~| Whatever you want to argue about |~ - Page 85

First of all its a fact that there is no one person named Narada Devala and Asita and Dhaumya.

These four guys and specially the first three keep occuring as different guys as part of the same family in several generations starting all the way from Brahma till Gautama Buddha.

I was trying to find out the relationship betweeN All these Asitas Devalas Naradas and Dhaumyas.

It seems.in this particular family the names were chosen for the boys from these four only.

So Brahma has a son Narada, who chooses to be bachelor and tries to make everyone a brahmachari, including Daksha's sons. And Daksha is pissed of and is forced to adopt his daughters children to continue his.lineage.

Eventually Brahma has another son Dharma who.marries 10 daughters of Daksha and one of the daughters named Vsu, gives birth to 8 vasus (who reincarnate as Bhishma and brothers). 2nd one of those Vasus is Pratushya,

Pratushya has a son Devala.

Devala has a son - Narada (named after granduncle) and daughter - Rishiti. This Narada is the one who starts Hiranyaksh/Hiranyakashipu family fight all the way till Bali with Indra.

Later thE Narada has a son Asita..

Asita has two sons Devala and Narada and a daughter Sannati

Then Devala has a son Asita and Narada. I think.this Asita was the guy rejected by Satyavati in favour of Shantanu

Asita has a son Devala and Dhaumya.

Dhaumya here becomes Pandavas guru and his uncle Narada is the chief troublemaker in vasudev , krishna and their lives

Now all these men had wives as Panchal princesses, except the first Narada who was brahmachari.

Finally a new name pops here Dhaumya the guru of Pandavas.

But there is a Ayoda Dhaumya who comes out of nowhere in between. He and upamanyu are sons of Vyaghrapada, from Panchal.

And this Ayodha Dhaumya has the.disciple Aruni, Upamanyu and Veda.

But Yudhiahtir during incognito period gives his gotra based on guru shishya parampara as Vyaghrapada.

Vyaghrapada are brahmins descended from Kashyapa.

Ok now several generations down we have a new Asita and his nephew Narada a son of devala meeting Suddhodhana and Gautama Siddhartha or Buddha, who give the brilliant idea to siddharth to go out and see the world

So you see one family of Asita, Devala and Narada are responsible for mischief all the way from Brahma's times to Gautama Buddha..

Damn.. These guys were incorrigible. So the names kept repeating in the family and kind of acts as a tool to suggest immortality.

Originally posted by: Chiillii

So Brahma has a son Narada, who chooses to be bachelor and tries to make everyone a brahmachari, including Daksha's sons. And Daksha is pissed of and is forced to adopt his daughters children to continue his.lineage.

This 😆just tickled me no end

Going by this theory, there shall be only one Narad at any given time/generations. But even during the same generation, Narads behave differently or rather in contrast to each other. How. Do you see it then.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thequint.com/amp/story/news%252Fromila-thapar-mahabharata-reference-controversy

Thoughts?

Originally posted by: Poorabhforever

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thequint.com/amp/story/news%252Fromila-thapar-mahabharata-reference-controversy

Thoughts?

There ARE Buddhist ideas in written MBh. The mongoose in Ashwamedhika for instance.

Also, the critics themselves are getting the timeline wrong since Yudhishtira lived in Iron Age which didn't start in India until 2000 BC or so. Note that, magical estimates cannot be taken into account in THIS argument since she is arguing history and literature, not mythology.

Problem is her smugness and arrogance are quite evident when she talks. Before I get accused of sexism, I loathe Pattnaik for similar reasons (among others).

I also disagree vehemently with some of Thappar's ideas.

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Going by this theory, there shall be only one Narad at any given time/generations. But even during the same generation, Narads behave differently or rather in contrast to each other. How. Do you see it then.

He was well known to be a trouble maker. Even now we have old aunties who say different things to different parties and start trouble.

Originally posted by: Poorabhforever

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thequint.com/amp/story/news%252Fromila-thapar-mahabharata-reference-controversy

Thoughts?

Actually I had never heard about this controversy at all, but now that she pointed it out, there are certain contrasts between the two

1) Yudhishtir might have been anti war and pro peace like Ashoka, but while the latter even after renouncing violence was still strong enough to ensure that no one could bat an eye onto him or his state, this actually never happened with Yudhishtir, yes he was anti war for a good period of time, but once he regained power, he decided to go on for a full fledged Ashwamedh Yagya, which is simply be under me or die. Also many kings actually did fight with him, his Ashwamedh was not completely bloodless. So while after resorting to Ahimsa, Ashoka never got into a big war, yet all feared him, Yudhishtir did start an imperial campaign after (which in no way could be completely peaceful) after resorting to peace, yet many weren't afraid for him.

Why shall Hindus create an alter hero against Ashoka on his caricature and make him less powerful/less decisive.

2) Yudhishtir of epic is actually a team player, his brothers support him, while Ashoka during his deadlier days had nearly killed all his brothers.

***This point could however be refuted by stating that the brothers killed were changed from those of same father to cousins in the retelling by Hindus to made Yudhishtir all the more pious than Ashoka. In fact the epic Yudhishtir was benevolent even to his evil cousins

3) Not much is known about the personal life of Ashoka, even in Buddhist texts, so such a detailed characterization of Yudhishtir (,based out on Ashoka) would have been a challenge for even then. Plus he was given vices like gambling, hunting etc, something which were repeatedly condemned by Buddhists and Ashoka refrained from those.

Considering people liked those ideas of Ashoka, what was the need of giving his alter ego/response, the vices, whose refrain became one reason for his public acceptance

4) If the epic Yudhishtir is an alter ego of Ashok created by Hindus, then who is the Yudhishtir mentioned in Buddhist literature and referenced in Jatak kathas? Is the epic Yudhishtir same person uselessly given the characteristics of Ashoka or both are different?

However Saying that I must admit, this theory can not be Completely rejected. Her points are valid

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

He was well known to be a trouble maker. Even now we have old aunties who say different things to different parties and start trouble.

One Narad could have been so, but all the Narad's had same qualities?

Aside if he was notorious for such things why did people share confidential information with them?

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

There ARE Buddhist ideas in written MBh. The mongoose in Ashwamedhika for instance.

Also, the critics themselves are getting the timeline wrong since Yudhishtira lived in Iron Age which didn't start in India until 2000 BC or so. Note that, magical estimates cannot be taken into account in THIS argument since she is arguing history and literature, not mythology.

Problem is her smugness and arrogance are quite evident when she talks. Before I get accused of sexism, I loathe Pattnaik for similar reasons (among others).

I also disagree vehemently with some of Thappar's ideas.

According to her the Yudhishtir of the epic is a Hindu response to Buddhist hero Ashok. This is something which is difficult to believe. Some inputs in Yudhishtir's character is possible but Complete character based on him seems difficult

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

According to her the Yudhishtir of the epic is a Hindu response to Buddhist hero Ashok. This is something which is difficult to believe. Some inputs in Yudhishtir's character is possible but Complete character based on him seems difficult

Her tactic is very similar to those of any unscrupulous politician. Insert some truth into a largely fact-free assertion so no one will be able to completely dismiss it. Those readers with little knowledge and little patience to scrutinize each word then buy the whole thing, lock, stock, and barrel.

Pattnaik does the same.