+* Pandava parivar *+ - Page 5 | Mythological Masti

Page

Poll

Who is your favorite Pandava queen?

Poll Choice
Kunti
Madri
Draupadi
Subhadra
Uttara
Hidimbaa
Uloopi
Chitrangada
Other wife of any Pandavas (please specify)

Frequent Posters

Vibhishna

@Vibhishna

Goldie

Posted: 12 years ago

Originally posted by: Tannistha

Vibs, felt like barging in

Ramayan tells us the ideal way we should lead their life, it upholds the principle, and Mahabharat doesnt preach anything at all, it just shows the way we are. every single person is capable of great evil and great good, Even the Bhagvan swayam can make mistakes. thats what is so beautiful about it, mahabharat doesnt preach at all, it just depicts the universal story of humanity, characters lives we can find in all places and all the time. thats the universal appeal of MB.
agree with u on bheesma, he was a master strategist and his choices to some extent led to the complications, but then again MB wouldnt have happened if he hadn't made the choices he made, it would just be some fairy tale. here comes the genius and the foresight of the poet who conceived the idea and created it. Btw, if lord K is taken as a significant historical figure who actually existed and whose great deeds later gave him god hood, then he aces bheesma in strategy. the whole kururkshetra war was his brain child to set an example of ideal dharmarajya. thinking in that way, he is also the most dangerous person ever to be around. I guess i would be much peaceful if i hold on to my Krishnastu bhagaban swayam .

I agree. Both the epics are beautiful. While Ramayan upholds values and characters and shows an ideal way, Mahabharath is more realistic and shows the strength and weakness of the characters. Both are unique in their own way.

What I meant was actually this. In Tamil, there is a proverb which states (translated) "Learn even the art of theft and forget it" Literally translated it means learn the bad things too and forget it. But if we think deeper, it actually means that knowledge does not go waste. You can learn the evil too but that does not mean you have to use it. It depends on the level of your intelligence, philosophy and understanding. Please, I am not insulting anyone here but just trying to explain. You can learn what it is and not use it. But this knowledge can give you enough intelligence to turn away from the same evil when you face it and not be caught by it unawares.

OK, I think I am not making any sense.

I enjoy reading the scriptures - not matter which version it is. There is always something to learn and I grew up with it all.

Thanks for your views. 😊

Quote

246851

Hibernated

Posted: 12 years ago

Originally posted by: Vibhishna

I agree. Both the epics are beautiful. While Ramayan upholds values and characters and shows an ideal way, Mahabharath is more realistic and shows the strength and weakness of the characters. Both are unique in their own way.

What I meant was actually this. In Tamil, there is a proverb which states (translated) "Learn even the art of theft and forget it" Literally translated it means learn the bad things too and forget it. But if we think deeper, it actually means that knowledge does not go waste. You can learn the evil too but that does not mean you have to use it. It depends on the level of your intelligence, philosophy and understanding. Please, I am not insulting anyone here but just trying to explain. You can learn what it is and not use it. But this knowledge can give you enough intelligence to turn away from the same evil when you face it and not be caught by it unawares.

OK, I think I am not making any sense.

I enjoy reading the scriptures - not matter which version it is. There is always something to learn and I grew up with it all.

Thanks for your views. 😊

agreed, somehow you know i can relate more to MB, may be it in its own colorful way shows what we are really and what we are capable of becoming depending upon the choices we make?

i agree with you, nothing goes waste, no knowledge is a wastage, its pretty difficult to explain but i agree with you, if u donot learn about evil and learn about bad stuff, then how will u know the provocation of it and how will u make your choice. BTW, there is a saying in bengali which roughly translates as whatever hasnt happened in MB, hasnt happened in Bharat, sort of like read MB, and u will know everything u need to know about character and people and how they will react to situations and stuff.

just asking, coz i am not very familiar with many literary works outside bengali , but have u read parvya ( um the spelling might be wrong but its very famous book in kannada)? my friends have said its an amazing book and a nice interpretaion of MB, i have been looking for its english translation for quite some time now.

Quote

Vibhishna

@Vibhishna

Goldie

Posted: 12 years ago

Originally posted by: Tannistha

just asking, coz i am not very familiar with many literary works outside bengali , but have u read parvya ( um the spelling might be wrong but its very famous book in kannada)? my friends have said its an amazing book and a nice interpretaion of MB, i have been looking for its english translation for quite some time now.

I haven't read much either. Mostly I have read anything and everything I can get my hands on - for a long time never noticed the sources.

The book is called Parva in Kannada. I have been looking for it as well. I know there is an English translation available. It is one among the list of books I wish to collect.

Quote

Janaki

@RamKiSeeta

IF-Addictz

+ 6

Posted: 12 years ago

I was going through these pages and noticed that Barbarik, the son of Ghatotkacha, was not mentioned here. Of course, he also died after the war, but had he been alive, could he have been heir?

Quote

varaali

@varaali

IF-Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 12 years ago

I have only lightly skimmed the last few posts, but to answer Vibhishana (were you called Vibs by Ravana too?) and Vrish on Karna's claim(?) to the throne-

Vibs wrote:

Karna was accepted as a bother by the Pandavas after the battle. It did not matter how Karna was born - he was accepted as one of the royal family. Vrishketu was also adopted as a son by the Pandavas. It was just like Bheeshma accepted the sons of Vyasa as heirs.

It mattered very much. The status of a child at birth determined the gotra into which he/she was born. Don't forget that it was a patriarchal society in those days. The civil society in Dwapara Yuga would have mist certainly been governed by The Manu Smriti as codified by Manu Swaybhuva

This is what Manu Smriti (Manava Dharmashastra) has to say about the type of sons (chapter 9). (I will try and paraphrase it to the best of my understanding- any corrections most welcome)

Manu lists out Twelve types of sons. The best (Uttama) was the Aurasa kind of son (born naturally b/w husband and wife). A son born like this has predominance over others.

The next best is the Kshetrajya kind of Son- born out of Niyoga (born to the wife and another appointed male)

The third kind of son is Datta (adopted). The fourth is Kritima. the Fifth and sixth are Gooda Utapana and Apraviddha. ( I will go into the details of these later).

The above six were considered both kinsmen and heirs.

Now Manu also lists the six kinds of sons who can be considered as kinsmen but not heirs.

They are Kanina (born to a maiden before marraige), Sahoda (son recd along with wife at the tme of marraige), Kreeta (bought for a price) Punarbhava (son begotten on a re married woman) Self offered (swayam datta) and Shaudra (born to Shudra woman).

Karna was a Kanina. Being adopted by Yudhishthir as brother after battle is meaningless. At best it gave Yudhishthir the right to perform his funeral rites. If at all anyone had the right to adopt him it was Pandu, who died lbissfully unaware. Even Bhishma's knowledge of Karna's birth could not alter the facts that as a Kanina son , he did not have a stake in Pandu's kingdom.

As far as Vrishketu is concerned, he may have been treated like a son, but formal adoption in to the Pandav Parivar was out of question since he was legally born to Karna and his wife (Vrushali?) into the Suta family of Adhiratha.

As regards Bhishma recognizing the legitimacy of Dritarashtra and Pandu, their births were not hush hush. It was common knowledge that VV had died w/o leaving an heir behind and Veda Vyasa (nearest blood relative) was called upon specifically for this purpose. A son born out of Niyoga had all the rights and duties of a natural born son.

Gooda Uttpanna and Apraviddha- the two kinds of sons who though low in order but are still both kinsmen and heirs is a very unique case. In both the cases, the child is born in the husbands house after marraige, but the mother is not sure who the father is 😕(Am i supposed to issue some kind of "Adult Content" warning here ?😆 OK all those of you below 18, please leave...😆 Go and watch Chhota Bheem ) . But since the child is born in under the Husband's roof, he is still given the status of Son.

So the main point while considering the status of a child is where was he born? Since Karna was born in his mother's Maternal house, he loses the right to be called Pandu's heir

Edited by varaali - 12 years ago

Quote

Vibhishna

@Vibhishna

Goldie

Posted: 12 years ago

Originally posted by: varaali
I have only lightly skimmed the last few posts, but to answer Vibhishana (were you called Vibs by Ravana too?) and Vrish on Karna's claim(?) to the throne-

😆 😆 😆

Nope. I was called Vibs by Vrish here 😉 who back then had another name

And I'm looking forward to know your views too. 😊

Edited by Vibhishna - 12 years ago

Quote

Vrish

@Vr15h

Viewbie

+ 4

Posted: 12 years ago

Varaali

Notice the difference in spelling 😉

Thanks for the elaborate explanations.

Vrishaketu didn't need to be adopted by the Pandavas, since he was their nephew. Your explanations above seem to suggest that he'd have been last in line to the throne - maybe ahead of the rakshashas 😆 But otherwise, as per the joint family conventions in those days, a man was considered a parent not just to his own sons, but also his brothers children - think of Rama and all his nephews. (Of course, Dhritarashtra completely destroyed that relationship w/ the Pandavas) So just like Abhimanyu, Ghatotkacha, Nirmitra, et al would be considered 'sons' of Yudhisthir by virtue of being his nephews, so would Vrishaketu, no? Except that Yudhisthir would be his Kakashri, instead of his Taushri.

One question that does however come up - how did the Pandavas get to possess Vrishaketu? Did Adhirath & Radha die as well, just like (all?) their sons? B'cos if they were alive, or if Karna had any surviving brothers, Vrishaketu would have been their ward, no? So on what basis did the Pandavas possess him?

Vibs/Tan

More than Ramayan vs Mahabharata, one thing I notice is the contrast in the character profiles of Rama & Krishna. The former was idealistic, almost like Yudhisthir, and never took the expedient way out (except maybe 2 occasions - the killings of Vali & Indrajit). The latter actively encouraged the Pandavas to do things that seemed immoral in the short view, but righteous in the context of the bigger picture. Great example being getting Yudhisthir to lie to Drona - pointing out that saving the lives of his warriors was more important than accumulating all the brownie points for living a perfectly truthful life. In the Ramayan, the message that is sent is that the proper reward for living such an ideal life is an idyllic ending: after the war, everybody who had fought on Rama's side was restored to life, whereas in Kurukshetra, the Pandavas lost every one of their loved ones, and lived pretty unhappy lives for the remainder of their existence.

In short, the Ramayan is about the ideal way to live one's life, while the Mahabharata is about the practical compromises one has to make while doing it. To me, that's what explains the differences in Vishnu's messages to those 2 audiences. In an ideal setting, such as the Ramayan, there should never be any reason to indulge in situational ethics & compromises. However, in practical settings such as the Mahabharata, they become necessary.

LJR (No, Varaali, Rama didn't call her that 😆)

Ghatotkacha & his dynasty wouldn't have been allowed to rule the Pandava empire. If you recall, Hidimbaa never lived w/ Bhima either in Indraprastha nor in Hastinapur. Although coming to think of it, when the Pandavas were in exile, Bhima and his brothers should have stayed w/ her, particularly since there were several occasions when Ghatotkacha would carry Draupadi places when she was exhausted. Anyway, long story short, Hidimbaa never lived in any of the Pandava capitals, and Ghatotkacha was the ruler of the rakshashas, but not in the line of succession to Indraprastha/Hastinapur. So Anjanparva, Barbaryk or Meghavarna would have been ineligible too. Incidentally, Vaarali/Vibs, was Meghavarna the son of Anjanparva?

The Mahabharatas we were discussing were Vyasas and that of his disciples - one of them Jamineya, which is where the accounts of Vrishaketu & Meghavarna come from. Is Barbaryk mentioned there? B'cos I only heard of him in these pages, never read of him anywhere else.

And honestly, from everything I've read, I don't find that story even remotely credible. First thing - as Ghatotkacha's son, there wouldn't have been any doubts about which side he'd fight - obviously the Pandavas. The theory that he'd switch sides every time his side got the upper hand is loopy, and besides, the war ended w/ everybody dead, just as it would have had he done this bizarre act of switching sides. After that, the idea that Krishna would ask for his head just sounds too grizzly to me. If Krishna had simply asked him to fight for his grandfather's side, it'd just have been fine. And besides, who says that he couldn't have been killed? Ashwatthama had 2 lethal weapons which he misused - the Narayanastra and the Brahmashira. Either of them would have destroyed Barbaryk, and done its purpose & left Ashwatthama.

This story makes Krishna look like someone who did not want the Pandavas to win the war.

Edited by .Vrish. - 12 years ago

Quote

varaali

@varaali

IF-Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 12 years ago

Originally posted by: .Vrish.
Vaarali

Notice the difference in spelling 😉

Why the difference?

Meghavarna was the son of Ghatotghach. No, Barbareek is not mentioned in Jamineya MB. I too find that story bizzare

Edited by varaali - 12 years ago

Quote

Vrish

@Vr15h

Viewbie

+ 4

Posted: 12 years ago

^^^ Sorry I misspelt your name, Varaali - just corrected it. No, I was asking you to note how Vibs spells her name, but by mis-spelling yours, I screwed it up. Sorry again.

Yeah, I forgot, Meghvarna was Ghatotkach's son. So he had at least 2 sons then - Anjanparva, Meghvarna and Barbaryk.

So how did Vrishaketu end up w/ the Pandavas? Did Adhiratha & Radha die, did they hand him over, what exactly happened?

Quote

Janaki

@RamKiSeeta

IF-Addictz

+ 6

Posted: 12 years ago

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

And honestly, from everything I've read, I don't find that story even remotely credible. First thing - as Ghatotkacha's son, there wouldn't have been any doubts about which side he'd fight - obviously the Pandavas. The theory that he'd switch sides every time his side got the upper hand is loopy, and besides, the war ended w/ everybody dead, just as it would have had he done this bizarre act of switching sides. After that, the idea that Krishna would ask for his head just sounds too grizzly to me. If Krishna had simply asked him to fight for his grandfather's side, it'd just have been fine. And besides, who says that he couldn't have been killed? Ashwatthama had 2 lethal weapons which he misused - the Narayanastra and the Brahmashira. Either of them would have destroyed Barbaryk, and done its purpose & left Ashwatthama.

This story makes Krishna look like someone who did not want the Pandavas to win the war.

Yes, Barbarik's story does seem confusing, but then, he never was brought up with his cousins at Indraprastha or Dwaraka (during the Pandavas' exile). The sole purpose of his birth was to die by the hands of Krishna, because he wanted liberation from his human life and his grandmother had told him that the easiest way to attain liberation was not to meditate on God for years and years, but to die by his hand. Barbarik came up with his vow that he'd only fight for the weaker side because he had always been taught that the weak should be helped, and he took that to be literal, and Krishna knew he'd keep changing sides in the war every time someone died, and also could not take the chance of Barbarik helping the Kauravas even a bit, since he was very powerful.

And being immune to the astras is kind of like one of the boons Hiranyakashipa had. Since such boons had to be attended to, Lord Vishnu was forced to kill him as a half-lion half-human with his nails, so I don't think even Ashwathama's astras could have killed Barbarik when he had a boon against them.

As for Krishna not wanting the Pandavas to win, that's not exactly true, but Krishna wasn't just a Pandava supporter. He was a supporter of Dharma and many of the warriors fighting for the Pandavas were not exactly sinless, so all of them died too. Krishna punished both the Pandavas and Kauravas through his leela at Kurukshetra, and since Dharma was ultimately at the Pandava's side, they won, but they also suffered many terrible losses. So I think that had Krishna just been a Pandava supporter, he'd not have let anyone in the Pandav paksh die.

Quote

1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 13