Portrayal of Krishna in MB and SBh - Page 2

Posted: 3 years ago

Speaking purely from rational POV, FP is correct. SB is thought to be a a much later text after Krishna was accepted as God. In fact, core MBh is thought to have no divinity whatsoever. Linguistically speaking, only 1st 4 chapters of Bhagavad Gita are thought to be part of original MBh, the rest being later interpolation. 

Posted: 3 years ago

Well I  cannot talk about whole  how people react to difference in potryaal of krishna in sbh and mahabharat 

But what ever I see with my eyes and heard  people do consider Lord krishna as their ideal  / mahapursh / god  . Because I see many people  keep geeta book  respectfully in pooja room. They don't touch geeta book  with out taking bath   and don't touch srimadh bhagwat too without taking bath    and even brush their teeth or  rinse their mouth  before reading geeta book and shree madh bhagwat because for them   geeta  and srimadh bhagwat is holy  granth  and all these  things reaction show that  those people who I have seen with my eyes and heard that they consider Lord krishna as God 



And I think   those who consider  krishna as God then will see no difference between krishna in mahabharat and krishna in srimadh bhagwat   but yes when people read about krishna in mahabharat it creates curosity to know more about lord krishna leela  as there is less description of Lord krishna leela in mahabharat so they refer to shree madh bhagwat so  they organize shree madh bhagwat katha ( which is for one week) or go to listen shree madh bhagwat katha to know more about glory of Lord 


krishna with devotion 



And I think it is mention in shree madh bhagwat that ved vyas was not satisfied even after composing   mahabharat and purans he thought some things is missing  and he was restless and I think with the advice of narad muni  ved vyas wrote  shree madh bhagwat  

Edited by surabhi01 - 3 years ago
Posted: 3 years ago

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.

Excellent Q's, Pro! 👍🏼


@bold

OMG? 😲 I never knew this. 

What was the need to narrate different scriptures to Parikshit and later on to his son Janmejaya ? 😕

Wouldn't narrating the same one which his father heard suffice? 🤔

Posted: 3 years ago

However I read in shree madh bhagwat that   murkhon ne    shree krishna ko  manushaya samajh liya hai 


I will share  skandh   number and chapter number  where this line is written 




It is  written in skandh number 10  chapter no 23  that is grace on yag wives that yagpatinyon pur kripa


Where Lord krishna send his friends to  bhraman that mera naam lekar  un bhramon se  bhaat ( rice) maang lena   

When Lord krishna friends request bhraman to give them bhaat  these bhraman did not pay attention to those children 


And then shuk dev told to parishit that those bhraman was child in  their knowledge  but they think themselves very high learn people  and   then shuk dev addresses those bhraman   as murkh ( foolish)  ki murkhon ne  bhagwan shree krishna  ko  bhi  ordinary human maana aur Lord krishna ki respect nahi kiya


Here  shuk dev want to say that Lord krishna is always God  but there were people in mahabharat as well in shree madh bhagwat that due to their  arrogance they don't think Lord krishna as God 

Edited by surabhi01 - 3 years ago
Posted: 3 years ago

Krishna comes out as God in both texts. But, the prime focus of Mahabharata isn't the bhakti aspect. In SB, however, focus is exclusively on Krishna followed by his devotees.

Posted: 3 years ago

Shreemadh bhagwat is summary of all God  katha except Lord krishnha  which is written in detail . Shreemadh bhagwat was written  because it is said that in kaliyug no body have   much time to read all holy granth of God like vishnu puran  shiv puran ganesh ank 


So ved vyas compile all God katha in one holy granth book  shreemadh bhagwat and write  summmary of  God katha so that   one can read or heard about  God katha with in limit time 

Posted: 3 years ago

Another thing  mahabharat and shreemadh bhagwat was   written in  dwapar yug  but  both mahabharat  and    shreemadh bhagwat were narrated  in kaliyug 

Because  kaliyug enter when parikshit  was left alone in forest 


Shreemadh bhagwat was  narrated to   parikshit   then  at time kaliyug has just started then a  time  people have more faith in God because at that time there was not much bad effect of kaliyug 


And  mahabharat  was also narrated  in kaliyug  but it is not clear it is narrated just after parikshit death or after when kaliyug pass 30,,40years ? 


If  mahabharat is narrated just after kaliyug pass 1week mean just after parikshi death then at that time people might consider Lord krishna  God  in mahabharat text too but it is narrated after kaliyug pass   40years then  kaliyug  might showing his bad effect  due to  its passing age and due to bad effect of kaliyug people might have started doubt whether Lord krishna is God or not 

Some   how age of any yug also  change people reaction , belief, thought  about God 

Posted: 3 years ago

Thanks everyone for your valuable inputs. I really appreciate all POVs! So maybe people were too much free and gullible at the same time. 😆

Edited by proteeti - 3 years ago
Posted: 3 years ago

Originally posted by Swetha-Sai


Excellent Q's, Pro! 👍🏼


@bold

OMG? 😲 I never knew this. 

What was the need to narrate different scriptures to Parikshit and later on to his son Janmejaya ? 😕

Wouldn't narrating the same one which his father heard suffice? 🤔


So far as I remember, Janmejaya was somewhat of a baby. I remember reading one part in my Bengali version where Parikshit before dying appoints his Proime Minister as the regent until Janmejaya grows up.

Also, Janmejaya specifically asks his ministers ke "What happened to my Dad that he died?" If he doesn't at all remember what happened he also probably doesn't remember SBh. Hence, the requirement of MB retelling later.


As far as why nobody else told him these stories: due to the prevailing oral tradition based education system, storytelling was high-end art. Not everybody could do it. So, it was always recommended that if you needed info/story/entertainment/anything you go to the sages who were professionally trained for this specific form of conversation/storytelling.


Most such Veda/Purana retelling used the 8-syllables in a quarter Anushtupa chhanda as the rhythm. (It is still used for Veda-patha today).

Posted: 3 years ago

Just my two cents. 

I do think the stories about Krishna's tryst with cream and butter and women is not true. Now one may ask then what about MB Krishna's childhood. I don't know but even if we take it as he was raised by Yashoda and Nandalal, then too stories where a young man steals clothes of women while they're bathing doesn't give much a pretty picture of Krishna. I don't think this whole picture goes with the Krishna we know in Mahabharat. 

Now coming to Geeta and MB, Mahabharat we know today is a product of time and tales. In fact, as Dr Bhaduri clearly states it isn't written by one person is VYASA. Vyasa is more like a post IMO, and the whole epic was definitely not by Parashar's son aka Krishna Dwaipayana. That's why probably VYASA is said to be immortal. That's why Dr Bhaduri always mentions "Mahabharat's poet" in his writings, not Vyasa or any other name. 

Hence, it is obvious that not all those who contributed to the epic are of the same opinion. Some stuck to Krishna's exceptional intelligence and some made a God out of him. Hence so many contradictions. Now, from my reading, I do feel initial narratives did not show Krishna as divine or an incarnation or having magical abilities. Later authors did add onto this, and Bhagwat Geeta is a much later piece of writing. Scholars including Iravati Karvye states that only first few chapters of the Bhagwat Geeta is part of the epic. 

Hence, I believe painting figures like Ram and Krishna in divine light is the doing of later writers and authors and a result of the arrival of several Gods and Goddesses in Hinduism. 


Having said that, time has done it's job. I too like to see things without divine perspectives and in a rational way. But apart from completely unbelievable things (hiding the sun, holding Govardhana in a finger, giving supply of saree from nowhere which are absolutely impossible) if we completely remove everything remotely unnatural, the epic loses its essence. 

For example, the concept of Karma, reincarnation, rebirth, the importance of words and vows, values which today we cannot relate to should not be completely removed. Numerous authors today have given the epic it's form and the story that it is today. If we remove most of what it is today, then the story doesn't remain as fascinating as it is. Krishna is an exceptional figure, and he'll remain so and he doesn't NEED to be divine to be exceptional :) 



Related Topics

No Related topics found

Topic Info

9 Participants 23 Replies 2550Views

Topic started by wayward

Last replied by surabhi01

loader
loader
up-open TOP