Portrayal of Krishna in MB and SBh

sambhavami thumbnail
Posted: 5 years ago
#1

Okay I am very curious to know your opinions on this one:


Suppose we take both the scriptures of Mahabharata and Srimad Bhagavatham at their face value.


Then, SBh was narrated to Parikshit, and MB was narrated to Janmejaya.


So taking into account this version of both the texts Krishna's divine form was narrated first to Parikshit and it would mean definitely Janmejay was also familiar with SBh's version of Krishna.


So, my question is, how was Krishna's human portrayal in MB was received by the general public AFTER he was already deified in MB?


Was this the reason Vaishampayan included sporadic bursts of divinity in Krishna's character (his appearance in the dice hall, hiding the sun before Jayadrath's death and all those magic stuff)


I'm looking forward to having your opinion on the public response part if this narrative. 😳

Created

Last reply

Replies

23

Views

3.2k

Users

9

Likes

37

Frequent Posters

1123225 thumbnail
Posted: 5 years ago
#2

Neither dice hall nor hiding the sun is part of MBh. I honestly don't know where they came from.


The dice hall credit should've gone almost entirely to Panchali and a small fraction to Arjuna, but both got eclipsed by the Krishna interpolation.


The Jayadratha killing was in major part Krishna's doing, because Krishna does seem to locate Jayadratha for Arjuna prior to sunset, but there was no magic involved as per text.


_________________________


MBh we have wasn't just recited to Janmejaya. It was the narration of a narration of a narration - Vyasa to Vaishampayana, Vaishampayana to Janmejaya, Ugrasravas Sauti to the rishis hundreds of years lateršŸ˜†.


As for Janmejaya's lack of reaction to relative lack of magic, who knows? Maybe Parikshit was a believer and son was a skeptic. šŸ˜†

731627 thumbnail
Posted: 5 years ago
#3

Well for me Lord krishna was never a human , for me he is always God even in mahabharat war Lord krishna ki stuti hui hai


But yes in mahabharat mein Lord krishna ka less description hai but in shreemadh bhagwat shree krishna ke divine power ka more description hai

But here is link in of kmg version mahabharat where Lord krishna did show divinity in jaydraath power


That Lord krishna being hari with his ascetic powers created darkness


https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m07/m07142.htm


Here in this link Lord krishna told that he will shroud sun with his yoga

Edited by surabhi01 - 5 years ago
Vr15h thumbnail
16th Anniversary Thumbnail IPL 2024 Participants Thumbnail + 6
Posted: 5 years ago
#4

Originally posted by: proteeti

Okay I am very curious to know your opinions on this one:


Suppose we take both the scriptures of Mahabharata and Srimad Bhagavatham at their face value.


Then, SBh was narrated to Parikshit, and MB was narrated to Janmejaya.


So taking into account this version of both the texts Krishna's divine form was narrated first to Parikshit and it would mean definitely Janmejay was also familiar with SBh's version of Krishna.


So, my question is, how was Krishna's human portrayal in MB was received by the general public AFTER he was already deified in MB?


Was this the reason Vaishampayan included sporadic bursts of divinity in Krishna's character (his appearance in the dice hall, hiding the sun before Jayadrath's death and all those magic stuff)


I'm looking forward to having your opinion on the public response part if this narrative. 😳



Is Krishna's description in MB suggestive of him being mortal? My readings of both SB and MB seems to suggest that they complement each other. For instance, in Mausala Parva, the escalation b/w Satyaki and Kritavarma includes a reference to the latter's participation in the plot to murder Satyabhama's father Satyajit. Nobody would know the latter story w/o a reading of SB. Also, the story about the killings of Sishupala and Shalva, which are there in Sabha Parva and Vana Parva respectively, obviously suggest Krishna as divine (how would a mortal support the sudarshan chakra, which was used in killing both?) Also, when Krishna had Arjun dismount from his chariot on day 18 after Duryodhan's defeat and it exploded, he explained that the only reason that chariot didn't crumble before was that Krishna (and presumably Hanuman as well) were in it. Also in Swargarohan Parva, Arjun and Yudhisthir end up w/ Vishnu, which could only have happened by endorsing the avatar theory of Krishna as Vishnu


Now, there are contradictions b/w MB and SB: for instance, in SB, Kunti dies after hearing the news of Krishna's death, whereas in MB, Kunti died 11 years before that in the forest fire that also consumed Dhritarashtra and Gandhari. But I wouldn't put too much currency on that, since MB itself has contradictions within itself eg Balarama told Arjun that he intended to be neutral when Arjun approached him in Udyog Parva, but in Shalya Parva, when Balaram arrived at the scene before Bhima-Duryodhan's final battle, it states that he wanted Krishna to dedicate Dwarka on the Kaurava side (wierd, since that would have put the entire Yadava nation against Subhadra's sasural)

731627 thumbnail
Posted: 5 years ago
#5

After jadrath vadh yudhistar did stuti of Lord krishna calling Lord krishna supreme soul


https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m07/m07145.htm


Another thing in mahabharat in sabha parv when arjun bheem laugh at duryodhana when he fell down in pool of water in Maya palace there was no mention that yudhistar try to stop his brother not to laugh but Lord krishna gave his approval to laugh at duryodhana



But in shree madh bhagavat it is mention that yudhistar did try to stop brother not to laugh but Lord krishna gave approval to laugh at duryodhana

So ved vyas cut part in mahabharat and include in shree madh bhagwat

731627 thumbnail
Posted: 5 years ago
#6

There is quote word of Lord krishna in kmg version which means that Lord krishna saying to arjun that u can't kill jaydrath until u kill 6 warrior before jaydrath as jaydrath was in middle of 6 warrior

So Lord krishna say to arjuna that he will hide sun using his yoga power then jaydrath will come and u can strike him

Edited by surabhi01 - 5 years ago
sambhavami thumbnail
Posted: 5 years ago
#7

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Neither dice hall nor hiding the sun is part of MBh. I honestly don't know where they came from.


The dice hall credit should've gone almost entirely to Panchali and a small fraction to Arjuna, but both got eclipsed by the Krishna interpolation.


The Jayadratha killing was in major part Krishna's doing, because Krishna does seem to locate Jayadratha for Arjuna prior to sunset, but there was no magic involved as per text.


_________________________


MBh we have wasn't just recited to Janmejaya. It was the narration of a narration of a narration - Vyasa to Vaishampayana, Vaishampayana to Janmejaya, Ugrasravas Sauti to the rishis hundreds of years lateršŸ˜†.


As for Janmejaya's lack of reaction to relative lack of magic, who knows? Maybe Parikshit was a believer and son was a skeptic. šŸ˜†


All that is true. But here, I am considering everything that is written to be true. In that case, Krishna shows his divinity on and off in both the texts. Only, he's a little more magical in SBh.


My question was pertaining to the people's reaction. After hearing SBh all people definitely started worshipping Krishna. But then Vaishampayan comes and goes on with MB where Krishna is comparatively less divine. What could have been the people's reaction? Why did MB become more popular, being 'released' after SBh?


Do you think it affected Krishna's portrayal in our current day in any manner (the order of the release of the texts)?

sambhavami thumbnail
Posted: 5 years ago
#8

Originally posted by: surabhi01

Well for me Lord krishna was never a human , for me he is always God even in mahabharat war Lord krishna ki stuti hui hai


But yes in mahabharat mein Lord krishna ka less description hai but in shreemadh bhagwat shree krishna ke divine power ka more description hai

But here is link in of kmg version mahabharat where Lord krishna did show divinity in jaydraath power


That Lord krishna being hari with his ascetic powers created darkness


https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m07/m07142.htm


Here in this link Lord krishna told that he will shroud sun with his yoga


That is all very true. And here I am considering both the texts right as they are, word for word.


Because before SrimadBhagavatham is recited to Parikshit by Shuka muni, Krishna was mostly remembered as a Pandava elder and well-wisher right. So much details on him wasn't available to the normal public.


They came to know about 'Krishna the avatar' only after SBh. But, in MB he comes off as comparatively less divine (I'm not saying poora human, but kind of beech mein somewhere).


You remember that part after the war when Arjun asks Krishna to repeat the Geeta Gyaan for him and Krishna says that he's forgotten it? This incident hins at that Krishna's Geeta was not something Krishna created for Arjun. Krishna seems to have learnt it somewhere, from a rishi. This therefore suggests that he was closer to being a human than a God.


My question was, how do you think the general public react to this? Why do you think people accepted this, after the supreme Godhead of SBh? 😳

sambhavami thumbnail
Posted: 5 years ago
#9

Originally posted by: .Vrish.



Is Krishna's description in MB suggestive of him being mortal? My readings of both SB and MB seems to suggest that they complement each other. For instance, in Mausala Parva, the escalation b/w Satyaki and Kritavarma includes a reference to the latter's participation in the plot to murder Satyabhama's father Satyajit. Nobody would know the latter story w/o a reading of SB. Also, the story about the killings of Sishupala and Shalva, which are there in Sabha Parva and Vana Parva respectively, obviously suggest Krishna as divine (how would a mortal support the sudarshan chakra, which was used in killing both?) Also, when Krishna had Arjun dismount from his chariot on day 18 after Duryodhan's defeat and it exploded, he explained that the only reason that chariot didn't crumble before was that Krishna (and presumably Hanuman as well) were in it. Also in Swargarohan Parva, Arjun and Yudhisthir end up w/ Vishnu, which could only have happened by endorsing the avatar theory of Krishna as Vishnu


Now, there are contradictions b/w MB and SB: for instance, in SB, Kunti dies after hearing the news of Krishna's death, whereas in MB, Kunti died 11 years before that in the forest fire that also consumed Dhritarashtra and Gandhari. But I wouldn't put too much currency on that, since MB itself has contradictions within itself eg Balarama told Arjun that he intended to be neutral when Arjun approached him in Udyog Parva, but in Shalya Parva, when Balaram arrived at the scene before Bhima-Duryodhan's final battle, it states that he wanted Krishna to dedicate Dwarka on the Kaurava side (wierd, since that would have put the entire Yadava nation against Subhadra's sasural)


Everything is fine in that. But don't you think Krishna in MB is somewhat less than what he is in SBh (not a mortal, just comparatively less divine). He walks and talks and acts like a human most of the time. Only, in specific occasions he becomes a God. Whereas in SB he never stops being a God. How do you think people took to that difference in portrayal of Krishna?

FlauntPessimism thumbnail
Screen Detective Participant Thumbnail ICC T20 CWC 2024 Match Winner Thumbnail + 9
Posted: 5 years ago
#10

If we have to take SMB word to word correct, even then I do not think we can believe that Parikshit heard that from Shuka Muni


SMB has a complete list of of rulers of Magadh from Jarasangh to PushyaMitra Sunga and even later(in future tense). Strangely he uses the same word for Chandragupta Maurya (i.e in future tense) which he used for Sahdev. Although Sahdev had already become the king before the birth of Parikshit. Anyhow it has the complete list for Magadh but not for Hastinapur/Indraprasth, I am sure Parikshit would be more interested in the future of Hastinapur/Indraprasth than in the future of Magadh.

Or did Muni want to tell him that more than thousand years later Magadh would become the central power of the country? But then why didn't he tell about the Islamic invasions too, that would have been more important and useful to the future generations


Any rational answer to this question is simply that SMB or at least much parts of it was a later addition


Anyhow coming to your question, I don't think it would have been difficult for the general public to accept a lesser divine Krishna in Mahabharata. Because the public has always made peace with a God Avtaar which hides His divinity from the general public.

They might have taken it as a plan of God to give importance to the Pandavas (that's why decided not to actively participate in the war) and thereby playing it low

Related Topics

Top

Stay Connected with IndiaForums!

Be the first to know about the latest news, updates, and exclusive content.

Add to Home Screen!

Install this web app on your iPhone for the best experience. It's easy, just tap and then "Add to Home Screen".