Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

[johneeG]

JohneeG garu,

Awesome!!! You should blog this... MB as life of Bhishma or something like that...

Can you pls give the source of points 18, 21? If in MB which Parva. I am not able to get my hands on all Parvas of Vyasa MB in Telugu.

Towards the ending of Udyoga Parva, just before Karna declares that he won't fight under Bhishma's command. I relied on K M Ganguli's english translation.

W.r.t Points 41 and 42, IIRC the Kappagantual version says Pandavas were 13-14yrs old when they reached Hastina. Will double check and confirm.

I could not find any specific time in MB. MB says:

"Beholding his five handsome sons growing up before him in that great forest on
the charming mountain slope, Pandu felt the last might of his arms revive once more.

If they were about 14 or 15, I think it would have been mentioned. Further, their educational situation would have also been mentioned. There is no such reference. So, I assumed that it is referring to ~2-3 yrs.

The problem is that MB is not in strict chronological order. I mean, there are several points that are revealed as 'flash-backs'. The story of Amba-Shikhandi is also revealed in a flash-back told by Bhishma just before the commencement of war. Similarly, the birth of Karna is revealed in parts in several different flash backs. Also, finding the time-periods can be tricky. Some details that are not revealed at one place, are revealed at some other place. And its a vast text...

Why was Arjuna condemned to go for Vanvaas when he saw Yuddhishtira & Draupadi? Why did he barge in?

Khandavaprastha/Indraprastha was just established. It was a new city. Some robbers robbed a cow of a Brahmin. The brahmin came to the royal palace and complained. Arjuna decided to pursue the robbers. But there was a problem: the weapons of Arjuna were lodged in Yuddhishtira's room/palace. And Yuddhishtira was alone with Draupadi.

The Pandavas had established a rule that when one of the Pandavas is alone with Draupadi, other Pandavas must not see. If one does, then that one would have to spend 12 yrs as a brahmachari.

Arjuna retrieved his weapons from the Yuddhishtira's room/palace. He stopped the robbers and rescued the cow and returned it to the Brahmin. But, since Arjuna had broken the rule, Arjuna goes on an exile from Kandavaprastha for 12 yrs.

Some of the questions that come to mind are:
a) Why didn't Arjuna send army/police to catch the robbers?

Possible answers:
It is a new city, so the number of cops/soldiers may have been limited.

Saving the cow/brahmin/anyone_who_seeks_help is the responsibility of Kshatriya. So, Arjuna personally wanted to attend to the job because a brahmin/cow are involved. Generally, Pandavas give great priority to saving cows/brahmins in MB. Towards the end of Virata Parva, the Kauravas and Trigarthas try to capture the cows of Virata. Pandavas come out of their hiding to protect the cows.

b) Why were the weapons of Arjuna in Yuddhishtira's room/palace?

Possible answers:
Yuddhishtira is always concerned about Bhima's rashness. So, Yuddhishtira may have tried to regulate it by keeping a control over the weapons. When the weapons are in Yuddhishtira's room/palace, he would know when they are used. At this time, Arjuna had still not obtained Gandiva.

c) Arjuna was not Brahmachari during the 12 years of exile. Why?
It seems Ulupi suggested that the Brahmacharya was only in relation to Draupadi. Since, Arjuna remained separated from Draupadi for the 12 years, it was fulfillment of the rule of Brahmacharya in this particular case.


Your question prompted me to check MB(K M Ganguly).
Towards the end of Virata parva, Arjuna, as Brihannala, along with Uttara Kumara goes to fight against the Kauravas. Pandavas, before entering the Virata kingdom, stored their weapons in a large tree in a cemetery. Arjuna takes Uttara Kumara to that tree and tells him to climb the tree and bring the weapons down. Uttara Kumara enquires whereabouts of the weapons. Arjuna tells about the weapons. He talks about Gandiva, Arjuna's weapon:

Shiva held it first for a thousand years. Afterwards Prajapati held it for five hundred and three years. After that Sakra, for five and eighty years. And then Soma held it for five hundred years. And after that Varuna held it for a hundred years. And finally Partha, surnamed Swetavahana, hath held it for five and sixty years

(K M Ganguli)

The sanskrit version:

39 देवदानवगन्धर्वैः पूजितं शाश्वतीः समाः
एतद वर्षसहस्रं तु बरह्मा पूर्वम अधारयत
40 ततॊ ऽनन्तरम एवाथ परजापतिर अधारयत
तरीणि पञ्चशतं चैव शक्रॊ ऽशीति च पञ्च च
41 सॊमः पञ्चशतं राजा तथैव वरुणः शतम
पार्थः पञ्च च षष्टिं च वर्षाणि शवेतवाहनः

Link

K M Ganguly version mentions a footnote:

75:2 Nilakantha spends much learning and ingenuity in making out that sixty-five years in this connection means thirty-two years of ordinary human computation.

So, according to Nilakantha(who wrote a sanskrit commentary on MB), 65 years mentioned by Arjuna are actually 32 years of solar years.

Now, the timeline prepared by me, places Arjuna's obtaining of Gandiva in (point 60) 110 Year of Bhishma. Arjuna fighting the Kauravas in Virata parva at (point 85) 129 Year of Bhishma. So, Arjuna had the Gandiva for 19 years at that time according to the timeline given by me. I had earlier not seen this '65 year' mention by Arjuna.

I don't know if one can read पञ्च च षष्टिं(pancha cha shashtim) as 5 + 6 =11.

JohneeG, If Nakula and Sahadeva are twins then how to reconcile 39 and 40? Or should we consider them as aspects of the twin gods and not themselves twins per se?

Pretty good summary of MB from Bhisma's point of view.
BTW, Charles De Gualle speaking about Marshal Petain said "Old age is ship wreck!"

Ramana garu,
I had the same doubt. MB clearly mentions that the 5 Pandavas are born, each after a gap of an year. So, there was a gap of 1 year in the birth of each Pandava. Throughout MB, Nakula and Sahadeva are referred to as twins.

So, they were twins. But, they were born one year apart. Is this possible? It seems it is possible. There is a medical term for it: delayed interval delivery. These are rare cases. There are instances of a twin being born after a certain time period of the birth of the first child. The time period could be days, weeks, or months.

Link
Link

[ramana]

Atri, Was watching the Zee rendering of Ramayan last Sunday. The episode has Surpanakha's moha for Rama and her wanting him to marry her.
I then thought about your explanation of the evolution of marriage during the yugas. So it struck me that Surpanakha was following the norms of an earlier Yuga while Rama and Sita had established the norms of the new Yuga. We see the same type of behavior with Hidimba in Dwapara yuga.

Is it possible that the rakshasa guna is to be stuck or follow the earliest norms and not evolve?

[Sushupti]

Don't ask me who is @Kal_chiron.

[Atri]

कालाय तस्मै नमः Duryodhana has become Hero.. it is truly a Kaliyuga..

This is what Narendra Tiwari meant when he wrote -

उन्मत अवनी,
कुरुक्षेत्र बनी,
गंगे जननी,
नवभारतमे,
भीष्मरूपी सुत समरजयी,
जनती नही हो क्यो?

Arrogant Earth has become Kurukshetra, Oh Ganga, why have you stopped breeding victorious and righteous sons like Bhishma?

[RamaY]

Atri mahasaya...

There is a conscious and organized effort to make people praise, worship and follow Asuric persons in Puranas. This is to destroy the Hindu scriptures from within.

There are already calls to make Ravana, Mahisha, Bali (is a known thing) etc symbols of Dalitism (even though these guys were Brahmins and Kings etc.,) and thus must be revered.

The next step is to force Hindus to correct their Epics and Puranas so they cannot depict these Dalit symbols as Adharmics and Asurics (It is ok for a whore race to call themselves Dravidas, separate from Aryans; but it is not ok for a Hindu text to call them Asuras).

If one were to count the people who support this theory, it will be hardly few tens/hundreds of thousands. But somehow this view is being propped and given space in intellectual (the so-called modern, scientific, and secular variety) and change the scriptures followed by hundreds of millions.

And we think we should tolerate the debates that ask us to remove the Hindu identity, get away from our cultural traditions and so on.

[ramana]

While searching for the name of Duryodhana's wife I found these fascinating links on the Mahabharata.


Marital life of Kauravas


Excerpt from Sarala Mahabharata An Oriya version.

Looks like a Bhakti version of Mahabharata


Didnt know Krishna and Duryodhana's children were married!


LINK

And Google history book

History of Ancient India from 4250 BC to 637 AD by J.P. Mittal


One good story about Duryodhan's trust in his wife Bhanumati and Karna

Relationship is nourished by Trust

[Yayavar]

A while back there was a discussion on Karna being villain vs hero. I was surprised at the negative view on Karna. Had never known that he was the one who suggested the disrobing. Of course, the rest of the crowd, whatever the justification does not come out smelling of roses either. I did an informal poll amongst people I met - north and south of the Vindhyas as well as the east and west wings of the country. In general Karna is viewed as a hero; and in Bengal he is considered a greater 'daani' than other parts. I found only a couple of folks, from Karnataka, who called him out as a villain. I'll continue my polling. Somewhere along the timeline there is a disconnect between what the general junta feels and a literal reading or more formal reading of Mahabharata might state. I also think it is related to the innate nature of the story where Karna is overall an underdog but holds principles that a common person values - loyalty to a friend and keeping one's word.

[RamaY]

^ That is natural. It is the Harikadha/Movie effect on the society. Ramayana and MB went thru a Buddhist and Jainist alterations. So it is all messed up.

Soon you will hear more people say Ravana, Mahisha etc as heros and Rama and Krishna as some casteist villans.

That is an indication of how much value Dharma is getting in the society compared to materialistic achievements.

[Yagnasri]

Karna is the reason for the War. As per the story Karna is the Demon who have 1000 Armor covers each one of which can be broken with Tapas Shakthi of 1000 years. To him him Lord Vishnu has born as Nara and Narayana and while one of the was fighting the other one was doing Tapas. This was went on and on and in the end only one Armour layer was remaining and the Demon ran to Lord Surya for protection and hid under his protection. Later the same Demon was worn to Kunthi with the Lord Surya blessing. To kill the demon Nara was born as Arjuna and Narayana was born as Lord Krishna. In the war they kill him.

Karna was elivated as some Backward caster person who was prevented from ataning great hights by our politicos. Which is not true. Sutha Kula is the caste which came of Bramin women marring Khthiya men. They are basically ministers and even rulers - Kichaka of Virata is also a Sutha kula person.

The militory victories of Karna are also not worth mentining - He failed to protect his king during the Ghosha Yathra, failed in Uttara Gogrrahana was along with entire kaurava Army which was defeated by Arjuna alone.

[RamaY]

Karna's jaitrayatra was done when Pandavas were in forests. He defeated the people who were earlier defeated by Pandavas during Rajasuya.

He is definitely a notable warrior, but not the best in any field.

[Yayavar]

^^that spoils it as a story for me though I understand that you are stating it on the reading of the original. I always like it when a story has equals in a fight. So the 18 days war of good warriors on both sides is good but if one Arjuna can defeat all the army all by himself where is the need for 18 days for war??

[member_20317]

War of Mahabharat is the Yagyan for Kshtriyas. Every fighter has to take a stand and then gets the prasaad as he deserves. Only special cases are excluded or allowed off.

Mahabharat is the total war from Indic perspective/flavour. It is not the doctrine driven war like the Soviet set pieces even though it had formations. Nor is it the network-centric war of force-multipliers like that of Umrikhans where one/few assets are supported by the whole infrastructure to do their job even though it envisaged usage of such tactics. It was a good old melee fight. If Arjun seems daunting with his capabilities then what would you say of ideas like Krishna taking up the wheel or the waring capabilities of Bhishma or the joker in the pack, Barbareek.

Kurukshetra == Dharmkshetra =/= Theater of war.

[Yagnasri]

No one is saying that Karna is not a fighter on par with other great people. It is only that he can not be said to be on par with Arjuna. The war is also not without rules. Rules of war were fixed by Bhishma at the start of the War and proclaimed to all. One more thing - In Uttara Gograhana war only Puru Armies are there along with all great fighters of Purus but the Army is only one Akshohini only. The armies of various kingdoms gathered in Kurukshram for the great battle.

It is Emporer Jarasandha who amssed 18 Akshohini army for 17 times and Lord Krishna destroyyed them all alone. That is the real war which the Lord Krishna fought.

[fanne]

Viv the war is by no means unequal (if you consider dharma and where God himslef is then of course it is one sided). On Kuru side you have Bhisma who is one of the Vasu himself (8th). A Demigod (who was personally great and as dharmic as one can get, only one fatal mistake, he could not decide the dharmic karma, he gave precedence to his own karma (righteous) over the overall Dharma and paid the price).
This is a lesson for us - A person no matter how great (it was Karna or Bhisma or Drona) and how righteous, if you put your own desire in the work that you do (however lofty your desire), it gets tainted. The path is Nishkam work, when it is Nishkam, you get a very clear understanding of Dharma. Today also whether Nehru and Gandhi or ABV or LKA or AK, where they fail is, whatever action they take, they try to take the high road (and some times plainly the wrong road based on their fallings) for their own glory or benefit or belief and not for the benefit of the huge mass whom they represent.
MB is just not a war, it is much more subtle and probably relevant for all time to come.
Thanks,
fanne

[Yayavar]

^ That is natural. It is the Harikadha/Movie effect on the society. Ramayana and MB went thru a Buddhist and Jainist alterations. So it is all messed up.

Soon you will hear more people say Ravana, Mahisha etc as heros and Rama and Krishna as some casteist villans.

That is an indication of how much value Dharma is getting in the society compared to materialistic achievements.

Possibly it is Harikatha, buddhist/jain effect. Am wondering why that effect took hold? Possibly the story has a intrinsic value of someone fighting and trying to overcome a bad hand - though it is not that bad. There is a desire to see two mighty titans fighting it out rather than a walkover possibly. Thanks for the insights.

[Yayavar]

Viv the war is by no means unequal (if you consider dharma and where God himslef is then of course it is one sided). On Kuru side you have Bhisma who is one of the Vasu himself (8th). A Demigod (who was personally great and as dharmic as one can get, only one fatal mistake, he could not decide the dharmic karma, he gave precedence to his own karma (righteous) over the overall Dharma and paid the price).
This is a lesson for us - A person no matter how great (it was Karna or Bhisma or Drona) and how righteous, if you put your own desire in the work that you do (however lofty your desire), it gets tainted. The path is Nishkam work, when it is Nishkam, you get a very clear understanding of Dharma. Today also whether Nehru and Gandhi or ABV or LKA or AK, where they fail is, whatever action they take, they try to take the high road (and some times plainly the wrong road based on their fallings) for their own glory or benefit or belief and not for the benefit of the huge mass whom they represent.
MB is just not a war, it is much more subtle and probably relevant for all time to come.
Thanks,
fanne

Thanks. Good food for thought.

I read the description of the Gandharva waryesterday and it does show Karna and Duryodhana loosing eventually to the magic of Chitrasena. It shows Duryodhana especially fighting and not stepping back ever and Karna's chariot being destroyed and he is forced to back off. But the Pandava's prevail though it mentions Arjuna's celestial weapons. So it clearly shows Arjuna, Bheema, Nakula/, Sehadev able to beat the army of Chirasena including his magic whereas Karna and Duryodhana loose. Will reread in a new light - but am loathe to leave the nice two titans fighting picture that has been usually presented. It has a certain charm of an underdog fighting it out and then falling short due to treachery.

[fanne]

There is no treachery, it is phala of your karma. Karna forgot the art when he needed it most (lied to his Guru Parshuram); Got killed unarmed as he was instrument in killing Abhimanue in similar manner.
The bigger picture is that Lord Rama helped Son of Sun (Sugriva) against son of Indira (Bali). In this life that got reversed (so did SeshNaga becoming elder brother). I was also infatuated by Karna's sacrifice and valor. While that is true (and shows no one in life is pure villain or saint), his biggest failing was not being on the side of Dharma. A lesson we keep on forgetting. A good example is Sashi Taroor, we see long debates/discussion on how good he is...that doesn't matter if he is on the wrong side.

[SaiK]

right.. it is so true in the forces too even now. bheeshma is on the wrong side, while arjun is battling to gain a purchase order.
but, there are some deviations, like i think krishna is absconding having lost all his magical power to the evil forces [corrupted men/wimmen]. and arjun is aim less and searching in the wild for a new avatar of shikandi.. no sight seen, as he might be arrested and jailed by the dark forces.

[RamaY]

^ That is natural. It is the Harikadha/Movie effect on the society. Ramayana and MB went thru a Buddhist and Jainist alterations. So it is all messed up.

Soon you will hear more people say Ravana, Mahisha etc as heros and Rama and Krishna as some casteist villans.

That is an indication of how much value Dharma is getting in the society compared to materialistic achievements.

Possibly it is Harikatha, buddhist/jain effect. Am wondering why that effect took hold? Possibly the story has a intrinsic value of someone fighting and trying to overcome a bad hand - though it is not that bad. There is a desire to see two mighty titans fighting it out rather than a walkover possibly. Thanks for the insights.

1. People always like stories
2. People believe in stories, even when they are fiction
3. People like strong anti-heros and even heros with vanity
4. People generally liked to be associated with strong people, faiths and history.
5. People go to extreme lengths to justify what they believe.

Even in MB, armies of 11 Akshauhinis thought Duryodhana was right or has a claim on the kingdom or has a 'better' chance to win.

Only 7 Akshauhini strength of armies stood on the side of Pandava, believing that Dharma was on their side, and they have better chance of winning.

Even there, often kingdoms joined a given side based on where their local/neighboring opponents stood. Very few people stood for Dharma, whether it is Dharma appearing as Dharma or Adharma masquerading as Dharma.

At the end all 18 Akshauhinis gave their lives to the worldview they believed in.

Only the people who did not participate in, except for the 8+1 people came out alive from that war, came to know the final outcome and passed on the "lessons learned" to future generations.

[Yagnasri]

In that war also many kings took sides based on their relations and other factors. For example King of Madra - Selya took sides of Kaurava as he was cheated to give his word to Duryodhana, Jarasandhas son Sahadeva (same name of Pandava Sahadeva) took side of Pandava with his Akshohini Army. One of the sons of Puru took sides of Pandavas. Taking sides is allowed even at the last minutes of war. Bhishma himself declear and allow fighters openly take sides at the start of war itself.

[RajeshA]

Rebirth theory, proof from vedas
here are provide some mantras from Vedas that specifically talk of rebirth:


Rigveda 10.59.6-7:O Blissful Ishwar, Please provide us again healthy eyes and other sense organs in next birth. Please provide us powerful vitality, mind, intellect, valor again and again in next births. We achieve bliss in this life and future lives. May we keep looking up to your glory always. Keep us in peace with your blessings.O Ishwar, you provide us space, earth and other elements again and again so that our sense organs function. You provide us the ability to have good health and enjoy life in every birth. You make us strong again and again in various births.


Yajurveda 4.15:Whenever we take birth, may our deeds be such that we get a pure mind, long life, good health, vitality, intellect, strong sense organs and a powerful body. In next life also, keep us away from bad deeds and indulge us in noble actions.


Atharvaveda 7.67.1:May we get healthy sense and work organs in next life as well. May I am full of vitality. May I have spiritual wealth and knowledge of Ishwar and vedic concepts again and again. May we be selfless for welfare of world in next lives again and again. May our deeds be noble so that we get human life and always get purity of mind and actions so that we can worship you and achieve salvation.


Atharvaveda 5.1.2:One who conducts noble actions obtains noble lives in next births with strong body and sharp intellect. Those who conduct bad deeds get birth in lower species. To experience the fruits of past actions is natural trait of soul. After death, the soul resides in Vayu, Jala, Aushadhi etc and again enters the womb to take next birth.


Yajurveda 19.47:There are two paths for the soul. One path Pitriyan provides birth again and again through union of father and mother, good and bad deeds, happiness and sorrow. The other path of Devayana frees the soul from cycle of birth and death and provides bliss of salvation. The whole world reverberates with both these paths. And after both, the soul again takes birth as progeny of father and mother.


Rigveda 1.24.1-2:Question: Whom do we consider the most pure? Who is the most enlightened one in entire world. Who provides us mother and father again in the world after gifting us ultimate bliss or Mukti?Answer: The self-enlightening, eternal, ever-free Ishwar alone is most pure. He alone provides us mother and father again in the world after gifting us ultimate bliss or Mukti.


Yaju IV. !5; Atharva VII. 6-67-1; Atharva V. 1-1-3..

"O God! May the mind with knowledge and other good qualities an may the full term of life come to us in our rebirth, through Thy favor. May pure thoughts come to us in our rebirth and may sight and hearing also come to us. O God! Thou art the guide and director of the universe; in Thee there is no fault such as arrogance, deceit; thou are the protector of our bodies, and art all wisdom and bliss; keep us aloof from evil deeds and protect us in all our birth-cycles, so that being free from sin we may remain happy in all our births."

"O Lord! May we get, through Thy favor in our rebirths all the senses and that force which sustains the pranas. may we be endowed with the noble riches of knowledge and have firm devotion to Thee. May we get human bodies so that we may be able to tend the fires, Ahavaniya, etc. O Lord of the Universe! May we have the same form, intellect and good bodies as we were endowed with in our previous birth so that we may be able with the help of intellect to discharge our duties properly in the world of our rebirth and may we never suffer pain on any account.
"A man who, has done good actions in his previous birth, gets many good bodies in virtue of those good actions, but if he has done evil deeds he does not get human body and is born into the body of an animal, etc., and suffers pain.[This is the lesson conveyed by God in the first half of the verse.]It is the nature of the soul that it reaps the fruits of its good and had actions done in a future birth. After leaving its old body it enters such substances as the air, water, medicinal herbs, etc., and then through their agency it enters into a new body according to the fruits of its former good or bad deeds.The jiva which obtains a full and complete knowledge of the Vedas, the word of God, obtains the body of a learned man like its former body and enjoys happiness; but the jiva which acts in violation of the dictates of the Vedas and virtue gets the body of lower animals and suffers pain."



Rig VIII. !. 23. 6 & 7."O God! Thou conductest ourpranas. We pray Thee that we may be happy whenever we may assume another body after death. Grant us, O God! The eyes and all the other senses, the pranas and the inner senses in our future birth when we may assume another body after forsaking the present. Do Thou grant us that when we are born again we may enjoy uninterruptedly all enjoyable thins. May we be able to see the luminous sun and the ingoing and outgoing pranas in all our rebirths. O God! Thou art the dispenser of honor and happiness, make us happy in all our rebirths, through Thy grace."[In this mantra, the eye (Chakshu) represents all the senses and prana the inner senses.]
"Be gracious, O Lord! To grant that in our rebirths the earth may give us pranaborn of food and strength, the bright light of the sun may give us prana and middle region may give us life; the juices of medicines such as soma, may give us body (bodily health and vigor). O God! Thou art the giver of strength and nourishment, show us in our rebirths the path of virtue (dharma). We pray that happiness be our lit in all our births through Thy grace.
Yaju XIX. 47."We have heard that there are two paths in this world for enjoying the good and suffering the bad consequences of virtue and vice. The first is the path trodden by the pitris (the wise) and the devas (the learned) and such men as are devoid of knowledge and wisdom. The first is divided two fold i.e., the pirtriyana and theDevayana. That in which a jiva obtaining a body from the father and mother enjoys happiness as the fruit of its good actions and suffers pain as the consequences of its evil and deeds and again and again, i.e., in which it is subject to past and future birth is called the pitriyana. That in which it obtains emancipation, is liberated from the world i.e., the migrations of birth and death is called devayana. In the former, after having enjoyed the fruits of its stock of virtue it is born again and dies also. In the latter, it is not born again, nor does it die. By these two paths the whole world passes and repasses.When the Jiva, leaving it's previous body and wandering about in the air, water or vegetable kingdom enters the body of the father or the mother it becomes and embodied spirit."
The author of the Nirukta also supports the doctrine of rebirth in the following couplets:
"I died and was born again, and having been born I died once more. I have tenanted thousands of different bodies.
"I have tasted many kinds of food and have sucked many kinds of breasts. I have many fathers, mothers and friends.
" The jiva is born with its head downwards and suffers the pains of birth." Nirukta XIII, 19.
The great sage Patanjali in the Yoga aphorisms and his commentator Veda Vyasa also have established the truth of the doctrine of rebirth.
'Flowing by its potency the fear of death affects even the learned.' Yoga !. 2-9The fear of death which is exhibited, from the very birth, by all (living beings) shows that there are births and rebirths. Even a newly born ant, as well a learned man, is subject to the fear of death. This shows that without experience of death in a former life, there would be no impressions of it in this. With out the impressions there would be no remembrance.

And without remembrance how could there be fear of death? Seeing that all living beings exhibit fear of death we should infer that past and future births do take place.
Similarly, the most learned sage Goutama in his Nyaya Shastra, and Vatsyayana in his commentary thereon express their belief in the doctrine of rebirth.Pretyabhava."Nyaya Sutra. I.1.19[Pretyabhava is to leave an old and to assume a new body. It is composed of two words,Pretya which means, having died, and Bhava which means coming into being. So a jivaafter departing from here is born again and assumes a body.]

[Yagnasri]

great post and translation guruji.

[ramana]

I am watching re-runs of "Draupadi" based on Pratihba Ray's Yagnaseni in Oriya.

[brihaspati]

RajeshA ji,
can you collect all references to "lakshanas" or signs of "rebirth" in the texts? These are very very scant. I will supplement from my own studies on this - but I frankly have devoted little time to this before. I was asked by a surgeon about this recently in the west and found her surprisingly well-researched from OOB studies. If we do not stake our own prior understanding they will take over and banish the "Hindu" understanding.

[ramana]

johneeG, Was listening to a MB discourse on Dhritarastra's character yeserday. After Sanjay comes back from his mission, he drops by and informs him that Sri Krishna will come for a counter rayabaram and he will fill in the details next day. Dhritarastra summons Vidura to give him some wise words to calm him down. Then Vidura summons one of the Sanath Kumars and he comes down and gives a great discourse. In Andhra Bharatam Tikkana dismisses this episode in a few lines. However Vyasa bharatam has the full text and very great import of this episode.

If you have the time please do research it and give us enlightenment.

[RamaY]

I am reading about Pandava's Aswametha Yajna after MB War.

Arjuna faced opposition in Trigarta. They fought on Kaurva's side. The children of Trigarta kings fought against Arjuna during Aswametha.

We can trace the mutual and alliance conflicts between various kingdoms starting from Devas/Asuras thru our Epics and Puranas to modern day.

[ramana]

In that war also many kings took sides based on their relations and other factors. For example King of Madra - Selya took sides of Kaurava as he was cheated to give his word to Duryodhana, Jarasandhas son Sahadeva (same name of Pandava Sahadeva) took side of Pandava with his Akshohini Army. One of the sons of Puru took sides of Pandavas. Taking sides is allowed even at the last minutes of war. Bhishma himself declear and allow fighters openly take sides at the start of war itself.

BTW Sahadeva the Pandava is married to Jarasandha's daughter the princess of Magadha.

I think son of Puru is incorrect. It should be Yuyutsu, the son of Dritharastra. Yudhishtir crowns him king of half the kingdom while leaving for Svaragarohana.

[ramana]

RamaY and JohneeG, I am tired and wary of reading any Western scholar writing about Hindu gods and epics for they are contaminated with Freudian, Jungian and Marxist prisms. Thanks to both of you for the pravachanam.org site links to pick and chose. I hope there are similar links for other languages.

PS: The worst offenders are the so-called sympathetic writers who stay in India for long periods ands till write crap! I suspect what they are trying to do is back project Indian epics as Greek and Science Fiction on to find anchors.
The monomyth theory of Joseph Campbell, bless his heart, falls in this genre.

[Sushupti]

Very close to Vanaras of Ramayana.

Our closest ape-like ancestor went back to the trees

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2 ... trees.html

[Yagnasri]

In that war also many kings took sides based on their relations and other factors. For example King of Madra - Selya took sides of Kaurava as he was cheated to give his word to Duryodhana, Jarasandhas son Sahadeva (same name of Pandava Sahadeva) took side of Pandava with his Akshohini Army. One of the sons of Puru took sides of Pandavas. Taking sides is allowed even at the last minutes of war. Bhishma himself declear and allow fighters openly take sides at the start of war itself.

BTW Sahadeva the Pandava is married to Jarasandha's daughter the princess of Magadha.

I think son of Puru is incorrect. It should be Yuyutsu, the son of Dritharastra. Yudhishtir crowns him king of half the kingdom while leaving for Svaragarohana.

No sir, Jarasandha's son is also named as Sahadeva and as said he supported pandavas in Mahabharatha war. So there are two sahadeva in the war one is son of Pandu and one is Son of Jarasandha. Two girls of Jarasandha were in fact married to Komsa and when Kamsa was killed Jarasandha attacked Lord Kirhsna and Madhura 17 times (each time with 17 akshowhini Army) and in the end the Lord had to shift Dwaraka. So Jarasandhas son in law is Kamsa.

Insidentally Jarasandha is the Samrat of India at that time and Pandavas have to defeat him to perform the Rajasuya Yagyam (thus making Yudistira as emporror of India) When Duryodhana wanted to perform it then he was told that he can not perform it as long as Yudishtira is alive.

[ramana]

For those interested our Yogi has published the English translations of these classics. Please buy them if you are interested.

1.Amuktamalyada of Krishnadevaraya: It is an english translation of the Amuktamalyada . The book has an extensive historical and cultural introduction by the translator Dr. Srinivas Sistla of Andhra University.

You can view the details here : http://sriyogibooksandpublications.com/ ... uct_id=572


2. Manu Charitra of Allasani Peddana : English translation by Dr.Sistla.

You can view the details here : http://sriyogibooksandpublications.com/ ... uct_id=573

Both are real classics of Telugu Literature.
And are quoted in most pravachanams.

[Yagnasri]

Etv has made and telecasted a short Tv movie on Amukhamalyada.

[johneeG]

Any Purusha which is thus freed and reached Kaivalya is "Ishwara" as per Yoga. But although that such Purusha is itself freed, meditating on such Purusha can take sadhaka only until last-but-one Samadhi.

So by association with and observation of a liberated purusha (Ishwara) one is drawn towards that felicity in one's own entanglement with Prakrti. The other method is to keep working to resolve the problems of the self and life. Whatever the method, one must be able to first appreciate the concept that there is such a being as a fully liberated purusha (Ishwara) in order to take up Sankhya or yoga, even if Ishwara-praNidhAna is not the chosen method. Whatever the chosen method, the admiration of Ishwara or the earnest contemplation of that concept is there. That was what I was trying to say.

Carl ji,

One suggestion. For time being, deracinate Ishwara (ईश्वर) and Vedanta (वेदांत) from your mind. Purva Paksha (पूर्वपक्ष)..

I am copy pasting a passage from Wiki article on Samkhya (सांख्य) with some additions, clarifications and Indic terms.

"Samkhya accepts the notion of higher selves or perfected beings but rejects the notion of Ishwara. The following arguments were given by the Samkhya philosophers against the idea of an eternal, self-caused, Ishwara:

If the existence of karma is assumed, the proposition of Ishwara as a moral governor of the universe is unnecessary. For, if Ishwara enforces the consequences of actions then he cannot do so without performing karma. If however, he is assumed to be within the law of karma, then karma itself would be the giver of consequences and there would be no need of a Ishwara.

Even if karma-Siddhanta (कर्मसिद्धांत) is denied, then Ishwara still cannot be the enforcer of consequences. Because the motives of an enforcer Ishwara would be either born out of Ahamkaara (I-ness or Aatman or ego) or Anubandha (अनुबंध) (altruistic attachment towards world created by him). Now, Ishwara's motives cannot be assumed to be altruistic because an altruistic Ishwara would not create a world so full of suffering. If his motives are assumed to be egoistic, then Ishwara must be thought to have desire, as agency or authority cannot be established in the absence of desire. However, assuming that Ishwara has desire would contradict Ishwara's eternal freedom which necessitates no compulsion in karma. Moreover, desire, according to Samkhya, is an attribute of prakriti and cannot be thought to grow in Ishwara. The testimony of the Vedas, according to Samkhya, also confirms this notion.

Despite arguments to the contrary, if Ishwara is still assumed to contain unfulfilled desires, this would cause him to suffer pain and other similar human experiences. Such a worldly Ishwara would be no better or no worse than Samkhya's notion of higher self (Purusha).

Furthermore, there is no proof of the existence of Ishwara. He is not the object of perception, there exists no general proposition that can prove him by inference and the testimony of the Vedas speak of prakriti as the origin of the world, not Ishwara.

Therefore, Samkhya maintains that the various cosmological, ontological and teleological arguments could not prove God."

The basic premise of Saamkhya-Yoga (सांख्ययोग) is that Purusha gets associated with Prakriti and world comes into existence.

Lets see the terms involved..

Purusha (पुरुष) - Puram Ushati sa Purushah (पुरं उषति स पुरुषः) - One who lives/burns from within/spends time in/afflicts citadel (पूर) is Purusha. Pure energy OR consciousness. The terms like energy etc are also quite modern. The right word would be "tatva" (तत्व)...

Prakriti (प्रकृती) - प्र + कृत् - Something upon which intense action happens. Some energy acts upon this object. Without Prakriti, the knowledge of this energy would be unknown.

Without Prakriti, Purush is intangible, it is intangible kaivalya (onlyness OR nothingness) (कैवल्य).

Now let us check the terms which you have repeatedly used -

Felicity, Admiration, appreciation, earnest contemplation, and most important of all, "being".

All these terms fundamentally imply existence of "Ahamkara"(अहंकार). Note that here the word Ahamkara does not have any negative connotations like pride OR vanity. Aham is "I", kaara is "ness". Ahamkara == Aatman == "I"ness. Sense that "I" exist. Without Ahamkara or ego, all these words and feelings denoted by these words are meaningless. To experience a thing, there has to be an "experiencer". Since there is no association with prakriti, Purusha alone (or Mukta-Purusha) is void, onlyness with no sanskaras (संस्कार) of prakriti.

Now lets move to those Purush/prakriti couples who wish moksha (मोक्ष). There are various layers in which Prakriti attaches herself to Purusha. Yoga asks to step-wise severe those ties. To visualize a metaphor of Purush/Prakriti coupling, imagine a system of phospholipid bilayer in cell-membrane.



A lipids due to their inherent prakriti form various structures in presence of water. One of the structures is called "bilayer" which is fundamental reason behind phenomenon of "life". Two layers of lipids as shown in this figure, trap a small part of water inside their structure and after being trapped, this water trapped within suddenly comes to be known as "cell" which has its own "ego" or "ahamkara". Cell dies when membrane is broken and water within mixes with water outside. Ahamkara OR aatman vanishes.

Here, water is Purusha, the tendency of lipids to form such structure which sometimes results in generation of consciousness, is prakriti. It is because of water that lipids form such structures, so lipids are "being intensely acted upon" by water. Once a separate consciousness comes into existence then there is whole range of attachments, etc which arise - this is evident from diversity of life seen on planet.

Furthermore, not all lipids form bilayer in presence of water. Most of lipids form a structure known as "micelle" which is also prakriti (effect of water acting intensely on lipids) but does not give rise to separate ego (cell). An entity with ego can act and be acted upon. An entity without ego cannot act. Thus, Samkhya-Yoga differentiates between karma and kriya (कर्म और क्रिया - deed and action). Anyways, we partially digress.

In similar manner, prakriti traps Purusha within her. Rather, Kaivalya trapped within bonds of prakriti is called by Saamkhyins and Yogins as Purusha. Kaivalya itself cannot yearn OR admire OR felicitate OR contemplate. It is Prakriti which performs all these actions. The premise of Saamkhya-Yoga is using Prakriti to get rid of Prakriti, against the will or drive of prakriti. Hence Patanjali calls Yoga as "Prati-Prasava (प्रतिप्रसव)" - Sequentially going reverse towards birth/origin.

While this may sound similar to metaphor of Aatman -Brahman (आत्मा-ब्रह्म) from Vedanta, the key difference is that Kaivalya is not Sat-Chit-Aananda (सत् चित् आनंद - सच्चिदानंद). Prakriti is as "satyam" as Purusha is. And Chidananda (consciousness and bliss) is result of Prakriti's coupling with Purusha.

In this process, while Prakriti herself breaks all the bonds with Purusha, the last bond called Beeja (seed) or Ahamkara or Aatman is not within prakriti's hands to sever. One can cut all body parts of self with sword in one hand. But after all body parts are cut, the hand wielding sword cannot cut itself. This is the moment where the fundamental connection is revealed as both beginning and end. The seed of entire existence is revealed. Hence all the steps or states of this sequential severing (known as Samadhi) prior to last step are called Sabeeja Samadhi (सबीज समाधी samadhi with seed intact). When this last tie is also severed, purush becomes kaivalya. But severing of last tie is not in the hands of Prakriti. This is one of the logical fallacies of Saamkhya Yoga. Maharshi Kapil and Maharshi Patanjali have acknowledged this fallacy and explained that as long as "sanchita karma" remains, the last tie cannot be severed. One has to finish up all the sanchita-karma before beeja vanishes. Once sanchita-karma is exhuasted, the beeja of Ahamkara simply drops off as effortlessly as a ripe fruit drops off from branch of a tree. This is Nirbeej Samadhi (निर्बीज समाधी - state of kaivalya without seed of prakriti).

In other words, Ishwara in Yoga cannot grant Moksha.

I am wondering, does Ishwara grant moksha in any other system like Vedanta? AFAIK, that is not the case. Only the Parabrahman ("Vishnu", etc.) is considered mukunda, and That is not Ishwara but rather encompasses vidya and avidya. However, Isha/Mukhyaprana does "hand over" the jIva to Vishnu, but even that is not explained in the sense of "granting", but rather as promoting the jIva based on its adhikAra.

What else is Vishnu OR Shiva or Indra, but Purushas bound by Prakriti on much higher plane of existence than us? A plane where we would be if we do the necessary Sadhana. Vishnu, Shiva et al are not "Ishvara", they are Purush-Prakriti couples like we are. We can be Vishnu/Shiva or whatever, if we elevate ourselves to their plane.

I have covered aspect of Parabrahma in previous paragraph. Regarding an entity being "Mukunda" (मुकुंद), nobody can grant Moksha. Moksha has to be achieved. Once Sanchita karma (संचित कर्म) is exhausted, it is our natural state to be free. There is nothing in it to be granted, that is what Purusha is. Water within cell is no different from water outside. Once cell is broken, water mixes spontaneously. Another entity cannot break this bond for someone. One has to do it himself. And once one does it, one is naturally free, there is no need of a separate "Mukunda". One is one's own "Mukunda".

The problem with Seshvaravaada (Indic Theism) is that it assumes too many big things to make life easier. Less said about Abrahmic theism, the better.

Link to original Post

Atri ji,

Thanks again. That phospholipid bilayer versus micelle analogy was cool. Got a better understanding of sankhya.

However, here's the question: From Sankhya's point of view, how would you explain Patanjali's yoga-darshana that ishwara-praNidhAna is a valid and rather efficient method? How does ishwara praNidhAna work? Is it by a prati-prasava logic of worshipping a "superior" identity in order to let go one's inferior identity? As a way of expanding and encompassing the world that was created as a result of the bonding of purusha-prakRti?

Also, when I spoke of Ishwara, I wasn't thinking of...

If the existence of karma is assumed, the proposition of Ishwara as a moral governor of the universe is unnecessary.

Rather, I was thinking in terms of kaivalya itself, but endowed with a beingness so that It can be conceptualized by the sadhaka. That's how Patanjali himself seems to define Ishwara.

IOW, the way I understand it is that Ishwara as defined by Patanjali is when purusha is still interacting with prakrti (preserving the existence of identity), but is not entangled or confused with it...such that the consciousness of that purusha-prakrti identity can now begin to reflectively observe itself. So a clear mirror without distortions is obtained for vimarsha.

Link to original post

Yoga follows Sankhya philosophy closely. But the major divergence between Yoga and Sankhya is: existence of Ishwara. Sankhya does not admit any special Ishwara. Yoga diverges from Sankhya on this point and accepts Ishwara.

Sankhya divides the world into two aspects: Purusha & Prakriti. Prakriti is considered inert. Purusha is the 'alive' thing. Purusha can be considered as Atma. Speaking in english, Prakriti means Body(sharira) and Purusha means the embodied(shariri). All souls/atmas/shariris are Purushas. Everything else(including intellect and ego) are part of Prakriti. But, Prakriti is inert(jada). And Purushas are in bondage of Prakriti. Purusha, when in bondage, is called Jiva. When that Purusha is able to free himself from that bondage, it is called Moksha.

(italicized parts are EDITED after the post)

Wiki:

Sāmkhya is an enumerationist philosophy that is strongly dualist.[4][5][6] Sāṃkhya denies the final cause of Ishvara (God).[7] Sāmkhya philosophy regards the universe as consisting of two realities; Puruṣa (consciousness) and prakriti (phenomenal realm of matter). Jiva is that state in which puruṣa is bonded to prakriti through the glue of desire, and the end of this bondage is moksha. Samkhya does not describe what happens after moksha and does not mention anything about Ishwara or God, because after liberation there is no essential distinction of individual and universal puruṣa.

In Sankhya scheme, there is no need for the Ishwara. It is based on Neti Neti concept. When everything that is prakriti is filtered out, what remains is Purusha(soul/atma). This is a gyana marga. And it seems to me that it is quite close to Advaita Vedanta in this regard. The chief difference between Advaita Vedanta and Sankhya is that Advaita Vedanta considers Prakriti to be Maya(temporary or unreal), while Sankhya seems to see the Prakriti as real.

And since, Sankhya sees both Prakriti and Purusha as equally real entities, it is a dualist(dwaita) school. It is dwaita because it accepts the reality of two entities: Purusha and Prakriti.

It seems to me that Sankhya does not deny Ishwara. Sankhya simply does not mention or concern itself with Ishvara. Thats the idea I get. Over the time, it became athiest i.e. denial of Ishwara.

Yoga is based on the same philosophy as Sankhya but with a major digression. Yoga accepts Ishwara. Why is there a need to accept Ishwara?
Prakriti is inert(jada). It cannot act by itself. Purusha is under bondage. So, who created the Prakriti and Purusha? Prakriti cannot be the creator because it is inert. So, the creator must be Purusha only. But, the Purusha is under bondage. So, Yoga brings in Ishwara to explain this point.

Yoga says that it is Ishwara who created the Purusha and Prakriti. Who is this Ishwara?
Ishwara is defined in Yoga(Patanjali) as a Special Purusha who is devoid of
a) kleshas
b) karma
c) vipaka
d) Ashaya

(Patanjali's Yoga Darshana. Sutra: 1.24)

What are kleshas?
There are 5 kleshas(afflictions):
1) Ignorance (in the form of a misapprehension about reality) (ávidyā),
2) egoism (in the form of an erroneous identification of the Self with the intellect) (asmitā),
3) attachment (rāga),
4) aversion (dveṣa), and
5) fear of death (which is derived from clinging ignorantly to life) (abhiniveśāḥ).

Karma means actions. Vipaka means result of the actions. Ashaya means mental impressions.

So, Ishwara is that Special Purusha(Atma/soul/consciousness) that is devoid of the above kleshas, karma, vipaka and Ashaya.

Sankhya is generally considered as a school that does not accept Ishwara. Yoga, on the other hand, accepts the Ishwara. Infact, Patanjali leaves no room for doubt.

Patanjali says that Ishwara is the seed of absolute(comprehensive) omniscience. That means that the Ishwara is completely omniscient. Infact, since the Ishwara has been called seed of omniscience, one can say that all the knowledge flows from Him. (Patanjali's Yoga Darshana. Sutra: 1.25)

Then, Patanajali says that Ishwara is the greatest/biggest/eldest of of even the primeval/earliest ones. Greatest in what way? Since nothing is mentioned, it can be considered that Ishwara is greatest in every way. Patanjali also says that Ishwara is beyond Time(Kala). (Patanjali's Yoga Darshana. Sutra: 1.26)

Om is the audible indicator/sign of Ishwara. This one leaves no doubt at all. (Patanjali's Yoga Darshana. Sutra: 1.27)

Then, Patanjali recommends the japa(repeated low chanting) of Pranava(Om) along with the contemplation on the meaning of Om. Meaning of Om is Ishwara. Because, Patanjali has just said that Om is the audible indicator/sign of Ishwara. So, Patanjali recommends Japa of Om and contemplation on Ishwara. (Patanjali's Yoga Darshana. Sutra: 1.28 and 1.23)

Patanjali leaves no room whatsoever for any misunderstandings. He is clear and emphatic. He has accepted Ishwara. And he has defined Ishwara. He has indicated that Om is the indicator or sign of Ishwara. He has recommended contemplation and worship of Ishwara(Ishwara Pranidhana).

By the above definitions of Ishwara given by Patanajali(Yoga), all the Godling figures in Abrahamic theologies get disqualified. Lack of Raga(affection)-dwesha(hate) is major violation. All other qualifications are also not satisfied. But, presence of jealousy, favoritism, hatred(towards the 'other'), ...etc are the main disqualifications. Godling of OT, NT and Q simply does not qualify to the standards set by Patanjali.

So, it is not possible to have X-ian Yoga or malsic Yoga.

Further, it has become a trend to think that Yoga is compatible with any religion. This is a wrong view. It is not. The above definitions make it amply clear that Yoga is not compatible with abrahamic ideologies.

Yoga like Sankhya is also a dualist(dwaita) school. Yoga also accepts the reality of two entities: Purusha and Prakriti. Ishwara being a Special Purusha.

----
My personal view:

I think Kapila(Sankhya) and Patanjali(Yoga) and Vyasa(Vedanta) are not really talking about different(or contradictory) things. They are talking on the same point in a different way(ekam sath, vipra bahudha vadhanti). The so-called differences are mostly the creations of later followers of these schools.

Sankhya starts from the description of the world(prakriti) before the Moksha state. And from this state, it aims to free the Purusha of the entire Prakriti by negation. That means Sankhya starts from pre-Moksha and takes towards Moksha. Sankhya does not describe post-Moksha state. This is a pure Gyana Marga. This is suitable for only the people at final stages of spiritual journey.

Yoga's aim is control of mind(chitta-vritti-nirodah). Yoga tries to facilitate people for other spiritual paths. In a way, Yoga is a gyana-bhakti-karma marga. The philosophy of Sankhya is accepted. Devotion to Ishwara is insisted. And various excercises(karma) are prescribed.

(Advaita) Vedanta starts with post-Moksha state.
Brahma satyam, jagat mitya(brahma is real, world is unreal/temporary) &
jeevo brahmeva na aparah (jeeva is same as brahma)
The above is the reality post-Moksha. From this vantage(post-Moksha), the pre-moksha state is simply ignorance(avidya). From this state(post-Moksha), the Prakriti is not real. But, Prakriti seems real before Moksha.

Yoga's description of Ishwara as a Special Purusha is also quite compatible with Sankhya and (Advaita) Vedanta.

[Atri]

Thanks for the post JOhneeG garu, I will reply shortly.. BTW, I have a post for you in NM dhaga.. If you would be kind to go through it and critique it in some other appropriate dhaga in GDF (future strat dhaga, gdf version OR this pic dhaga), it would be wonderful. NM dhaga runs too fast for old-fasioned folks like me..

[Klaus]

Wish to understand whether Jiva Goswami's act of burial of certain Vedic scriptures alongside his samadhi was a "one-off" action or whether it has certain precedent from the early Vedic period in the subcontinent? Perhaps a precedent which is still followed as "Genizah" by the Orthodox Jewry in the Levant in modern times?

For starters, I do understand Jiva Goswami's compulsions and concerns relating to future mis-use of the content within the scriptures. Whereas the Genizah practice is a form of mistake-proofing within the scribe guilds.

[Manish_Sharma]

Any Purusha which is thus freed and reached Kaivalya is "Ishwara" as per Yoga. But although that such Purusha is itself freed, meditating on such Purusha can take sadhaka only until last-but-one Samadhi.

Meditating on that "Kaivalya Purusha" has its use in practical sense that it takes juice from all other desires and slowly-slowly you are left with just one last desire = Devotion to Kaivalya Purusha, but duality is very much there to attain samadhi this last desire has also to drop only then the "Nirbij Samadhi" or Non-dual samadhi.

Here Ramakrishna's example:

http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Life_ ... enment.htm

There is an episode in Ramakrishna’s life.... For his whole life he had been worshipping Mother Kali, But at the very end he began to feel,” It is duality; the experience of oneness has still not happened. It is lovely, delightful, but two still remains two.” Someone loves a woman, someone loves money, someone politics; he loved Ma Kali – but love still was divided in two. Still the ultimate nonduality hadn’t happened and he was in anguish. He began looking out for a nondualist, a Vedantist – for Some person to come who could show him the path.

A Paramahansa named Totapuri was passing. Ramakrishna invited him to stop with him and asked, ”Help me to have darshan of the one.”

Totapuri said, ”What’s difficult in that? You believe there are two, so there are two. Drop the belief!” Ramakrishna replied, ”But dropping this belief is very difficult – I have lived with it my whole life. When I close my eyes the image of Kali is standing there. I drown in that nectar. I forget that I am to become one; as soon as I close my eyes there are two. When I try to meditate, it becomes dual. Help me out of this!”

So Totapuri said, ”Try this: when the image of Kali is before you, pick up a sword and cut her in two.” Ramakrishna said, ”Where will I find a sword?”

What Totapuri said is the same as what is said in Ashtavakra’s sutra*. Totapuri said, ”From where did you bring this Kali image? – bring a sword from the same place. She too is imaginary. She too is an embellishment of your imagination. Through nurturing it for your whole life, through continuously projecting it for your whole life, it has become crystalized. It is just imagination. Not everyone sees Kali when they close their eyes.”

After years of effort a Christian closes his eyes, and Christ comes to him. A devotee of Krishna closes his eyes and Krishna comes to him. A lover of Buddha closes his eyes and Buddha comes to him. A lover of Mahavira closes his eyes and Mahavira comes to him. Christ doesn’t come to a Jaina, Mahavira doesn’t come to a Christian: only the image you project will come. Ramakrishna’s effort was with Kali, and the image became almost solid. It became so real from constant repetition, from continuous remembering, that it seemed Kali was standing in from of him. No one was standing there.

Consciousness is alone. There is no second here, no other.
”Just close your eyes,” Totapuri said, ”raise the sword and strike.”
Ramakrishna closed his eyes, but as soon as he closed them his courage vanished. Raising his sword to strike Kali! – the devotee has to raise his sword and strike God – it was too hard. To renounce the world is very easy. What is worth holding onto in the world? But when you have established an image deep in the mind, when you have created poetry in the mind, when the mind’s dream has become manifest, then it is very difficult to renounce it. The world is like a nightmare. A dream of devotion, a dream of feeling is not a nightmare, it is a very sweet dream. How to drop it? how to break it?

Tears would start flowing from his eyes and he became ecstatic... his body would begin shaking. But he didn’t raise his sword – he would completely forget about it. Finally Totapuri said, ”I’ve wasted many days here. It’s no good. Either you do it or I’m going to leave. Don’t waste my time. Enough of this nonsense now!” That day Totapuri brought a piece of glass with him, and he said, ”When you begin to be absorbed in delight, I will cut your forehead with this piece of glass. When I cut your forehead, inside gather courage, raise your sword and cut Kali in two. This is the last chance – I am not staying any longer.”

Totapuri’s threat of leaving... and it is difficult to find such a master. Totapuri must have been a man like Ashtavakra. Ramakrishna closed his eyes and Kali’s image appeared to him. He was about to bliss out – tears were ready to flow from his eyes, overwhelmed, joy was coming – he was about to become ecstatic when Totapuri held his forehead and, where the third eye chakra is, made a cut from top to bottom with the piece of glass. Blood began to stream from the cut, and this time

Ramakrishna found courage. He raised the sword and cut Kali in two pieces. When Kali fell apart he became nondual: the wave dissolved in the ocean, the river fell into the ocean. It is said that he stayed immersed for six days in this ultimate silence. He was neither hungry nor thirsty – there was no consciousness of the outside, no awareness. All was forgotten. And when he opened his eyes six days later, the first thing he said was, ”The last barrier has fallen!”

[RamaY]

And idiots who praise Karna who is a inciter of the disrobing of Draupadi the daughter-in-law of the King?

OT, but Yuddhistra already lost her. He gambled his wife away on a dice game. Who is the bigger idiot Karna or Yuddhistra. If Yuddhistra was following some kind of dharma, then so could one conjure up for Karna. After all the times were different. If 5 people could marry one woman......Mahabharatam cannot be looked as black and white.

Clarity of thought is the need of hour.

1. How can one woman marry 5 people? What is the right ratio? 1:1 or 1:many or many:1 or many:many? Who decides what is the right ratio? Is any given ratio wrong on its own? Why should govt/society have any say in this (especially when one demands the govt/law/society to be secular)?

2. Why did Dharmaraja bet Draupadi? Did he bet on his own? No. When Dhramaraja lost himself, he thought the game is over. But Sakuni (and thus Duryodhana on whose behalf Sakuni was playing) and associated told Dharmaraja that he can still bet Draupadi.

Here Sakuni or his friends did not consider the fact that (A) Draupadi is wife of all Pandavas, (B) that she is already won by virtue of winning other Pandavas as it was the case with other citizens of Pandava kingdom and (C) that none of other Pandava wives are bet separately and so on.

3. As the "dasa" of Kauravas' Dharmaraja accepted the proposal and the dice was rolled and Draupadi was lost. Or was she? When Dhrutarashtra gave her three boons (out of which she takes 2 as eligible and 3rd given to her nonetheless) she never asked for her freedom. She asked for Dharmaraja's freedom as first boon and the freedom of other four husbands as second boon. Why did she separate Dhramaraja and other four pandavas, when all of them her were husbands? Would she be free if her husbands are freed, if she were a separate individual on her own as the betting happened? What was her legal state when only one of her husbands were freed and not the remaining four?

4. Here comes the interesting twist. By that time Kauravas won all the women of Pandava kingdom. But they chose to insult only Draupadi. That too disrobing her in public view.

5. If Draupadi was considered somehow different from other wives of Pandavas and must be bet separate from Dharmaraja (here Kauravas separated a wife and husband as separate individuals which itself is anti-Hindu/aVedic, which is again different topic); then why did they offer Draupadi a deal where if she were to blame Dharmaraja as Adharmic for his betting of her then they would give back her husbands and kingdom etc.,?

6. If Draupadi was considered her own individual after this betting then should she even be blamed to have five husbands? She was her own self before and after betting, right?

7. What valor, satya and dharma Karna displayed in this episode? How many times he disrobed a women in public in his whole life, even if they were his dasas (different from slave, but that is a different topic).

SwamyG garu,
I found it very distasteful of you to raise this question after we have discussed this so many times on this thread. What is your point? why dont you debate it until you are convinced or convince others instead of jumping from here to there and making such silly comments?

[ramana]

I see SwamyG has been answered.

[ramana]

I recently wen to a Swaminarayan temple in California.

I was amazed that guruji had made woman's emapcipation a major part of his reform. He banned female infanticide as causing three types of sin, stri hatya, bala hatya and nirbala hatya. He banned sati:stri hatya and atma hatya. He promoted woman's education. He encouraged woman priests. In about two decades he transformed Gujarat-Rajasthan countryside.


He should get the credit for these measures and not William Bentnick.

[suryag]

Based on Ramay garu's advice i started uttering "om mahapaathaka nashaniya namaha" with goddess Saraswati in mind and sometimes in the sleep i feel i am standing before her and suddenly she takes the veena and hits me on my head with that so am not sure what to make of it(btw havent done any maha paap until now) it is amusing how our subconscious brain works at times