The hands you take and the hands you leave Part 63-Updated page 149

First Previous

Page

120

Next Last

Frequent Posters

deejagi

@deejagi

Rocker

+ 2

Posted: 7 years ago

#1121

From what I have read and heard from my grandpaa and uncles, it Krishna who narrated the story of Chakravyuha to Subhadra's during one of their trips. Half way through, Subhadra's slept off and the child in the womb started responding to the story. When Krishna realised that it was infact the child and not his sister who was the listener, he abruptly stopped story.

When Krishna took away Arjuna to fight, he was aware of the fact that Abhimanyu will go to fight the Chakravyuha, and eventually will get killed.

Edited by deejagi - 7 years ago

Quote

simran_singh_24

@simran_singh_24

Rocker

+ 2

Posted: 7 years ago

#1122

Originally posted by: deejagi
From what I have read and heard from my grnadpaa and uncles, it Krishna who narrated the story of Chakravyuha to Subhadra's during one of their trips. Half way through, Subhadra's slept off and the child in the wind started responding to the story. When Krishna realised that it was intact the child and not his sister who was the listener, he abruptly stopped story.
When Krishna took away Arjuna to fight, he was aware of the fact that Abhimanyu will go to fight the Chakravyuha, and eventually will get killed.

This is the version I've heard from my Mom&Gran and I dislike Krisha for this too😆 He sealed Abhimanyu's fate before he was born.

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

shruthiravi

@shruthiravi

Stunner

+ 2

Posted: 7 years ago

#1123

@simran what is the fault of Krishna in here, if he was the one who gave the gyan on chakravyuha. He was talking to Subhadra, she slept. He was not talking to the child. That incident shows when someone is giving is you some knowledge listen to it. You never know when that knowledge will help you in saving your loved ones. It applies whether it was given by Narada or Arjuna. The key fact there is Subhadra slept as she might have felt bored as that knowledge is of no use to her as she is not going to fight the war.

Kayadhu sat and listened to the stories of Narayana Narada told her. It might not have been something an asura woman would have known or anyone would have wanted her to know. Still she sat and listened attentively to all the knowledge Narada gave her. End result a very noble son in Prahlada who knew about Narayana, who had a long life with all wealth and power gained the right way.

Edited by shruthiravi - 7 years ago

Quote

simran_singh_24

@simran_singh_24

Rocker

+ 2

Posted: 7 years ago

#1124

@Shruthi- Krishna knew the future , assuming he's God and can see past,future and present, and still he stopped.
why couldn't he have continued educating an interested seeker?He was restricting the flow of knowledge.

I don't remember this story very well, there's a similar incident of Parvati sleeping off when Shiva was lecturing her in Kailash and a parrot listening to him and getting blessed, he didn't stop sharing gyan because the person whom he was teaching slept, he taught eh one who was learning. T

Quote

Usha

@usharanganathan

Explorer

Posted: 7 years ago

#1125

Yes Shruthi I also heard this story from my grand mother who was very well read. Here in South India umpteen number of cinemas have been made on Mahabharata in all of them this version has been shown. In any case the version that Arjuna taught abhi for not seem plausible because pandavas were in vanavasa during that period and Arjuna saw abhi many only at the end of virata parva.

Like one of u have predicted, I think Sudha will get away this time implicating Purushottham.She might join Pujan in instigating BD against Satrupa.What about narottam? Will he still be undecided as he was previously.?

Edited by usharanganathan - 7 years ago

Quote

dolly

@tiny15

Stunner

+ 3

Posted: 7 years ago

#1126

Originally posted by: shruthiravi
Thanks Usha for telling it was Narada, because in the oral rendition of MB I heard from my great aunt as a child it was Narada who tells Subhadra abt Chakravyuha, it was same in the Amar chitra katha also, but when I searched Wiki yesterday it showed Arjuna telling also 2013 MB showed Arjuna telling Subhadra. Though I dont take 2013 MB as bench mark as it had its share of deviations from the original story I have heard, but when I couldnt find reference of Narada in wiki I was confused. Anyways it doesnt matter who told the point is Subhadra slept half way and that became the reason for Abhi's half knowledge in Chakravyuha
@simran the justice has to be through law only, that's the sole reason Adhi is kept CBI officer the arm of law.

@mangothyme Karma is a bitch it will come back to you. Satrupa as well as the LMwasis has to pay the price of the so called decisions they took based on perceptions. I have enough examples in my own family where karma has come back when it was least expected. Whatever judgement you made on others based on perceptions will come back to you. And control never works. If you keep water tightly in your hand, it will find ways to escape. You can only give direction and allow individuals to choose. And the choice has to be based on trust, love and respect not out of fear.

shruthi i m telling u its arjuna who was explaining chakravyuh 2 subhdra not Narad. i'd read mahabharata as scripture & also in my school we hav mahabharata book was taught in Hindi literature.

all versions of mahabharata esply written by Rishi Vyas that Arjuna was explaining Chakravyuh 2 subhdra.u can see DD's MB there also Arjun explained 2 subhdra.and B.R Chopra's MB is more reliable

i think why ppl think narada was telling her abt it or Krishna telling abt it bcoz of local versions.

u can ask any sanskrit expert abt it.they will say that Arjuna told abt Chkaravyuh.and if u wnat2 get confirmed read scriptures of Geeta Press Gorakhpur.they r more accurate & reliable

and one more thing Kayadhu was not asura kanya. she was Nag kanya juts like sulchana megnad's wife was.

Edited by tiny15 - 7 years ago

Quote

shruthiravi

@shruthiravi

Stunner

+ 2

Posted: 7 years ago

#1127

@tiny let us accept there are many versions of it. As far as Ramayana and MB goes for me I have never seen seen or heard Vyasa or Valmiki telling the same or for that matter I have not heard it from them. What I got to read is the version that is given to me that is told as Vyasa or Valmiki written one.

So I dont accept or reject any version, any thought process as far as they go as long as it is inline with the larger message. The idea of Ram and idea of Gita is more important to me than the book itself. So as far as this point is concerned what matters to me is Subhadra slept which is same across any version and that affected the full knowledge reaching the child. If you take "n" number of version there will be constants in those versions and variables, variable mould it to suit the time, constant take the learning from it. For me anything about Ramayan and MB nothing is absolutely right, nothing is absolutely wrong. It depends on how you look at it. Most importantly how it will help me in my present life.

@simran the function of Shiva and Narayan is different. So their actions in different circumstances cannot be compared. Shiva stands for destruction and Narayana stands for sustenance. Their actions are inline with their functions. It's a very philosophical aspect which will need a lot of time for me to right about it.

Edited by shruthiravi - 7 years ago

Quote

Christie2017

@Christie2017

Navigator

Posted: 7 years ago

#1128

See Mahabharata had many versions. But the core is always Ved Vyasa. So whatever is mentioned there must be true. Because even I had heard that it was Krishna who told the chakravyuh to Subhadra. So I guess, I am wrong. But I feel in this forum instead of arguing who told what, the members should understand the gist behind it.

As for Krishna, there were many things he knew. He also knew that Abhi's life was ordained for 16 years. And that is the reason he kept quiet. In Mahabharat, we cannot say who is right and who is wrong. Everyone had flaws. To eliminate the Earth from all these sins, he took avtar. And that is why he accepted Gandhari's curse. He knew because of his blessings, Yadavas will become corrupt and had to be eliminated. I am telling this because, if necessary, he could have asked his aunt Kunti to tell the world that Karna was her son long before all these happened. He didn't. Because he wanted that all the bad to side with the already bad and thus relieve the Earth from this burden. But did wrongdoings stop after MB war? No, these very same Yadava clan became arrogant. I think somewhere, we can never advise people. Good or bad we have to learn from our experiences and realise it.

There are two Avtars of Vishnu - Rama the one who always listened to everyone which resulted in him asking his wife to leave and Krishna who always suggested to people wherever and whenever necessary. Both had their problems.

Coming back to the serial on a more personal note, I feel there should be no love angle to Adhiraj and Anami. As friends they look nice, but somewhere I think the chemistry, physics and maths 😊 are missing between the lead duo. And, for once why can't they show that a boy and girl can just be friends. MPK is history now. We r in the 21st century. I know many of u won't concur with my thoughts.

Quote

Usha

@usharanganathan

Explorer

Posted: 7 years ago

#1129

I agree with u Janas.The love between them is not important in the story line. It is more like Krishna Arjuna situation , protector , or guide and the one who acts. Once that angle comes in the story then the tight plot if RKC will be lost . The story is what attracts most of us to this show.

Edited by usharanganathan - 7 years ago

Quote

dolly

@tiny15

Stunner

+ 3

Posted: 7 years ago

#1130

Originally posted by: shruthiravi
@tiny let us accept there are many versions of it. As far as Ramayana and MB goes for me I have never seen seen or heard Vyasa or Valmiki telling the same or for that matter I have not heard it from them. What I got to read is the version that is given to me that is told as Vyasa or Valmiki written one.
So I dont accept or reject any version, any thought process as far as they go as long as it is inline with the larger message. The idea of Ram and idea of Gita is more important to me than the book itself. So as far as this point is concerned what matters to me is Subhadra slept which is same across any version and that affected the full knowledge reaching the child. If you take "n" number of version there will be constants in those versions and variables, variable mould it to suit the time, constant take the learning from it. For me anything about Ramayan and MB nothing is absolutely right, nothing is absolutely wrong. It depends on how you look at it. Most importantly how it will help me in my present life.
@simran the function of Shiva and Narayan is different. So their actions in different circumstances cannot be compared. Shiva stands for destruction and Narayana stands for sustenance. Their actions are inline with their functions. It's a very philosophical aspect which will need a lot of time for me to right about it.

shruthi i agree wid u .there r many versions of MB & ramayana esply 2 suit local ppl.they twist sumthing w/o touching core ideas.@bold that i agree.

but i m talking abt popular version. i think in South ppl mite hav told its either Krishna or Narada while in rest of India its told Arjuna. i m asking u 2 read Geeta Press Gorakhpur books as they r more accurate & reliable & more closer 2 original books.

if u see in ramcharitmanas theres no Uttara kand i think bcoz i read that Tulasi Das cudnt accept it that his ishatdev cud leave Sita like pious woman just on saying of a washerman. so he dint include that part wen he wrote ramchartamanas.

sum say this uttara kand was later on added by sum south author during 15th or 16th century under the influence of sum christian missionaries who wanted 2 malign Lord Rama so that they can spread their religion.but it dint work as ppl started worshipping Lord Rama more 4 his dutifulness as king

so local ppl do change names or ckts actions acc. 2 them.thatswhy its all confusion who told abt chakravyuh