Originally posted by: varaali
After the last couple of episodes I feel like writing what primary school teachers sometimes write in their students homework - " Inaccurate and filled with errors- Please rewrite and submit".
As if bringing in Sudama was not a blotch in itself, they have goofed up in a couple of other places too. Paundrak's cheif wife was Padmavati and his son, Sakradeva. This is mentioned in HariVamsa (no mentionof his wife/ves in SB)
In Hari Vamsa (chapter 44) this story is narrated in more detail than in SB. It states that after the defeat of Jarasandha at Gomantaka, Damaghosh switches sides and joins hands with Krishna, introducing himself as his father's sister's husband. Damaghosh suggest that they proceed to Karavirapura, which was ruled by Shrigala Vasudeva.Shrigala Vasudeva, instead of entertaining them as guests, entertained them in battle. A detailed description of the Battle follows, wherein Shrigala is killed and the usual lamentations by the widows follows. The chief queen padmavati, places her son Shakradeva at Krishna's feet and seeks his protection. Krishna assures that he will crown Shakradeva as the king of Karavirapura. There is no mention of the king of Kashi getting involved in the battle.
The SB version is different .No where in SB is Paundrak's wife's name given. It just states that Paundrak once arrogantly demanded that Krishna stop using the "Vaasudeva" suffix as he (Paundrak) was the only true Lord Vasudeva". He also demanded that Krishna give up his weapons too. Krishna having sent offthe messenger, himself marches to Paundrak's kingdom (near Kashi) where he battles both Paundrak and Kashi-raj together. Paundrak is slain ans Kashi-raj's head severed and dispatched to Kashi where it falls in front of the palace. Kashi raj's son Sudhikshana in order to avnge his father's death perforns a sacrifice out of which emerges a fiery moster which Sudikshana orders to go and burn down Dwraka. Krishna 's Sudarshan Chaka is enough to counter the fiery monster which unable to face the chakra turns and flees back to Kashi, burning down Sudikshana in the process.
I know that the current Paundrak track has no resemblance to the actual story as described above. That said, there are a lot of points worth noting, and asking about it.
For starters, as usual, this serial vilifies Paundrak and makes him look like more of a monster than he actually was. For instance, today's episode of him tormenting people who worshipped those other than him was identical to the story of Lavanasura, as depicted in both the Sagar Ramayans. But in the original, he did nothing even close. All he did was start a cult of his own within his own kingdom, and the initiative on this came from his own people, or at least people around him. They were the ones who started his cult, and when he started challenging the legitimacy of Krishna's divinity, Krishna decided to go and destroy him, and his cult w/ it.
The question that then arises - does SP, or anyone else, think that if Paundrak actually did not do the things depicted in this serial, and just headed his own cult, as actually happened, then Krishna would have been unjustified in killing him? There are 2 rationales for killing someone like him. One would be if a ruler - like Lavanasura - cracked down on the freedom of worship of citizens, and the other would be if a ruler like Paundrak started his own cult and started misleading others into believing that he's divine when he isn't. Under today's standards, the latter would not be killed, but for those times, given the capacity of one to lead a lot of people astray, coupled w/ the belief that it would delay or deny their salvation, would something like it be totally unjustified?
The other thing about Paundrak's boast of ruling all 3 worlds: he was a vassal of Jarasandha, just like Rukmi, Sishupala, Shalva, Dantavatra and so on. So he wasn't even someone who ruled this world, let alone all 3. Balarama defeated all of Jarasandha's allies - Paundrak included - during the abduction of Rukmini. Even aside from that, he was not noted as a warrior @ all - anyone - Bheeshma, Pandu, Shalya, Drupada, et al could have trounced him easily. In his battle w/ Krishna, the latter went there alone w/ Garuda and destroyed his army b4 facing him and delivering to him his discus, beheading him in the process. Krishna didn't even think it worth taking his army, or even Balarama or Satyaka w/ him.
Also, what's w/ making his wife a great devotee, when there's nothing to indicate that to be the case? Most women of that time were very supportive of their husbands, and even Gandhari, despite her reservations, supported what Dhritarashtra & Duryodhan did. There is nothing to suggest that the wives of Jarasandha, Rukmi, Sishupala, Dantavatra and so on opposed them on their enmity to Krishna. So using somebody's fictitious devotion to justify not killing Paundrak, when neither was true, just begs explanation: Krishna did kill Paundrak, and Paundrak's wife was not his devotee. In the case of Kashiraj, it's even documented that his wives were cheering for him to send home Krishna's head, and instead, he severed Kashiraj's head and sent it to Varanasi instead.
So what I'm wondering is - do the Sagars believe that if they show an authentic story of Krishna, people will have a less favorable opinion of him, like in cases like Paundrak, Rukmi, Satrajit, et al?
Edited by .Vrish. - 12 years ago
comment:
p_commentcount