'Mahabharat- Different Versions -Perspectives' - Page 58

Originally posted by: -Jamy-

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 the oldest and greatest concept of Hinduism- rather it is the paradox of all paradoxes. He is what incomprehensible and transcendental is, beyond the limits of the understanding of a human brain. That is why he is today presented in a simple form what we see. But that is only like the waves of an ocean; actual ocean is deep beyond the waves. You can fit anything dead or alive, existing or non-existing, ideas or dreams or concepts, anything into Vishnu. Still he is beyond all that. All concepts of any God will fit into Vishnu; like a handful of sea water taken in cupped hands, whereas Vishnu is the ocean itself. Okay. I know I'm typing too much. 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!😃

Sayanee and Jamy -your posts are really insightful..I don't have any knowledge on these..it was good knowing things :)

Originally posted by: SayaneeH.Lecter

<font color="#cc0033">Thank you Sir .. the lines in color gives answers of many questions my mind has ever formed .. & yes this is logical only .. if we look at the History of gradual formation of Hindu religion [what we think Hindu religion NOW] Shiva is the oldest God as the source of Shiva is coming from pre-Aryan era i.e. most ancient Indus civilization where the believe of Vishnu came much later .. even in starting of Aryan invasion Indra[Purandar] was their foremost God .. then varuna became highest worshiped .. then vishnu .. During Mahabharata time has changed to an extent .. Vaidic culture changed into Brahmanya society .. so like Ramayana is fight between Aryans and Native Indians (then) Mahabharata stands for fight between two different ideology and believes forming among Aryan society</font>

<font color="#cc0033">Thank you Sir for putting such significant points .. have you named your book?? If yes please let me know .. would love to read it</font>

Sayanee, thank you for your lively interest and also for the informed debate between you and others on this Forum, which I find quite interesting. The name of my book is: 'Marvels & Mysteries of the Mahabharata', with the sub-title: 'Probing the Folds of India's Epochal Tragedy'. It has two parts, 'Story' and 'History' -- the former giving character sketches and legend analyses, and the latter the historicity of the epic and its events. The second part contains a Chapter titled 'Interpretations Galore', dealing with the medley of interpretations and reinterpretations of the 'Great Epic of India' by Indologists from the 19th century to date. I should, however, add the caveat that the book on the whole raises a range of questions on the characters and the historicity, and suggests possible answers to those with reference to the author's own interpretation, informed by the eclectic treasure of studies done by noted Mb scholars. But these answers are never claimed as the only infallible ones. After all, I try to follow Keats' prescription of 'negative capability', i.e. poets (and scholars/students) should not confine themselves to a position of iron-clad certitude, but be open to life with all its mysteries, marvels and uncertainties. This, as I have tried to explain in the book's very first chapter, seems also to be the philosophy of Vyasa and Yudhishthira.

Originally posted by: Ashwini_D

You are right, but his oath was not to reject a game of dice, but to steer clear of disagreement or any fallout as much as possible that might spiral into the downfall of the kshtriyas or the kuru race, as was foretold by Vyasa at the Rajasyuya. Here's a citation from the KMG translation:

"And after the king had taken his seat surrounded by his brothers, the illustrious Vyasa, truthful in speech said,--'O son of Kunti, thou growest from good fortune. Thou hast obtained imperial sway so difficult of acquisition. And O perpetuator of the Kuru race, all the Kauravas have prospered in consequence of thee. O Emperor, I have been duly worshipped. I desire now to go with thy leave! King Yudhishthira the just, thus addressed by the Rishi of dark hue, saluted (him) his grandfather and touching his feet said,--'O chief of men, a doubt difficult of being dispelled, hath risen within me. O bull among regenerate ones, save thee there is none to remove it. The illustrious Rishi Narada said that (as a consequence of the Rajasuya sacrifice) three kinds of portents, viz., celestial, atmospherical and terrestrial ones happen. O grandsire, have those portents been ended by the fall of the kind of the Chedis?''

Vaisampayana continued,--"Hearing these words of the king, the exalted son of Parasara, the island-born Vyasa of dark hue, spoke these words,--'For thirteen years, O king, those portents will bear mighty consequences ending in destruction, O king of kings, of all the Kshatriyas. In course of time, O bull of the Bharata race, making thee the sole cause, the assembled Kshatriyas of the world will be destroyed, O Bharata, for the sins of Duryodhana

p. 92

and through the might of Bhima and Arjuna. In thy dream, O king of kings thou wilt behold towards the end of this might the blue throated Bhava, the slayer of Tripura, ever absorbed in meditation, having the bull for his mark, drinking off the human skull, and fierce and terrible, that lord of all creatures, that god of gods, the husband of Uma, otherwise called Hara and Sarva, and Vrisha, armed with the trident and the bow called Pinaka, and attired in tiger skin. And thou wilt behold Siva, tall and white as the Kailasa cliff and seated on his bull, gazing unceasingly towards the direction (south) presided over by the king of the Pitris. Even this will be the dream thou wilt dream today, O king of kings. Do not grieve for dreaming such a dream. None can rise superior to the influence of Time. Blest be thou! I will now proceed towards the Kailasa mountain. Rule thou the earth with vigilance and steadiness, patiently bearing every privation!'"

Vaisampayana continued,--"Having said this, the illustrious and island-born Vyasa of dark hue, accompanied by his disciples ever following the dictates of the Vedas, proceeded towards Kailasa. And after the grand-father had thus gone away, the king afflicted with anxiety and grief, began to think continuously upon what the Rishi hath said. And he said to himself, 'Indeed what the Rishi hath said must come to pass. We will succeed in warding off the fates by exertion alone?' Then Yudhishthira endued with great energy addressing all his brothers, said, 'Ye tigers among men, ye have heard what the island-born Rishi hath told me. Having heard the words of the Rishi, I have arrived at this firm resolution viz., that I should die, as I am ordained to be the cause of the destruction of all Kshatriyas. Ye my dear ones, if Time hath intended so what need is there for me to live?' Hearing these words of the king, Arjuna replied, 'O king, yield not thyself to this terrible depression that is destructive of reason. Mustering fortitude, O great king, do what would be beneficial.' Yudhishthira then, firm in truth, thinking all the while of Dwaipayana's words answered his brothers thus,--'Blest be ye. Listen to my vow from this day. For thirteen years, what ever purpose have I to live for, I shall not speak a hard word to my brothers or to any of the kings of the earth. Living under the command of my relatives, I shall practise virtue, exemplifying my vow. If I live in this way, making no distinction between my own children and others, there will be no disagreement (between me and others). It is disagreement that is the cause of war in the world. Keeping war at a distance, and ever doing what is agreeable to others, evil reputation will not be mine in the world, ye bulls among men. Hearing these words of their eldest brother, the Pandavas, always engaged in doing what was agreeable to him, approved of them. And Yudhishthira the just, having pledged so, along with his brothers in the midst of that assembly, gratified his priests as also the gods with due ceremonies."

Sayanee, I'm no learned; only a confused soul looking at the endless ocean with amusement. I personally don't support any God -Shiva or Vishnu or Durga or Saraswati- more than the other. I rather support facts.

You're right about Vishnu being told as Indra's young brother in Rig Veda (RV) as 'Upendra'. But that is only in the context of Trivikrama where he is born as the younger son of Indra's mother, to protect and help Indra. Indra kills the demon in the space Vishnu created, only after receiving energy from Vishnu. It is to be noted that this 'Brother Vishnu' is mentioned nowhere in other contexts related to Vishnu. RV-10-113-2 clearly indicates Vishnu gets honoured for his own vigour where as Indra & other gods need to do things like slaying Vritra for honour. RV-1-156-5 says Vishnu comes and assist Indra and he gets worshipped. Indra was only worshipped only circumstancially as I quoted before. Now this is like missing the forest by focusing on a tree.😆 RV makes it clear that Indra and all other Gods derive their energy from Vishnu only. I can't cite every Vedic hymn, but trust Vedas, there is no 'MAY BE' in regarding the supremacy Vishnu. It is clear like water. I'm not opposing your views, but just trying to say everything co-existed together in a subtle form.

Purusha Sooktam from 10th mandala of RV, explains how creation happened from Purusha (Vishnu). There is no mention of any great destruction before it. This part is perhaps the most devastating paradox to solve even for the experts in Sanskrit. Let's put aside the complex explanations that need physics (which I don't know) to understand. In simple words, Purusha produced himself from himself using himself through a series of his expansions (and condensations) after which the creation of the universe took place, following the origin of Dharma. So the concept of Mahadeva/Shiva remains unclear or irrelevent here. Also this hymn identifies Vishnu in his worldly form as the husband of Lakshmi. Other many hymns like RV-1-154-4 (Vishnu upholds the universe and all living creature- that is why the name Vasudeva), RV-7-99-2 (the unlimited divine magnitude of Vishnu covering three worlds-his name Trivikrama), RV1-156-2 (Vishnu as the ancient, the creator, the recent, the self-born, blessing his devotees with the what sought by all people) prove that the Vedic Vishnu and Puranic Vishnu share the exactly same characters. So there is no point in arguing both are different. I quoted only RV as they're the oldest (at least 6500 years). Also it is impossible to quote every word and explain. In other Vedas also hymns like Narayana Sukta glorify him. The later developement of Vishnu is the adaptations of his (24 generally) incarnations including 10 major ones.

I totally agree with the Pashupatinath statue indicating Shiva worship. But there are also many symbols in Indus Valley Civilisation (IVC) indicating the worship of Vishnu. Of them, the most cited are the different seals for daily use. The unicorn boar seal called Ekashringa Varaha apppears as the highest animals of the Indus Seals of the Divine. It is the prime symbol connected to the Varaha avatara of Vishnu. The Vedas also mention the highest or the supreme male one as Vrisha (not a bull or vrishabha) which is a varaha, which usually meant a boar. The Varaha is the symbolism of the supreme male principle of Dharma, the Purusha or cosmic spirit, which is said to be Vishnu. The Unicorn Boar is also considered as the symbol of Vedic knowledge. It was a common symbol on writing inscriptions makes sense as a Vedic symbol of speech, knowledge and worship. Also The Varaha avatara is the form most connected to the Vedic sacrifices. The IVC unicorn is always portrayed with a standard, cauldron or filter in front of it which can be equated with Vedic sacrificial cauldrons and Soma filters. There are also other Indus Valley seals like 'curious Krishna' and 'Ashwattha leaf' and the 'Brahma bull' etc... and many other symbols that confirm worship of Vishnu during IVC, for which explanations will only make this comment too lengthy to read.

Saraswati in Vedas is not only a river, but also the goddess of learning and the universal mother or the universal power house who is described as the supreme most of all Goddesses. RV-2-41-16- 'ambi tame nadi tame devi tame Saraswati' (the best of all mothers, rivers and goddesses is only Saraswati)

Let us keep the Invasion theory aside. Even Swami Vivekananda had questioned its validity. Writing all those only will make my fingers and your eyes pain.😆 The most interesting fact is that both theories-Aryan Invasion and Saraswati drying up- are equally old and formed by English men whereas the British kingdom promoted only the Invasion theory. Think about it.

Anyhow let us continue this discussion elsewhere as we're moving away from the topic of the main thread. Sorry for any unknown mistakes.

Where was i all the time that could not get this thread🤔????

jamy thanks for really enlighting post! I really learnt many new things

Originally posted by: ...sandhureet..

😕As i am not sure that what am gonna ask is relevant to ask or not,but m so confused regarding this perspective,or as if my query is out of the topic,please pardon me if my question is not relevant😕

I have heard from somewhere that Karna in his previous birth committed some sins,he was granted a wish by some God and had 100/some1000 of armours and earings,he was destroying the earth and then Narayana and Nara took birth to kill him.As it was not possible for one person to kill him so somehow both used some technique😕or what u can call that,when js one armour and earing was left,Karna(by that time he would b having some other name which i forgot😕)went to that God who granted him his wish.Then Narayna said that both Nara and Narayana will take birth in Dwapar Yug and will kill him.this is how Karna had to die by Arjuna only.How much relevant these facts are???

You can assume me as illeterate praani🥱...but please someone,please bring me out of this darkness/confusion

Regards

Reet