Where is Barbareek mentioned

People we all know how important Barbareek is in the subcontinent. He is worshipped as Khatu Shyamji another form of Krishna himself in Rajasthan

People say that had he not been killed, he would have been able to finish everyone in just a few minutes. 

Just want to know where does his story come from? Is he mentioned in any of the authentic texts? Considering Abhimanyu was still a kid who just had got married and Uppandavas were all younger to him, how is it possible that they had a cousin who was the father of an adult. Could there be such a huge age difference between Ghatochkach and Abhimanyu+Uppandavas!

If he was actually so good why didn't the Pandavas send only him to the war from their side on the first day so that he could kill everyone (including Duryodhan) from the opponent side, that would have actually had caused less destruction, since there were many more who later joined the war and died? How is his killing justified even if we assume that he was so powerful? 

Please share more details about him, I seriously want to understand

P.S. please people let's be back here it seems everyone has just secluded this forum

I think Barbarik is from Skanda Purana. Ghatotkatch would have been old enough to be married and have a child, but the child would not have been old enough to fight. If you go by the magical explanation, Ghatotkatch grew into adulthood as soon as he was born, so Barbarik could've been older than Abhimanyu.

Barbarik legend also says Kurukshetra was about Sudrashana chakra (Krishna) slaughtering the kshatriyas and Draupadi drinking blood in the form of Mahakali.

Edited by HearMeRoar - 3 years ago

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Barbarik legend also says Kurukshetra was about Sudrashana chakra (Krishna) slaughtering the kshatriyas and Draupadi drinking blood in the form of Mahakali.

This part is one of the best.I don't know why any serial don't show Draupadi drinking blood as kali.(and her role as empress too)

There is no Barbareek in mahabharat. Ghatothkach's son Anjanparva is mentioned fighting in the war and dying at the hands of Ashwatthama.

Skanda purana does mention this barbareek charachter though

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

I think Barbarik is from Skanda Purana. Ghatotkatch would have been old enough to be married and have a child, but the child would not have been old enough to fight. If you go by the magical explanation, Ghatotkatch grew into adulthood as soon as he was born, so Barbarik could've been older than Abhimanyu.

Barbarik legend also says Kurukshetra was about Sudrashana chakra (Krishna) slaughtering the kshatriyas and Draupadi drinking blood in the form of Mahakali.

Skanda Purana? So he is more a part of the Shaivite or Shakt sect in seems. The Mahakali reference is another proof. 

But this entire stuff seems to me as some mystic element uselessly added. I now even doubt the historicity of Barbareek

On a lighter note, Sudarshan chakra to Bharatji ho gaye 

Originally posted by: Horizon566

This part is one of the best.I don't know why any serial don't show Draupadi drinking blood as kali.(and her role as empress too)

Role as empress is great, but I don't want the shows to have blood drinking scenes. It gives further points to the anti Hindu brigade to preach against Hinduism. And most of the people including Hindus, not understanding the depth of the narration take it in face value and make wrong views about the religion

Originally posted by: Chiillii

There is no Barbareek in mahabharat. Ghatothkach's son Anjanparva is mentioned fighting in the war and dying at the hands of Ashwatthama.

Skanda purana does mention this barbareek charachter though

Thankyou for your response, so Skanda Puran is the only source of Barbareek, 

But still how could Ghatochkach have a kid big enough to fight in a war, or was Anjanparva still a kid6-7 years and their Rakshas clans had a trend of considering the boys of this age big enough for battle

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Skanda Purana? So he is more a part of the Shaivite or Shakt sect in seems. The Mahakali reference is another proof. 

But this entire stuff seems to me as some mystic element uselessly added. I now even doubt the historicity of Barbareek

On a lighter note, Sudarshan chakra to Bharatji ho gaye 

I never even heard about Barbarik until I came to India forums.  Similarly, in Ramanand Sagar's Shri Krishna, they inserted a story near the end about an asura named Vajranam whose daughter Krishna wanted for Pradhyumna.  But I couldn't find that story anywhere in Shrimad Bhagvatam.

Also, on the thing about sudarshan chakra being Bharat, Sesha naag being Lakshman, in the original Valmiki, all 4 brothers were Vishnu only, there was no sesha naag or sudarshan avatars.  SB first had the theory of Balarama as Sesha naag, and then intrapolated it into the Rama avatar, despite Valmiki giving clear descriptions of the avatar.

Mahabharat has been used to derive the history of that era, and like the Ramayan, all the supernatural events were obviously deleted.  If one does that, it's a lot easier to believe

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Role as empress is great, but I don't want the shows to have blood drinking scenes. It gives further points to the anti Hindu brigade to preach against Hinduism. And most of the people including Hindus, not understanding the depth of the narration take it in face value and make wrong views about the religion

U are correct of peoples'views but I don't see any wrong in it as Draupadi was assaulted and also if we think it in another way then it can also give a message of two faces of woman(kali and gauri) which depends on the family members.

Originally posted by: Horizon566

U are correct of peoples'views but I don't see any wrong in it as Draupadi was assaulted and also if we think it in another way then it can also give a message of two faces of woman(kali and gauri) which depends on the family members.

No there is nothing wrong in showing Panchali in that way, personally I would actually like it, it will show how women n girls are strong,  but the people who just search for reasons to defame Hinduism will not think about the correct message but will simply demonise her. That's why I am against it