New TB news - Page 4

Originally posted by: _Vrish_

Banasur couldn't have been there - he had no contact w/ Krishna b4 Anirudha eloped w/ Usha. In fact, he once went to Shiva and complained about his 1000 arms being useless, and Shiva cursed him that a force equal to him would defeat Banasura. Had Banasura fought Krishna in this war, Shiva too would have had to fight on Jarasandha's side. So no! See? I told you I was bad with Mahabharat names, so I probably mixed them up like usual.😆 But was Banasur ever a friend of Kamsa? SK shows a Banasur helping Kans out a lot in his plans, and though it may not have been the same Banasur who was Usha's father, I wondered what happened to him. Did Krishna or Balaram kill him during Kans's yagna, along with Chanoor?

Bhagadatta was Narakasura's son, and just a boy when Krishna killed his father and crowned him. He had no enemity w/ Krishna. In this online site I found about Jarasandh's allies, it lists Bhagadatta as one of them and says that he helped Jarasandh out during his battles against Krishna. I would be interested to know how he ended up on the Kaurava side in the war, and how was he so aged, when Krishna killed his father and enthroned him, and Krishna wasn't an aged man in Kurukshetra, and Bhagadatta was much younger than him. Krishna wasn't aged, but he was in his 40s, wasn't he? And was Bhagadatta ever a small boy when Krishna throned him? If he was in his youth, it would explain how he too was pretty old by the time Kurukshetra War happened.

Purandara, otoh, was an enemy of Krishna - he was one of Shishupala's allies who was defeated when Krishna abducted Rukmini and Balarama routed Jarasandh's & Shishupala's forces. He returned to his kingdom, and was totally depressed, so his courtiers and subject started a cult worshipping him as the true avatar of Vishnu. He started believing it himself, and invited Krishna to surrender his divinity to him, and they faced each other. Krishna killed him w/ the sudarshan chakra, and also the ruler of Kashi, who was his ally. I'm currently watching the Purandara track of Ramanand Sagar's Shri Krishna, and I was wondering where this guy came from, and how he just randomly had an enmity with Krishna since SK never showed him during the Rukmini Harini track. This makes sense now, thanks.

Reason I asked the question was that all the above enemies of Krishna, w/ the exception of Jarasandha, were killed by Krishna. Unlike in the cases of Duryodhan & Dushashan, Bhima never swore to kill Jarasandha, so Krishna or Balarama were @ liberty to kill him. It says in the Bhagawatham that Bhima and 4 others were born under a specific nakshatra (I don't remember exactly which), and that as per the laws of that nakshatra no one could kill these 5 people except each other. The five were Bhima, Jarasandha, Bakasura, Hidimba, and Kichaka. That is why Krishna never killed Jarasandha though he had both the opportunity and strength. He wanted to honor the nakshatras by not going against their rules, and so he made Bhima kill Jarasandha as well as the other three. I think Balaram could have killed him the same way Bhima did, and they could have freed all the kings. Similarly, Krishna ended up killing Shalva, Dantavakra, Purandara and other enemies anyway, so he could have just killed them in those battles. Was Shalva the same as Shalya? Shalya was Madri's brother, wasn't he? And Shalva was...the man whom Amba originally loved but who refused to marry her after Bhishma kidnapped the three princesses. I always wondered whether these two were the same. Shishupala was the only case where Krishna had promised his mausi that he'd spare him 100 times, so there, he didn't have a choice. In fact, that would have been easier - as he noted in video 1, he'd not have to go and hunt for them. But he killed Purandara & Dantavakra by going and hunting for them, he waited until Shalva laid waste to Dwaraka. I didn't get why he didn't finish them off in those wars themselves. I guess because their sins were not at their peak yet. Ram did say during Ram Avatar that he could not kill Ravan till the latter's sins had reached their peak, and that was why Sita had to be kidnapped. It says in many puranas that God never kills paapis till their sins are so atrocious that they can be no longer ignored. Purandara had Dantavakra's sins were not at their peak during Jarasandh's battles, so I'm thinking Krishna waited till both committed more sins and the time for God to intervent came. But yeah, it would have been easier and quicker to kill them all off during the Jarasandh fights.

Exit question: I think Shalva would have been a much nicer & happier ruler had he honorably been allowed to marry Amba, w/o Bheeshma sticking his nose in b/w. Anyone agree w/ me? Okay, so that answers my question whether Shalva was the man Amba had wanted to marry. Yes, I myself felt a bit sorry for him when Bheeshma had taken Amba, but I felt sorrier for Amba. Bhishma did return her to Shalva, and when Amba herself told him that her virtue was intact and Bhishma let her go, what stopped Shalva from marrying her? I can understand that his honor may have been compromised to accept Amba like a donation or something, but I feel it was more his pride and ego...so it was partly his fault that he did not marry Amba.

No, Shalva & Shalya were different. Shalva was killed by Krishna after the Rajasuya yagna, and Shalya was killed by Yudhisthir on day 18 of the Kurukshetra war. On Shalva & Amba, I thought that he just felt that if he accepted Amba as charity from Bheeshma, his honor would be humiliated. That's why Amba took her revenge against Bheeshma, not Shalva, and that's why Parashuram ordered Bheeshma, not Shalva, to marry Amba. So what Bheeshma did was definitely evil.

If they showed any Banasura as Kamsa's friend - hadn't read of this b4 anywhere - that would be different from the Banasura who was Shiva's devotee and who Krishna humbled.

If there were 2 Bhagadattas, of which one was Krishna's enemy as you describe, and the other Narakasura's son, that explains what I read in the Mahabharat about the one who Arjun killed was Jarasandha's ally. But in the account of the battle, Bhagadatta hurled a weapon called the Vaishnavastra that Krishna had given him, and Krishna intercepted it so that it couldn't kill Arjun, which it otherwise would have. If Bhagadatta was not the son of Narakasura but an ally of Jarasandha, why would Krishna have given him that?