'Mahabharat- Different Versions -Perspectives' - Page 57

Originally posted by: TheDreamCatcher

This thread has answers to many of my questions. I'm glad i've come across this.

The most important thing I have read about Yudisthir and that he is not addicted to gambling. It was a kshatriya protocol to accept it when invited.

But i have read it somewhere that it was an oath taken by him not to reject a game of dice when called for, perhaps at rajasuya yagna or after completing the education, i'm not sure. It was just like how Arjuna too oath to kill anyone who'd ask him to give up his Gandiva. Please enlighten me on this. Also are there any such oaths taken by other pandavas, i.e Bhim, Nakul and Sahadev?

Yudisthira wanted to win Hastinapur in the dice game and hence he went along to play the game and he was addicted to it.

"..Vaisampayana said, "Thus addressed by Bhimasena, the high-souled king Ajatasatru firmly devoted to truth, mustering his patience, after a few moments said these words, 'No doubt, O Bharata, all this is true. I cannot reproach thee for thy torturing me thus by piercing me with thy arrowy words. From my folly alone hath this calamity come against you. I sought to cast the dice desiring to snatch from Dhritarashtra's son his kingdom with the sovereignty. ."

Arjuna's oath was unique, Bhima had a few oaths but they were due to an action ( like breaking Duryodhan's thigh, killing the 100 sons of Gandhari etc etc all in the Dyuta Sabha ). Nakul & Sahadeva are not given much importance in the epic, they were in a side role compared to Yudi, Bhima and Arjuna.

There is even a story that Bheem and Duryodhan's thirst for each other's blood started at the time of their birth as they are born in the same celestial order along with bakasura, jarasandha and keechaka.

Originally posted by: TheDreamCatcher

This thread has answers to many of my questions. I'm glad i've come across this.

The most important thing I have read about Yudisthir and that he is not addicted to gambling. It was a kshatriya protocol to accept it when invited.

But i have read it somewhere that it was an oath taken by him not to reject a game of dice when called for, perhaps at rajasuya yagna or after completing the education, i'm not sure. It was just like how Arjuna too oath to kill anyone who'd ask him to give up his Gandiva. Please enlighten me on this. Also are there any such oaths taken by other pandavas, i.e Bhim, Nakul and Sahadev?

Originally posted by: Sukanya_Datta

Found this article on FB:

MAHABHARAT-UNKNOWN FACTS
THE BLUE LORD
Ever wondered why Krishna is represented in Dark Blue Hue(more towards violet side of the spectrum).Some attribute this to his darkness of skin.But even Arjuna was dark(one of his names was Krishna).Then why wasn't Arjuna represented in such a shade??
Anything that seems to be out of limits of Human perception tends to be blue.Look at skies,oceans etc. which are unbounded in human perception.
That's why sometimes. even Lord Ram and Lord Shiva are also represented in blue shade.
But this is a devotee's point of view.Nothing wrong with it.But there's another explanation.
--The Yogi's Perspective(Maybe Physicist's too)--
The Yogic perspective says that Krishna had a Dark blue Aura(More of violet).But what's an Aura??
We all know each and every thought and action of ours results into an electric impulses in our body through nerves.It's an established fact that Electric and Magnetic fields are intertwined .Thus an Electromagnetic field is formed around the body called as an AURA.
Now ,wherever the density of nerves will be more the EM fields will be stronger.These dense nerve lines are believed to be Chakra centres if Human body.(A doctor says this).
Energy around every Chakra corresponds to a different frequency.
Eventually the colour an Aura assumes corresponds to the colour of the dominant Chakra(s) .
But there's something astonishing.From Sahasrara(crown) to Muladhara(base) the spectrum distribution corresponds to VIBGYOR.
Each colour has some significance.If you have::
Red Aura:Muladhara is dominant.You are mostly engrossed Survival
Orange Aura:Swadhisthana is dominant.You are mostly engrossed Sexuality.
Yellow Aura:Manipuraka dominates.Will power is your strength.
Green Aura:Anahata dominates.It is a center of Love,creativity.
Blue Aura:Vishuddhi(Throat) dominates.You are a master communicator and hence you grow powerful.
Indigo:Agna dominates.Your third eye is activated.Intution,Intellect are your strengths.
Violet:Sahasrasar is dominant.Spirituality is the main trait.
When you focus on all chakras your Aura goes white.Sometimes Krishna had this Aura too.But the people who were sensitive to such energies sensed a Dark Blue aura around him most of the time.
If you see his life his major traits were Intution,Clarity,Spirituality and being a master manipulator i.e his focus was on top three chakras.Thus his Aura had a dark blue hue which was a collective result of dominant top three chakras.
--Back to a devotee's view--
The Sky ,the oceans have represented vastness for centuries.
Similarly the Blue Lord is known for his Infinite nature for the past 5000 years.
Regards,
Prasad

Source: Link

Originally posted by: abhijitbasu

Certainly Karna is a great tragic hero. Indeed, he is in a sense the greatest tragic hero of the MB (surely more so than Duryodhana), just as Bheeshma is the greatest abnegating hero of the epic. In my book, there is one chapter which is titled 'Exalting Tragedy', with reference to a comment by Edith Hamilton (the classicist) that the pioneering Greek tragedy of Aeschylus has the 'strange power to exalt and not depress'. MB in general, and Karna in particular eminently qualify in that classical test of a great tragedy and a great tragic hero. Karna, as I earlier mentioned, is the one shining example of purushakara in MB - a self-made man, whose whole life was one great struggle against an unconscionably cruel fate. Cast away at birth (in a basket) like the Biblical Moses, Karna, like Moses, carved an exalted place for himself in the galaxy of the world's most illustrious heroes. Ironically, for all the insults heaped on him by the Kuru royalty, his name figures with solitary splendour (vi-a-vis all his epic contemporaries) in the genealogy of kings given in the Vishnu-Purana. Karna's greatest tragedy perhaps was that he was, as was alluded to by Krishna, the right man on the wrong side'. He placed mitra dharma (duty as a loyal friend to benefactor Duryodhana) above the ultimate dharma (of aiding the righteous side). His glaring lapses - like the abominable part played by him in the humiliation of Draupadi, or in the collective slaughter of Abhimanyu - are also due to this tragic confusion of duties; otherwise he was too noble a person to stoop to such uncharacteristically low levels. At times he also seems conceited and arrogant. But that conceit, that arrogance, was the reaction of a heroic but sensitive soul to a prejudiced society's dismissive rejection of his exceptional abilities. And in the final hurly burly of war, his punctilious Kshatriya ethics (in refusing the fortuitous help from the vengeful serpent Ashvasena) put to shame the lack of it on the part of the Krishna-Arjuna combine. Karna's death is arguably one of the noblest among all the world's tragic heroes, as is strikingly validated by this wonderful verse on his decapitation in MB: "Then, the exquisitely handsome body of Karna of generous acts, who was worthy of perpetual happiness, let go of that head (of solar refulgence) with the kind of extreme reluctance that is evinced by a wealthy person in leaving his own prosperous home, and by a saintly one in forsaking virtuous company."

Originally posted by: abhijitbasu

Certainly Karna is a great tragic hero. Indeed, he is in a sense the greatest tragic hero of the MB (surely more so than Duryodhana), just as Bheeshma is the greatest abnegating hero of the epic. In my book, there is one chapter which is titled 'Exalting Tragedy', with reference to a comment by Edith Hamilton (the classicist) that the pioneering Greek tragedy of Aeschylus has the 'strange power to exalt and not depress'. MB in general, and Karna in particular eminently qualify in that classical test of a great tragedy and a great tragic hero. Karna, as I earlier mentioned, is the one shining example of purushakara in MB - a self-made man, whose whole life was one great struggle against an unconscionably cruel fate. Cast away at birth (in a basket) like the Biblical Moses, Karna, like Moses, carved an exalted place for himself in the galaxy of the world's most illustrious heroes. Ironically, for all the insults heaped on him by the Kuru royalty, his name figures with solitary splendour (vi-a-vis all his epic contemporaries) in the genealogy of kings given in the Vishnu-Purana. Karna's greatest tragedy perhaps was that he was, as was alluded to by Krishna, the right man on the wrong side'. He placed mitra dharma (duty as a loyal friend to benefactor Duryodhana) above the ultimate dharma (of aiding the righteous side). His glaring lapses - like the abominable part played by him in the humiliation of Draupadi, or in the collective slaughter of Abhimanyu - are also due to this tragic confusion of duties; otherwise he was too noble a person to stoop to such uncharacteristically low levels. At times he also seems conceited and arrogant. But that conceit, that arrogance, was the reaction of a heroic but sensitive soul to a prejudiced society's dismissive rejection of his exceptional abilities. And in the final hurly burly of war, his punctilious Kshatriya ethics (in refusing the fortuitous help from the vengeful serpent Ashvasena) put to shame the lack of it on the part of the Krishna-Arjuna combine. Karna's death is arguably one of the noblest among all the world's tragic heroes, as is strikingly validated by this wonderful verse on his decapitation in MB: "Then, the exquisitely handsome body of Karna of generous acts, who was worthy of perpetual happiness, let go of that head (of solar refulgence) with the kind of extreme reluctance that is evinced by a wealthy person in leaving his own prosperous home, and by a saintly one in forsaking virtuous company."

Originally posted by: bheegi

Parva is an imaginative reconstruction which impressed me in parts. The initial story of old Shalya and the depiction of the uninhibited ways of the Madra people and girls is interesting, So also are the episodes of Pandu's pravrajyaa and the kshetraja births of his sons through the agency of visiting Devas of superior race. But thereafter the story drags for long stretches with details on peripheral matters. On the whole, I agree with you that the book is somewhat 'depressing' in that the thrill of MB is just not there. Vyasa's MB (with or without its interpolations) is a great epic, and a great epic is best enjoyed when the reader follows Coleridge's advice to 'willingly suspend disbelief' of the supernatural.

Originally posted by: TheWatcher

Yudisthira wanted to win Hastinapur in the dice game and hence he went along to play the game and he was addicted to it.

"..Vaisampayana said, "Thus addressed by Bhimasena, the high-souled king Ajatasatru firmly devoted to truth, mustering his patience, after a few moments said these words, 'No doubt, O Bharata, all this is true. I cannot reproach thee for thy torturing me thus by piercing me with thy arrowy words. From my folly alone hath this calamity come against you. I sought to cast the dice desiring to snatch from Dhritarashtra's son his kingdom with the sovereignty. ."

Arjuna's oath was unique, Bhima had a few oaths but they were due to an action ( like breaking Duryodhan's thigh, killing the 100 sons of Gandhari etc etc all in the Dyuta Sabha ). Nakul & Sahadeva are not given much importance in the epic, they were in a side role compared to Yudi, Bhima and Arjuna.

Originally posted by: abhijitbasu

Pertinent questions! But I'll answer briefly, since I'm now packing up for my half-yearly move from one city to another (I may be off this forum tomorrow). The short point is that Duryodhana has a demoniac connection (remember, e.g., the evil omen at his birth, and Kripa's and Vidura's advice to kill him, which was overruled by Dhrtarashtra). So Karna, being his major source of strength, was helping the demoniac cause. Karna in this view, was the right man on the wrong side. There have, however, been other contrary interpretations, especially by noted Western commentators like Hopkins, which are called the 'Inversion Theory', suggesting that the Kauravas with Karna were the original virtuous side and followers of Shiva, who were later made the wrong side by Krishna/Vishnu-worshipping Brahmins. But that's a long story (dealt with in my book), and not the one accepted by majority opinion.

Sayanee, Indra is only the most praised God in Vedas. But all Vedas have accepted the supremacy of Vishnu, though he is not frequently mentioned. It is clearly said that Indra is praised only due to circumstances where as Vishnu is prayed for what he is. Vishnu is said to be the oldest and greatest concept of Hinduism and the paradox of all paradoxes. He is said to be what incomprehensible and transcendental is, beyond the limits of the understanding of a human brain, making him to be presented today in a simple form we see. This form of Vishnu can compared with the waves of an ocean; where as actual ocean is deep beyond the waves and the ocean itself can exist without waves. Rig Veda mentions Vishnu a total 93 times. And there is also a minor deity Vishnu who is none other than sun god Suryanarayana, who is also a minor form of Vishnu only. Don't get confused there. The Rig Veda itself admits Vishnu's factual superiority to Indra and all others Gods in several places.

Rig Veda.10.113.2: - Vishnu is glorified because of who and what he intrinsically is. Indra, on the other hand, is only glorious circumstantially.

Rig Veda.1.156.2:- Vishnu is the most ancient of all, yet also the most recent. Nothing and no one creates Vishnu, yet Vishnu creates everyone and everything.

Rig Veda1.22.20:- om tat Vishno: paramam padam sadaa pashyanti sooraya: ... This roughly means 'which all gods seek is the supreme pada (abode) of Vishnu.'. This verse clears any doubt on Vishnu's supremacy. Possibly there is no other God in Vedas who is described using 'Paramam Padam'.


Some of Vishnu's incarnations (if my memory is good, upto Vamana) are mentioned in (only gist in one or two lines, no long stories) in Vedas. The existance of Shiva in Vedas is still a matter of debate. Of course there is Rudra, but many aspects of Shiva are not found in Rudra. It is clear that they both are similar, but have differences too. I've no intention to make this post lengthy describing all those. But there are many scholars who identify Rudra as a different God from Shiva. And they've their set of reasons which is again only a never ending debate. Let us anyhow accept Shiva is also there, but at the same time not forget that Shiva also represents minor deities like Mitra, Varuna etc in Vedas...



Aryan Invasion theory seems to be outdated now a days. Though still there are a good number of scholars following it, number of scholars rejecting it is increasing day by day. This is again a vast topic of discussion. Yet, I'll try to remember the important points.

1. Word Aryan is used only as an adjective, never as a noun in Sanskrit. So there itself starts the contradiction.

2. Aryan invasion theory states that the Aryans attacked the Indus valley people and foisted their tradition and beliefs on them. But recent studies in Indus Valley Civilization sites reveal no sign of any invasions/war happened there. Hence it is proved that there was no invasion.

3. According to Aryan Invasion theory, the Indus Valley Civilization perished around 1500BC whereas recent studies indicate it had already been perished at least 1000 before to the above period.


Also there is a parallel theory of drying up of Saraswati River associated with the end of Indus Valley Civilization. This river as far as 15 km wide (as found by scientists, not me) is the mightiest and holiest of all rivers according to all Vedas (they don't care Ganga as much as we do) is said to have started drying up around 3000BC and dried up by 1700BC. You'll get enough online articles about this river. Today the latest debate is whether the river had a glacial origin or not. I personally don't support the theory of Aryan Invasion. I believe the Saraswati one more.

Sorry for this lengthy comment and also for any of typos or other mistakes happened while quoting. Quotations and explanations are there, mistakes if any are only mine, which happened while typing using phone!😃


Edit- on a side note, the Vedic culture and tradition is nowhere lost & it is still under practise among Nampoothiri Brahmins of Kerala. They still do Atiratra & Somayaga (the holiest of all yajnas in Vedas, considered as the oldest traditional practise existing today, not in practise anywhere in India for last 3000 years), still conduct Anyonyam (the yearly examination for Vedic students, being conducted from past 4000 years without any break)...

Also I did not mean to contradict or disprove your views. I respect them. They're also valid in their own ways. I was just only showing the other existing side of the coin!