Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Sep 2012 04:53

Is rebirth an infinite state representation of human thoughts? - just scoping down to human behavior alone, and materialistic speaking.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 28 Sep 2012 05:15

ramana wrote:BTW I dont trust KE. I think his role is to express sympathy and find out what makes Hindus tick. For whom I dont know.

Glad to know someone shares my suspicions...

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Sep 2012 21:20

Atri, Please consider writing up the following themes from Mahabharat in your blog:

Vidur niti
Dharmavyadhi niti

Thanks,
ramana

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Sep 2012 05:53

RajeshA wrote:Valmiki Ramayana Online

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Sep 2012 10:31

Three mountains and seven rivers: Google books.

http://www.mahabharata-resources.org/

Why Mahabharata:

http://www.pushti-marg.net/bhagwat/Maha ... harata.htm

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Sep 2012 10:48

Some critical comments on the Kuru Elders and comparison to modern India!

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 30 Sep 2012 11:41

RamaYji, Bji and Ramana ji, please correct me.

Bhishma - judiciary
Drona - army
Kripa - bureaucracy
Dhritarashtra - GOI

Who is vidura? All that is pro indic in all three of them?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Sep 2012 12:05

There is no Vidura now.

Why no one stopped the War?

5) Peace without justice in worthless :-
Krushna’s peace treaty also demanded justice.. “Peace without Justice” is inherently unfair. What sort of leader would he be if he allowed such injustices to be perpetuated ? If the guilty are not punished, why should anyone obey the laws or social strictures ? If the great and good become soft on crime and criminals, why should anyone bother being “good” ? If the guilty escape due to their position, wealth or connections, why should anyone respect the law of the land ?

In balance, cost of war to humanity as opposed to cost to humanity through hollow peace, was tipped in the favour of WAR. The cost of not having the war would have been to leave everything in its place – just as it was. Over time, this would have been more dangerous and painful to many more lives and countries that would have been destroyed as a result of adharma. Sometimes, to save all of humanity, some lives have to be sacrificed. For the good of the many, it is acceptable to sacrifice a few evil people.

Danger of a hollow peace to dharma, social order, political stability, security of women etc was dire while the likes of Kauravas, Kansa, Jayadratha, Shishupal and Jarasandha ruled.. By destroying all such rulers, Krushna helped establish the Dharma Rajya that the world needed.

As a statesman and a leader of the Yadav confederacy, he could not over look the manifest injustice the Kauravas were hell bent on inflicting on the Pandavas. As he advised Arjun in the SMB Gita, it is incumbent upon the leaders to lead by example and to implement justice no matter how unpalatable it is.

Justice delayed is justice denied. Krushna was patient and appealed to the Kuru court to be fair and equitable. If the very people who should enforce the law refuse to do so, who else can we appeal to ? When the system has become so corrupt that there is no hope of redemption, a complete overhaul is required to cleanse the system. The Mahabharata war provided that overhaul where all the incumbent rulers were killed off – on both sides – and a new generation had the opportunity to start afresh.

6) Compromise dilutes the greater “cause” :-
Fact is, God, as Shri Krushna, saved humanity by letting the war wipe out a generation of evil men.. War annihilated millions of men and animals within a matter of days.

Compromise with evil would have established a “hollow peace”, which would have allowed evil to continue to reign. As a result, many more millions would suffered under the yoke of evil for many more generations to come. Under the circumstances, killing off evil was the best course of action to take.

Shri Krushna was a king maker. He wanted to establish Dharma-Rajya and decided to do it with the help of the Pandavas. Yudhisthir was firmly wedded to truth, justice, fair play and peace. Of all the kings of India at the time, he was the most worthy of leading a “Dharma Rajya”. Shri Krushna helped him achieve this by helping him to perform the RajasuYagna. When Yudhisthir lost the hard won empire in a gambling match, Shri Krushna could have switched sides and established a new Empire with help of others. But Shri Krushna stuck to his ideals and waited 13 years for Pandavas to return rather than compromise on the basics of a true Dharma Rajya.

Truth can not be compromised with. Compromising with the truth is like splashing plain white paper with mud and expecting it to be still white. Moment you compromise with Truth, its no longer truth any more. Diluting the greater cause of establishing a Dharma Rajya was not acceptable to Shri Krushna.

7) Start with a clean slate - Greater good of the many :-
It's easy to measure what was lost to start again with a clean slate.
It is harder to measure the consequences of not following the higher duty, true dharma. The cost to mankind would have been greater if Krushna had stopped the war. Stopping the war is easy. Changing the hearts and minds away from wickedness towards goodness was a bigger challenge. Shri Krushna tried to do that over several decades. He even established family relations with Kauravas to try and influence them from within. But when the battle for “hearts and minds” of Kauravas had failed, for the greater good of mankind, Krushna accepted that the “war” as the best option.

To establish dharma, adharma has to be annihilated..
To establish civilisation, chaos has to be conquered.
Shri Krushna acted as a catalyst to achieve this greater goal for all of humanity.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 05 Oct 2012 15:48

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 4#p1347884

दैत्यकन्या पुरा, ग्रासुं पाहे धरा
देव देवेंद्रही, मारि तें मंथरा
विष्णू धर्मोदधी
शुक्रमाता वधी
स्त्री जरी पारधी, अरि मृगेंद्र - 5

(When Manthara the daughter of Daityas tried to engulf this earth, Deva Indra killed her and relieved us. Even the epitome of Dharma, Sri Vishnu, killed mother of Shukra, Of lion against enemies.. )

I do not know this story. Can anyone tell me which daitya kanya did Indra slay and who is this mother of Shukra (shukracharya) whom Vishnu killed off ?

manish singh · Post by **manish singh** » 05 Oct 2012 17:24

Am reading Bibek Debroy's unabridged Engligh translation of Mahabharata. Thought of sharing what I read on the first game of dice.

Yudhisthira stakes the pandavas and then himself in the game of dice and loses. Having thus become slave to Duryodhana, he then stakes Droupadi. Droupadi argues that since Yudhishthira was slave himself (and hence could not own any property), he had no right to stake her. The basic question is thus whether a slave's wife is his property or his master's property or is she free.

This question does not arise in case of Pandavas since Yudhishthira was not a slave when he staked them. Younger brothers were considered elder brother's property and hence this is not a female liberation issue. It is a property right issue.

Only Vikarna (Duryodhana's brother) and Vidura support Droupadi's stand. Duryodhana, Dushashana, Soubala (Shakuni, son of Subala) and Karna maintain that she is a slave and hence the demeaning and humiliation of Droupadi is justified. The elders remain silent, though Bhishma seems to support that Droupadi has been won, but finally he defers the question to Yudhisthira.

At this point Duryodhana poses the question to the four Pandavasa and tells them to establish Yudhishthira as a liar. Meaning that Yudhishthira is a liar if he staked Droupadi even though she was not his property. He is a liar if he staked himself eventhough he still had property (Droupadi). So, even if the question is resolved one way or the other, Yudhisthira would be a liar.

Though Vikrodara (Bheema) gets really angry throughout the shameful episode, none of the Pandavas answer the question. In the end Arjuna defers the question to Yudhisthira would still remains silent.

Finally the whole matter ends as a damp squib. Ill omens are heard such as jackals crying and donkeys braying. Same ill omens were heard when Duryodhana was born and it was foretold by Viduara that Duryodhana will be the cause of destruction of Kouravas. Dhitharashtra then gives back the Pandavas their freedom and kingdom. The question remains unanswered.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Oct 2012 20:05

Its not just a legal question but a moral question? Can a woman be disrobed in a royal assembly? Is that dharma? All else pale before it.

manish singh · Post by **manish singh** » 05 Oct 2012 20:29

While the question of morality is raised, it is not put forward as the main argument. Droupadi herself repeatedly asks the audience to tell her whether she is a slave or not. Very disturbing. It appears that masters were well within their rights to do whatever with their slaves.

Yudhajit · Post by **Yudhajit** » 05 Oct 2012 22:07

Narendra Kohli opines it was a chankian move on part of Yudhistira to agree to stake Draupadi.

http://www.narendrakohli.org/The_Dice_Match.html

manish singh · Post by **manish singh** » 05 Oct 2012 23:17

There is nothing Chanakian about wagering your wife and watch her being molested publicly while she is in her menses and wearing a single garment.

It would have been Chanakian if having lost himself, Yudhishthira would have refused from wagering Droupadi saying that as a slave he was no one's master now. Other Pandava wives and sons could have been protected this way too. Instead we see Droupadi making this argument while her husbands, with the exception of Bheema, just stand there. These heroes of yore didnt speak up even when Duryodhana had specifically questioned them.

Yes, Yudhishthira could not refuse Dhritharashtra's order and he had to play and wager everything. Yes, the Pandavas could not physically attack the Kouravas as they were slaves now. But, when Yudhishthira is asked for his opinion, Dharmaraj says nothing. This is a serious character failure.

The beauty of Mahabharata is that it shows how different people interpret dharma and choose between different notions of dharma. It also shows the good as well as the bad in them.

In this episode, the Pandavas too come out looking bad. And that is OK since our tradition does not force us to deal in absolutes.

To me the clear hero in all this is Vikarna. He is Dhritarashtra's son and Duryodhana's brother and yet speaks up against them to support dharma.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 06 Oct 2012 00:20

+ 1.

Its interesting piskology when the worst humiliations and mistakes are rationalized in hindsight as chankian in order to defend Yudhishthira's honour -- the man who unilaterally gambled away Draupadi's honour.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Oct 2012 04:11

Atri, Can you help in getting the Marathi rendering translated?

ramana wrote:Abhishek We need to get this book next and get it translated:
Vidur Niti, Narad Niti, Kanik Niti and Yakhsa Prashan in Marathi
BTW our Parsuram gave short version of Kanik Niti here:
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 2#p1160292

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 19 Oct 2012 04:26

ramana wrote:Atri, Can you help in getting the Marathi rendering translated?

ramana wrote:Abhishek We need to get this book next and get it translated:
Vidur Niti, Narad Niti, Kanik Niti and Yakhsa Prashan in Marathi
BTW our Parsuram gave short version of Kanik Niti here:
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 2#p1160292

Ancients suggested multiple ways.. not just one.. I presume depending on the mental disposition of enemy and many other factors...

Thus we hear,

अग्रतः चत्वरह वेदा, पश्चतह स-शरं धनु (pardon my wrong spelling of original sanskrit)

meaning.. 'Try first with brilliant Vedas, if that does not work.. follow with bows and arrows"

(Sama, dama, Dandha, Bheda), for this 'dama' part -Dhanu may be also translated as 'cows' 'wealth' etc.

My $0.02

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 19 Oct 2012 05:09

Don't know about chanikianness of Dharmaraja but

1. No other wives of Pandavas came to Hastina during the gambling session. Wonder why Draupati would come.

2. Dharmaraja started with betting gems and gold ornaments. Somehow this is ok.

3. Then he started betting his cow-herds, horses and elephants. Somehow this is also ok, for they are man's property or are they? Can an animal have it's own consciousness and liberty and pursuit of happiness like some member demanded?

4. Then he bets his kingdom. Even this is ok, because the people are slaves of the king?

5. Then he bet his own brothers. When did it become ok for kings to bet his own family? After all they are above his citizenry, right?

6. Then he bet himself. If Dharmaraja is any dharmic, he should have bet himself first, even before gold, gems and lands.

7. Once he became dasa of the Kauravas, he bet Drapadi as his masters ordered him. This is a contention for many people. I do not know why/how these very people do not question Dharmaraja when he bet his female citizenry along with others?

8. When Draupadi asked the question - did he lose himself first and then me or did he bet me first and then himself, perhaps she saw herself different from her own husband. Somehow other Pandavas didn't feel that way when Dharmaraja bet them first, which is very clear.

9. How do we know Kauravas did not dishonor any other woman in the erstwhile Pandava kingdom? How is their honor any less/more than Draupadi?

10. How come only Draupadi went to Aranyavasa and Ajnatavasa along with Pandavas and all other wives of Pandavas did not accompany Pandavas?

How come Draupadi is one of the Pativratas, even after having five husbands, and no other wife of Pandava?

Does Pativrata mean only physical purity, or is there something more to it?

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 19 Oct 2012 12:15

ramana wrote:Atri, Can you help in getting the Marathi rendering translated?

ramana wrote:Abhishek We need to get this book next and get it translated:
Vidur Niti, Narad Niti, Kanik Niti and Yakhsa Prashan in Marathi
BTW our Parsuram gave short version of Kanik Niti here:
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 2#p1160292

Will have to acquire the book first.

but its doable.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 19 Oct 2012 12:17

Nilesh Oak wrote: Thus we hear,

अग्रतः चत्वरह वेदा, पश्चतह स-शरं धनु (pardon my wrong spelling of original sanskrit)

meaning.. 'Try first with brilliant Vedas, if that does not work.. follow with bows and arrows"

(Sama, dama, Dandha, Bheda), for this 'dama' part -Dhanu may be also translated as 'cows' 'wealth' etc.

My $0.02

Nilesh ji cow is "Dhenu" not dhanu. Dhanu is bow. Shara is arrow.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 19 Oct 2012 12:22

Atri wrote:http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 4#p1347884

दैत्यकन्या पुरा, ग्रासुं पाहे धरा
देव देवेंद्रही, मारि तें मंथरा
विष्णू धर्मोदधी
शुक्रमाता वधी
स्त्री जरी पारधी, अरि मृगेंद्र - 5

(When Manthara the daughter of Daityas tried to engulf this earth, Deva Indra killed her and relieved us. Even the epitome of Dharma, Sri Vishnu, killed mother of Shukra, Of lion against enemies.. )
I do not know this story. Can anyone tell me which daitya kanya did Indra slay and who is this mother of Shukra (shukracharya) whom Vishnu killed off ?

Carl wrote:
Atri wrote:Can anyone tell me which daitya kanya did Indra slay and who is this mother of Shukra (shukracharya) whom Vishnu killed off ?
Atri ji, Shukracharya's mother was Kavyamata. Not sure about the lady Indra slayed.

Thanks for the heads up, Carl ji..

here is the original verse from Ramayana where Vishwamitra asks Rama to kill Tratika

श्रूयते हि पुरा शक्रो विरोचनसुतां नृप ।
पृथिवीं हन्तुम् इच्छन्तीं मन्थराम् अभीसूदयत् ॥
विष्णुना च पुरा राम भृगुपत्नी पतिव्रता ।
अन् इन्द्रं लोकम् इच्छन्ती काव्यमाता निषूदिता ॥१/२५/२०-२१॥

It is said that long back Indra killed Manthara, daughter of Virochana, who was intent on destroying the earth. Wife of Bhrugu and mother of kavi (shukra), who wanted to make the world bereft of Indra was killed by Vishnu.

Apparently, mother of Shukra is called as "Khyaati".. She was one of the wives of Bhrugu Rshi.. The word kavyamata is apprently an adjective and not a proper noun..

I think it is part of same war (prior to avataras of Vishnu began and when he still was Vaidik "Upendra"). The story of Indra and Virochana and their rivalry is mentioned in Atharva veda and also in Chhandogya Upanishad (where Indra and Virochana serve Prajapati in their quest of knowledge of self). When Shukra was busy in penance, the Indra-Virochana war started (perhaps a part of that war meant Manthara intending to destroy earth and in the process of stopping her, Indra killed Mantharaa). When war reached on Asura doorstep, Khyaati intervened and stupefied Indra and Vishnu, who managed to launch his Sudarshana just in nick of time to severe her head. He was cursed by Bhrigu thereafter and hence the avatars began.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 22 Oct 2012 01:07

Anyone watch the History of India on BBC 4? They talk about similarities between Sanskrit, Greek and Latin. Also talk about a drink called soma described in the rig Veda but the plant can only be found north of the Ganges plains. They provide some theories about descriptions in the Vedas coming from Central Asia. Talk about aryan migration

They talk about the evidence showing that Mahabharata is for real.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 22 Oct 2012 01:27

A question here perhaps only indirectly related:

Is there some comprehensive work detailing all the libraries that were destroyed by the Islamic onslaught?

TIA

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 24 Oct 2012 19:46

Atri wrote:
Nilesh Oak wrote: Thus we hear,

अग्रतः चत्वरह वेदा, पश्चतह स-शरं धनु (pardon my wrong spelling of original sanskrit)

meaning.. 'Try first with brilliant Vedas, if that does not work.. follow with bows and arrows"

(Sama, dama, Dandha, Bheda), for this 'dama' part -Dhanu may be also translated as 'cows' 'wealth' etc.

My $0.02
Nilesh ji cow is "Dhenu" not dhanu. Dhanu is bow. Shara is arrow.

Thank you Atri ji,

Problem of 'Degrees of freedom'!

When one tries to extract more out of less, such blunders (Dhenu-Dhanu) and perpetual machines come into being. Thanks.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 24 Oct 2012 20:11

Funny, nobody who reads Mahabharata takes the following

a) Gambling between Pandvas and Kauravas lead to MB war

b) Gambling between Balarama and Rukmi lead to Rukmi's death

c) Gambling and drinking amoung themselves lead to complete detruction of Yadus.

i.e Gambling and drinking lead to death and destruction.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Oct 2012 21:23

RamaY wrote:The other day I heard a logical explanation of Varna structure

Brahmin - One who seeks knowledge
Kshatriya - One who seeks glory
Vaisya - One who seeks wealth
Sudra - One who seeks pleasures

Makes sense to me. Also validates my claim in one of the threads - Today's Indian rulers are like Vyisyas (instead of Kshatriyas) and intellectual class is Kshatriya (instead of Brahmins) and so on...

I think in the adhunik era we have a little bit of everything and in different proportions at different times in all of us.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 24 Oct 2012 22:21

^ Rji,

It is there all the time. The definition is based on 'dominant' aspect. Does one acquire knowledge, wealth and pleasures to seek glory? Does one acquire knowledge, career, wealth so one can have more pleasures and so on.

There are many instances where moksha was achieved even by worshiping Shiva using one's lovers breasts as shiva-linga rupa...

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Oct 2012 03:40

I think LM thoughts should stay in LM thread!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Oct 2012 20:49

A collection of stories from the Epics:

http://stotrapushpalu.blogspot.com/2012 ... chive.html

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Oct 2012 22:14

Google book:

Evolution of Ideals of Womenhood in ancient Indian Society

by Chandra Mauli Mani

RamaY, Chapter 8 answers some of your questions.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 30 Oct 2012 22:32

^ Good reference Rji... will write a summary after going thru.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 31 Oct 2012 06:01

Am slowly turning to the point of view that Vyasa wrote the Mahabharata to teach the Vedas in one big story form.

As such looking for timing etc is nice but loses the plot.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 31 Oct 2012 08:23

ramana wrote:Am slowly turning to the point of view that Vyasa wrote the Mahabharata to teach the Vedas in one big story form.

vedaish cha sarvair aham eva vedyah
vedaanta-krd veda-vid eva chaaham
- Shri Krishna in Bhagavad Gita 15.15 !

"By all the Vedas, I alone am to be known.
I am the compiler of Vedanta, and I only am the knower of the Vedas"

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 31 Oct 2012 17:21

ramana wrote:Am slowly turning to the point of view that Vyasa wrote the Mahabharata to teach the Vedas in one big story form.

As such looking for timing etc is nice but loses the plot.

Ramana Garu,

Two parts..

(1) yes, Vyasa wrote MBH to teach Vedas. He says so directly. "Veda' is the broader sense of 'knowledge' and not in the limited sense of 'Rigveda' or 'Samaveda'. He describes the purpose as 'Prjwalita jnanamaya pradipa' (he is lighting flame of knowledge) and his goal is to show ordinary person how one can have both Artha and Kama via following Dharma.

(2) Our Ancient sages never separated Dharma and/or Adhyatma from knowledge of non-adhyatma learnings. That is why Bhagavad Gita is full of "Sreyan swadharmo vigunah, paradharmo bhayavah". So timing of MBH is equally important. Now, this does not mean, everyone must be interested in the subject. On the other hand, the magnificience of the message of MBH in the context of the time when it was delivered has its own significance.

For me, journy began with (1) and continues into (2). I see neither confilict nor confusion between the two....only synergy.....more on the line of Gongura leaves perfectly blended with Fennugreek and chilli powder and asafotida and salt.

My $0.02

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 31 Oct 2012 17:24

Carl wrote:
ramana wrote:Am slowly turning to the point of view that Vyasa wrote the Mahabharata to teach the Vedas in one big story form.
vedaish cha sarvair aham eva vedyah
vedaanta-krd veda-vid eva chaaham
- Shri Krishna in Bhagavad Gita 15.15 !

"By all the Vedas, I alone am to be known.
I am the compiler of Vedanta, and I only am the knower of the Vedas"

Yes,

and

Chandamsi yasya parani, yastam veda sa vada vit. (Bhagvad Gita 15:1)

Only through understanding/working with/working through this nature within us and around us.. one can become knowledgeble. (veda sa veda vit)

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 31 Oct 2012 17:58

ramana wrote:Am slowly turning to the point of view that Vyasa wrote the Mahabharata to teach the Vedas in one big story form.

+108. I am coming around to the view that Dharma Shastras are a 'commentary' on Vedas and Agamas(Tantra). Puranas and Ithihaasas are a 'commentary' on Vedas, Agama(Tantra) and Dharma Shastras.

So, various rishis(including Vyasa) have given their views in these works on Vedas. The consistent theme is that the Vedas are eternal and not-man-made. They have also deconstructed the vital points in Vedas to facilitate easier understanding.

The irony of modern Hindus is that they ignore these expert views of ancient rishis and elevate the half-baked opinions of foreigners(who were working to justify their imperialism) on to a pedestal.

I think what Vyasa has done is that He compiled all these views. 'Vyasa' means compiler in Sanskrit. He records all the various conversations between the rishis and their shishyas on the topics of Dharma, Agama, Veda.

ramana wrote: As such looking for timing etc is nice but loses the plot.

I think the dating of Mahabharata and other Puranas is quite standard(beginning of Kali-ending of Dwapara->immediately after the Mahabharata war). Mahabharata War is taken as 3102 BCE.

Of course, Mahabharata and Puranas contain many stories that are much much older than that time.

I think dating Ramayana is trickier. So, the commies/colonial historians also try to play with the dates of Ramayana. Ramayana, due to its greater antiquity, causes more takleef also to their pet theories.

But, dating Vedas?!! That I think is the realm of pure gibberish, nonsense, and drivel.

The essence of such efforts are best described by the following excellent post of RajeshG:

RajeshG wrote:
I don't think the reconstructive methods of the comparative linguists are entirely BS.
Given some BS, I find it very hard to believe that there is a reliable way to tell which bull it came from.

I find it reasonable (and scientific) that given a bull and some BS one can reliably tell whether the BS came from the bull in question.

However these guys take it one step further. Not only is there a claim that given the BS one can find the right bull from bull-dom but there is a further claim that given BS we can find the proto-bull (ur-bull ?) and which village the proto-bull came from.

Not only is this hard to believe and unreasonable but to me it tells more about the person making the claims rather then the bull, BS or ur-bull.

And perhaps at this point, I find it more reasonable that given an understanding of the person, one can safely predict the claims the person is going to make about bulls.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 31 Oct 2012 19:02

I also see no conflict between the pedagogical aims of Itihaas (Vedic knowledge, Dharma, etc) and the historicity of Itihaas (actual events, timing).

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 31 Oct 2012 19:11

IMHO, Ramanaji is moving on to the next plane. I have seen this in many people. I hope he will share his thoughts from that plane as well as he has been doing all this time.

Nileshji,

Below is the image of Saptarshi mandala shape 100,000 years ago, now and after 100,000 years. The shape changes because the stars of Saptarsh Mandala have their own relative speeds and locations. Can you see if your s/w gives the shape (how it looks from Bharat) on a Manvantara scale?

Perhaps this might give some insight into Saptarshi's changing every Manvantara?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 31 Oct 2012 22:48

RamaY wrote:
Perhaps this might give some insight into Saptarshi's changing every Manvantara?

I dont know why, but I get the eerie feeling that I have seen all these shapes in sky.

Wonder if I am drunk.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 31 Oct 2012 22:58

I have so many Deja-vu situations (like a time-space event revisits me 2-3 times) that I am scared to think much about.