Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 12 Jun 2013 06:09

Nilesh Oak wrote: Abhishek Sharma ji,

Give me some time. I will indeed post all battles.. not just Karna-Arjuna. but all battles that are relevant to Karna and Arjuna (and not to forget Bhima)

In fact, Bhima has beaten Karna -endlessly-and mind you.. not with club...but in Dhanur-Yuddha, so called forte of Karna.

Wonderful. Dhanyawaad. Much appreciated.

sudarshan · Post by **sudarshan** » 12 Jun 2013 06:46

SwamyG wrote:Nilesh: Sometimes in order to prove something which is incredulous to begin with, one just has to continue to stretch the incredulity. A good example is the support of LKA in the political dhaaga. As long as events can be proved with a reasonable assumptions, I am fine. When I questioned my grandmother on some animal talking in purana, she would retort that in those days animals and birds could talk. When I question the "divine" birth of Jesus from Virgin Mary, I have to equally question the "divine" birth of the Pandavas from Kunti (outside wedlock).

Through out history, ham log thoda bahut bada chada ke bol dete hain. All civilizations.

Sir, permit me to say a few things.

Your skepticism is commendable, and also well warranted. Whether or not you "believe" the version of events reported in ancient texts is your personal decision. However...

It's always good to realize that just because things have always happened a certain way within your lifetime, or your parents' or grandparents' lifetimes, or within living memory, does not mean that it is the only way things can happen.

Talking animals? Even today, I can tell, listening to the way a dog barks, or a gorilla drums its chest, whether the animal is angry or happy, or hungry, or just looking to mate. Does the animal physically need to use Sanskrit words to make its intentions known? Is it so inconceivable that people of advanced intellect could bridge the communication gap even further, and get a pretty accurate feel for what the animal is saying, and also make themselves clear to the animal? I'm sure God, the supreme intellect, can establish a perfect communication with any living being, animal, plant, or even germ.

Virgin births? All that is needed is that certain biological information needs to reach the woman's womb. Within living memory, no man has performed this feat without - ahem - "reaching out" to the woman. Does that observation constitute any kind of compelling proof that the possibility of this happening in some other way is totally ruled out? Is there any specific, compelling reason why the "download" process has to take nine months, other than that it's generally observed to take that long?

I'm sure you're aware of the life of Sri Ramakrishna. The details of his doings have been meticulously and accurately recorded by disciples, not quite two hundred years ago. Reading those accounts today, a lot of it seems "impossible," but that's only because we've never seen any of it happen within our lifetimes.

Just saying. The fact that we've never seen things happen any other way in our living memory, is not a compelling reason why they cannot happen. There's no reason why births have to happen the way they've always been "known" to happen, or why humans and animals could never have communicated at any point of time, or whatever. The world-wise person who scoffs at something saying "has this ever been known to happen?" also needs to do some introspection on whether there's any specific reason why things can only happen in the way (s)he's always known it to happen. There's no conclusive and compelling reason that we know of, why we all have to be here, why we all have to speak or eat through our mouths, sleep 8 hours, knock each other silly on web-forums.

Hope you get what I'm saying, and again, this is not to knock your personal decision to believe or not believe certain things.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 12 Jun 2013 08:20

This is precisely what I am talking about. Now you cite ideas and feats that calls for leaps of imagination - it is called belief. The moment one enters the realm of belief it is impossible to convince others. You talk about intercourse and pregnancy and introduce questions that go into the area of sci-fi. I do not believe humans were advanced, unless you get into the idea of aliens coming down to earth, and then adapting to earth conditions. In the last 3-5 thousands years, there has been only one known way of impregnating women. Ultimately it is the maya of a sperm and egg. Unless one believes in miracles.

The fact that these are mentioned in the epics, does not mean they happened. As a kid, I too had discussed the possibility of animals talking and nuclear weapons ityadi. I have moved past those things.

sudarshan · Post by **sudarshan** » 12 Jun 2013 09:13

Well, all I was saying was, given that:

B has been known to occur only as a consequence of A within living memory,

That does not imply that:

A is the necessary and sufficient condition for B,

and that:

any other set of conditions C is automatically ruled out as being sufficient for B

Since it is known that within the past 3-5 hundred years, there has only been one known way of impregnating women, that can't be taken as proof that there is no other way. IOW, if somebody claims that there is some other way, then that somebody should be treated with extreme skepticism, but his/her claim cannot be dismissed as impossible based on that evidence alone. Just cautioning you not to rule out the possibility as nonsense. But it is perfectly ok to be extremely skeptical. That's my view.

Why did I say 3-5 hundred instead of 3-5 thousand? Because we *do* have accounts from 3-5 thousand years ago of other ways of impregnating women, both from the Indic and the Hebrew accounts (Virgin Mary). Those accounts may be fictional, or not. By all means, let's be skeptical, even extremely skeptical about them, let's not believe them without convincing proof (or at least some grade-A corroborative evidence), but let's also not dismiss them outright as impossible. Because we simply do not have conclusive evidence to make that judgment of impossible.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 12 Jun 2013 09:50

Some random observations....(otherwise I want SwamyG and Sudarshan ji to continue their discussion).

Observations are highlighted below (bold and underlined)

SwamyG wrote:This is precisely what I am talking about. Now you cite ideas and feats that calls for leaps of imagination - it is called belief. The moment one enters the realm of belief it is impossible to convince others. You talk about intercourse and pregnancy and introduce questions that go into the area of sci-fi. I do not believe humans were advanced, unless you get into the idea of aliens coming down to earth, and then adapting to earth conditions. In the last 3-5 thousands years, there has been only one known way of impregnating women. Ultimately it is the maya of a sperm and egg. Unless one believes in miracles.

The fact that these are mentioned in the epics, does not mean they happened. As a kid, I too had discussed the possibility of animals talking and nuclear weapons ityadi. I have moved past those things.

negi · Post by **negi** » 12 Jun 2013 11:09

SwamyG wrote:I remember my vaishnava Sanskrit teacher calling out that no parents would name their son as Duryodhana.

They say his real name was Suyodhana , sounds logical too why would anyone name his/her own son Dur-yodhana ?

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 12 Jun 2013 14:08

negi wrote:
SwamyG wrote:I remember my vaishnava Sanskrit teacher calling out that no parents would name their son as Duryodhana.
They say his real name was Suyodhana , sounds logical too why would anyone name his/her own son Dur-yodhana ?

Duryodhana - One who is difficult to fight with - In other words, one who is great warrior.. A double negative. It is a positive adjective and a good name (as a name, it brings wrong context along with it, is different matter)

Suyodhana is not a very good adjective.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Jun 2013 18:44

SwamyG and Sudarshan, Please carry on your conversation in either the Off Topic thread in GDF or even better the Secularism thread in Strat forum. Those are more appropriate venues.

Thanks,

ramana

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 12 Jun 2013 19:35

sudarshan wrote:I'm sure you're aware of the life of Sri Ramakrishna. The details of his doings have been meticulously and accurately recorded by disciples, not quite two hundred years ago. Reading those accounts today, a lot of it seems "impossible," but that's only because we've never seen any of it happen within our lifetimes.

Specifically which acts of his do you consider impossible? Remaining pure after marriage? That is not much impossible as Sri Sarada Devi was as high a spiritual personality as Sri Ramakrishna himself.

And I am sure Sri Ramakrishna never did miracle like walking on water.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Jun 2013 19:40

abhishekcc, How about you also continue in the OT or Secualrism thread.

Thanks,
ramana

svenkat · Post by **svenkat** » 12 Jun 2013 19:51

SwamyGji,
What is SR discussion?

sudarshan · Post by **sudarshan** » 12 Jun 2013 19:52

ramana wrote:SwamyG and Sudarshan, Please carry on your conversation in either the Off Topic thread in GDF or even better the Secularism thread in Strat forum. Those are more appropriate venues.

Thanks,

ramana

I can sure move over there, but there's nothing much to discuss in the first place. I was just pointing out that logically, neither side has the evidence to make a conclusive claim. I don't have evidence to prove that births can happen in any way other than what we're accustomed to seeing, and I'm sure if SwamyG sir had evidence to prove that they cannot happen any other way, he'd have presented it by now.

This discussion is destined to end in a stalemate, in that case. Is it really worth pursuing? I just wanted to make the point that we need to be cautious about not dismissing certain ideas outright, even though we have every right to be extremely skeptical about them.

Abhishekcc, I'll answer you in the OT thread, if you like.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 12 Jun 2013 20:28

Nilesh Oak wrote: Abhishek Sharma ji,

Give me some time. I will indeed post all battles.. not just Karna-Arjuna. but all battles that are relevant to Karna and Arjuna (and not to forget Bhima)

In fact, Bhima has beaten Karna -endlessly-and mind you.. not with club...but in Dhanur-Yuddha, so called forte of Karna.

true.. second day of dronaparva, bhima defeated drona, karna, ashwatthama and duryodhana together. these four attacked bhima at once. This was day before chakravyuha and abhimanyu's death.

Also day after abhimanyu's death (fourth day after drona took over) just before arjuna beheaded jayadratha, karna-bhima duel, bhima defeated karna conclusively. Bhima ended up killing 30 kauravas in single day and defeated karna in single combat about 5 times in a row. In the end, when all ammunition with bhima was exhausted, he jumped on karna's chariot and boxed him unconscious and made him run again.

it is only once that bhima was defeated by karna (during this very day) after he returned fresh for 6th time to fight bhima (who was going to help arjuna and holding off kauravas while arjuna was busy fulfilling his vow of killing jayadratha before sunset (something which krishna reprimanded him for, time and again). Bhima's bow was destroyed by karna on sixth time and his chariot was broken. Bhima started fighting from an elephant and alter on foot with just mace in his hand. It was here that karna eventually defeats bhima and lets him go trash-talking big words. truth is, while karna was being beaten like a wuss on 5 occasions that day, bhima was killing and fighting and single-handedly holding the flank and keeping arjuna's path to return to pandava base open. karna defeated bhima only on sixth occasion when bhima's ammunition was exhausted and chariot broken bhima himself exhausted due to hard fighting.

day after chakravyuha is the second greatest days in bhima's career - the day after abhimanyu's death. He took it very personal that he could not keep chakravyuha open on previous day, despite promising abhimanyu that he would. He kept the flank open for his dear brother who was deep within kaurava formation seeking revenge, while denying entry to kauravas who were hell-bent on arresting yudhishthira and ending the war.

His greatest would be the day when he killed dusshasana, arjuna killed karna and bhima alone killed one entire akshauhini of samshaptaka army along with many other kaurava brothers.

Bhima alone killed all 100 kauravas - the real enemies of pandavas. other four brothers killed auxiliaries.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 12 Jun 2013 20:30

^^ Thanks.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 12 Jun 2013 22:12

Thanks Atri Ji,
------------

Abhishek Sharma ji,

You have already alluded to incidents such as (1) Attack on Drupad, at the request of Drona...and contribution of Bhima/Arjuna (and lack of contribution of Karna/Duryodhan etc.) or (2) Karna's inability to free Duryodhana from Gandharvas.

I am adding few as I recall...

(1) When Yudhi began Rajasuya yajna, Bhima went to east and during that mission, Bhima DEFEATED Karna completely. Again ,this was not club fight.. but Dhanur Yuddha.

(2) Karna or Kaurvas (with Bhishma ) on their side could not defeat Kichak (Matsya desh) and Karuvas always remained under this thread. (Virata Parva Chapter 30). On the other hand not only Bhima defeated Kichack and his army.. but also later on (well known) Killed Kichak and his associates singlehandedly.

(3) At the time of Uttara-Gograhana, Kaurvas (with Bhishma, Karna, Drona, Kripa) attacked Virat and they were defeated by Arjuna

(4) If one wants to know what Bhishma thought of Karna, one should read Udyogay Chapter 167 (Gita press edition).

(5) Atri ji have already described incidents of Drona parva (e.g Chapter 129 onwards). It is important to realize that every time Karna ran away -defeated- from the battle, he had an opportunity to rest and come back. On the other hand, during this time, Bhima was fighting without break.

(6) Karna's own admission (about how Bhima destroyed him) can be read at Drona chapter 145

(7) Bhima killed Karna's brother and many Karurvas in the presence of Karana.. and Karna could not do a dam thing about it!!! Drona chapter 155

(8) Karna Parva Day 2 - Bhima defeated Karna twice . Karna Parva chapter 50 .

(9) Many of Kaurva brothers were killed by Bhima, in the presence of Karna, and again Karna could not do a damn thing about it!

(10) I could quote many more..but this will do for now.
--------------

Atri ji have mentioned Karna defeating Bhima in round 6. .on 14th day of the War. In addition, Karna did have few MINOR victories before the War (but not against Arjuna/Bhima) but rather against few not so famous kings. During the war, Karna's biggest thing was killing Ghatotkach.
--------------

I encourage 'defenders of Karna' to add his victories if I have missed any.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 12 Jun 2013 22:17

^^ Dhanyavaad onlee.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 12 Jun 2013 22:21

The best shocker was when bhima busted the chest of Dusshasana and drank blood in front of karna, duryodhana, shakuni and many others. He challenged all to stop him if they can, while he drank the blood. Nobody could dare.. karna was there standing and watching.. people just watched - many of them fainted...

very dramatic scene.. would love to see it on big screen..

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Jun 2013 22:23

Bhima is like Narasimha avatara to the Kauravas in many ways: killed them all, gruesomely killed the eldest two Kauravas. And did it beyond normal code of conduct.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 12 Jun 2013 22:30

ramana wrote:Bhima is like Narasimha avatara to the Kauravas in many ways: killed them all, gruesomely killed the eldest two Kauravas. And did it beyond normal code of conduct.

happened to watch a kathakali performance in Thrissur few years ago. The scene was when Draupadi wishes the lotus flowers in the lake and how Bhima-Draupadi romance develops while in exile and hwo delicately he handles her and promises to bring the flowers to her. In the process, he kills rakshasas, has his own ego busted (the hanumana-tail scene), yet returns with the flowers..

Bhima loved Draupadi and Draupadi loved Arjuna.

quite a complicated story. She is the single point of softness and affection in his life. His marriage to Hidimbi was more of a political relation. He did not even visit her after impregnating her. He did not screw around like Arjuna did (subhadra, ulupi, chitrangada). really a fascinating character. contrast this to blood-drinking scene.. quite a wide range. Someone like Ajay Devgan would play Bhima fantastically (only much stronger built and more height).

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Jun 2013 22:39

Iravati Karve in her reimagining the swargarohna episode muses on what Draupdi's last wishes were!

You should read.

BTW Bhima was also married to Jalandahra the sister of Bhanumati, wife of Duryodhana!

KM Munshi in his five volume Krishna writes about this in the 3rd or 4th volume.

Bhima is quite an all round person. He loved and hated people fiercely. Yet all he needed was alook from Dharmaraja to be quiet.

Read Virata parva dialogue between Bhima and Draupadi afer Kichaka pursues her into the court.

shaardula · Post by **shaardula** » 12 Jun 2013 22:42

yep bheema was awesome. not just bulk but brains too (was the adminstrator in chief). and a man's man.

dushyasanavadha this is imagery is burnt in my mind, and never tire of evangelizing it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MEENfKEQ1U

btw ramana, the sociological commentary about the war at kurukshtera might be of interest to you. you might have already read it in discovery of india, still ...

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 12 Jun 2013 22:43

ramana wrote:Iravati Karve in her reimagining the swargarohna episode muses on what Draupdi's last wishes were!

You should read.

BTW Bhima was also married to Jalandahra the sister of Bhanumati, wife of Duryodhana!

KM Munshi in his five volume Krishna writes about this in the 3rd or 4th volume.

Bhima is quite an all round person. He loved and hated people fiercely. Yet all he needed was alook from Dharmaraja to be quiet.

Read Virata parva dialogue between Bhima and Draupadi afer Kichaka pursues her into the court.

And if one reads MBH many of the decisions/thoughts/strategies suggested by Bhima and Krishna....

One realizes that Bhima anticipated strategy of Krishna (essentially suggested the same strategy..long before Krishna). Of course, Yudhi and Co. did not listen when Bhima suggested it (internal talent), but lapped it up when Krishna (external consultant) suggested the same.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 12 Jun 2013 22:46

Nilesh ji, thank you. Did you come across the story about Karna's previous rebirths as a demon? what about his death? was it instantaneous or did it take time? I ask because, in movies they show Karna's dhana guna even at the time of his death when Sri Krishna asks him to give him his golden tooth, did that happen at all as per actual epic?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Jun 2013 22:56

venug< It was for your benefit that I posted the Kishori Lal Ganguli's English translation of the Vyasa Bharatam. Arjuna shoots an 'anjalika' vastra which looks like a modern guided missile and death is instantaneous with head severed.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 4#p1469264

Again that scene of Krishna asking for dhana is a movie extrapolation. Two movies: Shivaji Ganesan's Karnan and NTR's DVS Karna

As RamaY and I had said many times the transliteration of MB atleast into Telugu by Kavi Trayam and later Tirupati Venkata kavulu, hari katha tradtion and then Telugu cinema all lead to a lot of mis-myths creeping inot public memory.
Now the pravacahnm gurus are also adding ot the confusion when the chose to speak and omit.

MCS is true to Vyasa Bharatam. Others are true to kaviTryam as its heroic poetry and sounds great to discourse on. But in the public imagination, Telugu cienma looms in the background.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 12 Jun 2013 22:58

ramana garu, I apologize, I didn't realize. I will read it up. Thank you.

Added later: ramana garu, yeah seems like movie extrapolation.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 12 Jun 2013 23:33

shaardula wrote:yep bheema was awesome. not just bulk but brains too (was the adminstrator in chief). and a man's man.

shaardula ji,

Indeed. For example, while Bhishma is General of Kaurava army and Dhrishtadyumna of Pandva side,

Sanjay mentions to Dhritarashtra....as a matter of fact... that "While huge army of Kaurvas was protected by BHISHMA, smaller army of Pandavas was protected by BHIMA (Bhgavad Gita 1:10)

There is no doubt in at least Sanjaya's mind who the captain is on Pandava side!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Jun 2013 23:55

Beautiful quote from Pursha Suktam by ShauryaT in teh secualrism thread:

Om purna mada purna midam
Purnaat purnam udachyate
Purnasya purnam adaaya
Purnam eva vasishyate

Very popular and roughly means "That is the whole, this is the Whole; from the Whole, the Whole arises; taking away the Whole from the Whole, the Whole remains"

sudarshan · Post by **sudarshan** » 13 Jun 2013 00:10

The one scene regarding Bhima that lingers in my mind is when he's standing trembling in front of Gandhari's wrath. So sweet in a way. The mighty warrior had enough wisdom to realize what that spirit in a frail woman's body with her eyes bound, could do to him if it chose. Listen to him pleading and making excuses - "not a drop of that blood actually made it past my teeth - all I was doing was fulfilling my vow."

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Jun 2013 00:58

shaardula, What does it say?

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 13 Jun 2013 02:05

Yeah, Krishna shielded Bheem (or Yudhistira) from Gandhari's anger, right? Her gaze blackened Krishna's toe nails. Dhritrashtra also tried to kill Bheem by embracing Bheem too tightly ... Krishna again saved him.

And Gandhari cursed Krishna, which destroyed the Yadav family, and killed him too.

I have never understood why Dhritrashtra and Gandhari had such power ? Come on, what punya did they do? Other than Gandhari covering her eyes, I cannot think of anything else ..

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Jun 2013 02:50

Gandhari is a pativrata. Due to her devotion to her husband she had that much power.

Most folks dont get Nala-Damayanti story but she was a pativrata too and burns up some guy who tries to moelst her.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 13 Jun 2013 05:12

ramana wrote:shaardula, What does it say?

In short, JLN (Mr. Nehru) had his Mahabharata learning from TV serials, too!

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 13 Jun 2013 07:35

Bhimasena is one of the most underplayed characters in Mahabharata. He has protected the pandavas innumerable number of times.

1. During the vanavrata wax palace episode, he single handedly carries all the pandavas to safety when they are tired.
2. Along with Arjuna, defeats all assembled kings at Draupadi's swayamvara. Note: Arjuna defeats Karna here too in battle.
3. Along with Arjuna, defeats the gandharvas who abducted Duryodhana (and Karna couldn't do much), when pandavas are in exile.
4. Protects the other pandavas when Arjuna goes to get celestial weapons.
5. Defeats the entire trigarta army when King Virat is captured, and almost kills Susharma after capturing him. But yudhistira orders him to be spared. (wonder if Abhimanyu would have lived had Yudhistira not ordered Susharma to be a alive).
6. In the great war, more than half of the Kaurava army is destroyed by Bhima alone. He even defeats Drona multiple times.

Bhimasena is a focused clear-thinking individual, not swayed by emotions in taking decisions. However, many authors have downplayed his tremendous contribution .

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 13 Jun 2013 07:37

>> However, many authors have downplayed his tremendous contribution .

+1. I agree. He does not get enough credit.

sudarshan · Post by **sudarshan** » 13 Jun 2013 08:18

abhishek_sharma wrote:Yeah, Krishna shielded Bheem (or Yudhistira) from Gandhari's anger, right? Her gaze blackened Krishna's toe nails. Dhritrashtra also tried to kill Bheem by embracing Bheem too tightly ... Krishna again saved him.

And Gandhari cursed Krishna, which destroyed the Yadav family, and killed him too.

I have never understood why Dhritrashtra and Gandhari had such power ? Come on, what punya did they do? Other than Gandhari covering her eyes, I cannot think of anything else ..

I think it was Yudhishtira's toenails which got charred by Gandhari's wrathful gaze.

For a curse to take effect, two conditions need to be met. The person giving the curse should be a genuinely aggrieved party, and two, the recipient needs to be genuinely the cause of the affliction. There are cases where these conditions can be overridden, if a person has acquired powers by other means. For example, the kraunchapakshi which disturbed the penance of a rishi, and which got charred by his anger, was not really to blame. However....

While one can legitimately say that Dhritrashtra's affliction (losing all his sons) was his own fault, the fact is, he had still suffered this fate at Bhima's hands. He did not actually curse Bhima, but this affliction gave him the strength to crush him, if he got the chance (which he thankfully didn't).

As for Gandhari, she's not so much at fault as Dhritrashtra. Both conditions are met against Krishna. And added to this is the power of her own sacrifice that she made for her blind husband's sake. This power had to be dissipated. So Krishna acted as the lightning rod. The fact was, that the Yadu clan had become so strong, that it could not be destroyed by men or by the Gods. Ergo, the clan must destroy itself, before the Kali-yuga can begin. Since Krishna cannot be destroyed even by the Yadu clan, he must die alone after all the others are gone. Gandhari's curse was just a convenient pretext for the inevitable, and by diverting her power into the inevitable, Krishna dissipated it.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 13 Jun 2013 08:42

Dhritarashtra himself was very powerful, but he was blind. He didn't get that power automatically. He was a strong person by birth.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 13 Jun 2013 10:05

Nilesh Oak wrote:
ramana wrote:shaardula, What does it say?
In short, JLN (Mr. Nehru) had his Mahabharata learning from TV serials, too!

What made me really laugh is the last sentence from the Bharat ek khoj episode which shaardula ji cited here.

In the end JLN (atleast the character playing JLN who speaks the sentences of JLN as moral of the story) shows his real asuratva.

JLN says," the real moral and take away message of MBH is that for progress nation needs to be discontent. Only asantosha can lead to progress"

Man, this is the sentence of duryodhana when justifying his behavior in dice game. And this is the abstract of wht JLN understood from MBH.

that person was an Asura of high stature.

Yayavar · Post by **Yayavar** » 13 Jun 2013 10:12

^I've not seen the serial but have read parts of 'Discovery of India' a long time back. If I recall correctly, he notes in the early parts of the book that discontent or an upheaval/revolution has propelled various nations/societies forward. So the inference could be tied to that. Of course I could be wrong and memory faulty as I was in school when I read it.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 13 Jun 2013 10:13

Wonder if its true but I have always felt that as time progresses the epics become much more entangled in a chaotic unpredictable manner.

Hollywood releases trilogies (Matrix, Lord of rings etc.) that serve as their epics and promptly it gets into spoofs and satire movies. MBH you people are already noticing the changes overtime. Ramayana has had its own tale. But Ramayana never really serves as the base for new ideas in popular culture. MBH does so much more easily. In a way AIT is also a pretend epic (to be precise a mis-myth) and the damn thing had so many variants.

I have come to believe that this property is inbuilt in the grand system. The grand system itself already and ever established in yog. And ideas like Gita in MBH or the mumbo jumbo in Matrix or horse in AIT or the first half of Tulsi Ramayana which is basically a tale of shiva-shakti or the flashbacks in multiple Hindu mythologies are a way to achieve continuity with the understood part of the past.

In this dynamic inter-relationship people, characters and events serve only as a method of taking forward ideas and establishment of yoga across time and space. Kind of like water particles remaining at pretty much the same spot as the tusnami progresses across oceans.

Thanks for teaching me so much about Karn. Karn the character now I understand is one of the spatial part that is important to carry the story forward in the establishment of yog. One of the spatial components because an increase in chaos implies an increase in spatial components. OTOH the time continuum is established by the last verse of Gita - yatra yogeśvaraḥ kṛṣṇo yatra pārtho dhanurdharaḥ | tatra śrīrvijayo bhūtirdhruvā nītirmatirmama || (18.78)

Thank you all. Special thanks to KaranM, but for your shaking of the tree, this fruit would never have fallen to my jholi.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 13 Jun 2013 10:22

putnanja wrote:Dhritarashtra himself was very powerful, but he was blind. He didn't get that power automatically. He was a strong person by birth.

Dhritarashtra means the unholder of the nation right? And he is blind.

The joker in the pack Krishna is the all seeing, eternal principle.

All the rest are participants to various degrees and various directions.