3

Posted: 11 years ago

#285

Originally posted by: LeadNitrate

Why can we not fight and take back what is ours right away? Why should we suffer thirteen years of humiliating exile?' demand the Pandavas. To this Krishna says, Because you have given your word. And because only this way will you be cleansed of the crime of gambling your kingdom away.'

PATTANAIK, DEVDUTT (2012-05-22). Seven secrets of Vishnu (Kindle Locations 1272-1278). Westland Publishing. Kindle Edition.

In response RM says quite the contrary

He states it is Krishna who comes and tells them to go to battle; they do nto have to stick to the condiitons fo the game because Shakuni cheated. And it is Yudi who stops him. If he was trsting Yudi, RM leaves that to the reader to decipher.

There was anger in his black eyes as none of them had seen before. "Why should Draupadi live in the jungle? You need not do this just because they say you must. We all know about Shakuni's dice; he can throw anything he wants with them. I hear you did not win a single throw. You are not bound by the game, not when the dice were loaded. I have the Yadava army waiting at the forest's edge. Dhrishtadyumna, Dhrishtaketu and the Kekayas have brought their legions with them. All Bharatavarsha is incensed: you are her emperor. Let us march on Hastinapura and see how those cowards face us in battle."

But Yudhishtira said, "Krishna, I am not innocent in this thing. I have sinned and let this exile be my expiation. When we saw evil omens at the Rajasuya, Vyasa told me I would have fourteen years of misfortune. This is that time. How I wish I could call the days back and not have to play the game of dice. But that is not fate's way and I must pay for my weakness before I am pure again. Forgive me if I don't accept your offer." Krishna frowned.

There was still fire in his eyes and he seemed to debate whether to go and burn Dhritarashtra and his sons with it. Arjuna laid a hand on his cousin's arm to pacify him. Krishna seemed lost in himself for a while. At last, he said, "Yudhishtira, your life and mine are one. Your enemies are mine and mine yours; and so too our friends. No one can come between us. He who harms you becomes my enemy and he shall perish." A quick smile touched his lips. "But you, my lord, insist on observing the niceties of dharma. So be it. But hear this, cousin and all you kshatriyas: I swear that retribution is only postponed. One day the earth shall be slick with the Kauravas' blood and I will crown Yudhishtira king in Hastinapura. Yes I, Krishna, do swear this."

Menon, Ramesh (2006-07-20). THE MAHABHARATA: A Modern Rendering, Vol 1 (Kindle Locations 9109-9123). iUniverse. Kindle Edition.

Quote

Srishti

@srishtisingh

Voyager

Posted: 11 years ago

#286

nice post.I like this angry krishna even more

Quote

Srishti

@srishtisingh

Voyager

Posted: 11 years ago

#287

Originally posted by: LeadNitrate



I know this is wrong place, but I feel these quotes are as important to understand the background of MB
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++




Krishna is an unusual God. He challenges all conventional notions of divinity and appropriate social conduct. His name literally translates as black', challenging the traditional Indian discomfort with the dark complexion. He is visualised as either cowherd or charioteer, never as priest or king, a deliberate association with the lower strata of society . His mother is not his real mother, his beloved is not his wife, and the women he rescues are neither his subjects nor members of his family. His lovemaking is not really lovemaking; his war is not really war. There is always more that meets the eye. And so, only Krishna, of all the avatars, sports a smile, a mischievous meaningful smile. There is always more that meets the eye, when Krishna is around.

Puru's sacrifice makes Yayati so happy that, years later, when he has had his fill of youth, he declares that the younger Puru will be his heir and not the elder Yadu. Further, he curses Yadu that none of his children or his children's children will be entitled to wear the crown. Krishna, being Yadu's descendent, is therefore never king. Kingship passes on to Puru's descendents, the Pandavas and Kauravas, even though time and again they demonstrate their unworthiness to wear the crown. What seems a good thing in Ram's yuga becomes a bad thing in Krishna's yuga. Ram's unquestioning obedience of his father transforms him into God. But Puru's unquestioning obedience results in collapse of society. Dashratha requests Ram's obedience so that he can uphold his word. Yayati, however, demands the obedience of his children for his own pleasure. Yayati exploits the rule for his own benefit whereas Dashratha enforces the rule so that royal integrity is never questioned . The rule (obey the father) resonates dharma in Dashratha's case, but not so in Yayati's.Yayati's conduct results in a society where the letter of the law becomes more important than the spirit of the law.

Krishna, as a consequence of his father's actions, ends up with two mothers: Devaki who gives birth to him and Yashoda who raises him. Devaki is a woman of noble rank. Yashoda is a common milkmaid. Devaki represents all the qualities one is born with. Yashoda represents all the qualities one acquires in life. Thus Krishna's divinity, rooted in Devaki's blood and Yashoda's milk, acknowledges both nature and nurture. We are all a combination of what we are born with as well as what we are raised to be. Our natural disposition is known as varna while the cultural indoctrination is jati. Krishna is by varna a nobleman but by jati a cowherd. Though nobleman, he can never be king. Though cowherd, he can always lead.
Our behaviour towards others is based on what we see and how we process our observation. But not all things can be seen. Jati can be seen but not varna. One can see behaviour but one has no access to beliefs. A man can dress as a cowherd and talk like a cowherd, but he may at heart be a prince. We will never know unless we open our eyes to this possibility.

The killing of Kamsa is unique because it is the only story in Hindu mythology where a father-figure is killed. Unlike Ram who submits to Dashratha and Yadu who submits to Yayati, Krishna refuses to submit to Kamsa. This tale marks a shift in thinking where the younger generation refuses to suffer the tyranny of the older generation. This makes Krishna a radical hero in the Hindu spiritual landscape.

When Vishnu is Parashurama, Lakshmi takes the form of his father's cow. In other words, she is his mother, providing him nutrition. When Vishnu is Ram, Lakshmi takes the form of Sita, his faithful wife, who stands by his side at all times. When Vishnu is Krishna, Lakshmi takes the form of Draupadi, not his mother or his wife, but a distant relative, barely connected by blood or marriage. Draupadi cares for Krishna as Radha does, without expectations. And that is why Krishna always watches over her, even though he is not obliged to.

PATTANAIK, DEVDUTT (2012-05-22). Seven secrets of Vishnu ( Westland Publishing. Kindle Edition.

superb! especially the line abt nobleman and cowherd.krishna is a really tough character to understand as per me in human perspective. his action always leaves pondering why he did si.but thats what makes him so unique. drau krishna sakhi has unwaverimg devotion.

Quote

Sukanya_Datta

@Sukanya_Datta

Sparkler

+ 2

Posted: 11 years ago

#288

THE REAL SLAVERY

In mythology, Draupadi's disrobing will go down as one of the most brazen acts committed on a woman.

Somehow, everything about this episode seems abnormal, indigestible and most of all, incredible. What was Ved Vyas trying to convey?

The horrendous humiliation of a menstruating woman in a courtroom full of testosterone; the utterly impotent behaviour of not one, but five of her husbands, known to be the bravest, strongest and most decent of the Aryan lot; the extent of Yudhishtir's gullibility; the insanity to accept a second invitation; the cold silence of wise old men; and also Karna's dharma-quoting to egg on the disrobing. What happened to everyone? This was the one incident where almost everyone behaved completely out of character.

There is an alternate belief that the disrobing did not happen at all, but was a later addition to add spice to the drama. They also conclude that Krishna's saviour act must have been a Vaishnavite addition to promote his divine status.

This essay is not to prove or disprove what happened. We are all free to believe what we want to. I put aside my personal belief on this.

But there is one truth that glares out from this episode, and that truth glares irrespective of whether the disrobing happened or not.

I believe that Ved Vyaas wanted us to see this truth.

He showed the sheer stupidity of getting oneself knotted up in elaborate dharma. Every other person was yelling the word "dharma" but it was the most adharmic day in the history of the Kurus. Even the wisest among men allowed themselves to be muted by clever rule twisting; everyone was hanging his head in confusion and helplessness; everyone was suffering from "ethical dilemmas"; and everyone's heart and inner voice was screaming what was right and what was wrong. But no one listened.

Yudhisthir should not have accepted to play, certainly not the second time. But even after smelling deceit, he tied his hands with dharmic protocol. The brothers should have protected their wife, but were shackled by the rules of the game. Bhishma should have stopped the nonsense but could not clinch a solid cerebral argument - because he was stuck to the "written dharma".

The irony was that adharma happened under the cloak of dharma.

The good guys could not stop real adharma because of pseudo dharma. The bad guys had an adharmic field day, under the protection of pseudo dharma.

What comes out slapping on the face is this: that there is a limit to how far rules can take you. You can't let rules - well - rule you! It is as simple as that! Perhaps the incredulous-ness of this even was intentional. I think this was the point of it all - to show how much of a mess can be made when good people don't think beyond rules, and bad people manipulate the rules.

Vyas showed two kinds of slavery. One was the slavery of the Pandavas resulting from losing the bet. But the real slavery was their blind clinging to rules that do not serve a higher morality. This ended up allowing the lowest human behaviour possible.

Dharma is a double edged sword. It is nectar if followed with intelligence, but poison if clung onto stupidly.

This was the mindset that Krishna's reversed.

The Kauravas manipulated rules to win a kingdom they neither earned nor deserved. Krishna manipulated rules against the original manipulators to get back a kingdom that was built with blood and sweat.

The Kauravas dared to quote dharma to disrobe a woman. Krishna used the power of love to restore her dignity. Holding such precarious dharma as sacred is stupidity. Love alone is sacred.

Krishna made some very bold statements during the Vastra Haran episode. One - he was conspicuously absent. Two - he saved Draupadi as soon as she surrendered to him. He did not at that moment leaf through a rule book and wonder if it would be appropriate to intervene.

Even if we assume that the disrobing did not happen and Draupadi was only verbally humiliated, his stand remains the same. He said clearly, "If I was there I would not have let this happen".

He was the only man that day, even though he was not even there. Not Bhishma, not the Pandavas, and not Karna, even if he had remained silent - because he too did not even try to stop the madness.

Krishna was the only one who didn't give two hoots for written dharma when it clashed with the inner voice of morality.
Champa

Source: Click Here...

Quote

Bhaskari

@bhas1066

Navigator

Posted: 11 years ago

#289

the lesson is to understand the spirit of the law rather than the written words.
right?

Quote

246851

Hibernated

Posted: 11 years ago

#290

@sukanya : Agreed to what you posted.

I have been saying this from the very beginning

the law of letter was moire important than spirit of dharma, and that is why krishna time and again tears the so called dharma to show how spirit should be realised.

PS: The source is nice, but from the writing it seems taken from one one dr Pattnaik's books. It is not jaya, but it can be the mythology or 7 secrets of Vishnu book. will let you know once I check.

Quote

1 ... 27 28 29 30 31 ... 83

'Mahabharat- Different Versions -Perspectives' - Page 29

Related Topics

Explore Topics