RAMAYAN DAILY DISCUSSION THREAD - Page 28

Originally posted by: ananyacool

Does draupadi introduce herself as having been a servant of queen Satyabhama??

In BRchopra MBH Draupadi introduces herself saying that she was the foremost maid of Draupadi herself and she had been serving draupadi even before she (Draupadi) was married and that King Dhrupad regarded Sairandhri as his daughter.....

Btw Sairandhri is a position , if I'm not wrong; Draupadi calls herself 'Malini"

(Sorry Chandraketu, there's no 'Dhanya' as a prefix to Malini here) 😉

I recall reading that Sairandhri told Maharani Sudeshna that she was a handmaiden to Draupadi both in Panchala and in Indraprastha. Although, coming to think of it, that would have been more of a giveaway than had she used the Satyabhama story, in that by mentioning Draupadi, she was more likely to draw attention to the Pandavas than she would by mentioning another queen.

Originally posted by: godisone

After Ramayana War happened, Rama granted boons to all those who helped him. To Lakshmana, he said, "Since you have served me with devotion in this life, in the next life, I will be born as your younger brother and serve you." That's why Sesh-Nag was reborn as Balaram, and elder to Shri Krishna.

Originally posted by: godisone

It is said that Draupadi was a bit proud of her beauty, which is the reason she fell on the Mountain (don't knowits name) during the Pandavas journey to heaven in the end of the Mahabharata. All the Pandavas (except Yudhisthira) fell for one fault of theirs, and Draupadi's was pride.

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

Not charioteer, she just accompanied him. They rode on Garuda, so it was just a case of Garuda flying all the way. On the way, they were intercepted by fire, ocean, wind, mountains and an asura guard of Narakasura. The fire, ocean and wind were dispersed by Krishna's sudarshan chakra, and the mountain by Krishna's gada. The guard was beheaded by the sudarshan chakra after a brief battle.

Also, according to some South Indian accounts, it was Satyabhama who fought and killed Narakasura for insulting all women by snatching Deva-mata Aditi's kundalas right from her ears, while Krishna was meditating.

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

Not to berate someone who passed away recently, but BRC is not a source of anything in the Mahabharat - there were tons of things that he either got wrong, or worse, made up.

I recall reading that Sairandhri told Maharani Sudeshna that she was a handmaiden to Draupadi both in Panchala and in Indraprastha. Although, coming to think of it, that would have been more of a giveaway than had she used the Satyabhama story, in that by mentioning Draupadi, she was more likely to draw attention to the Pandavas than she would by mentioning another queen.

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

Not to berate someone who passed away recently, but BRC is not a source of anything in the Mahabharat - there were tons of things that he either got wrong, or worse, made up.

I recall reading that Sairandhri told Maharani Sudeshna that she was a handmaiden to Draupadi both in Panchala and in Indraprastha. Although, coming to think of it, that would have been more of a giveaway than had she used the Satyabhama story, in that by mentioning Draupadi, she was more likely to draw attention to the Pandavas than she would by mentioning another queen.

Originally posted by: chen2chic

It is said that the "Syamantaka Mani" actually belonged to Satrajit, Satyabhama's father. Krishna desired to have the Syamantaka Mani but Satrjit refused to give it. Once Satrajit's brother is said to worn it while on hunting and was killed by a lion. Jambavan (of Ramayan) is said to have killed the lion and taken possession of the Syamantaka Mani. Satrajit accussed Krishna of stealing the mani though. So Krishna set out to prove his innocence and he fought with Jambavan and defeated him. Jambavan offered his daughter Jambavati and the Syamantaka Mani. Krishna returned the Mani to Satrajit who realised his mistake and offered his daughter Satyabhama and the Syamantaka Mani. But Krishna refused the jewel and accepted Satyabhama alone. May be thats the reason for their cold war....."Two wives in one jewel"....😉

Your story above is correct, except that Satrajit suspected, but never accused Krishna of stealing the gem. Krishna, after discovering it in Jambavan's cave, fought him, and got the gem, as well as Jambavati's hand in marriage. After he returned the gem, Satrajit offered it to him, but Krishna asked him to only give him the gold that the gem daily yielded. However, he did accept Satyabhama's hand in marriage. That led to complications, since Akrura, Kritavarma and Satadhanva all wanted Satyabhama's hand in marriage. Due to this, they decided to murder Satrajit, and Satadhanva did the deed. Krishna later pursued and killed him, and retrieved the gem from Akrura.

Given that Satyabhama's marriage cut short Jambavati's honeymoon, it's the likely reason that those 2 couldn't stand each other.

P.S. From everything I've ever read, only Rukmini was an avatar of Lakshmi, not any of the other 7.

Originally posted by: Vibhishna

True - Sathyabama was not the charioteer and she accompanied Lord Krishna and Garuda and encountered the stages of protection around Narakasur's fort.

There are so many versions, I get really confused.Each time I read the story something new pops up. And in the South, the day Narakasur was killed is celebrated as Diwali (I'm not sure if this is the same in the North as well - Many believe that the day Lord Ram returned to Ayodhya is Diwali. I get really confused between the legends of Diwali and Dushera). According to the stories in the South, it was Narakasur, who realised his folly towards the end when he lay dying, asked a boon from Lord Krishna that all people should celebrate by decorating their houses and gardens with oil lamps. They should smear oil on their heads, bathe and wear new clothes and celebrate this day of his death with light and sweets. It was granted by Lord Krishna.

Originally posted by: ananyacool

I have quoted about BRC MBH because I was reminded of the dialogue of Draupadi as Sairandhri, not that I 've quoted because its THE ultimate source of MBH😳

I too am aware of BRC MBH's limitations...

As far as things being made up; even Ramayan serial(current one ) doesn't escape it...

Fair enough on your awareness of the BRC serial limitations.

However, I don't think the current serial vs BRC is an apples to apples comparison. With the current Sagar serial, since he has taken several translations, many with different stories, and come up with a composite, sometimes weird, the results look strange in places. However, the Mahabharat just has one auther - Rishi Vyasa Dev, and just with that, BRC got so many things wrong, it's appalling.

I actually believe that Valmiki is more authentic than anything else, and obviously wouldn't give the other translations that come up with different things the same weightage. However, that's different from taking the one translation of the Mahabharat, as BRC does, and coming out with outrageous falsehoods, such as Duryodhan being the one to perform Karna's last rites. 😡😡😡Never happened!!!

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

Ananyacool

Fair enough on your awareness of the BRC serial limitations.

However, I don't think the current serial vs BRC is an apples to apples comparison. With the current Sagar serial, since he has taken several translations, many with different stories, and come up with a composite, sometimes weird, the results look strange in places. However, the Mahabharat just has one auther - Rishi Vyasa Dev, and just with that, BRC got so many things wrong, it's appalling.

I actually believe that Valmiki is more authentic than anything else, and obviously wouldn't give the other translations that come up with different things the same weightage. However, that's different from taking the one translation of the Mahabharat, as BRC does, and coming out with outrageous falsehoods, such as Duryodhan being the one to perform Karna's last rites. 😡😡😡Never happened!!!