Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

Postby Agnimitra » 03 Jan 2013 07:47

ShauryaT wrote:from what I have seen inter-marriage in that specific community is more a way out of the SD path. The example was to illustrate how "culture" "rituals" "practices" alone would not save us minus an understanding and sustenance of the ideological core.

Yes, that's true. Its also about the mentality that goes along with culture and ritual. If its a ghetto mentality or caste-bound mentality or "ethnic/ethnocentric" mentality that has a certain type of attitude towards the 'other' (of fear, or protection, or being overwhelmed, or hostility, aggression, etc.) then its going to be a path from which people will want out at some point. Therefore a fundamental change in mentality and mission is required.

Many modern day corporatized Hindu networks do exist and have tried to address Ram Swarup's problems you listed above. Problem is, they have each chosen to crystallize around a particular sectarian nucleus, and do not yet have an agreed standard "hierarchy" or relative position among themselves. But at this point it does look like a lot of them are at least politically uniting on a common cultural platform rather than spending time taking potshots at one another, and that's welcome news. Still, a coherent ideological understanding needs to be created, and that's possible only with the "open source" under-the-hood kind of study of sutras, etc. rather than each of these binary applications taken separately.

Added later:
Once when I was in my 11th grade in India, I was sitting at the back of a boring classroom session and reading an Urdu novel. A Moslem classmate saw that and drew closer to me from then on. He himself hadn't studied Urdu though his parents knew how to read and write it. So he appreciated that I knew the language even though I wasn't Moslem. But here's the part that is relevant here: He would often talk to me about all the problems he sees in his community, all the things he disagrees with, that don't make any sense to him, but are shoved down their throats or which they must accept out of reverence for tradition, or to protect the community or contribute to its expansion, etc. It was like I was the only person he ever had a chance to talk to about these thoughts of his - I could clearly see that he felt some fear in expressing the same things to someone from his own community. So he was using the opportunity to vent to someone who was not from his community (caste-wise or "ethnically"), yet someone who was well-informed about its culture and religion, etc. I always remember him and those conversations, because I was surprised by it, and had naturally assumed that people would generally not wash their dirty linen in "public" with an "outsider". I think a similar dynamic is at work for people who want to eventually marry out or find other ways to distance themselves from the "core" of their culture.

Sushupti
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5198
Joined: 22 Dec 2010 21:24

Re: Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

Postby Sushupti » 03 Jan 2013 20:56

One of the best commentaries on the Raas Panchadhayayi of the Bhagvatam.


kapilrdave
BRFite
Posts: 1566
Joined: 17 Nov 2008 13:10

Re: Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

Postby kapilrdave » 04 Jan 2013 16:41

X-Posting from Modi vs Dynasty thread
viewtopic.php?f=24&p=1387371#p1387371

vina wrote:Contrasting ideas of India indeed. TOI(let) says in it's home page that Mohanroa Bhagwat proclaims that "Rape Happens in India, not in Bharat" .. Whatever that wugga wugga about Hypothetical Bharat is, that is simply ridiculous, and these Hindutva types want to be taken seriously? WTF!

Seriously, this Mohan Bhagwat needs to do some more readings of the puranas and the kathas etc. Has he heard of the story of Asthavakra( was it or was it someone else..dont remember exactly) ? How and why he was born deformed in 8 places.. Does he know the story of a great sage who was so smitten by Ashtavakra's mother and forced himself on her, even when she was carrying the baby..despite her entreaties that she was carrying and that there is no space for anymore inside her , and how the "great sage's sperm cannot be impotent" and how the baby in her womb put his foot out and spoiled the sage's orgasm and got cursed ?

Our scriptures (vedas, upanishads) and also those of other faiths (Bible old and new testaments, Koran) captured the sum total of the human experience in it's entirety , warts and all, at that point in time.. not a sanitized and sterile, ascpetic version. Now Mohan Bhagwat claims that there were no rapes in "Bharat".. How about Murder ? None again ? Cheating? None Again.. He needs to go out more often and get a strong coffee!


:shock: :shock: :shock:

Are you trying to say Kahola raped Sujata?
Do you know what stature Astavakra has in Hinduism?
Are you trying to say Hinduism promotes rapes?

For everyone to read... http://omshivam.wordpress.com/sanatan-h ... shtavakra/

abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

Postby abhishek_sharma » 08 Jan 2013 07:07

Dhristadyumna(Draupadi's brother) and Drupada(Draupadi's father) are reluctant at this offer of 5 brothers marrying Draupadi. The offer did not come from bride's family, but from groom's side. So, it does not fit here to say that Panchalas followed polyandry. No such thing is mentioned in MB.


Drupad is reluctant and the offer did not come from bride's family. It does not imply that polyandry was not practised in Panchal.

Satyavati, as far as I know, did not even rule the Kingdom(leave alone ruling it with an iron hand).


Bheesma was doing whatever Satyavati said. Who was the de-facto ruler? If women's role was reduced to being a "pati vrata naari" then Satyavati should have lived like a widow after the death of her husband.

Then, the second son of Vichitravirya becomes the ruler. But, it is Bhishma who actually rules the Kingdom.


No, Bheesma implements the orders of Satyavati.

It is Bhishma who marries Ambika and Ambalika with Vichitravirya.


Once again, Bheesma just does what Satyavati asks him to do.

abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

Postby abhishek_sharma » 08 Jan 2013 08:05

Regarding Polyandry: My claim was based on Narendra Kohli's 'Mahasamar'. In that book, Drupad says that he knows that polyandry is practised in Panchal but they are trying to move away from it.

I have a 'Sanchhipt Mahabharat' published by Gita Press. It is mentioned that Drupad was convinced when Vyas told him about Lord Shiva's blessing and the previous lives of Draupadi and Pandavs. Yudhistira says Draupadi's marriage is entirely consistent with dharma.

Anand K
BRFite
Posts: 1115
Joined: 19 Aug 2003 11:31
Location: Out.

Re: Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

Postby Anand K » 08 Jan 2013 10:29

A quite "base human" explanation for Draupadi's polyandry is given in "Randam Oozham"(The Second Turn).

Kunti was the axis around which the Pandava brothers revolved; the ambitions of their lineage, the legacy of Pandu etc etc. Arrival of a new woman, a VERY desirable and strong heiress from the 2nd most powerful kingdom of India (and rival of the Kurus), into the hands of the *third* brother might cleave the strong bonds of brotherhood. Too many centrifugal forces, too many strong personalities, too many interlopers....... it was best to have another powerful female who is unifying (in all sense) and can offer what mothers cannot provide.
Kunti remarks even Nakula-Sahadeva who haven't outgrown their teenage were aroused simply by the sight of Draupadi. She sees the desire in the normally sagacious Yudhishtira. She asks Bheema(the central character) if he would bother possessing Draupadi... even if as a second man and on intermittent basis. The sages then set down the yearly possession laws; Bheema thinks it was strange that the same sages who have American Pie moments when they see bathing women or force themselves on fisher-women or copulate with animals etc are tasked with setting down these laws.
Again, Draupad and Dhristadyumna find it difficult to give their daughter to a pack of brothers but perhaps they saw the logic in the unifying focus and how it might aid in strengthening their position.

PS: Bheema's abandonment (and mixed feelings towards them and his sons from those relationships) of the Kashi princess and Hidimbi contrasts with his intense desire and love for Draupadi (who actually only loves Arjuna).

PPS: Talk about one unifying (in all sense) woman as the lynchpin of an oath...... think Beverly from Stephen King's "It". :mrgreen:
Last edited by Anand K on 08 Jan 2013 11:38, edited 1 time in total.

abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

Postby abhishek_sharma » 08 Jan 2013 11:14

Since Hidmbi was not a human being, it was clear from the beginning that her marriage with Bheem was temporary.

Anand K
BRFite
Posts: 1115
Joined: 19 Aug 2003 11:31
Location: Out.

Re: Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

Postby Anand K » 08 Jan 2013 11:30

In that particular novel all magical stuff was removed..... and Hidimbi is a forest dweller Adivasi.....

(SPOILERS FOLLOW

......
...... and so is Bhima, who was sired by a nameless Adivasi from the forest, a man as strong as the hurricane wind. The story of Kunti ends with this revelation to Bhima and the winds, which once always to soothed Bheemasena with it's whispers and gusts [he was always convinced of his divine birth], now seemed to explode with derisive laughter)

PS: interesting factoids:- The last true 100% Kuru was Bheeshmacharya. The others were progeny of a fisherwoman-Brahmin mixed ancestry sage and abducted princesses from Kasi. The firstborn of the Pandavas, prolly the heir if things were different, was a "half-demon". The grandson of the second brother, half pseudo-Kuru and half Yadava, inherited the throne of India. An 18 day war reaped whole lines of Kings and male members of one of the few surviving clans then bash each others' brains out.

This was one fcuked up "story" if you look at it that way... :mrgreen:


PPS: Kunti saw no harm with Bhima's dalliance with an adivasi/demon.... which was incidentally the first romantic entanglement any of the brothers had. Maybe she knew that an outsider female and half breed offspring... with the second son..... was no threat considering the larger picture.

abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

Postby abhishek_sharma » 08 Jan 2013 12:24

I am reading Narendra Kohli's 'Abhigyan'. It discusses Krishna-Sudama relationship. First, it describes how poor Sudama is. A highly learned brahmin like him was living in extreme poverty (like Drona). When he visits Dwarka, he has the following conversation with Krishna:

Krishna: What were we talking about?

Sudama: About your marriages. How many wives do you have?

Krishna: My marriages (turns serious). If you think about genuine love, then I am married to just Rukmini. As far as other marriages are concerned, I entered into them due to political and social reasons....Don't misunderstand me...I love Satyabhama and Jamwanti too.

Sudama: Is it possible to divide love?

Krishna (smiles): It is not that indivisible. Maybe I have too much love in me.

Sudama: (silent)

Krishna: It is not difficult for me to love others. Note that there is no selfish reason for my love. It stems from my sympathy for them. I belong to those who love me. We should not reject anyone's love. It is paap .

Sudama: And those 16,000 wives?

Krishna: Yes, people often use them to paint me as a person who is full of lust. When I killed Bhaumasur, there were thousands of women in his prisons. They were kidnapped by Bhaumasur and his associates. I don't know why he was collecting those women. Maybe he wanted to have relationship with them...maybe he wanted to sell them. After his death, we had to find a proper future for them. Their husbands and fathers were not willing to accept them. We faced the question: Where should they go? Who should take care of those women? What should be their social position/status? Then I had a solution: Why shouldn't I drink the poison? They might have faced many problems in their lives without a proper family...so I married all of them after obtaining their consent. Now they live in comfort and are considered Krishna's wives. Maybe I will not be able to give them husband's love, but I have given them suhaag . Now they are not considered women kidnapped and insulted by Bhaumasur...they are not women sold in markets....they are Krishna's wives. I would have been very happy if someone else had agreed to marry them.

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

Postby member_20317 » 08 Jan 2013 12:49

abhishek_sharma ji, polyandry and polygamy was practiced in certain parts of India and it was recognised for long as a practice that belonged to these subcultures. Most likely giving place to such practices as part of the heros/heroines life was a way of the ancient seers to accord recognition to such practices and thank god they did not vaccilate on this and stood by their own people. Vedic society had a strong male component to it too. Had polyandry figured anywhere on their scale of 'shame-pride' they would have railed against it on the touchy subject of marriage and family upbringing.

What will never find place in discourse will be how the practice got started, how it was acknowledged and how it changed in a peaceful and sarv-sammat manner. While I was not regular to your thread but I would like you to continue on your katha paat. Gives food for thought and once iin a while when I did begin reading your postings they were very engrossing.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15999
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

Postby RajeshA » 08 Jan 2013 16:59

Carl wrote:Once when I was in my 11th grade in India, I was sitting at the back of a boring classroom session and reading an Urdu novel. A Moslem classmate saw that and drew closer to me from then on. He himself hadn't studied Urdu though his parents knew how to read and write it. So he appreciated that I knew the language even though I wasn't Moslem. But here's the part that is relevant here: He would often talk to me about all the problems he sees in his community, all the things he disagrees with, that don't make any sense to him, but are shoved down their throats or which they must accept out of reverence for tradition, or to protect the community or contribute to its expansion, etc. It was like I was the only person he ever had a chance to talk to about these thoughts of his - I could clearly see that he felt some fear in expressing the same things to someone from his own community. So he was using the opportunity to vent to someone who was not from his community (caste-wise or "ethnically"), yet someone who was well-informed about its culture and religion, etc. I always remember him and those conversations, because I was surprised by it, and had naturally assumed that people would generally not wash their dirty linen in "public" with an "outsider". I think a similar dynamic is at work for people who want to eventually marry out or find other ways to distance themselves from the "core" of their culture.

Carl ji,

perhaps you could write down some of those conversations in the "Understanding Islamic Society" Thread.

Reddy
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 68
Joined: 30 Apr 2008 15:06

Re: Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

Postby Reddy » 08 Jan 2013 17:27

Hi!

Sorry for digressing from current theme of discussion. However, didn't know where to post this question. If this is a wrong thread for this… hope you'll excuse me.

I have a problem - my 9 year old heavy on Amar chitra katha asks me the difference between dharma and karma and what they actually mean. At first i thought i knew what they meant but when i actually got to explaining it i have realised that i am quite a bit lost. If any one can help me out on how to frame these concepts in way that can be understood by a child would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

Postby member_20317 » 08 Jan 2013 17:48

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2981&start=40#p326912

Reddy ji there is a whole archive for these things in BRF nicely numbered threads.

When I first came to BRF about 2008/2009 I actually came to read this.

For the more potent stuff just hang around here and that archive.

johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

Postby johneeG » 08 Jan 2013 18:14

Reddy wrote:Hi!

Sorry for digressing from current theme of discussion. However, didn't know where to post this question. If this is a wrong thread for this… hope you'll excuse me.

I have a problem - my 9 year old heavy on Amar chitra katha asks me the difference between dharma and karma and what they actually mean. At first i thought i knew what they meant but when i actually got to explaining it i have realised that i am quite a bit lost. If any one can help me out on how to frame these concepts in way that can be understood by a child would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.


Karma means action.

There are broadly 4 kinds of actions:
a) Do s (Nitya and Naimittika)
b) Don't s (Nishiddha)
c) Allowed(or optional) (Kamya)
d) remedy (Prayaschitta)

Dharma means following the Do s and Don't s. Adharma means violating the Do s and Don't s.

Dharma changes with time, place, circumstance and subject.

So, the concept of sva-dharma or one's own dharma. For example, it is a dharma of a soldier to fight, kill and be ready to die. It is adharma, if a soldier not do it.

The term 'Karma' is also used in another manner. Karma also refers to the fruit of action. So, 'Karma' can have two meanings:
a) action
b) fruit of action

Since, 'Karma' refers to fruits of one's own action, 'Karma' is also used as a synonym for fate. The irony of that usage is that the actual meaning of 'Karma' is action. So, ironically, action is used as a synonym for fate...

Dharma gives positive result(or positive karma), it is known as punya. Adharma gives negative result(or negative karma), it is known as papa.

Comforts enjoyed by a person are a result of one's punya, while the sufferings are the result of one's papa. In other words, Dharma leads to comforts and Adharma leads to sufferings. Also, the present comforts are the result of past Dharma(or punya), while the present difficulties are the result of past Adharma(or papa).

But, the twist is that the punya or papa is nothing but the result of your own actions. Your past actions are responsible for your present conditions. If you find your present conditions as desirable, you can, by your actions, add on to your present conditions. If you want to change your present conditions, then you can by your actions do so. In short, one's fate is in one's own hand.

Then, what does God do?
God is the neutral fair dispenser of fruits of all peoples based on their actions. Action, by itself, does not give fruit. It is God/Goddess who judges the merit of the performance and bestows the result.

Why should anyone pray to God?
Praying to God is part of the do s(Dharma). Further, praying to God is a remedy for performing Adharma. If someone has violated the Do s and Don't s, then they have two options:
a) suffer as a consequence.
b) repent and remedy.

Praying to God is the best remedy. There are other remedies also, like charity, tapas, ...etc.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15999
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

Postby RajeshA » 08 Jan 2013 21:17

johneeG ji,

johneeG wrote:Then, what does God do?
God is the neutral fair dispenser of fruits of all peoples based on their actions. Action, by itself, does not give fruit. It is God/Goddess who judges the merit of the performance and bestows the result.

Why should anyone pray to God?
Praying to God is part of the do s(Dharma). Further, praying to God is a remedy for performing Adharma. If someone has violated the Do s and Don't s, then they have two options:
a) suffer as a consequence.
b) repent and remedy.


A minor departure here for me due to my sva-dharma! Only a different perspective, if you may!

Then, what does God do?
I don't really think God/Goddess judges the merit of performance and bestows the result. The Karmic Cycle runs on its own engine, according to its own natural law, without the intervention of a "higher consciousness". Praying to God/Goddess however is in itself good Karma, as it reinforces the bonds between the Atma and the Paramatma. For this good karma, one earns Punya. When one asks for forgiveness from a God/Goddess, again the karma of Prayaschitta earns one Punya, as through Prayaschitta one cleanses one's Atma. God/Goddess merely serve as a medium, but do not exert any conscious influence on one's Karma account.

I like to rather look at it this way, as a God/Goddess sitting in judgment over oneself reminds me of the concept of "Judgment Day", something we may know from other "cultures"!

Of course God/Goddess may intervene for other reasons, e.g. to help someone, to fight evil, to explore the human perspective, etc.

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

Postby brihaspati » 09 Jan 2013 00:10

I think the transition from a more relaxed pairing/sexual relations to more 1-1 commitments is quite clearly acknowledged. Vedic does mention "pumschalis" - even if there are debates about the exact nature of the group structure. But, in all possible interpretations, it did mean a group of men "centred" around a single woman, whose sexual relationships are not categorically stated or distinguished by individuals in the group. It could mean a matriarchal setup - but this is not made clear in the texts.

In fact the Pandava model seems to be a remnant of the older Pumschali model. The relative importance of the Pandava's wandering days - in search of allies and means to get back to power, is perhaps the core story - and hence, Draupadi's name stuck because she was the cement/centre of the group. Thus that setup might be a very good illustration of an earlier practice of semi-nomadic, or wandering groups - even mercenaries/warriors, as "pumschali". Hence no great condemnation at the time.

Reddy
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 68
Joined: 30 Apr 2008 15:06

Re: Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

Postby Reddy » 10 Jan 2013 13:53

ravi_g and johneeG thank you for the pointers on concepts of Dharma and Karma. I am generally in the right direction but for establishing clarity regarding karma as both action and fruit of action for a 9 year old. However, your succinct explanation gives me a good framework to knit some stories to explain the concepts.

johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

Postby johneeG » 10 Jan 2013 19:38

RajeshA wrote:johneeG ji,

johneeG wrote:Then, what does God do?
God is the neutral fair dispenser of fruits of all peoples based on their actions. Action, by itself, does not give fruit. It is God/Goddess who judges the merit of the performance and bestows the result.

Why should anyone pray to God?
Praying to God is part of the do s(Dharma). Further, praying to God is a remedy for performing Adharma. If someone has violated the Do s and Don't s, then they have two options:
a) suffer as a consequence.
b) repent and remedy.


A minor departure here for me due to my sva-dharma! Only a different perspective, if you may!

Then, what does God do?
I don't really think God/Goddess judges the merit of performance and bestows the result. The Karmic Cycle runs on its own engine, according to its own natural law, without the intervention of a "higher consciousness".


There is a lot of debate on this in Hinduism. There are 6 schools(Shat Darshanas) and there was lot of debate on such issues. I think the view presented by you was the view of Purva-Mimamsa(I am not completely sure whether it was this school or another one).

The word Karma has another meaning: Vedic ritual. Any vedic ritual is called Karma. The portion of Vedas that talk of rituals are called Karma Khanda(Karma portion). Purva-mimasa-vadis held that karma(vedic rite or action), in itself, is a fruit provider.

Other schools also held similar views that did not see the need for god, as a fruit giver.

There are long and sophisticated debates on this. Interesting logics and counter-logics from all sides.

Anyway, there are many points in Hindu shastras that directly say that god is the dispenser of the results. The people have only right for action. The result is not determined by the people.

For example: in Lalitha Sahasranama, Goddess is praised as: punya-apunya phala prada.(One who gives the results of punya and apunya i.e. papa).

RajeshA wrote:Praying to God/Goddess however is in itself good Karma, as it reinforces the bonds between the Atma and the Paramatma.


In Advaita Vedanta, Atma==Paramatma. Everything else is maya/avidya(illusion, delusion, confusion).

RajeshA wrote:For this good karma, one earns Punya. When one asks for forgiveness from a God/Goddess, again the karma of Prayaschitta earns one Punya, as through Prayaschitta one cleanses one's Atma.


Yep. But, instead of using the term 'atma', it would be better if you use the term 'jeeva'. Atma is always pure. Because it is the God/Goddess/Paramatma.

Jeeva needs purifications from papams.

RajeshA wrote:God/Goddess merely serve as a medium, but do not exert any conscious influence on one's Karma account.


No, they don't, unless one's karma requires a conscious influence of God/Goddess. For example, it is Ravana's karma(his actions and result of his actions) to be killed by Rama.

RajeshA wrote:Of course God/Goddess may intervene for other reasons, e.g. to help someone, to fight evil, to explore the human perspective, etc.


No, no, God/Goddess cannot intervene for any other reason but to give the fruits of one's actions. God/Goddess cannot arbitrarily decide to help someone or punish someone. The rules need to be same for everyone. That means, God/Goddess must sit in judgement and be ready to punish all 'evils' or do nothing. God/Goddess cannot decide to be arbitrary. Because that would be unfair. So, God/Goddess will have to judge everyone and everything at all times and give suitable results.

That means, God/Goddess is intervening all the time, but based on people's actions. Some interventions are more easily discernible than others. For example, Ravana's death at Rama's hands is direct. While, Duryodhana's punishment by Sri Krishna is a bit indirect.

Without God/Goddess, all actions are useless. Infact, it is not the action itself that is good or bad. But whether that action is judged by god as good or bad. This precisely why do s and don't s are different for different people. A soldier killing an enemy soldier is a good action, while the same soldier killing once own country's civilian is a bad action. The act of killing itself is not giving results. The others judge the action and then give results.

The same action can be appreciated by some and rewarded, while others may criticize it and punish it.

RajeshA wrote:I like to rather look at it this way, as a God/Goddess sitting in judgment over oneself reminds me of the concept of "Judgment Day", something we may know from other "cultures"!


Those cultures talk of Single Judgement Day, as far as I understood. It is not god-judging-people that is a problem. The problem is god-judging-people only once(single judgement day) on only one criteria(belief in their dogma of a particular prophet or saviour), while ignoring all other criteria and giving eternal rewards(heaven) and eternal punishments(hell) . This is the problem.

Some views on Single Judgement day:
Implications of single judgement day or quayamat:

Judgement day is the day on which the god judges all the people for their actions on the earth and punish them or reward them accordingly.

A single judgement day means that all the people who are dead right now, have to wait till all of the creation comes to an end, until they are judged and their reward or punishment is pronounced. If someone died 5000 years ago, then he is still waiting for that judgement.

If someone were to be born in 10 AD, and accepted christ as a saviour. And died in 50 AD. But, he has no pleasure for all these years. He has been waiting for the last 2000 odd years for the judgement day when he would be awarded the coveted heaven. He has to wait until the creation ends. The same applies to a muslim who was born in 700 AD. He is waiting for more than 1000 years.

No one knows when this wait would end. There were several 'predictions' of end of the world. Perhaps, they were seeing what they wanted to see. Maybe those making these end of world predictions( or their audience) wanted the world to end. But, alas, the world did not end. New Testament asserts that Christ had declared that the end of the world is at hand. But the event has not occured for so long...after about 2000 years(assuming the Bible is not a fiction).

Based on the concept of single judgement day,those unbelievers who died long ago are lucky because they have been evading the hell for a long time.

Those believers who died long time ago are unlucky because they have been starved from their heaven for all this time. They have been waiting in their graves.

Those believers who die just before the end of the world are lucky because they would be immediately judged and sent to Heaven. The believers would be really joyous on that occassion. It is perhaps for this reason that successive generations of believers thought that world will end in their lifetime. Infact, making predictions for end of world is an industry of sorts.


Regardless, this is an unfair system, to say the least, to all those who are dead or would die in future. Why should a dead person wait till everyone else dies to get his share of reward or punishment. It is especially severe on the ancient believers. They have to endure a long wait for their share of rewards, while the later believers get to enjoy their rewards, relatively, early. It is no way to reward the piety of early believers! The system seems faulty.

Infact, the early believers should get to heaven early. Early bird must take the worm not the latecomers... But that doesn't seem to be the case in certain theologies which is what makes them absurd and ridiculous.

The single judgement day seems like an unnecessary and unreasonable concept. God can easily judge each person as he dies without waiting for one single day.

Anyway, lets focus on another implication of judgement day. A single judgement day means that there will not be any alteration in the judgement pronounced by the god on the judgement day. There is absolutely no chance of a review. Combined with eternal hell and eternal heaven concept, a single judgement day means that once a person is sent to heaven, he will remain in heaven forever or if he is sent to a hell, he will have to endure it forever.
(BTW, there is a contradiction here in theology. According to Christianity and Islam, Satan was an angel of heaven who was banished from heaven by the god. How can god banish anyone from eternal heaven? If an angel can be banished, then certainly normal believers can also be banished. So, the claim that believers will get eternal heaven must be wrong. There is another contradiction here. When did god judge Satan and pronounce the banishment? On judgement or quayamat day? Certainly not. Then, if god can judge on other occassions, then why is he not similarly judging other cases? The system is simply illogical and does not stand up to its own claims and exposes its inherent contradictions.)

So, one can either go to hell or heaven and not to both. Heaven is a place where you are rewarded for merits and hell is where you are tortured for your offences. If a person were to commit both merits and offences, what would happen? Will he go to heaven or hell? Ideally, he should go to both because he has committed a virtous act and an evil act. But that option is not available in a system that has single judgement day and eternal heaven/hell. That means, its a flawed system.

So, on what basis does god send someone to hell or heaven. Here, god seems to have no choice but to send every person to either hell or heaven. After judgement day, all the persons who were ever born on this earth will be found in either hell or heaven(and they can't be in both).

No common individual can be expected to commit only offences or merits. It would generally be a combination of both. This is especially true when viewed from a moral and theological angle. Then, natural justice would demand that the person must undergo as much punishment as his offences deserve and as many rewards as his merits earn. The cancellation of particular rewards itself maybe a punishment in certain cases.

But if someone were to declare that the punishment and the rewards would be eternal and judgement will be pronounced only once, then it produces problems. A single judgement day implies eternal punishment or eternal reward. It means the judgement cannot be revoked. If it were to be revoked, it is would not be eternal and would require another judgement day. So, a concept of eternal hell - eternal heaven and a single judgement day, leaves no space for revocation of the judgement(of god). Because the judgement itself is made only on one occasion and there is no other occasion when it can be altered.

The question would be why alter a judgement or revoke a punishment or reward?
The simple answer is: Because the person can/may change his mind/behaviour after the punishment.

For example, consider the scenario: If a person were to be damned to hell eternally by god after the judgement day. The person, while undergoing the punishment in hell, changes his mind and expresses his complete faith in the creed, prophet and their version of god. What happens to such a person? Would he continue to undergo eternal hell even though he now believes in the creed? Would'nt that go against the very basic tenets of the creed?(Basic tenet of the creed being: Anyone who believes in our prophet or founder will be in heaven and others will rot in hell).

Another scenario: A person who believes in the creed has been awarded eternal heaven on the judgement day. After he has experienced heaven for sometime, he changes his mind and stops believing in the creed. What happens to such a person? Would such a person continue to enjoy heaven inspite of his dis-belief in the creed? Wouldn't that go against the very basic tenets of the creed? (This second scenario is even more threatening to the central tenets of the theology. One can even allow a believer to go to hell, but one can never allow a dis-believer to enter heaven. That would completely make a joke out of the system. People can game the system).

In both the above scenarios, judgement needs to be altered. But if the judgement is altered, then the claim of eternal heaven or eternal hell becomes bogus. And the assertion that there will be single judgement day will also become non-sense. If the judgement is not altered, then the claim that the belief leads to heaven and dis-belief leads to hell is contradicted.

The theologian can try to be smart and argue, " god is omniscious and therefore knows the past, present and future and also read the hearts and minds of people. So, he will allow into heaven only those who will stick with the beliefs and others will have to go to hell. So, a single judgement day would be enough."

The above smart answer is contradicted by the theology itself. And again, not in a small manner by some side character. But, the character of villain, satan, contradicts this smart answer.

Satan is supposed to be an angel who was banished from heaven by the god. If Satan reached heaven, then he must have had belief in god, right?! Otherwise, an unbeliever reaching heaven would again contradict the theology. So, satan must have been a believer initially. God saw it fit to send satan to heaven as an angel, after due deliberation. If one were to say that god did not deliberate before sending satan to heaven, then god is being portrayed with human failure. Moreover, god's judgement is supposed to be infalliable. With or without deliberation, god cannot go wrong, can he? If he can go wrong, then what sort of god is he?

Later, satan changed and stopped believing in the theology. So, god banished him. Again, god took notice of the change in satan and pronounced the judgement. This is a second decision. The first decision was to send him to heaven. And the second decision was to banish him to hell. This second decision is in complete contradiction with the claim that heaven is eternal because if heaven is eternal, then how can anyone ,much less an angel, be banished from it? So, either the heaven cannot be eternal or Satan cannot be banished. Both cannot be simultaneously true. Thats the inherent contradiction. Moreover, god has pronounced two judgements on two seperate times. One judgement is diametrically opposed to the second. And there was time lapase where the behaviour of the heaven-dweller changed which required his relocation to hell.

If one takes this above point into consideration, then the same theme will have to repeat in many cases. Because many people are bound to their views even after the judgement day. Particularly, the unbelievers who are undergoing the punishments in hell would change their views. Similarly, once the heaven is achieved, then the believers who grow lax with their beliefs. And if there is no possibility of any revocation, then the believers can simply abandon their beliefs and start practising blasphemy in heaven itself. What will god do then? Will he punish such behaviour in heaven or not? Will he tolerate blasphemy in heaven? If not, will he convene second judgement day and revoke the heavenly passes given to the blasphemers?! But, if he revokes that would violate the principle of heaven being eternal! If he does not then god becomes joke and heaven becomes a bastion of blasphemy. More and more heaven-dwellers will practice blasphemy, if they know that they cannot be punished by god.

If we carefully analyse, the essential problem with the system of eternal hell/eternal heaven and a single judgement day, is that a person can either undgergo punishments or rewards but not both. The person may have committed innumerable offences and as many merits. But still the system is incapable of reacting to both. It can either reward him or punish him. It cannot do both. It is a flawed system.

Because the system can either reward or punish (and not both), it has developed a single criteria on the basis of which the punishment or the reward will be bestowed. The criteria, as is well known, is the belief in their dogma. So, a systemic flaw has now introduced new corruption and has made the system completely unbalanced and incapable of rational reaction.

So, the only criteria that forms the basis for rewards or punishments is belief in the dogma. If you have this belief in the central dogma of theology, then you will go to heaven. You may have committed most heinious crimes, you may have behaved in most inhuman manner through out your life, yet, you will land in heaven and enjoy its luxuries, forever.

Conversely, you may be the noblest and the best human being possible, you may have served the entire humanity, you may donate all your possessions to needy and worthy; yet, you will not escape the eternal hell. (And consider a situation where you did not convert to this creed because you never heard of it. In this case, you cannot even be blamed for refusing the creed because you simply never heard of it. You were not aware of any prophet or saviour and claims of their followers. Yet, even though it is not your fault in anyway, you are still damned to hell forever if the creed has its way).

This concept is absurd and unfair inherently. Even a believer would find this little too loaded in his favour. He would wonder how he can deserve to be in heaven, when he has performed such dastardly acts. To compensate for any such feeling among the believers, the concept of temporary hell is found. The temporary hell is for the believers where they get to suffer for their evils, and can enter heaven(the eternal one) with a clean conscience. It is interesting to note that there is no parallel temporary heaven concept for unbelievers. The unbelievers are offered no hope whatsoever. They are simply doomed to the eternal hell. It is divinely sanctioned sadism.

But, thats not enough. Not only is this concept absurd and unfair, it is also ridiculous and full of internal contradictions. Because of a single judgement day and no chance of revocation of that judgement. Even god has been rendered impotent before and after the judgement day. Until the judgement day, god has to watch impotently. And after the judgement day, god is again rendered impotent. It is only on the judgement day that god is powerful. Until the judgement day, the 'believers'(of the theology) can fear him. But, once that day is passed, they no longer need to fear him or even respect him. It is like a priest at a wedding. Once the priest has marries the couple, the couple do not need the priest anymore. Similarly, once the god has granted heaven to a 'believer', the 'believer' does not need god anymore.

The whole affair of finite actions begetting infinite punishments or infinite rewards seems silly. Perhaps, the desperation of propagating and perpetuating the dogma made these concepts attractive.

Such dogmas are supremely unkind to all humanity, both believers and unbelievers in the dogma.

It seems to me that these dogmas were constructed to coerce the non-believers into the 'religion' and to keep the religious flock from wavering. Perhaps there was considerable need to restraint the 'flock' from being tempted by other creeds. So, two instruments were used to keep the flock from deserting the creed. Carrot and Stick. Stick being the fear of eternal hell and the dangling was the carrrot of eternal heaven. It was a brain washing project.

The concept of punishment and reward is not essentially evil. It is an indispensable method to inspire 'right' conduct. This concept has been used from the time there was need to bring order into human existence.

Every religion and society has some concept of punishment and reward. It is an inevitable concept to keep the people from doing 'evil' and to encourage them to be 'good'. The definitions of 'good' and 'evil' may vary from religion to religion, society to society, country to country and time to time. But the concept itself in inevitabe and indispensable. So, it is natural that this concept can also be found in theology. So, the concept of a hell to punish 'bad' behaviour and a heaven to reward 'good' behaviour is understandable. It is just an after-life extension of the concept of reward for good samaritans by the society and punishments for criminals.

However, ETERNAL hell and ETERNAL heaven stretch this practical concept into the realms of illogical and brutal.

The original concept implies punishment for an offence and reward for a merit. Both the punishment and reward are expected to be in proportion to the offence and merit respectively. It is the definition of natural justice.

If a particular society or religion was keen to drive home a point (on a certain issue), then the punishment or reward was made dis-proportionate to a certain degree. But, dis-proportionate punishment or reward is not a norm, only an exception. Eternal punishment or eternal reward is simply unjust and unreasonable.

Anyway, there are some ethical challenges, apart from logical ones, in accepting this dogma.

a) What would be the fate of those who were born dead? or were dead as infants or in young age before they could proclaim their belief or lack of it?

b) What would be the fate of those who have never heard of this creed through out their life?

c) What would be the fate of those who were born before the time of 'saviour' or 'prophet' or 'messenger'or 'incarnation'?

If the answer were that these people will go to heaven, then the dogma would fall on its face. Since the dogma is absolutely insistent that no one can enter the heavenly gates without accepting their prophet, their god, their religion.

(As an example, according to the dogma of christianity, only those who believe the Jesus Christ to be their saviour will be eligible for heaven and the rest will be damned to hell, an eternal hell. Islam takes the same approach. The finer detail being, in Islam the stress in on the prophet as opposed to saviour. Rose by another name is still rose...)

However, if the answer were that these people will land in hell, eternally, then it raises ethical issues. How can god perpetuate such an injustice? It is clear that people had no choice in these cases and yet they land in hell, eternally, for no mistake of theirs. Such a god, if he exists, would no doubt, be brutual and barbaric.

Infact, this kind of definition of god is contradictory to what the god must be(or is expected to be by any healthy mind). Anyone, even an athiest, would hypothise that a god must be just, kind, and unbiased towards all the creatures. There must be a proper and fair method of judging people, if He/She/It must, and proportionate reaction to an action.

So, the concept of eternal hell and eternal heaven is illogical and unreasonable. The concept seeks to portray the god as illogical, barbaric, jealous, ruthless, sadist, impotent, stupid and irrational. This dogmatic portrayal of god does not fit with basic idea of god that people, in general, expect.

Only Solution:
The solution is to acknowledge that a finite action can only bear a finite result(good or bad, pleasurable or painful). All Actions are temporary, in terms of the time-period, factors, scale,...etc. So, results of those actions must also be temporary. Some actions can have longer results or bigger results. But, no action can have eternal result. Everything that has a begining must come to an end. An outcome of an action must also have some expiry date.

Thus, there must be only and only temporary hell and temporary heaven(if they exist at all). And many judgement days. Infact, there must be as many judgement days, as necessary. The number of judgement days is not important. What is important is whether the justice is being delivered or not.

Also, every offence must bear a punishment and every merit must be rewarded (if the god/goddess is fair and just). So, if a person commits both offences and merits then he must have to visit both the hell and heaven.

So, in a fair system(with a just god/goddess), a person is rewarded in proportion to his merits and punished in proportion to his mistakes. And Since, his mistakes or merits cannot be infinite, his rewards and punishments won't be infinite either.

New Problem:
But this raises another problem: what happens to a person when he has already completed his finite term(s) at heaven and/or hell earned by his merit and/or sin respectively?

What will happen to that person?
This raises a much deeper question actually: What is the default state of creatures?

A creature suffers as a punishment for his wrongdoings. A creature is rewarded pleasures for his meritorious work. But apart from all that, what is his default state? What if the person had neither committed any mistakes nor done any good? Or If the person had already suffered for all his sins and enjoyed all the fruits of good deeds? What is that person's default state?

Abrahamic religions are unable to answer it. They start from a silly notion that all creatures are inherently sinful and deserve eternal hell. This is completely negative ideology.

According to these creeds, god is creating beings who deserve to be in eternal hell and tortured every second for ever. What is the purpose of all this creation? Just to create beings and throw them in hell? What kind of perverse sadism is this?!

Actually, if we analyse concept of sin(as espoused by X-nity and Islam), it is even more ridiculous:
Sin is not an action or result of an action, in X-nity or Islam. It is rather an inherited curse. There many contradiction in that concept also.

Briefly, all the descendents of Adam inherit the curse(Sin). But, all humans are supposed to be descendents of Adam. So, Mary(the so-called mother of Jesus) was also a human. Similarly, both the parents of Mohammad are also human. And being humans, they must have inherited the curse. So, they must have passed this curse to their children to blood(and/or semen). This applies to all the prophets and saviors of Islam and X-nity. This is the inherent contradiction.

Jesus is supposed to be son of the god because his mother mary conceived after being impregnated by ghost(and not human). It is not a human semen, but a ghostly one. So, it is argued that Jesus is devoid of the sin. But, this silly argument forgets that Mary, Jesus's mother, is human and Jesus have shared her blood. BTW, Jesus blood is supposed to be sacred. He supposedly invites the people to drink his blood in last supper. Anyway, jesus is called a son of the man. If jesus is son of the man, he must have inherited the curse(sin) like as children of man.

Anyway, whether jesus is called son of the man or not, it is clear that he is supposed to be the son of mary who is descendent of Adam. So, how can he not inherit her sin?

If jesus and other prophets and saviours are also sinful like all humanity, then why are they chosen for special privileges by jehovah(or allah)? Nepotism?

Also a soul inherits 'sin', only after it enters the body(a human body). What is the state of soul before entering the body? What is the default state of soul, if there was no 'sin'?

When a new soul is created by god, is it good or bad or neutral? a) If it is good, then it deserves to go to heaven, instead of being sent into a human's body.
b) If a soul is bad at the time of its creation itself, then it cannot be bettered by any experience on the earth. If the soul was bad at the time of its creation itself, how can it become better merely by accepting someone as prophet or saviour? A bad soul must be directly sent to hell. Also, why would god create such bad souls? Is his creation flawed? Why can't he create good souls only? And if god has created bad souls, is it the mistake of bad souls that they are bad? or is it the mistake of god who made bad souls? Instead of creating bad souls and then sending them to hell, wouldn't it be better if god simply kept quiet?!
c) If the soul is neutral at the time of its creation, then god should not be sending a neutral soul into a sinful human body. Also, if the soul is neutral and only human body is sinful, then after the death(when the sinful human body dies), then the neutral soul would be free from sin, no?

In all the three cases,
Essentially, this is a shallow theology at its core. And riddled with internal contradictions apart from irrationalities.


----
abhishek_sharma wrote:
Dhristadyumna(Draupadi's brother) and Drupada(Draupadi's father) are reluctant at this offer of 5 brothers marrying Draupadi. The offer did not come from bride's family, but from groom's side. So, it does not fit here to say that Panchalas followed polyandry. No such thing is mentioned in MB.


Drupad is reluctant and the offer did not come from bride's family. It does not imply that polyandry was not practised in Panchal.

Satyavati, as far as I know, did not even rule the Kingdom(leave alone ruling it with an iron hand).


Bheesma was doing whatever Satyavati said. Who was the de-facto ruler? If women's role was reduced to being a "pati vrata naari" then Satyavati should have lived like a widow after the death of her husband.

Then, the second son of Vichitravirya becomes the ruler. But, it is Bhishma who actually rules the Kingdom.


No, Bheesma implements the orders of Satyavati.

It is Bhishma who marries Ambika and Ambalika with Vichitravirya.


Once again, Bheesma just does what Satyavati asks him to do.


abhishek_sharma wrote:Regarding Polyandry: My claim was based on Narendra Kohli's 'Mahasamar'. In that book, Drupad says that he knows that polyandry is practised in Panchal but they are trying to move away from it.

I have a 'Sanchhipt Mahabharat' published by Gita Press. It is mentioned that Drupad was convinced when Vyas told him about Lord Shiva's blessing and the previous lives of Draupadi and Pandavs. Yudhistira says Draupadi's marriage is entirely consistent with dharma.


Abhishek ji,
with due respect, Narendra Kohli's retelling of MB seems to introduce unnecessary quirks into many characterizations which are not supported by the Vyasa MB. His portrayal also deviates from original in some details. This leads to different conclusions. Satyavati's characterization as a cunning and calculating woman is not supported by Vyasa MB. Similarly, there is nothing to support this assertion that Polyandry was followed by Panchalas.

On the contrary, Panchala side(Drupada and Dhristadyumna) are surprised at the suggestion polyandry. They explicitly say that such a thing is unheard of. Yuddhishtira has to give obscure Puranic examples to support Polyandry. Drupada agrees only after Vyasa reveals a secret of past of lives of Pandavas and Draupadi. But, if you want to believe Narendra Kohli's portrayal over and above that of Vyasa, there is nothing to debate about!

I never said that Draupadi's marriage is not Dharmic. My point is that it was not the norm of that period. This is clear at various junctures in MB.

Polyandry is adharmic, in general. It was not practiced as norm in any part of the country(even if it was practiced in some part, it was not considered dharmic). Draupadi is an exception, from her very birth(remember, she was born in fire). Moreover, this is a special curse or boon of Lord Shiva. The curse was given to 5 Indras and boon was given to Draupadi in her previous life. If one wants to see at this part of MB, as desperate attempts to justify Draupadi, then there is nothing more to say. After all, if one wants to pick and choose what one wants to believe and not believe, then each to his own. Everyone can play that game and pick those parts that seem convincing to them and ignore those that seem unconvincing. Then, everyone can come up with their own version of MB(and every epic).

For example: Some years earlier, when aeroplanes...etc were not invented, Pushpaka vimana would seem unconvincing. So, people would have tried to 'rationalize' that aspect and propose alternate theories. Today, Pushpaka vimana is not incredulous.

About Satyavati: Bhishma was the de facto ruler after the death of Shantanu and Satyavati's elder son. Vichitravirya, the younger son, was busy in enjoying life and didn't seem to care about Kingdom. After the death of second son, Bhishma is still de facto ruler, but there was no de jure ruler. So, Satyavati and other elders request Bhishma to take up the throne formally and also marry.

Satyavati is never involved in ruling of the kingdom except at this point when the dynasty faces extinction. Even here, she is requesting Bhishma to take up the throne. It makes sense because Bhishma gave up the throne at the time of her marriage. Her request is not accepted by Bhishma. Instead, Bhishma comes up with an alternate suggestion. This suggestion is put into practice.

Satyavati was never the ruler de facto or de jure. This is a unique stance of Narendra Kohli. I have not seen this stance anywhere and it is certainly not found in MB. Bhishma does not ask Satyavati nor Satyavati gives any instruction to Bhishma on ruling the kingdom. It is nothing but imagination of Narendra Kohli.

About women occupying throne: As far as I understood, women are allowed to occupy throne. Women are allowed to take up the throne in special situations. For example, in Ramayana, Vashishta proposes coronation of Sita as the queen when Rama is in forests for 14 years. Of course, Sita rejects this offer and prefers to accompany Sri Rama to forests for 14 years. Similarly, a man is eligible for vedic rites, only when he has a wife (a vedically wedded wife: patni). Otherwise, a widower is not eligible for vedic rites(including the kanyadaan of his own daughter).

But, women are allowed to throne only in a special situation. Even then, a woman is eligible for throne only when she is married. For example: Lalitha Devi is married to Kameshwara, so that she can be coronated.

As a norm, woman's only dharma(and highest dharma) is pati-vrata-ness. This part is stressed by Sita Herself in Ramayana. Exceptions exist. Gargi Vachaknavi is one such exception.

The greatness of Hinduism is to allow leeway for exceptions to exist. But, frequently, people conflate exceptions and norms which ends up creating an impression that 'anything goes' in Hinduism. But, thats not true. Hinduism is quite clear about norms and exceptions.

abhishek_sharma wrote:Since Hidmbi was not a human being, it was clear from the beginning that her marriage with Bheem was temporary.


The marriage was not temporary. The marriage was permanent. Hidimba/Hidimbi remained wife of Bhima. They were estranged, but the marriage was not temporary. Similarly, Chitrangadha and Arjuna were estranged, but remained married. In both the cases, the women remained faithful to their husband while taking care of their sons.

---
It seems polyandry of Draupadi has really ignited some perverse imaginations of many authors, who have tried to use it to malign Her in many ways. This is no different from Karna's comments in the game of dice. And there are always some organizations that are more than willing to promote such authors by giving them awards. In fact, any work that maligns Hinduism in any which way is promoted and rewarded. So, its no surprise.

But, Hindus should be careful in falling for that kind of non-sense. Draupadi's lofty character is brought out in MB at several places(particularly in Draupadi-Satyabhama conversation). It is really sad that in the cloak of liberalism or creative license, petty people can have a go at such great personalities.

Anand K
BRFite
Posts: 1115
Joined: 19 Aug 2003 11:31
Location: Out.

Re: Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

Postby Anand K » 10 Jan 2013 20:25

Bheeshma had swore he will remain celibate for life AND renounce any claim to the throne..... in effect eschew any sort of real power and remain bound to the throne of Hastinapur for life. Explains why he had to be on the Kuru side.... Left to his own he probably would have done his Swacchanda Mrthyu the second everybody decided to have a grand kin slaying. Anyway... satyavati became this Empress Dowager/regent thing by default I guess.

Quite a bit of fiction recently showing great watersheds in history/myth as a result of female avarice and love-lust. "Mists of Avalon" and "Rome" and "Masters of Rome" being some of them. IMO Humanization and "de-magicisation" is okay.... even something novel like the POV of Shakuni or Karna's love-turned-hate for Draupadi. But turning things on it's head like Kunti-Gandhari frenemies and scheming Satyavati/Draupadi or a Dalit Oppression angle is a bit difficult to digest.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15999
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

Postby RajeshA » 10 Jan 2013 21:06

Basically I don't agree to reinterpretations of Ramayana and Mahabharata. They are Itihaas, "as it indeed happened", and Itihaas should not be tampered with.

There is however nothing wrong in writing commentaries on them, critical or otherwise.

However such criticisms should also not seep into the visual-audio media, but should remain only in the textual media.

johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

Postby johneeG » 10 Jan 2013 21:17

Anand K wrote:Bheeshma had swore he will remain celibate for life AND renounce any claim to the throne..... in effect eschew any sort of real power and remain bound to the throne of Hastinapur for life. Explains why he had to be on the Kuru side.... Left to his own he probably would have done his Swacchanda Mrthyu the second everybody decided to have a grand kin slaying. Anyway... satyavati became this Empress Dowager/regent thing by default I guess.

Quite a bit of fiction recently showing great watersheds in history/myth as a result of female avarice and love-lust. "Mists of Avalon" and "Rome" and "Masters of Rome" being some of them. IMO Humanization and "de-magicisation" is okay.... even something novel like the POV of Shakuni or Karna's love-turned-hate for Draupadi. But turning things on it's head like Kunti-Gandhari frenemies and scheming Satyavati/Draupadi or a Dalit Oppression angle is a bit difficult to digest.


The bolded part is not implied at all. Bhishma was tasked with managing and protecting the Kingdom when Satyavati's sons were still young. Satyavati was the queen(not empress), but not ruler. Hastinapur was not an empire, but a regular kingdom. It was Pandu who expanded the realms of the Kingdom with his conquests. After Pandu, it was Yuddhishtira who was accepted as Chakravarthi (Emperor). So, in true terms, Draupadi was the Empress.

Satyavati was just a regular queen(and queen mother). The only specialty being that the elder son(who was already appointed as the heir) was bypassed due to voluntarily giving up his claim. Satyavati's sons were established as the heirs. There is nothing at all to suggest that Satyavati herself wanted to (or given) the throne de jure or de facto. This is a new reading. And there is not even a hint in the MB for such a reading.

After the death of both her sons, Satyavati(as a step-mother) asks Bhishma to continue the lineage by marrying. This is not just about throne, but the family-line.

Bhishma's vow includes protecting the ruler of Hastinapur(who were supposed to be Satyavati's sons). Otherwise, Bhishma could have simply left and established another Kingdom or some such thing. So, Bhishma stays are protects and manages the Kingdom(i.e. rules the Kingdom), while the Satyavati's sons grow up. But, after their pre-mature death, Bhishma is asked to continue what he was already doing in an official capacity. He declines it.

After the birth of Pandu and Dhritarashtra, Bhishma continues to rule de facto, until Pandu is coronated. After Pandu becomes the King, Bhishma is semi-retired. After Pandu's retirement to woods, Bhishma again becomes active and Dhritarashtra is a care-taker of the Kingdom.

After the death of Pandu, Dhritarashtra becomes the sole-occupier of throne. But, he is seen as seat-warmer for the Yuddhishtira. Bhishma still controls many aspects of the state. He is still seen as an authority and is feared by Dhritarashtra. It is Bhishma who appoints Dronacharya. Kripacharya was adopted by Bhishma's father Shantanu. Kripacharya's sister marries Dronacharya. Bhishma and Dronacharya are pupils of Parashurama. Later, Karna also becomes pupil of Parashurama.

It was Bhishma's idea to split the Hastinapur and Khandavaprastha(Indraprastha). Dhritarashtra had to agree to it. It was presence of Bhishma(along with Drona and Kripa) that Duryodhana had to secretly plan the assassination of Pandavas(Lakshagriha), instead of being direct.

Bhishma is relegated and his importance is reduced by Duryodhana in decision-making after he became the heir-apparent of hastinapura. Because he saw Bhishma as biased in favour of Pandavas. Instead, he gave importance to Shakuni, Karna and Dusshasan. But, come war, and the first commander-in-chief of the Kaurava army is Bhishma. Bhishma is again handed over the reins of entire army.

Infact, the longest commander-in-chief from Kaurava side is Bhishma only. Not Dronacharya, or Karna or Shalya.

Bhishma was best suited to be the King. If he was the king, instead of others, then MB would have taken a different course. But, that was not be, because there was a curse...

Regardless, Bhishma managed the Kingdom for a long time directly.

---
About creating a new 'rationalized' narrative devoid of 'magic' is slippery slope. What is rational for one, is not rational to another. And if magical part is faked, then the 'rational' parts can also be faked. Why believe any of it? Why not dismiss the entire thing as a work of fiction?

Also, 'magic' cannot really be separated form these works(Hindu works) because they are indistinguishable. If one takes out all the 'magic' bit, then there will be many huge plot-holes and internal contradictions.

Take Sita's birth. They are 'magical'. How is one going to rationalize them? Was Sita an alien? Was She abandoned by someone after the birth? Similarly, Draupadi's birth.

And, the birth of Kripacharya. Birth of Satyavati also is 'magical'. She was born from a female fish(who was a cursed angel).

What about Krishna? Is He an avatar of God? Or is He just another hoi-polloi with pretensions? Where does it end? It is endless. The 'rationalization' process is endless. And it is based on false assumption that 'magical' parts cannot be true, but there must be some truth in 'non-magical' parts.

If 'magical' parts can be created, then even the 'non-magical' parts can be created. If someone can lie about the birth of Sita or Draupadi, they can also lie about rest of Ramayana and MB, no? So, why believe any part of it?

abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

Postby abhishek_sharma » 13 Jan 2013 10:22

>> Satyavati was the queen(not empress), but not ruler.

Regarding the division of power between Bheesma and Satyavati: I was looking at Mahabharat (Sanchipt Mahabharat published by Gita Press, Gorakhpur) and they frequently use the word सम्मति (sammati= advice/assent) in these matters. For example, consider:

"Bheesma ne Satyavati ki सम्मति se Chitrangada to raj-gaddi par baithaya."

"jab Bheesma ne dekha ki mera bhai Vichitravirya yauvan (youth) me pravesh (enter) kar chuka hai tab unhone uske vivah ka vichar kiya. unhi dino unhe samachar mila ki Kashiraaj ki teen kanyaon ka swayambar ho raha hai. unhone mata ki सम्मति lekar akele hi rath par sawar ho kar Kashi ki yatra ki."

When Satyavati asked Bheesma to have children, Bheesma reminded her of his promise. Then:

Bheesma ki bheesan (gruesome) pratigya (promise) ki punravriti (repetition) sun kar Satyavati ne fir unse सलाह (advice/counsel) ki aur nischay-anusar Vyas ka smaran kiya.

---

Given this evidence, it appears that Bheesma and Satyavati were jointly running their kingdom. Satyavati was not a rubber stamp, and Bheesma's opinions mattered too.

member_23686
BRFite
Posts: 176
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

Postby member_23686 » 13 Jan 2013 20:11

Nikola Tesla and Swami Vivekananda

Nikola Tesla and Swami Vivekananda
by Mr. Toby Grotz, President, Wireless Engineering

Swami Vivekananda, late in the year l895 wrote in a letter to an English friend, "Mr. Tesla thinks he can demonstrate mathematically that force and matter are reducible to potential energy. I am to go and see him next week to get this new mathematical demonstration. In that case the Vedantic cosmoloqy will be placed on the surest of foundations. I am working a good deal now upon the cosmology and eschatology of the Vedanta. I clearly see their perfect union with modern science, and the elucidation of the one will be followed by that of the other." (Complete Works, Vol. V, Fifth Edition, 1347, p. 77).

Here Swamiji uses the terms force and matter for the Sanskrit terms Prana and Akasha. Tesla used the Sanskrit terms and apparently understood them as energy and mass. (In Swamiji's day, as in many dictionaries published in the first half of the present century, force and energy were not alwavys clearly differentiated. Energy is a more proper translation of the Sanskrit term Prana.)

Tesla apparently failed in his effort to show the identity of mass and energy. Apparently he understood that when speed increases, mass must decrease. He seems to have thought that mass might be "converted" to energy and vice versa, rather than that they were identical in some way, as is pointed out in Einstein's equations. At any rate, Swamiji seems to have sensed where the difficulty lay in joining the maps of European science and Advaita Vedanta and set Tesla to solve the problem. It is apparently in the hope that Tesla would succeed in this that Swamiji says "In that case the Vedantic cosmology will be placed on the surest of foundations." Unfortunately Tesla failed and the solution did not come till ten years later, in a paper by Albert Einstein. But by then Swamiji was gone and the connecting of the maps was delayed.

The Influence of Vedic Philosophy on

Nikola Tesla's Understanding of Free Energy

An Article by Toby Grotz

Web Publication by Mountain Man Graphics, Australia - Southern Autumn of 1997

Abstract ...

Nikola Tesla used ancient Sanskrit terminology in his descriptions of natural phenomena. As early as 1891 Tesla described the universe as a kinetic system filled with energy which could be harnessed at any location. His concepts during the following years were greatly influenced by the teachings of Swami Vivekananda. Swami Vivekananda was the first of a succession of eastern yogi's who brought Vedic philosophy and religion to the west. After meeting the Swami and after continued study of the Eastern view of the mechanisms driving the material world, Tesla began using the Sanskrit words Akasha, Prana, and the concept of a luminiferous ether to describe the source, existence and construction of matter. This paper will trace the development of Tesla's understanding of Vedic Science, his correspondence with Lord Kelvin concerning these matters, and the relation between Tesla and Walter Russell and other turn of the century scientists concerning advanced understanding of physics. Finally, after being obscured for many years, the author will give a description of what he believes is the the pre-requisite for the free energy systems envisioned by Tesla.

Tesla's Earler Description of the Physical Universe

By the year 1891, Nikola Tesla had invented many useful devices. These included a system of arc lighting (1886), the alternating current motor, power generation and transmission systems (1888), systems of electrical conversion and distribution by oscillatory discharges (1889), and a generator of high frequency currents (1890), to name a few. The most well known patent centers around an inspiration that occurred while walking with a friend in a park in Budapest, Hungry. It was while observing the sunset that Tesla had a vision of how rotating electromagnetic fields could be used in a new form of electric motor. his led to the well known system of alternating current power distribution. In 1891 however, Tesla patented what one day may become his most famous invention. It is the basis for the wireless transmission of electrical power and is know as the Tesla Coil Transformer. It was during this year that Tesla made the following comments during a speech before the American Institute of Electrical Engineers:

"Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point in the universe. This idea is not novel... We find it in the delightful myth of Antheus, who derives power from the earth; we find it among the subtle speculations of one of your splendid mathematicians... Throughout space there is energy. Is this energy static or kinetic.? If static our hopes are in vain; if kinetic - and this we know it is, for certain - then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature." [1]

This description of the physical mechanisms of the universe was given before Tesla became familiar with the Vedic science of the eastern Nations of India, Tibet, and Nepal. This science was first popualized in the United States and the west during the three year visit of Swami Vivekananda.



Vedic Science and Swami Vivekananda

The Vedas are a collection of writings consisting of hymns, prayers, myths, historical accounting, dissertations on science, and the nature of reality, which date back at least 5,000 years. The nature of matter, antimatter, and the make up of atomic structure are described in the Vedas. The language of the Vedas is known as Sanskrit. The origin of Sanskrit is not fully understood. Western scholars suggest that it was brought into the Himalayas and thence south into India by the southward migrations of the Aryan culture. Paramahansa Yogananda and other historians however do not subscribe to that theory, pointing out that there is no evidence within India to substantiate such claims. [2]

There are words in Sanskrit that describe concepts totally foreign to the western mind. Single words may require a full paragraph for translation into english. Having studied Sanskrit for a brief period during the late 70's, it finally occurred to this writer that Tesla's use of Vedic terminology could provide a key to understanding his view of electromagnetism and the nature of the universe. But where did Tesla learn Vedic concepts and Sanskrit terminology? A review of the well known biographies by Cheney, Hunt and Draper, and O'Neil [3], [4], [5], reveal no mention of Tesla's knowledge of Sanskrit. O'Neal however includes the following excerpt from an unpublished article called Man's Greatest Achievement:

"There manifests itself in the fully developed being , Man, a desire mysterious, inscrutable and irresistible: to imitate nature, to create, to work himself the wonders he perceives.... Long ago he recognized that all perceptible matter comes from a primary substance, or tenuity beyond conception, filling all space, the Akasha or luminiferous ether, which is acted upon by the life giving Prana or creative force, calling into existence, in never ending cycles all things and phenomena. The primary substance, thrown into infinitesimal whirls of prodigious velocity, becomes gross matter; the force subsiding, the motion ceases and matter disappears, reverting to the primary substance."

According to Leland Anderson the article was written May 13th, 1907. Anderson also suggested that it was through association with Swami Vivekananda that Tesla may have come into contact with Sanskrit terminology and that John Dobson of the San Francisco Sidewalk Astronomers Association had researched that association. [6]

Swami Vivekananda was born in Calcutta, India in 1863. He was inspired by his teacher, Ramakrishna to serve men as visible manifestations of God. In 1893 Swami Vivekananda began a tour of the west by attending the Parliament of Religions held in Chicago. During the three years that he toured the United States and Europe, Vivekananda met with many of the well known scientists of the time including Lord Kelvin and Nikola Tesla. [7] According to Swami Nikhilananda:

Nikola Tesla, the great scientist who specialized in the field of electricity, was much impressed to hear from the Swami his explanation of the Samkhya cosmogony and the theory of cycles given by the Hindus. He was particularly struck by the resemblance between the Samkhya theory of matter and energy and that of modern physics. The Swami also met in New York Sir William Thompson, afterwards Lord Kelvin, and Professor Helmholtz, two leading representatives of western science. Sarah Bernhardt, the famous French actress had an interview with the Swami and greatly admired his teachings. [8]

It was at a party given by Sarah Bernhardt that Nikola Tesla probably first met Swami Vivekananda. [9] Sarah Bernhardt was playing the part of 'Iziel' in a play of the same name. It was a French version about the life of Bhudda. The actress upon seeing Swami Vivekananda in the audience, arranged a meeting which was also attended by Nikola Tesla. In a letter to a friend, dated February 13th, 1896, Swami Vivekananda noted the following:

...Mr. Tesla was charmed to hear about the Vedantic Prana and Akasha and the Kalpas, which according to him are the only theories modern science can entertain.....Mr Tesla thinks he can demonstrate that mathematically that force and matter are reducible to potential energy. I am to go see him next week to get this mathematical demonstration. [10]

Swami Vivekananda was hopeful that Tesla would be able to show that what we call matter is simply potential energy because that would reconcile the teachings of the Vedas with modern science. The Swami realized that "In that case, the Vedantic cosmology [would] be placed on the surest of foundations". The harmony between Vedantic theories and and western science was explained by the following diagram:

BRAHMAN = THE ABSOLUTE

| |

| |

MAHAT OR ISHVARA = PRIMAL CREATIVE ENERGY

| |

+---------+ +---------+

PRANA and AKASHA = ENERGY and MATTER



Tesla understood the Sanskrit terminology and philosophy and found that it was a good means to describe the physical mechanisms of the universe as seen through his eyes. It would behoove those who would attempt to understand the science behind the inventions of Nikola Tesla to study Sanskrit and Vedic philosophy.

Tesla apparently failed to show the identity of energy and matter. If he had, certainly Swami Vivekananda would have recorded that occasion. The mathematical proof of the principle did come until about ten years later when Albert Einstein published his paper on relativity. What had been known in the East for the last 5,000 years was then known to the West.

Brahman is defined as the one self existent impersonal spirit; the Divine Essence, from which all things emanate, by which they are sustained, and to which they return. Notice that this is very similar to the concept of the Great Spirit as understood by Native American cultures. Ishvara is the Supreme Ruler; the highest possible conception of the Absolute, which is beyond all thought. Mahat means literally the Great One, and is also interpreted as meaning universal mind or cosmic intelligence. Prana means energy (usually translated as life force) and Akasha means matter (usually translated as ether). Dobson points out that the more common translations for Akasha and Prana are not quite correct, but that Tesla did understand their true meanings.

The meeting with Swami Vivekananda greatly stimulated Nikola Tesla's interest in Eastern Science. The Swami later remarked during a lecture in India, "I myself have been told by some of the best scientific minds of the day, how wonderfully rational the conclusions of the Vedanta are. I know of one of them personally, who scarcely has time to eat his meal, or go out of his laboratory, but who would stand by the hour to attend my lectures on the Vedanta; for, as he expresses it, they are so scientific, they so exactly harmonize with the aspirations of the age and with the conclusions to which modern science is coming at the present time". [11]

Tesla and Lord Kelvin

William S. Thompson was one of the prominent scientists and engineers of the 1800s. He developed analogies between heat and electricity and his work influenced the theories developed by James Clerk Maxwell, one of the founders of electromagnetic theory. Thompson supervised the successful laying of the Trans Atlantic Cable and for that work was knighted Lord Kelvin. Kelvin had endorsed Tesla's theories and proposed system for the wireless transmission of electrical power. [12] FootNOTE- Grotz PACE

Tesla continued to study Hindu and Vedic philosophy for a number of years as indicated by the following letter written to him by Lord Kelvin.

15, Eaton Place

London, S.W.

May 20, 1902



Dear Mr. Tesla,



I do not know how I can ever thank you enough for the

most kind letter of May, 10, which I found in my cabin in the

Lucania, with the beautiful books which you most kindly sent

me along with it: -"The Buried Temple", "The Gospel of

Bhudda", Les Grands Inities", the exquisite edition of

Rossetti's "House of Life", and last but not least the

Century Magazine for June, 1900 with the splendid and

marvelous photographs on pp. 176, 187, 190, 191, 192, full of

electrical lessons.



We had a most beautiful passage across the Atlantic, much

the finest I have ever had. I was trying hard nearly all the

way, but quite unsuccessfully, to find something definite as

to the functions of ether in respect to plain, old fashioned

magnetism. A propos of this, I have instructed the

publishers, Messrs. Macmillan, to send you at the Waldorf a

copy of my book (Collection of Separate Papers) on

Electrostatics and Magnetism. I shall be glad if you will

accept it from me as a very small mark of my gratitude to you

for your kindness. You may possibly find something

interesting in the articles on Atmospheric Electricity which

it contains.

Lady Kelvin joins me in kind regards, and I remain,



Yours always truly,



Kelvin



Thank you also warmly for the beautiful flowers [13]

Tesla and Russell

Walter Russell was one of the most accomplished artists, sculptors, writers and scientists of this century. His periodic chart of the elements accurately predicted the location and characteristics of four elements years before they were discovered in laboratories. These are now known as Deuterium, Tritium, Neptunium, and Plutonium. Russell apparently entered into a heightened state of awareness after being struck by lightning. He began several weeks of drawing and writing about the basic nature and make up of the physical universe. Russells' family finally called the family doctor to determine if Russell should be committed to an mental institution. The doctor, upon seeing the results of Russells weeks of work, said that he did not know what Russell was doing, but that he definitely was not mad.

Although the exact time and occasion of their meeting has not yet been determined, Nikola Tesla and Walter Russell did meet and discuss their respective cosmologies. 14 Tesla recognized the wisdom and power of Russells' teaching and urged Russell to lock up his knowledge in a safe for 1,000 years until man was ready for it. [15]

The Appearance of Free Energy

Or Why Free Energy has not yet Happened

Comments, Possibilities and Socio Economic Implications

Although Tesla did not accept many of the tenants of relativity and quantum theory and never made the connection between matter and energy, he did recognize the possibility of free and unlimited energy as demonstrated by the following statement.

Can Man control [the ] grandest, most awe inspiring of all processes in nature?...If he could do this, he would have powers almost unlimited and supernatural... He could cause planes to collide and produce his suns and stars, his heat and light. He could originate and develop life in all its infinite forms....[Such powers] would place him beside his creator, make him fulfill his ultimate destiny. [16]

We see that Tesla is asking a question, speculating, searching for an answer. If Tesla had developed free energy sources or learned how to manipulate space time and gravity, during the time of his most public and productive years, (up until about 1920), he would have had answers to those questions.

Tesla's most misunderstood invention is popularly known as the "Death Ray". It was simply a particle beam weapon which he proposed in 1937 and was fabricated under contracts with Alcoa Aluminum and the English and Italian governments. [17] It used electrostatic propulsion techniques and similar devices are being developed today by the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO) and the US Army Strategic Defense Command. [18]

So we see that mankind has not yet harnessed the infinite power of the universe as envisioned by Nikola Tesla. The question remains, why not?

Free energy devices, if they are feasible, are not about smaller faster microcircuits or a bigger better mouse traps. This is a technology which may revolutionize the socio-economic status quo on planet Earth. At this moment the big pie is unevenly divided. One quarter of the population on this rock, the third stone from the sun, consumes three quarters of the yearly resource output. As one can easily deduce, from a brief study of world affairs, there are about three billion people who have just about had it with this scenario. There are wars starvation and strife in every nook and cranny of the planet. So what do we do about it?

Spaceship Earth Needs A Flight Plan

Either we divide the pie more evenly or we make the pie larger. The first option requires that our standard of living must fall so that the standard of living in the third world may rise. The second option allows us to maintain our standard of living while we help raise the standard of living of under privileged nations. This we must do. It is our destiny. It is our responsibility. It is our final test.

Thirty thousand people starve to death every day on this planet, most of them are children. Nations fight nations, war is part of our lives. What drives our economy in the western world, allows us to enjoy a high standard of living, a life of leisure compared to our neighbors south of the imaginary line called a border? Many answers both economic, social, political, and spiritual can be given. We do know that the standard of living that a nation enjoys is directly related energy consumption.

Energy drives the economies of nations and Tesla's life long goal was to make electric power equally available to all people any where on this planet. He continued to promote his plan for the wireless transmission of power in the yearly interviews he gave on his birthday as late as 1940. [19] Electrical power allows on site processing of raw materials. Electrical power can run pumps from water wells in areas affected by drought. Electrical power delivered to the poverty stricken areas of the world can make the pie larger, can help bring about the needed economic equality which is our birth right.

Why hasn't power been made equally available to all people and nations? Why haven't the much touted free energy devices described by Tom Bearden, John Bedini, Bruce DePalma, and others ever materialized? Perhaps because "easy things are seldom done for the same reason that impossible things are rarely done: no one will pay for anything believed to be easy or impossible". [20] Perhaps because when we talk about power there is more there than one would initially visualize. What we are talking about is personal power, national power, planetary power, karmic power and the power of love.

The sages tell us that in order to enjoy power we have to let go of power, to overcome ourselves. As an example this author can describe one of his recent experiences. After a very successful symposium celebrating the 100th year after Nikola Tesla arrived in the United States 21, a non profit corporation, 501(c)(3), was formed specifically to encourage and pursue research into the inventions and discoveries of Nikola Tesla. Two years later, after a second symposium, several of the founding members approached the board of directors with a proposal to validate Tesla's claim that wireless transmission of power was possible. Board members suggested that permission be obtained from the FCC, an environmental impact statement be filed with the EPA, and we should go form "our own non profit corporation". It was also decided that since there was no procedure to cover research, the organization could not be involved.

Another goal of the organization had been to establish a museum to be named the Nikola Tesla Museum of Science and Technology. We proposed that since 60 -70 billion dollars are given away to non profit organizations annually, we had as good a chance as any other organization for obtaining funding, for a museum or research. We reasoned that:

"Since only 16% of the museums in this country are science museums, this museum in honor of Nikola Tesla will help educate the public in technological areas. With the need for economic revitalization of industry in Colorado, 1986is the time to begin supporting the scientific education of our region. With the current statistics showing that the United States is falling behind the world technologically, the effort to educate the public is becoming more important, and the surge of public awareness of Nikola Tesla's inventions makes him an appropriate namesake for a science and technology museum." [23]

The board moved to table our proposal indefinitely.

What had happened? Of the 15 - 20 people that had started the organization only four remained as part of the governing body. Three of those members were opposed to research. The collective mind of the board of directors had become the antithesis of the momentum Tesla had gained in his lifetime. Unlike the independent inventor and businessman, the board was now composed of members who were bureaucrats and paper pushers for Fortune 500 companies. Tesla was a vegetarian, the board members all ate meat. Tesla did not ask for permission to be inventive and strike out on bold new adventures, the board needed approval from higher sources. The dichotomies were endless.

Tesla's visions have been delayed for 89 years. The squabbling started with Thomas Edison, J.P. Morgan and Nikola Tesla himself. 24 It continues to this day. Perhaps the reason for the delay of wireless power transmission or free energy devices lies even deeper within the human psyche. Is it possible that we could compare the Tesla story to a biblical story? Bruce Gordan thinks so. In Gordan's analysis Tesla's attempt at building a prototype magnifying transmitter parallels Genesis 11:1-9. [25]

"The message; human curiosity and technological derring-do makes God nervous; God demolishes project, confounds language". Gordan further outlines the the scenario as follows:

"When everything is perfect, the right time shows up." [26] This is equivalent to saying, "Absolute knowledge in the hands of one whose heart is not yet tender, would be a terrible weapon. [27] We might postulate that technological developments do not occur until the planet is ready. The recent examination of the theory of Gaia credits the Earth with an intelligence. "Thousands of years ago, by means of seeing, sorcerers became aware that the Earth was sentinent and that its awareness could affect the awareness of humans." [28] By implication of reciprocity the reverse could be true. The group or collective unconscious is still struggling with the result of quantum and relativity theory. We as a race were ready for nuclear power, every thing was perfect and the right time showed up. Soon we will have put the technology to good use or abandon it to insure our survival as a species.

SO WHAT DO YOU DO ABOUT IT

FREE ENERGY: CREATING AN IDEA WHOSE TIME HAS COME

Wireless transmission of power and free energy have not happened yet, perhaps we aren't ready, perhaps the Earth isn't ready. Pogo said it best, " we have met the enemy and it is us." In the Jungian view of collective unconscious, things happen when the time is right, we get what we agree to. We need a flight plan. And that plan must realize that:

WHEN THE POWER OF LOVE

OVERCOMES

THE LOVE OF POWER

THERE WILL BE PEACE

[Source; Girls Lavatory, Boulder High School, Boulder, Colorado]

Described as "Post Industrial, neo-technical, teen-age graffiti."

"So astounding are the facts in this connection, that it would seem as though the Creator, himself had electrically designed this planet...."

Nikola Tesla describing what is now known as Schumann Resonance (7.8 Hz) in "The Transmission of Electrical Energy Without Wires As A Means Of Furthering World Peace", Electrical World And Engineer, January 7, 1905, PP 21-24.

Footnotes ...

1. Ratzlaff, John, Tesla Said, Tesla Book Company, PO Box 1649, Greenville, TX 75401, 1984.

2. Yogananda, Paramahansa, Autobiography of a Yogi, Self Realization Fellowship,, 3880 San Rafael Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90065, 1985.

3. Cheney, Margaret, Man Out of Time, Prentice Hall, 1981.

4. Hunt, Inez and Draper. Wanetta, W., Lightning In His Hand, The Life Story Of Nikola Tesla, Omni Publications, Hawthorne, CA, 1981.

5. O'Neal, John, J., Prodigal Genius, The Life Of Nikola Tesla, Ives Washington, Inc., 1944.

6. Anderson, Leland, personal communication. See also Anderson, L.I., and Ratzlaff, J.T., Dr. Nikola Tesla Bibliography, Ragusan Press, 936 Industrial Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303, 1979.

7. Nikhilananda, Swami, Vivekananda, The Yogas and Other Works, Ramakrishna-Vivekananda Center, New York, 1973.

8. Nikhilananda, Swami.

9. Dobson, John, personal communication.

7. Dobson, John, Advaita Vedanta and Modern Science, Vedanta Book Center, 5423 S. Hyde Park, Chicago, IL 60615, 1979.

10. Nikhilananda, Swami.

11. Burke, Marie Louise, Swami Vivekananda in the West, New Discoveries, The World Teacher, Advaita Ashrama, Mayavati, India, 1985, p. 500

12. Grotz, T., "Artificially Stimulated Resonance of the Earth's Schumann Cavity Waveguide", Proceedings of the Third International New Energy Technology Symposium/Exhibition, June 25th-28th, 1988, Hull, Quebec, Planetary Association for Clean Energy, 191 Promenade du Portage/600, Hull, Quebec J8X 2K6 Canada

13. From the personal collection of L. Anderson.

14. Russell, Lao. personal communication.

15. The University of Science and Philosophy, Swannanoa, Waynesboro, VA 22980, (703) 942-5161.

16. First written by Tesla on May 13, 1907, for the "Actors Fair Fund", text transcribed from an A.L.S. in the collections of the Bakken Library of Electricity in Life. The article later appeared in the "New York American", July 6, 1930, pg. 10.

17. Tesla, Nikola, The New Art of Projecting Concentrated Non-Dispersive Energy Through Natural Media, Proceedings of the Tesla Centennial Symposium, Grotz, T. & Rauscher, E., Editors, 1984.

18. Turchi, P.J.,Conte, D.,Seiler, S., Electrostatic Acceleration of Microprojectiles to Ultrahypervelocities, "Proceedings of the Seventh Pulsed Power Conference", June 12th-14th, Monterey, California, Jointly Sponsored by the DOD, DOE, and the IEEE Electron Devices Society.

19. "Death Ray for Planes", New York Times, September 20, 1940.

20. Pawlicki, T.B., Exploring Hyperspace, 848 Fort Street, Victoria, B.C., Canada, electronic book on floppy disk, 1988, (Log onto the TESLA BBS at (719) 486-2775 for copy of ASCII text files)

21. Broad, William J., "Tesla a Bizarre Genius, Regains Aura of Greatness", New York Times, Aug. 28th, 1984

22. Deleted

23. Grotz, T., & Sheppard, J., The Nikola Tesla Museum of Science and Technology submitted to the Board of Directors December 12th, 1986. [Available as an ASCII text file on the TESLA BBS (719) 486-2775]

24. Cheney, Margaret, Tesla, Man Out of Time, Prentice Hall Inc, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1981.

25. Gordan, Bruce, private communication, 1988.

26. Arguelles, Jose & Lloydine, personal communication.

27. Hercules, Michael, The Circle of Love, published by the author.

28. Castenada, Carlos, The Power of Silence, Further Lessons of don Jaun, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1987, Pg. 120.

FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT TESLA

TESLA BBS: This is a full featured computer Bulletin Board Service for access to information about current research and the life and times of Nikola Tesla. A subsection of the Colorado Mountain College BBS, it may be contacted using a computer and 300/1200/2400 baud modems at (719) 486-2775.

The Tesla Memorial Society The Tesla Coil Builders Association

% Nicholas Kosanovich % Harry Goldman

453 Martin Road RD #6 Box 181

Lackawanna, NY 14218 Glenns Falls, NY 12801

(716) 822-0281 (518) 792-1003



The Tesla Book Company High Voltage Press

PO Box 1649 PO Box 532

Greenville, TX 75401 Claremont, CA 91711

(214) 454-6819



About the Author...

Mr. Toby Grotz, President, Wireless Engineering is an electrical engineer and has 16 years experience in the field of geophysics, aerospace and industrial research and design. While working for the Geophysical Services Division of Texas Instruments and at the University of Texas at Dallas, Mr. Grotz was introduced to and worked with the geophysical concepts which are of importance to the wireless transmission of power. As a Senior Engineer at Martin Marietta, Mr. Grotz designed and supervised the construction of industrial process control systems and designed and built devices and equipment for use in research and development and for testing space flight hardware. Mr. Grotz also worked for the public utility industry installing mini computer based pollutant measuring data acquisition systems in fossil fuel power plants and as a results engineer in a nuclear power plant. Mr. Grotz organized and chaired the 1984 Tesla Centennial Symposium and the 1986 International Tesla Symposium and was president of the International Tesla Society, a not for profit corporation formed as a result the first symposium. As Project Manager for Project Tesla, Mr. Grotz aided in the design and construction of a recreation of the equipment Nikola Tesla used for wireless transmission of power experiments in 1899 in Colorado Springs. Mr. Grotz received his B.S.E.E. from the University of Connecticut in 1973.

member_23686
BRFite
Posts: 176
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

Postby member_23686 » 13 Jan 2013 20:15

^^^
Tesla was also working on free energy for all. Given his knowledge of sanskrit, we need to be looking at our texts for some "inspiration".

Sushupti
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5198
Joined: 22 Dec 2010 21:24

Re: Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

Postby Sushupti » 15 Jan 2013 12:30

Watch between 14:18-14:50 and get surprised. Sagarika aunty taking dip at triveni is much more real than that of signora 12 years back

FTN: Is Kumbh greatest celebration of India's diversity?

http://ibnlive.in.com/videos/315758/ftn ... rsity.html

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12423
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

Postby Aditya_V » 15 Jan 2013 13:18

Does the Ganges need more pollution? Why is p-sec involved in these communal practices. Poor Ganga ma, how will she cleanse herself now of these new sins.

Sushupti
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5198
Joined: 22 Dec 2010 21:24

Re: Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

Postby Sushupti » 15 Jan 2013 13:26

Aditya_V wrote:Does the Ganges need more pollution? Why is p-sec involved in these communal practices. Poor Ganga ma, how will she cleanse herself now of these new sins.


Blame it on Arnab.

abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

Postby abhishek_sharma » 15 Jan 2013 13:34

It was mentioned that none of the 4 Shankracharyas are attending Kumbh mela due to some disagreements with the administration.

member_23686
BRFite
Posts: 176
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

Postby member_23686 » 15 Jan 2013 17:22

Allahabad: 4 shankaracharyas boycott Maha Kumbh Mela

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/allahabad-4- ... 3-242.html

Maha Kumbh 2013 started in Allahabad on Monday and around 1crore devotees are expected to take the holy bath at the confluence or Sangam of Ganga, Yamuna and the mythical Saraswati on Makar Sankranti. Even as the Maha Kumbh began, a controversy has erupted.

The four Shankaracharyas have decided to boycott the Maha Kumbh as they had asked the administration to give them a common place and not four different areas for Chatuspath. But after the administration rejected their demand, the shankaracharyas decided to boycott the Maha Kumbh.

Shankaracharya Swami Swaroopanand Maharaj said that people were not coming to the Kumbh due to the pollution in the rivers and now the administration has decided against giving them a common place. He said that when they have not got the land, then there is no point in attending the Maha Kumbh, which takes place once in 12 years and this year it is considered to be very auspicious due to a planetary alignment that takes once every 147 years.

The four Shankaracharyas have decided to boycott the Maha Kumbh as they had asked the administration to give them a common place and not four different areas for Chatuspath.
Allahabad: 4 shankaracharyas boycott Maha Kumbh Mela

Adi Shankaracharya had established four peeths or maths in. They are Jyotirmath Badrika Ashram Himalaya, Sharda Peeth, Dwarka, Puri-Jagannath and is Shringeri Peeth, Karnataka. But none of the four shankaracharya will attend Maha Kumbh, 2013.

According to the DM Kumbh Mani Prasad Mishra Shringeri Peeth is controversial and he could not understand why just one peeth was talking on behalf of the other three too. The disciples of the Shankarachayas have also boycotted the Kumbh.

Shrada peeth Shankaracharya Swaroopananda's disciple Paripoornananda sat on a fast unto death and then suddenly disappeared. Police have not been able to find them. According to the SSP Kumbh Mela RKS Rathore police are investigating the matter.

Meanwhile, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav is trying to shield the police and the administration. He said that officers are in touch with the shankaracharyas and have requested then to come back for the Kumbh.

johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

Postby johneeG » 15 Jan 2013 18:47

Maha Kumbh: Shankaracharya of Dwarka leaves after tiff

Image

Allahabad, Dec 30 - Unresolved differences over land allotment between the administration and the pontiffs of the four seats(peeths) established by Adi Sankaracharya today took a turn for worse as one of the influential religious leaders left the city vowing not to attend the congregation.

Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati, Shankaracharya of the Dwarka 'peeth' in the west, left for his ashram in Madhya Pradesh following the administration's refusal to allot land for 'Sankaracharya Chatushpad', for which the pontiffs of Puri in the east and Shringeri in the south have also extended their in-principle support.

According to Swaroopanand's key disciple Swami Avimukteswarananda, who is camping at a temple on the banks of river Yamuna, "the proposed move was aimed at distinguishing the genuine Shankaracharyas from the self-styled ones who have mushroomed all over and have been misleading people".

The 'Sankaracharya Chatushpad' was to have been established by installing an idol of Adi Sankaracharya and allotting land at the four corners of its platform for camps of Shankaracharyas of the four seats (peeths).

"It was Swaroopanandaji's view that fighting such elements through other means such as lawsuits would have been cumbersome. So having all the Shankaracharyas in one place would have proved to be an effective foil against those who take devotees for a ride," Avimukteswarananda said.

"However, the administration took an inexplicably stubborn stand. They refused the demand, saying it went against tradition, which is not exactly true. For the past three decades, the camps of Shankaracharyas have been in the vicinity of each other.

We are not able to understand what harm could have been caused by setting up a statue of Adi Sankara," he said.

Officials entrusted with allotment of land for Maha Kumbh claim that the proposal was struck down following opposition from the 'akharas', a militant order of ascetics, also set up by Adi Sankara, whose presence is considered pivotal to the 12-yearly Kumbh congregation starting from January 14.

While office-bearers of 'akharas' are tight-lipped over the controversy, Swaroopananda yesterday rubbished the administration's claim as "a mischievous attempt to drive a wedge between the Shankaracharyas and the akharas".

Swaroopananda had sought to buttress his point saying "both the four peeths and the over a dozen akharas owe their origin to the unifying vision of Adi Sankara."

"The militant 'naga sadhus', who are the backbone of any 'akhara', hold the Shankaracharyas in high esteem. I myself have many disciples in various 'akharas'. The administration has failed to give any convincing reason for not accepting our request," he had said.

"In fact, this time, it has not even allotted the land to Shankaracharyas unlike in the past. Now, to save itself from embarrassment, it has resorted to canards. I will not have my camp at the upcoming Kumbh as a mark of protest," Swaroopananda said. PTI


http://www.lensonnews.com/lensonnews/1/51/32682/1/maha-kumbh:-shankaracharya-of-dwarka-leaves-after-tiff.html

The ibn report seems incoherent and is also misleading about general details.

Image
Bharathi Theertha, Shankaracharya of Sringeri Sharada Mutt, is on south-India tour(right now, HH is in AP).

Image

Shankaracharya of Puri Govardhan Mutt is Nischalanand Saraswati.

johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

Postby johneeG » 15 Jan 2013 19:58

Image

Shankaracharya of Puri Govardhan Mutt is Nischalanand Saraswati. It seems that Shankaracharya of Puri has not taken a decision to boycott the Kumbh yet. He is scheduled for Kumbh visit on Jan 29 and arrangements are as per schedule.

‘Snubbed’ Shankaracharya leaves Kumbh

Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati, heading the Dwarka and Badri peeths, on Sunday said he was leaving Kumbh-2013 and would not return if his demand for having Chatushpath (putting up Shankaracharyas of all four peeths in one block around an intersection) was not met by the administration.

However, the Swami said that he was not asking his followers to boycott Kumbh and there was still time for the administration to take a decision on his demand. He left for Rewa in Madhya Pradesh, from where he would go to his ashram near Jabablpur.

Swami Swaroopanand had decided to hold a meeting of his followers on Sunday after all the 13 akharas had threatened to boycott Kumbh, if his demand for Chatushapath was met. They had alleged the Shankaracharya was trying to encroach upon land which was traditionally given to ashrams.

While the representatives of the other two Shankaracharyas — Swami Nischalanand Saraswati (heading Puri peeth) and Swami Bharati Teerth (heading Shringeri peeth) — were present at the meeting, no formal decision has been taken on whether or not quit Kumbh.

Swami Nischalanand’s representative Acharya Ram Kailash Pandey said, “The final decision will rest with our revered Guru. No formal decision has been taken yet . We demand Chatushpath. But as things stand, the administration still has about a month’s time as our Guru would be coming to Kumbh on January 29. Meanwhile, we will continue with our preparations.”

At the press conference after the meeting, Swami Swaroopanand, said, “I would not be taking a dip in the Ganga during Kumbh-2013 if the conditions are not favourable for establishing Chatushpath. But there is still time for the Magh Mela to start. I cannot ask my followers to boycott Kumbh because religious feelings are involved. It is for the administration to provide a clean Ganga as well as a clean Mela.” He reiterated that the administration was under pressure from “impure Shankaracharyas”, who have already been allotted land.

A media spokesperson for the Swami further said that although the Kumbh Mela will officially begin with Makar Sankranti on January 14, the month of Magh would begin only on January 27. “So, there is still time for the administration to decide,” he said.

Earlier, in the meeting, the Prayagwals (group of priests who help devotees through the rituals during Kumbh) offered the Swami their allotted land for Chatushpath. But Swami Avimukteshwaranand, disciple of Swami Swaroopanand, maintained that the administration had already allowed setting up of the Shankaracharyas’ block on Mori Marg in Lower Sangam, but later retracted under pressure.

Meanwhile, Mela administration officials refused to comment on the matter. “Every possible effort was made to ensure that Swami Swaroopanand did not leave. But if he has taken a stand, we can’t do much about it,” said an official, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

Mela sources pointed out that one of the main problems in establishing Chatushpath was a legal battle going on between Swami Swaroopanand and Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati over heading the Badri peeth.

“With the matter being sub-judice, the administration could not have taken a decision in favour of allotting land for the Badri peeth to either of the parties,” said the officer. District Magistrate (Kumbh) M P Mishra could not be contacted despite attempts.

Link


Image
Bharathi Theertha, Shankaracharya of Sringeri Sharada Mutt, is on south-India tour(right now, HH is in AP). HH started the south-india tour(Vijaya-yatra) in Feb 2012 and is scheduled to tour many places in south-India. It seems Sringeri Shankaracharya never had a plan to visit this year's Kumbh because HH is busy with Vijaya-yatra. So, the question of boycott is moot.


The current Shankaracharya, Jagadguru Sri Bharati Tirtha Mahaswamiji, has undertaken many Vijaya Yatras since His Sannyasa in 1974. Some of the notable Yatras include the ones in 1975, 1977, and 1981 with His Guru (Jagadguru Sri Abhinava Vidyatirtha Mahaswamiji, the 35th Acharya of Sringeri), and in 1987-88, 1992, 1994-95, 2007, and 2010 as the 36th Acharya.

On February 26, 2012, the Jagadguru began a Vijaya Yatra across South India. Over the next year, He will grace various places with His presence and strengthen the eternal Dharma in the hearts and minds of the people.

During the Yatra, new temples will be consecrated while dilapidated ones will be renovated. Through His presence, the Jagadguru will guide gatherings of devotees in the study of Vedas and the Shastras. He will also deliver several discourses to reinforce the teachings of Sanatana Dharma.

The Vijaya Yatra is a special occasion for all devotees and supporters to participate in a great tradition that stretches back over the centuries. It enables everyone to reconnect with Sanatana Dharma in order to obtain happiness and peace at a time of suffering and uncertainty in the world.


Link


Only one Shankaracharya, Swaroopanand Saraswati, who is the pontiff of two mutts(Dwaraka and Badri) has declared his intention to boycott the Kumbh until his demands(Chatushpath) are met.
Image

johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

Postby johneeG » 15 Jan 2013 20:11

johneeG wrote:Only one Shankaracharya, Swaroopanand Saraswati, who is the pontiff of two mutts(Dwaraka and Badri) has declared his intention to boycott the Kumbh until his demands(Chatushpath) are met.
Image


Kumbh Mela to witness battle of Shankaracharyas, as Digvijay supports Swarupanand

Allahabad, Dec 26: Days before the Kumbh Mela is going to begin at Prayag, trouble is brewing between two Shankaracharyas, and this will be decided by a shaastraartha (theological debate) between the two - Swami Narendranath Saraswati of Sumeru Math, Varanasi and Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati, the Shankaracharya of Dwarka Peeth and Badrinath Joshimath.
The challenger, Swami Narendranand Saraswati has said the loser of the ‘shaastraartha’ must take ‘jal samadhi’ (watery grave) at the Prayag and surrender all his property to the winner.

The debate is going to take place on Vedas, Puranas and Upanishads, the main theological works in Hinduism.

The debate will be over who has mastered the teachings or beliefs under the 14 vidyas (schools of knowledge) of Sanatan Dharma.

The heads of seven peethas (seats) of Hindu religion do not recognize Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati as a genuine shankaracharya.

In fact, they say that he is a fake. Swaroopanand however challenges the belief and claims that he represents two seats- Joshimath in Badrinath and Dwarkapeeth.

He claims to have inherited the title of Shankaracharya of Dwarka peeth way back in 1982.

The dispute is pending in the court since then and rakes up at each Kumbh mela.

Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati and Swami Narendranand Saraswati of Sumeru Math came face to face on Sunday in Allahabad, and there were charges and counter-changes galore, after which Swami Narendranand threw an open challenge to Swaroopanand.

Swamiji has challenged Swaroopanand to contest him in shastrartha on January 10. The one who loses will have to take jal samadhi in the sangam. But before that, he will have to name all his property to the winner,” said Swami Narayan, secretary to Swami Narendranand Saraswati. Swami Swaroopanand has accepted the challenge.

It may be noted that as many as 35 mathas find a mention in (page number 22-24) Sharirik Mimansa tika (chapter) of Brhamsutra Shankar Bhasya (commentary on Vedic literature by Adi Shankaracharya).

Seven of them are listed in the principal category. These include: Sumeru Math in Kashi (Varanasi), Uttar Pradesh, Sringeri Sharada Peetham in Chickmagalur Karnataka, Jyotirmath (also known as Joshimath) in Badrinath, Uttarakhand, Sarvagya Math in Srinagar, Kashmir, Shardapeeth in Dwarka, Gujarat, Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham, Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu and Govardhan Math, Puri, Odisha.

Image

Meanwhile, in Lucknow, Congress general secretary Digvijay Singh today alleged that the place reserved for Shankaracharya in Maha Kumbh Mela in Allahabad has been given to a “fake” Shankaracharya supported by BJP and sought the intervention of Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav in this regard.

“The place reserved for Shankarachayra has been given to fake Shankaracharya supported by BJP in Maha Kumbh Mela (to be held in Allahabad from next month). The established traditional ‘peeth’ of Shankarachayra could boycott Kumbh due to the present situation,” Singh told reporters here.

Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati is a known pro-Congress shankaracharya. He was the only one who opposed the Sri Ramjanmabhoomi movement in Ayodhya.


Seeking intervention of the chief minister, Digvjay Singh said that he should ensure that in place of “fake” Shankarachayra, the place should be reserved for the traditional “peeth”.



Link

'Boycott of Kumbh' was Digvijay Singh's idea. He is exhorting other Shankaracharyas also to boycott Kumbh in solidarity. Swaroopanand Saraswati is not only pro-congress, but is known to be close to Digvijay Singh. Recently, there was a tiff between MP Govt(BJP Govt) and Swaroopanand Saraswati.

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

Postby member_20317 » 15 Jan 2013 22:00

JohneeG ji I dont understand this. Why is the report alleging a preferetial treatment by administration to the Sangh sympathetic Shankaracharya. Why would the administration controlled by Akhilesh Yadav do that. Or am I missing something?

sanjeevpunj
BRFite
Posts: 971
Joined: 04 Sep 2009 13:10

Re: Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

Postby sanjeevpunj » 15 Jan 2013 22:44

Struggle for power never ends, even the saints are hungering for power! Srila Prahupada spoke of developing a state of detachment from seeking positions and instead, becoming (dasanudasas) servants of the servants of god, rather than demanding service from others. Its a shame they raise such issues at a time of auspiciousness.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54825
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

Postby ramana » 15 Jan 2013 23:13

So who is the person Doggy is ranting against?

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

Postby member_20317 » 15 Jan 2013 23:16

sanjeevpunj ji nothing to get surprised about. Every occupier tries to get his Panchen lama in. You remember the story about Akbar and the Mahantas. Two sides of the same coin.

That is why Dharm needs to be decentralised but understood well. That is why the need for individual training. Adi Sankara may never have thought that people entrusted with the chatuspath on Bharat Mata itself will raise a demand for a chatuspath on the banks of Ganga also. Adi brought all the streams of Hinduism to one ocean and now this. I guess everything is nashwar only. Better to rely on ourselves and build up on that.

Virupaksha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3110
Joined: 28 Jun 2007 06:36

Re: Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

Postby Virupaksha » 16 Jan 2013 00:25

From the wiki, so possibly unreliable. Seems the issue started because the jyoti math of badrinath is a modern day attempt at restarting the math, which was closed for over 165 years. The first sankaracharya was sort of undisputed, but his death within 13 years of his assuming the leadership and recreating the math created the succession issues. Other maths have lengthy procedures to decide on the succession, which unfortunately this regenerated math seems to have not yet then clearly and publicly started. Hence the mess.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyotir_Math
After the death of Brahmananda in 1953, Swāmī Hariharānanda Saraswatī, a now deceased disciple of Brahmananda, was offered the title but refused to accept it.[3] Later it was revealed that five months before his death, Brahamananda had made a will and registered it with the District Registrar in Allahabad.[1] The will named his disciple, Swami Shantanand Saraswati as his successor and Swāmī Dvārakeśānanda Saraswatī, Swāmī Viṣṇudevānanda Saraswatī and Swāmī Paramātmānanda Saraswati as alternate choices.[3] As a result Swami Shantanand Saraswatī assumed the Shankarcharya-ship but his authority was disputed by several of Brahmananda's disciples and followers who did not feel that Shantanand met the requirements described in the Mahānuśāsana texts.[3] Meanwhile others claimed that Brahmānanda's death was due to poisoning, and that his will was not authentic, causing civil lawsuits to be filed by concerned parties.[3]
Relevant organizations involved in reviving Jyotir Math, including a committee of pundits from Varanasi,[4] proposed Swāmī Kṛiṣṇabodha Āśrama as the Shankaracharya despite Śhāntānand's claim and occupation of Jyotir Math. Asrama died in 1973[4] and nominated his disciple Swarupananda, a disciple of Brahmananda who had taken Swami Krishnabodha Ashrama as his guru after Brahmananda's death, as his successor. However because Shantananda still occupied the Jyotir Math ashram built by Brahmananda, Swaraupananda took residence in a nearby building or ashram, said to be located near the former cave of Adi Shankara disciple, Trotakacharya.[6][4]
During his tenure, Shantanand was "supportive" of another Brahamananda disciple Maharishi Mahesh Yogi[7] and "often appeared with him in public".[8] However, in 1980, Śhāntānanda vacated the Shankarcharya position in favor of Swāmī Viṣṇudevānanda Saraswatī, an additional disciple that was named in Brahmananda's will as an alternate choice for the Shankaracharya-ship. Author Williamson writes that Shantanand was removed by the other Shankarcharya's due to his "incompetence" and speculates that his relationship with the Maharishi may have been a contributing factor.[8] However, Shantanand's successor, Vishnudevananda, also spoke well of the Maharishi[9] and publicly demonstrated his support by presiding over the Maharishi's First International Yogic Flying Competition in New Delhi in July 1986.[10][11] Viṣṇudevānanda died in 1989 and Swāmī Vāsudevānanda Saraswatī succeeded him. Former Shankaracharya, Shāntānand, then died in 1997.[3]
Another claimant is Mādhavā Aśrama who disputes the lineage of Vasudevananda and Swarupananda and who was appointed leader of Jyotir Math in the 1960's. He contends that Swaroopananda cannot accept the title of Shankaracharya for both the western and northern mathas in which case the title reverts to a subsequent disciple of Krishnabodha Asrama. Madhava Asrama was reportedly appointed leader of Jyotir Math under the auspices of Shri Niranjana Deva Tirtha who was the Shankarcharya of Puri at that time.[4]
These events have resulted in three separate lineages at Jyotir Math despite Swarupananda being endorsed by other Adi Shankara mathas.[4] These lineages include Swaroopananda, the leader of the Dvaraka Math in the West and Mādhavā Aśrama (both disciples of Kṛiṣṇabodha Āśrama) as well as Vāsudevānanda Saraswatī who occupies the monastery built by Brahmananda in 1941.[3]

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

Postby vishvak » 16 Jan 2013 01:12

The Kumbh mela should do away with interfere from politicians for the few days the Hindu yatra and mela is held.

abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

Postby abhishek_sharma » 16 Jan 2013 08:31

johneeG wrote: The marriage was not temporary. The marriage was permanent. Hidimba/Hidimbi remained wife of Bhima. They were estranged, but the marriage was not temporary.


Can you explain what the following means? This is from Mahabharat cited above by me:

----
Yudhistira: Hidimbe, tumhara kahna theek hai, satya ka kabhi ulanghan mat karna, pratidin suryasta ke poorva tuk tum Bheem ki sewa me rah sakti ho. Bheemsen din bhar tumhare saath rahenge, sandhya hote hi tum inhe mere paas pahucha dena.

Rakshasi ke swikar kar lene par Bheemsen ne kaha: "Meri ek pratigya hai. jab tuk putra nahi hoga, tabhi tuk mai tummhare saath jaaya karunga. putra ho jaane par nahi".

Hidimba ne yah bhi swikaar kar liya.

After the birth of Ghatotkach, it is mentioned:

"Ghatotkach pandavo ke prati badi hi shraddha aur prem rakhta aur we bhi uske prati bada sneh rakhte. Hidimba ne socha ki ab Bheemsen ki pratigya ka samay poora ho gaya. isi-liye woh waha se chali gayi."

----

What is the meaning of bolded sentences?

Sushupti
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5198
Joined: 22 Dec 2010 21:24

Re: Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

Postby Sushupti » 16 Jan 2013 09:07

Swaroopananda is domestic servant of Nehru dynasty.


Return to “History & Current Affairs Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests