|| Mythological Masti :: Doubts & Discussions || - Page 55

Created

Last reply

Replies

552

Views

106459

Users

59

Likes

997

Frequent Posters

ltelidevara thumbnail
Visit Streak 1000 0 Thumbnail Visit Streak 750 0 Thumbnail + 8
Posted: 6 years ago

Your last paragraph - how exactly was Yadu's descendant who regained Yayati's kingdom?  Yayati's kingdom was Prathistana - today's Prayag, whereas Vajra was crowned the ruler of Mathura.  In that time, completely different lands.  Also, from Puru's line, Parikshit was the successor, and since he was the only survivor of Puru, the dynasty from Parikshit onwards was known as the Puru dynasty, since it was the only one that continued the lineage.

I agree w/ you that Yayati was selfish.  In fact, if you look at Shukracharya's curse, it was pretty justified.  Here are all the events that led to it:
  • Devyani and Sharmishta were childhood friends, Devyani being Shukrachaya's daughter, and Sharmishta being the princess of the asuras.
  • One day, they had a spat, that resulted in Sharmishta pushing Devyani down a well.  Later, after Devyani was rescued, Shukracharya threatened to abandon the asuras, and Sharmista's father, to save his kingdom, agreed that Sharmishta would become Devyani's maid
  • Note that Devyani was under a curse from Kacha that no brahmin would ever marry her.  As a result, when she came upon Yayati, she married him
  • From that marriage, she got Yadu and another son.
  • In the meantime, Sharmista, who was her maid, seduced Yayati into marrying him and had 3 sons from him
  • When Devyani discovered it, she complained to her father, who accordingly cursed Yayati
So Yayati was pretty much a lowlife in this story.  In those times, while it was okay for a king to make his maid his concubine and even marry her, he could not do that w/ his wife's maid w/o her permission, but this is what Yayati did here, and what got Devyani so upset.

From a caste point of view, Sharmista's sons were more worthy of becoming kings, since one was a marriage b/w a brahminess and a kshatriya, and the other was a marriage b/w a kshatriya and a (asura) kshatrani.  So had all things been equal, Yadu and his own brother might have been passed over.


@ Vrish 

I am Lakshmi. We interacted in SPK forum. Nice to meet you here.

I agree with all the points you mentioned above. But saying Yayati is low in ch,I find it a little bit sad. Isn't Sukracharya too faulty in all this? He used his dominance on King Vrisha Parva and made him offer his daughter a princess as a servant to his daughter. Ofcourse Sarmishtha misbehaved with Dev yani. But isn't it too much to make her a servant and expect her to be so all her life?

Yayati did not agree instantly when Sarmishtha offered herself. A long argument followed with Yayati sticking to his word as per BORI critical Edittion. He said he can not cheat Devyani.

Sarmishtha also has her valid points to argue. She wanted to have children. She said since she is in service of Devyani and Devyani in turn serves Yayati as her husband so she also will come under him . She further says she can not bear her life if he refuses her request.

Devyani can not be informed because she will never agree . She is prejudiced with Sarmishtha. Also kings certainly are allowed to follow polygamy in those days.

Vrish  Even Arjun has to oblige Ulupi when she said she will die if he won't oblige and she also wished a son by Arjun. Did Arjun inform his first wife then? No. For saving Ulupi's life is more important at that moment.

Sarmishtha is a princess. She willingly endured being a servant to Devyani. But she was frustrated that her life will be meaningless without children. I feel she is justified. Yayati also did what is  to be done to save a life.

Devyani by nature is so arrogant. She is the spoilt daughter of Sukracharya who is equally arrogant . How could he give such curse to his son in law who is a great emperor,human being and  most important isn't it his duty to feel concerned towards Sarmishtha who is a princess by birth  leading a servant's life?

Yayati tested his sons. Yadu,Turvas and Puru. It is not only his lust that made him do so. He as the King should settle so many matters before becoming a helpless old man. His sons are still young. So he cleverly asks Sukracharya that he still is not satisfied with his association with Devyani. So he got an exchange offer.

The significance of Yayati's marriage with Sarmishtha is to get an able King like Puru to rule Kurus. Ofcourse Yadu also is competent. But still Puru is a kshatrani's son.

The dynasty of Kurus flourished with the marriage of Arjun and Subhadra. Interestingly Kshatriya women became the queens later on. Uttara is a princess. Parikshit is married to Vapushtama,princess of Kashi. 

I always liked Sarmishtha . So this long post. Bear with me. In my view Yayati is not lusty. In fact Devyani loved Kacha,  Brihaspathi's  son so dearly before she married Yayati.

A big hello to all the wonderful people here.

Lakshmi
Edited by ltelidevara - 6 years ago
crazygul thumbnail
Anniversary 13 Thumbnail Group Promotion 5 Thumbnail Visit Streak 30 0 Thumbnail
Posted: 6 years ago
thanks a lott radhika rani di for solving my query ! Ram ji never demanded agni pariksha. it was agni parvesh. seeta ji unable to bear harsh words decided to took agni pravesh and then gods came and testified seeta ji innocence.  why seeta ji didn't take Ram ji name ?? why husband names can't be taken by wife in Indian mythology.  
wayward thumbnail
Anniversary 12 Thumbnail Group Promotion 7 Thumbnail + 8
Posted: 6 years ago

Originally posted by: crazygul

thanks a lott radhika rani di for solving my query ! Ram ji never demanded agni pariksha. it was agni parvesh. seeta ji unable to bear harsh words decided to took agni pravesh and then gods came and testified seeta ji innocence.  why seeta ji didn't take Ram ji name ?? why husband names can't be taken by wife in Indian mythology.  


I'm talking about the second one. ðŸ˜Š
There is no such rule in pure mythology. That's a bad convention developed during the medieval times to suppress women. ðŸ˜³
crazygul thumbnail
Anniversary 13 Thumbnail Group Promotion 5 Thumbnail Visit Streak 30 0 Thumbnail
Posted: 6 years ago
people generally take first agni pravesh as agni prakisha like sita ney toh agni pariksha de di thi par Ram ney unko chodh diya. its hurts me a lott. if Ram ji didn;t find her chaste then why they were to become parents ??
wayward thumbnail
Anniversary 12 Thumbnail Group Promotion 7 Thumbnail + 8
Posted: 6 years ago
We can't really help people thinking like that, can we? The least we could do is to just know, and believe in the truth.

Like, basically the entire Ramayan acts as a kind of rule-book from which you easily get solutions for most of your daily problems. It's not like Raamji bhagwan hai toh itna bura behave kiya kyun, etc etc.

For the first Agni-pariksha, or Agni-pravesh, as you rightly pointed out, Ramji did not doubt Seeta, he just removed the doubt from others' minds.

Though, we see a more human side of Raam, in Uttar Kand. It is as if Valmiki, through Raam is pinpointing a man's mistakes, and criticizing humankind for the same through Seeta, Luv-Kush and himself.
crazygul thumbnail
Anniversary 13 Thumbnail Group Promotion 5 Thumbnail Visit Streak 30 0 Thumbnail
Posted: 6 years ago
 my next question is why Sita mata ji is shown on sitting on Left thigh of Lord Rama ?? 
SriMaatangi thumbnail
Anniversary 8 Thumbnail Group Promotion 6 Thumbnail + 2
Posted: 6 years ago

Originally posted by: crazygul

 my next question is why Sita mata ji is shown on sitting on Left thigh of Lord Rama ?? 

Sita is Rama's heart. And His heart is to His left side. Thus, Sita is always seen to Rama's left.
However, if it is Vishnu alone, then Lakshmi is seen to His left. If it is Vishnu with Shri and Bhu, Shri is to the right, and Bhu to the left, indicating that He has two herts for them. Now, people show Him with three, to show Shri, Bhu and Nila. 
ArpitaGaur thumbnail
Posted: 6 years ago
Mohabbat Mein Aurat Se Koi Jeeta Nahi Hai Aur Nafrat Mein Aurat Ko Koi Hara Nahi Saka
Justitia thumbnail
Anniversary 10 Thumbnail Group Promotion 5 Thumbnail
Posted: 6 years ago
A question popped up in my mind this morning -
Considering both Sita and Draupadi were both born to bring about the destruction of evil, why is it that Sita was born as a baby but Draupadi was born as a grown woman (if that is the best way to put it)?

Why is it that Sita actually had a proper childhood but Draupadi seemingly never did?

I know this sounds like an unusual question but it has left me wondering to a great deal. 
Would Draupadi's personality have turned out differently if she had been born as a baby and got influenced by social morals and codes while growing up? Personally speaking, I don't think so. I mean, Sita had a proper childhood and had to deal with Ravana and raise her kids by herself - which requires a great deal of inner strength and conviction.

Be it Draupadi or Sita, both had to go through their own struggles and dealt with life's challenges with immense bravery and fortitude.

But Sita with a childhood and Draupadi without a childhood - how do you think it reflects in their respective personalities?

Or do you think it was necessary for Draupadi to not have a proper childhood considering her own challenges were quite unique, and quite unlike anything that anyone might've faced? 

What I'm asking is - If Draupadi had been born as a baby and had a proper childhood, would the influence of "Dwapar yuga social morals" while growing up have affected her personality in a big way? If yes, how? If not, then why is it that Vyasa thought it better to not let Draupadi have a childhood?
Vibhishna thumbnail
Anniversary 15 Thumbnail Group Promotion 3 Thumbnail
Posted: 6 years ago

Originally posted by: lexy_rix

A question popped up in my mind this morning -

Considering both Sita and Draupadi were both born to bring about the destruction of evil, why is it that Sita was born as a baby but Draupadi was born as a grown woman (if that is the best way to put it)?

Why is it that Sita actually had a proper childhood but Draupadi seemingly never did?

I know this sounds like an unusual question but it has left me wondering to a great deal. 
Would Draupadi's personality have turned out differently if she had been born as a baby and got influenced by social morals and codes while growing up? Personally speaking, I don't think so. I mean, Sita had a proper childhood and had to deal with Ravana and raise her kids by herself - which requires a great deal of inner strength and conviction.

Be it Draupadi or Sita, both had to go through their own struggles and dealt with life's challenges with immense bravery and fortitude.

But Sita with a childhood and Draupadi without a childhood - how do you think it reflects in their respective personalities?

Or do you think it was necessary for Draupadi to not have a proper childhood considering her own challenges were quite unique, and quite unlike anything that anyone might've faced? 

What I'm asking is - If Draupadi had been born as a baby and had a proper childhood, would the influence of "Dwapar yuga social morals" while growing up have affected her personality in a big way? If yes, how? If not, then why is it that Vyasa thought it better to not let Draupadi have a childhood?



I doubt if it had anything to do with having a childhood. It was more of her upbringing that caused her to be who she was.

Drupad was vengeful and most probably didn't bother about raising kids the proper way. Drishtadyumna was as vengeful as Drupada, Shikandi and Draupadi were not raised in the usual way either. Draupadi was probably more bold because she was meant/raised to be so.

A serial I saw sometime back showed a story I had never encountered before - not sure where it came from. Drupad, mad with a desire for revenge after being humiliated by Drona asked was thirsting to get back at his old friend. His wife (and brother) tried to dissuade him and in the end his wife said she would not like to partake in his madness. In his anger, he decided and declared that she will not be giving birth to his children and not partake in that yaga to beget the kids he wanted. While performing the yaga to obtain a son who can kill Drona and a daughter who can marry Arjuna, he told the sages that he didn't want his wife to give birth to his children and hence the sages after reprimanding him for not informing them earlier, increased the severity of the penance and thus Drishtadymna and Draupadi were born fully grown from the sacrificial fire.

Well, this story also said that he wanted Draupadi to marry Arjuna while I think the original story was Drupad wanting someone equal to Arjuna to be his son in law.

Regardless, I think princesses were well educated during Tretha and Dwapar Yuga to encounter all sorts of possibilities. Its probably the age that made the difference. Women of Tretha Yuga were more submissive and docile(?) than those of the Dwapar Yuga. We had a lot of brave princesses who did things on their own - Draupadi, Chitrangada, Uloopi, Shubadra, Shikandi, Sathyavathi and the list can go on...

I think that even if Draupadi was born as a baby, she would have turned out to be the same. I read somewhere that she wasn't meant to destroy the Kuru lineage and hence she was begot as an adult, brought to life without a childhood so that she wouldn't know how to nurture and raise the next generation. But I think she managed her household splendidly well despite having to deal with more than what women of her age went through.