Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

[RamaY]

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

It happened to me too... many years ago...

In the dream, I was standing in Tirumala Venkateswara temple alone in the night in garbha griha. The murthi was simple saligrama without any ornaments or garlands etc. I was walking around looking at swamy and wondering what happened to all those ornaments and who lifted them with a smirk on my face. Then suddenly the bell started to sound, Swamy came to life and all the ornaments started appearing, garlands coming to life and so on. I looked at lord venkateswara and bowed to his feet. He slightly kicked my head before my mom come and took me away saying in a matter of fact manner, dont worry he is like that onlee

In another dream I saw Tirumala hills come to life as Sesha Sayana.

Consider it blessing, windows to consciousness will open.

[ramana]

Viv, one more thing about Karna. The kauravas ask Drona a way to defeat Abhimanyu. Drona says as long as Abhimanyu has bow he cant be defeated. So if someone is willing to do an adharmic act of breaking the bow-string from a side shot then Abhimanyu can be defeated. However that adharmic act is very heinous and not worthy of a Kshatriya.

Karna volunteers for it and breaks the bows-tring leading to the death of Abhimnayu by the kauravas.


So Karna has a propensity to do any act dharmic or adharmic so long as it furthers his master Duryodhana. So all his knowledge and mastery over weapons is no use as he is adharmic.

[Prem]

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

Puri is a common Khatri Punjabi name.
Latter on after few enquires, Totapuri was found out to be from a Ashram in Ludhiana in Punjab and it was said that there were few hundreds like him living there in that place. Some claim the Ashram was founded by the Elder son of Gurnanak who was Udasi sant.Now referring to Sri Totapuriji, Swami Saradanand, a direct disciple of Sri Ramakrishna writes, “Totapuri was born at some place in or near the Punjab. The monastery of his spiritual teacher was at a place near Kurukshetra. His teacher was also a famous Yogi and a monastery was established there. It is not clearly known whether that monastery was founded by him or any of his predecessors....”[14]
Referring to Sri Totapuri, Satish K. Kapoor in his article, which appeared in The Tribune on August 14, 1988, (pp. IV and V) writes, “The Naga Monk (Sri Totapuri) lies buried in his dera at Ladana.” Prior to this, he says, “Ladana is not to be confused with Ludhiana, as do some biographers of Sri Ramakrishna. Ladana is now in Haryana and can be reached from Kurukshetra in about two hours.” But I think, Ludhiana (district) too would take about two hours time from Kurukshetra.
Referring to this article, Mewa Singh from Sundernagar (Himachal Pradesh) writes in his letter which also appeared in The Tribune under the heading Totapuri :
Shri Satish K. Kapoor says that there is no record of Totapuri’s original abode except to the effect that he was born somewhere in Punjab. According to some of the followers of Totapuri who live in Jogimajra and Rampur villages in Ludhiana district, the monk was born at Jogimajra village where his Samadhi is still in existence. Thousands of devotees all over the country visit the Samadhi every year and participate in functions which are organised to remember the saint.
Gaju Bhagat, an ardent follower of the saint, lives in Rampur village, and makes genuine effort to keep Totapuri’s mission alive. In this context, laudable efforts have been made by S. Maghar Singh, Principal, Govt. Secondary School, Kangalwal, Dist. Sangrur and his cousin, Karnail Singh but no substantial results have come out so far. So Sri Totapuri has been called an Udasi ascetic and with equal claim declared as follower of the Sankara School of thought. The following questions arise : Who was this Sri Totapuri? Where did he come from? What is his lineage with the Puri cult? Would any scholars interested in the subject explore and trace out the truth? So far as the Puri lineage is concerned, Ghurye comes to our help. “Totapuri was the spiritual preceptor of Ramakrishna Paramhansa. And Ramakrishna who was Paramhansa was never known as a Puri. But he was the spiritual preceptor of Vivekananda. Vivekananda was thus a Puri. But hardly ever has this ascetic surname been used in his case. The alignment of Bengal ascetics with Puri Order appears to have been as old as asceticism in Bengal"[15] 1994 is being celebrated the Birth Quincentenary year of Baba Sri Chand, the pioneer of the Udasi cult. We suggest all seekers of truth are invited on this auspicious occasion to contribute their mite to discover the truth about this Udasi ascetic Sri Totapuri. I am grateful to Dr. Himadri Banerjee of the Department of History, Rabindra Bharati University, Calcutta, who has very kindly offered to help in the wider interest of historical research. He has long been working on how Sikhism and the Sikhs have been depicted in Assamese, Bengali, Hindi and Oriya languages over the last 125 years. He writes in his letter dated 12 June, 1994, “I have gathered that the Udasis were active in the Gangetic belt even in the eighteenth century. They had already set up their akharas/dhunis in Barh, Monghyr, Bhagalpur, Rajmahal, Nalhati, Chittagong and Cuttack. Many of these Akharas have, however, been converted into Hindu temples and some of them have been taken over by the Sikhs. At Kaliaboda, Cuttack, it is believed that the present Sikh Gurdwara was originally a place of the Udasis. I have got from different sources that in Eastern India, Sikhism was first propagated by the Udasis/Nanak Panthis. They had their schools and places of worship. But their role is very little known to common people. It requires investigations. Further, he mentions that Captain Bhag Singh (founder Editor, The Sikh Review) once told him that Sri Totapuri had initiated Sri Ramakrishna.

[Manish_Sharma]

^^Thank you Jhujar ji, I didn't know much about Totapuri mahraj except few tidbits. Have you visited his samadhi?

Is Baba Sri Chand same one from 10 sikh gurus or a namesake?

[Agnimitra]

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.

johneeG ji, just saw your post, I agree with most of your personal thoughts about the inter-relation between different schools. Their scopes are different and their purposes telescope into one another.

"Maya" is a just a meta-descriptive term for reality. It covers a wide scale from magical reality to empirical positivism. "Maya" does not really mean the same as "unreal" or "false". Even "mithya" is actually a relative term, like "mythos".

I tried to use the purusha-prakriti model in this analysis:
The Resurrection of the Karma Kanda

In that, I defined Maya as follows:

In understanding Constitutional purpose, one could consider Prakriti and Purusha and their interrelationship. Purusha may have considerable residual knowledge of its own...but the knowledge in which an 'organism' is interested is information concerning the Laws of Purusha and Prakriti as they apply to the composite 'organism'. The Laws of this interaction are known as Maya, which spans the gamut of Realism, from empiricism to magical realism. Each and every organism develops in the ratio that it understands and utilizes these laws correctly. All Learning of these laws springs from a disorderly entanglement where Purusha has impinged too suddenly or sharply on Prakriti with little regard for the advice of Time. As Purusha withdraws and frees itself of this entanglement, the Data of Prakriti's virginal states and its effects upon those becomes observable - and thereby converted to Experience. In the process, entrapped Life-force is also freed - and so Learning of these Laws occurs. Further, all of the philosophical reasoning behind Policy (the use of these Laws in proper order relative to Time) is made when Purusha returns over Prakriti for an orderly and harmonious winning over.

Thus, from a relationship standpoint, the laws of the interaction of purusha and prakriti are Maya - and Vedanta is correct that these are temporal, i.e. completely in the context of Time and Circumstance, rather than absolute. Because they are temporal, there is continuous re-cognition and re-formulation of these Mayic Laws by Purusha, depending on its political position and direction of movement w.r.t. Prakriti.

Thus we have:
1. Purusha
2. Prakriti
3. The Organism - a particular degree of disorderly or harmonious interaction between Purusha and Prakriti
4. Laws and Formulas in relation to the Organism in any time-based Condition - Maya

[Agnimitra]

Just saw this post below by matrimc ji. That's why Yoga - a practical process based on observed effects - explicitly includes Ishwara in its considerations; whereas Sankhya - an epistemological model with which to begin and proceed with investigation - does not, because that would be the introduction of an arbitrary.

X-posting from Philosophy thread:

I don't know where to put this as it can go into several threads to either support or be a counter-point to different religious arguments and POVs on BRF.

Belief in God Can Improve Mental Health Outcomes

A new study suggests belief in God may significantly improve the outcome of those receiving short-term treatment for psychiatric illness.

Researchers followed patients receiving care from a hospital-based behavioral health program to investigate the relationship between patients’ level of belief in God, expectations for treatment and actual treatment outcomes.

which I harvested from Slashdot where there was some lively discussion in which some important points have been made. Here is the /. link.

Hatta writes
"According to researchers from Harvard Medical School, belief in god is correlated with improved outcomes of treatment for depression. Quoting: 'In the study, published in the current issue of Journal of Affective Disorders, researchers comment that people with a moderate to high level of belief in a higher power do significantly better in short-term psychiatric treatment than those without. "Belief was associated with not only improved psychological well-being, but decreases in depression and intention to self-harm," says David H. Rosmarin, Ph.D., an instructor in the Department of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School.' This raises interesting questions. Does this support the concept of depressive realism? If the association is found to be causal, would it be ethical for a psychiatrist to prescribe religion?"

[ramana]

Two more on the dice game:

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.

SwamyG, facts are not behind you. Even now, there are cultures where polyandry ("5 people marry one woman") is practiced, is thriving and is a norm. There are some Indic cultures as well. And soon with the fall in sex ratio, millions of bakistanis may be looking at that possibility (do not get surprised if it happens!).

Now you have not read MB very well. Draupadi's first statement to Yuddhistra was, did you lose yourself first or me first? Yuddhistra lost himself first, as such he had no right to gamble away Draupadi. Second even if he had lost Draupadi first, the issue of is wife a "property" or a "partner" comes into play. Wife is ardhangini, and hence is part and a partner. Yuddhistra was wrong and gambling of Draupadi was illegal, hence the Kauravas had no right on her.

Now what Kauravas did, even at the instigation of Karna to Draupadi was wrong. There are several principles at play here. For eg. Two wrongs do not make a right principle. Then the question of the illegality of the gambling itself comes into play. Then as princes and future kings, what happened to "Raj Dharma"? If they can do to Draupadi, what will they do to ordinary folks? Kauravas - like present day CongIs - behaved like Hyenas and they had to die.

So SwamyG, please read and parse - the operative word is parse - MahaBharata and Ramayana and study Bhagvad Gita and the Upanishads and the Vedas (me, I have taken only a droplet from the ocean) and then you might want to debate on the "mythologies".

Again this is an admonition, but with no malice. Just take it that what I am admonishing you about in the last para, the same I will keep it in my mind for myself (self-admonishment? If there is such a word).

and

quote="Muppalla"
Pranav, you blame everyone and that includes Patel. Come on man and you will some day blame lord Krishna for ending dwaapra yuga and allowing the kali to start. Patel was a human for a fact./quote

Dharma is subtle ... Patel may have thought that he is making a sacrifice, but even that can be a manifestation of Ego.

The idea is not to find fault ... rather it is to learn.

That is why, in Indian culture, knowing the Mahabharat story is considered to be useful.

IMO in the history of Shivaji also there are many very instructive circumstances.

There is Dharma that appears as Dharma (Pandavas accepting the Kauravas invitation to play dice)
There is Dharma that appears as Adharma (Yudhisthir betting his brothers and Draupadi)
There is Adharma that appears as Dharma (Kauravas calling Pandavas slaves and wanting to treat Draupadi as a slave and disrobe her OR the likes of Bhishma standing as spectators to that)
There is Adharma that appears as Adharma (Kauravas inviting Pandavas to play of dice with evil intentions)

Contemplate again on the players, their worldviews, vision, perspectives, choices and actions. Your own intellect (being part of the universal consciousness) itself will give you the right answer.

[sudarshan]

Two kwik kweschuns - apologize if they're elementary level.

I'm rather familiar with MB, not so much with Ramayan. In the MB, terms like "Rathi," "Athirathi," "Maharathi" keep occurring. Yudhishthir was a Rathi, Bhim & Arjun, Krishna and Satyaki, Ashwatthama etc. were Maharathis. Abhimanyu became recognized as a Maharathi after he passed a test, defeating Kritavarman (I think) in a sword duel (I think). It's a classification system which indicates the warrior's proficiency in battle.

Do these terms occur in the Ramayana also? I'd imagine Ram, Lakshman, Hanuman, Ravan, Indrajit, Kumbhkarn would all be Maharathis. However, I don't recall ever coming across warriors being described in these terms in the Ramayana. Maybe I'm wrong? Or were the terms not extant in Ramayan times?

Second question is about the Vishnu Sahasranama. Some of the names of Vishnu come from the Dashavatara - like Mahavaraho, or Naarasimha, or Vamanah, or even Rama. Why not Matsya, Kurma, or Parasurama? Parasurama was around in Mahabharata times, he even trained many of the warriors. Was he not recognized as Vishnu incarnate then?

[member_20317]

^^^ posts on this thread never cease to fire up my imagination. I think I know what you are thinking sudarshan garu.

Re. fire started by SwamyG ji, here is my 2C.

1) gives a shastrasangat exposition of the relevance of Yudhistir's decisions in the dice match

Note additionally Yudhistir does his prayaschit and returning everything lost, back to his family and more, after falling in this dharm-sankat.

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

Presented at the International Seminar on Mahabharat organized by Sahitya Academy, Delhi, India: April 2004

The Dice Match

-Narendra Kohli

When DharmaRaj Yudhishthir had Maya danav build his assembly, he conducted the Rajsooya Yagya and for the benefit of humankind, gathered scholars and distributed the riches collected from various kings amongst scholars, Brahmans, intellectuals and the needy. As a reaction to this, the Toransphatic assembly hall that Duryodhan constructed, I think, was something like a modern casino, where gambling was the only form of entertainment. There could have been no spiritual discussions, no worship or praying, no yagya-havan, no deliberation, and no exchange of higher thoughts and beliefs here. The only sport that could take place was gambling. Certainly, many famous and dissolute gamblers would have come to participate. The kshatriya society depicted in Mahabharat is in general fond of gambling. Thus as evidence of his distinction, Duryodhan had the Toransphatic hall built for the purposes of gaming. Yudhishthir was not only an emperor and leader amongst kings; he was also the eldest amongst the children of Pandu and Dhritarashtra. Therefore, seeing him gamble, the general impression is that he too must have been an addict of gambling. At Abhimanyu’s wedding in the city of Upaplavya, Balram accuses him of the same and holds him responsible for his losses.

Before coming to Hastinapur, there has been extensive discussions between Vidur and Yudhishthir in Indraprastha, where Yudhishthir has opposed gambling in the strongest terms. After reaching Hastinapur, an entire chapter is dedicated to Yudhishthir’s argument with Shakuni, where Shakuni defends gambling and Yudhisthir opposes it.

1. “Gambling causes quarrels and brawls. No intelligent person would like to gamble…”[2]

2. “I have no desire to gamble.”[3]

3. “Gambling is a form of deception and a cause for sin. One can neither demonstrate valiance suitable to a kshatriya, nor are there any set rules for it.”[4]

No addict criticizes his addiction. According to Mahabharat, Yudhishthir had not the slightest knowledge of gambling. He has never been shown gambling prior to Hastinapur’s gaming hall either. After losing everything, as they are leaving for the forest, the Pandavas are worried about Dhritarashtra calling them back and asking them to play again. If that happens, they may win Pandava’s weapons as well. That will leave the Pandavas defenseless and helpless. This is why Yudhishthir learns gambling and acquires equestrian knowledge from Muni Brihadshva the first opportunity he gets on the way to the forest. Only after learning how to gamble is he able to live undetected as Kank in Virat’s court as his attendant.

It is very hard for me to accept that some one who doesn’t know how to gamble could be addicted to it. But still, we see that not only does he gamble at this assembly, he gambles till the end; and gets up only after losing everything. There has to be an explanation for this behavior of his.

One particular utterance of Yudhishthir is quoted over and over in many discussions. Where he says, it is wrong to gamble, it causes complete destruction, but if he were invited, he would not refuse. Many people have accepted in their commentaries on this quotation that it was Yudhishthir’s duty (dharma) as a kshatriya. As a kshatriya never refuses a challenge in battle and gambling. But we must pay attention to the fact that Yudhishthir has never expressed his kshatriya duty (dharma) or pride. His concern wasn’t kshatriya dharma, but just dharma. As far as battle for kshatriyas is concerned, at one point during the battle of Mahabharat, Yudhishthir has been depicted deserting in defeat. This is why Yudhishthir criticizes this addiction of kshatriyas. Here, the word used in the context of an invitation for gambling is ‘aahuut’ which should be interpreted not as a challenge but as a call by Dhritarashtra. Dharmaraj (Yudhishthir) and his brothers are the sort of people who are willing endure the biggest tests in order to prove their smallest obligation to dharma. Thus Yudhishthir sits down to gamble in accordance with respect for Dhritarashtra’s invitation despite being fully opposed to it in his heart.

In Mahabharat, the word ‘uncle’ has been used nowhere for Dhritarashtra in Pandava’s context. He has been called pita (father) in the original verses. Although pita means ‘care-taker’ and there is no doubt that in Pandu’s absence, it was Dhritarashtra who was as a father to the Pandavas, but while leaving for Varnavat, it was said about the Pandavas: sarvaa maatristatha aprichhya kritva chaiv pradakshinat.[5] Here, taking permission of the mothers is mentioned. We know that besides Kunti, Pandu had only one other wife – Maadri. She had already passed away. Still the word ‘mothers’ is used in plural. The word refers to Gandhari and Vidur’s wife. This means that they considered their father’s brothers and their father at the same level, equivalent and substitutable. And accepted their aunts as their mothers. This wasn’t just for the sake of addressing. Even in behavior, they accepted these relations. In such a condition, for Yudhishthir, every instruction of Dhritarashtra’s was an instruction from his father.

Swami Vivekanand once said that there are many forms of dharma and it manifests itself in different forms in different people. Some one’s dharma may be in truth, another’s in actions (karma), another’s in obedience, in service, in keeping their word etc. Yudhishthir’s was in his truth, and in fulfilling the wishes of elders. Therefore, knowing that Dhritrashtra could rob him of his life, or knowing that Dhritarashtra wants Duryodhan to be the ruler of Hastinapur – even if that requires killing the Pandavas, Yudhishthir does not disobey any of Dhritarashtra’s commands. He follows his father’s commands with the same sincerity as Ram follows Dasharath’s. From the perspective of a common man, this may be Yudhishthir’s stupidity, but Yudhishthir’s character has not been constructed from a common man’s perspective. He is dharma raj. He will follow his dharma not just by sacrificing his wealth, but his life if he has to. While he may be able to engage in debate with Dhritarashtra, he cannot refuse to follow his command. Yudhishthir seems bound by this commitment to his dharma during the betting that took place in the gaming hall. He is constantly opposing gambling, but never refuses to play. As that was Dhritarashtra’s command.

The opposition between spirituality and this world is apparent. A man of worldly success may spiritually prove to be a being of the lowest grade. And a spiritually developed advanced soul appears stupid from a materialistic perspective. Yudhishthir’s character too is an extremely spiritually developed and is continuously growing. His ideals are not worldly, but spiritual.

After Vidur warns him in Indraprastha, he says in clear words, “On command of King Dhritarashtra, I certainly wish to partake in the games. A father is always dear to a son.”[6] After arriving in front of Dhritarashtra, he again says, “Sire! You are our lord. Command us what we should do. Bhaarat! We always wish to remain under your direction.”[7] He is willing to handover the entire kingdom to Dhritarashtra even after winning the war of Mahabharat, because father is the lord, and a son is under his command.

The reader takes a sigh of relief when Yudhishthir regains his wealth and rule as a boon from Dhritarashtra after having lost everything once, and Draupadi has been fully humiliated. But Yudhishthir is called back again, and again he sits down to gamble. Every ordinary reader wonders why this madness? The reason for him to gamble a second time is the same as what it originally was – his father’s and king’s command:

“Jewel amongst Bharat’s descendents and son of Pandu Yudhishthir! Your father King Dhritarashtra has instructed you to return. Our assembly is once again complete with its members and is waiting for you. You shall throw the dice and gamble.”[8]
Yudhishthir Said, “All creatures attain auspicious and inauspicious results by the inspiration of God. No one can evade them. It appears I will have to gamble again. This invitation to gamble by the command of Old King Dhritarashtra is the cause of our family’s destruction. Even as I know this, I cannot disobey his order.”[9]

“… While listening to people say all sorts of things, King Yudhishthir due to fear of shame and with the perspective of his dharma in following Dhritarashtra’s command started to gamble once again.”[10]

By gambling, he obeyed his father’s command. Why was it then necessary to play till the end and get up only after total destruction? He could have gotten up at any time. When searching for the answer to this question, Vidur’s behavior comes to my attention. He was the biggest benefactor of the Pandavas. He opposes gambling vigorously. He appeals to Dhritarashtra repeatedly to stop the game, but not once does he say to Yudhishthir, “that is enough. Son! Leave the game and get up.”

What does this mean? Clearly, the game has been started by the king’s command, and only by his command can it be paused or ended. Without his permission Yudhishthir cannot leave the game, and as he plays, he must wager something. During this process it appears that this gambling continues to the end like a duel. A duel ends with the death of one of the fighters. Similarly this gambling can end only after one side has lost every thing. The compulsion that’s making Yudhishthir play is clear. Therefore while he still has any wealth of any kind, he cannot leave the game. Perhaps this is why he is in a hurry of sorts to lose every thing as quickly as he can, given he can’t win. May the gambling end so he may get up.

Knowingly, he loses everything and stops. He has already lost his brothers and his own self. As he loses himself, Shakuni says to Yudhishthir, “Sire! To wager yourself and to lose is an act of extreme impiety (adharma). It’s a great sin to wager yourself while you still possess wealth. Sire! Your dearest Draupadi is such a hand that you have not yet lost. Thus wager Krishnā and by her, win yourself back.”[11] This means that even if a gambler wishes to save some of his money, he can’t. This is improper. Considering this fact, one can begin to understand Yudhishthir’s situation and the rules of dharma and propriety that bind him. He came to Hastinapur with goodwill and love in his heart. He wanted to remove the disharmony between the Pandavas and Kauravas. He remembered Vyas’ warning and it wasn’t uncommon for violence to erupt due to disagreements during gambling. Rukmi’s killing at the hands of Shri Krishna’s elder brother Balram is an example of just that. Yudhishthir would not have wanted to give Duryodhan and his friends the opportunity to start trouble by accusing the Pandavas of not following gambling’s decorum. Not only would that lead to the end of any goodwill and love that he came looking for, but would also become a reason for the destruction of the kshatriyas, and the calamity that Vyas had expressed a concern for in thirteen years, would present itself right then and there.

It is worth noting that dharma raj Yudhishthir is following his dharma even while gambling, while vulpine and deceiving Shakuni is accusing him of being improper. As a response to this Yudhishthir immediately wagered Draupadi and by losing, while protecting his dharma he earned that disgrace that the society has still not been able to forgive.

Every act of dharma raj Yudhishthir is for the protection of dharma. If he did not partake in the game, that would have been disobeying his father’s command, which is wrong. He could not have disregarded the invitation as that would be disregarding his father. That would have been violation of his father’s command. He could see that Duryodhan, Dhritarashtra and Shakuni had trapped him in the web of his own dharma and having surrounded him from all sides, were hunting him. He still did not even think about violating his dharma, break the peace and gain his freedom or protect his wealth and kingdom by physical strength.

As soon as he loses the first hand, Yudhishthir says to Shakuni, “Shakuni! Shakuni!! You defeated me in this hand by cheating.”[12] It has not been explained though how Shakuni cheated. There are a number of things of this sort that have not been clarified in Mahabharat. I think if we analyze those circumstances, we can draw a few conclusions. If Yudhishthir had played against Duryodhan, it is possible that Yudhishthir – who does not know the game, may not have been slaughtered as badly as he was playing against Shakuni. Throughout this game Yudhishthir never got the dice. From the beginning till the end it is Shakuni who kept throwing the dice and kept winning Yudhishthir’s money. Why did Shakuni play on Duryodhan’s behalf, and why wasn’t a skilled gambler used on Yudhishthir’s side is not explained in Mahabharat. Yudhishthir doesn’t even object on this matter. Possibly there was a tradition at the time – just as a general conducts wars on the king’s behalf, perhaps a skilled gambler always played for the king. But Yudhishthir didn’t bring a skilled player with him because he didn’t go there to gamble. He had come to participate in a family event or gathering on his father’s invitation; and was coerced into playing. Perhaps he didn’t realize at the time that Dhritarashtra would not order the game to end at all.

Before each hand Yudhishthir says that this wealth is mine, and I wager it as I play with you. This is not a trivial statement. This means that a gambler may wager only his money. Neither may he bet some one else’s property, nor can he withdraw from the game while he still has any wealth remaining. On one hand Yudhishthir takes almost an oath before each hand declaring his wager, on the other, Shakuni is not playing with his own money, and even Duryodhan doesn’t clarify what his wager is. When Yudhishthir asks, “In return to this, what money do you wager by which you play against me?”[13] Duryodhan replies, “I have many gold coins and a lot of wealth too. I am not arrogant about my riches. First you win this hand.”[14] Clearly, neither do Shakuni and Duryodhan play by the rules, nor is there any clarity anywhere in their wagering. There is a curtain of deceit on everything they do. There is enough room for them to prevent any serious harm to them, in case the game doesn’t go their way for any reason. They were cleverly robbing Yudhishthir, and Yudhishthir was following his dharma.

2
If a gambler must wager only his wealth, then one has to consider what is the definition of wealth? If we draw conclusions just from Yudhishthir’s statements, then the land of the kingdom, its treasury, its subjects, armies, even the ornaments on the bodies of the other Pandavas – all come under the king’s wealth - Yudhishthir’s wealth. The only exception to this is the land granted to the Brahmans as a source of their income. Even amongst the subjects, Brahmans are not considered wealth of the king. It appears that only the intellectuals – academia, students and scholars and their wealth are not the king’s wealth. They are independent. On the other hand, the head of a household is the lord of his household. Therefore his wife, children, younger brothers and their wives are also his wealth.

This is why a person as short tempered and noncompliant as Bheem sees and understands everything, but does not oppose Yudhishthir because rightfully he is Yudhishthir’s wealth. If he objects, he does not follow his dharma. In this entire episode, while Yudhishthir has followed his dharma, the rest of the Pandavas and Draupadi have not once sacrificed their own dharma while disagreeing with Yudhishthir’s policy.

Even when Duhshaasan drags a menstruating Draupadi into the assembly by her hair, wrapped in nothing but one cloth, she never challenges Yudhishthir’s right to wager her during the game. At most she asked if Yudhishthir wagered her first, or did he lose himself before hand. She analyzes dharma within the confines of the socially accepted propriety while remaining within the bounds of social morals herself. If Yudhishthir lost himself first, then he had become a slave of Duryodhan. In such a circumstance, a slave has no authority over a Queen, princess or a free woman. If Yudhishthir had already lost himself, then it was not right to wager Draupadi. Shakuni did say that it was wrong of Yudhishthir to lose himself while he had wealth remaining, but he did not say that Yudhishthir couldn’t bet Draupadi any more. Instead he enticed Yudhishthir to wager Draupadi on the next hand and resolve himself of his impropriety.

Bheeshma’s dilemma too was based on the same question. Just as Draupadi does not challenge Yudhishthir’s right to bet Draupadi on a hand, Bheeshma too does not consider a wife outside of her husband’s lordship. Thus, when Yudhishthir had the right to wager his brothers because they were his wealth, he also had the compulsion to wager Draupadi, because she too was his wealth. But at the time when Yudhishthir wagered Draupadi, he wasn’t a free man himself. When Draupadi asks Bheeshma what is dharma, he is unable to answer clearly. He says the nature of dharma is extremely fine. Amongst the Pandavas’ reaction, the most aggravated is Bheem’s. He says, “Brother Yudhishthir, women in gamblers’ houses are generally indecent, but even they don’t wager them during gambling. They have pity in their hearts even for those unchaste women. Our enemies have made us bet, and have taken from us all the wealth and exceptional beverages that King of Kashi gave to us as a gift, jewels that other kings had presented to us, our vehicles, luxuries, shields, means of war, kingdom, your body and all of us brothers. But this is not what makes me angry, as you are the lord of everything of ours. But wagering Draupadi, this I consider extremely inappropriate. That innocent and naïve lady did not deserve to be insulted in this manner, being married to the Pandavas. But because of you these lowly monstrous Kauravas with no ability to control their passions are causing her all sorts of pain. Sire! I direct my rage upon you for her poor condition. I will burn both your arms. Sahdev! Get fire.”[15] Bheem may have expressed all his anger against Yudhishthir, but he never said Yudhishthir did not have the right to bet Draupadi. He does say that Draupadi should not have been wagered, as he is unable to bare the grief Kauravas have inflicted upon her, but there is no challenge to Yudhishthir’s authority anywhere.

In this manner this entire episode has been presented as a question of dharma. This dharma is based on the practices and authority accepted by the society. As a part of this dharma, the question of the duty of all the brave men gathered to protect a woman being publicly humiliated has not been raised anywhere. As opposed to this, when Jayadrath abducts Draupadi in the forests, not only do the Pandavas fight him, but after making him suffer in all ways they let him live only because he is married to their sister Duhshalaa. In this dharma, the entire discussion, analysis and activities are focused on the issues of authority and property. As his wife, if Draupadi is Yudhishthir’s wealth, and if Yudhishthir can’t withdraw from the game while wealth remains, then Yudhishthir was required to wager his wife as wealth. Similarly it was improper to not accept Duryodhan’s right on lost wealth. This is why the Pandavas do not raise their weapons to defend their wife or their own dignity despite having the will and the capability to do so.

In the age that regarded the rules established by the society as the social dharma, Shri Krishna seems to be the only exception. He doesn’t care if Yudhishthir wagered himself first or Draupadi. What he cares about is that Draupadi was publicly humiliated. Perhaps this was the point of view that developed into a society that no longer considered the wife, children and younger brothers and sisters as property of their husband, father or elder brother. No person was the property or wealth of another person. Subsequently, slavery too was abolished and now that we live in a world where we have no right to torment even our animals, how can one person be considered the property of another.

In this context, another interesting question that comes up, is that for whatever reasons, without having forfeited Draupadi, the last hand has now been played as Yudhishthir wagered himself and lost thus becoming unqualified to continue gambling, what would have happened if he had refused to wager Draupadi? Even if Yudhishthir had not wagered Draupadi after losing his own self, as property of a slave, Draupadi would still have been considered a slave of Duryodhan. Potentially, the reason Yudhishthir did wager Draupadi even after losing himself was because he could not have protected her despite not having lost her. But while a slave himself, as he wagers Draupadi, a new circumstance is created. The basis for Draupadi’s dharma related arguments in the end appear to have been deliberately presented by Yudhishthir. The question is, when Yudhishthir had already lost himself, and Draupadi was still left, where was the need to wager her? He could have argued that a slave does not have the right to wager a free citizen. But he still wagered her. Why?

If Draupadi had not been wagered, Duryodhan would have argued that a slave’s wealth is the master’s wealth, thus even without being explicitly wagered, Draupadi is his property. All other wives of the Pandavas and their children could have been considered Duryodhan’s property by this logic. Despite being the wealth of a slave if Draupadi is wagered – and this proposal came from Shakuni in the haste to win Draupadi – clearly means that Duryodhan has no authority over other wives and children of the Pandavas. They were not wagered and lost. By wagering Draupadi after losing himself, Yudhishthir secures Pandavas’ other wives and children. And this gamble of his becomes Draupadi’s shield as well. Had she not been wagered, she would have been considered Duryodhan’s property regardless. The explicit wagering now provides her with the argument that she could not be considered Duryodhan’s wealth until she was wagered and lost. As Yudhishthir had already lost himself, he had no right to wager her. Not just Draupadi, but all Pandavas won their freedom back on the basis of this logic. The act of wagering the remaining wealth – Draupadi – was a strategic move by Yudhishthir within the rules of the game, which protected Draupadi and the Pandavas. In that whole game this was the only hand that Yudhishthir won against Shakuni. Otherwise he had lost the whole game.

Draupadi did not win this debate just on the basis of her logic. It was not possible to win any argument by logic in Dhritarashtra’s assembly, in the presence of Duryodhan’s goons and friends. In this, Shri Krishna’s demonstration of power is extremely clear. Shri Krishna doesn’t consider the contemporary social beliefs to be the extent of dharma. He goes to the humanity of dharma and periodicity has no relevance for him. Time and place do not pose any boundaries for him. In Draupadi’s case too Duryodhan had already neutralized her arguments with his brute force. All appeals made to the elders of the family for justice and dharma too had been fruitless. A family-senior like Bheeshma was entangled with the applicability and symptomatic subtleties of dharma. That is when Draupadi while reminding everyone of her importance issues almost a warning - there may be trouble in the future if she is not treated justly. She is not just a commoner who they could treat unfairly and go unpunished. As evidence to her importance she declared she is Drupad’s daughter, Dhrishtdyumna’s sister, Pandu’s daughter-in-law, Pandavas’s wife and Shri Krishna’s friend. No word or name uttered by her had an impact on Duhshaasan while he was pulling away her clothes; but as soon as Shri Krishna’s name came up, his hands went numb. His energy vanished. His head started to spin, and inanimate, he fell to the ground. This is what I consider Shri Krishna’s demonstration of power. Duhshaasan had witnessed the killing of Shishupal by Shri Krishna’s Sudarshan chakra at Indraprastha’s assembly in the presence of many kings. Forget revenge or punishment - no one even objected to Shri Krishna’s act. Duhshaasn saw that same Sudarshan chakra lurking in his own assembly. When Draupadi mentioned that she is a friend of Shri Krishna, Duhshaasan realized that though they could protect themselves from the Pandavas under the cover of dharma’s apparatus, social traditions and the decorum of gambling after inflicting all sorts of suffering on them, but no one can save them from Shri Krishna. His hands shuddered and his head spun as he saw his end right in front of him. Another thing about Shri Krishna is emphasized right here – he cannot tolerate any insult to women under any circumstances. His Sudarshan chakra became active at Pandava’s assembly when Shishupal started to prate about Rukmini, and in Kaurava’s own assembly too, it presented itself when Draupadi was being humiliated.

- Narendra Kohli, 175 Vaishali, Pitampura, Delhi 110088.


[1] According to the Mahabharat, name of the building where the gambling occurred.
[2] 10/58, Sabha Parva
[3] 16/58, Sabha Parva
[4] 5/59, Sabha Parva
[5] 4/144, Aadi Parva
[6] 15/58, Sabha Parva
[7] 1/76, Sabha Parva
[8] 2/76, Sabha Parva
[9] 3-4/76, Sabha Parva
[10] 18/76, Sabha Parva
[11] 30-32/65, Sabha Parva
[12] 1/61, Sabha Parva
[13] etad rajan mama dhanam pratipanoasti kastava.
Yepa mam tvam maharaja dhanena pratidivyaye.. 7/60, Sabha Parva
[14] Santi me manayashchaiva dhanani subahuni cha.
Matsarashcha n me artheshu jayasvainam durodaram.. 8/60, Sabha Parva
[15] 1-6/68, Sabha Parva

Thank you for visiting http://www.NarendraKohli.org

2) gives how this form of understanding of human relations applied till recently. Actually applies even today despite all the propaganda

http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/karta_hsa.htm




Note:
Edited later to quote NarendraKohli in full.
Do not miss out the duties/obligations of Karta in an HUF. Shows how ancient understanding is still alive.

[Agnimitra]

I'm rather familiar with MB, not so much with Ramayan. In the MB, terms like "Rathi," "Athirathi," "Maharathi" keep occurring. Yudhishthir was a Rathi, Bhim & Arjun, Krishna and Satyaki, Ashwatthama etc. were Maharathis. Abhimanyu became recognized as a Maharathi after he passed a test, defeating Kritavarman (I think) in a sword duel (I think). It's a classification system which indicates the warrior's proficiency in battle.

Do these terms occur in the Ramayana also? I'd imagine Ram, Lakshman, Hanuman, Ravan, Indrajit, Kumbhkarn would all be Maharathis. However, I don't recall ever coming across warriors being described in these terms in the Ramayana. Maybe I'm wrong? Or were the terms not extant in Ramayan times?

Its used in the Valmiki Ramayana also. E.g., Ramayana 7.85.21 -

यदि बुद्धिः कृता राजञ्श्रवणाय महारथ ।
कर्मान्तरे क्षणी हूतस्तच्छृणुष्व सहानुजः ॥

Here in Uttara Kanda, Rama is addressing Shatrughna and telling him that he must continue to rule his own city. Shatrughna had come to Ayodhya to see Rama and said he was missing him, and didn't want to live abroad and rule. He has just told Rama that he has completed several duties and re-arranged the geopolitical landscape by slaying King Lavana, etc., and now just wishes to hang around with Rama whom he misses a lot. Rama embraces him but reminds him that a Kshatriya never tires of living abroad, and he must do his duty and administer his city, and that from time to time he can take a break in his duties (कर्मान्तरे) and come see him.

Second question is about the Vishnu Sahasranama. Some of the names of Vishnu come from the Dashavatara - like Mahavaraho, or Naarasimha, or Vamanah, or even Rama. Why not Matsya, Kurma, or Parasurama? Parasurama was around in Mahabharata times, he even trained many of the warriors. Was he not recognized as Vishnu incarnate then?

The concept of "avatara" belongs to the model of the Transcendent Lord's relationship with the material universe. There are 6 major categories of avataras according to this ontology. There are innumerable avataras, and the 'famous' 10 are just the prominent archetypes from each category. The categories are:

1. Purushavatara

2. Lilavatara
3. Gunavatara

4. Manvantaravatara
5. Yugavatara

6. Shaktyaveshavatara

At the logical beginning of the creation process, the purushavatara is first: Mahavishnu, Garbhodakashayi Vishnu, etc.
Then there are Lila avataras, either to save a devotee, or to display some particular feature and aid the manthan. E.g. Rama, etc. Then there are Guna avataras for the maintenance of the material universe in different modes of nature (tri-gunas): Brahma, Vishnu, Maheshwara. The Manvantara avataras preside over the changes of the Manvantaras of time. E.g. Swayambhu Manu, Swarochishta Manu, etc. The Manvantara avatara appoints a new Indra and Saptarshis, etc. And then Yuga avataras, who come in each and every yuga to correct or redirect the course of flow of Vedic civilization. E.g. Shri Chaitanya is considered the Yugavatara for the current yuga by some Vaishnavas. Then there is Shaktyavesha avataras, which is a human being who becomes completely imbued with the Lord's shakti. E.g. Parshurama.

In addition, there is the concept of "praadurbhaava" (manifestation), which is considered distinct from "avatara".

Many people confuse Yugavatara with Shaktyavesha avatara and others, and also pradurbhavas. So different sects quarrel with one another about which founder is yugavatara, or otherwise we must resort to the idea that any self-realized siddha is like a yugavatara, in which case yugas must be very small in span! So it helps to explore in greater detail the terminologies of Indic systems and their relation to Time and Darshanas, and see how it can all fit together, if possible.

[ramana]

^^^ posts on this thread never cease to fire up my imagination. I think I know what you are thinking sudarshan garu.

Re. fire started by SwamyG ji, here is my 2C.

1) gives a shastrasangat exposition of the relevance of Yudhistir's decisions in the dice match

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

Note additionally Yudhistir does his prayaschit and returning everything lost, back to his family and more, after falling in this dharm-sankat.

ravi_g, can you post the full text as being behind a firewall can't get to it?

[abhishek_sharma]

Let us assume that Yudhistira was wrong during the dice match. So what is the big deal? Everyone makes a few mistakes here and there. What makes him special is the fact that he made very few and relatively fewer mistakes than others.

[ramana]

Its called "adhunika vimarsa"

Modern criticism where one takes parts of a narrative and criticises that only.

[member_20317]

^
Done in the original post itself.

Also I do not think adhunika vimarsa was intentional when it was first proposed here on, however that does not take away anything from the reality of the characterization of the problem by you. This kind of tactic is actually used quite often.

[ramana]

Thanks, ramana

Added bold to text that needs emphasis.

-

Malladi Chandrasekhar Sastry who is a pravachana guru describes the pachikas (dice for lack of better word). He says they are long four sided rods (4-6 inches long) with taper end. Each side has 1,2,3 & 4 marked respectively. He found the only extent one in Tamilnadu and obtained a copy.
He then describes the game process which RamaY or JohneeG can better describe. Its not like common six sided dice. The advantage is with the person who wins the first throw.

Another commentator(Samavedam Shanmukha Sarma) says that Yuddhistir sends messenger to Draupadi prior to the Kauravas sending their emissary.
This commentator says that Yuddhistir and Draupadi are very much aligned in thought all along.

[sudarshan]

^^^ posts on this thread never cease to fire up my imagination. I think I know what you are thinking sudarshan garu.

Then you should let me know sometime, for my own edification .

Seriously, I was just wondering if the wartime doctrines/terminologies were in a state of evolution between Ramayana and MB times. Kind of like "dynamic civilization" vs. "ossified civilization."

Carl saar, thanks for the explanation. Are there more examples of the usage of these *-Rathi terms in the Ramayana? Just yes or no would do - I'm not asking you to quote verbatim. Also, how about terms like "Akshauhinis," which are used very often in the MB war to refer to troop strengths? Do they also occur in the Ramayana?

As for the avatara query, I was just surprised that somebody like Parasurama wasn't recognized as Vishnu in the Sahasranama. Even Vyasa is recognized ("Vyasaya Vishnuroopaya," etc.). In the Ramayana, when Parasurama gets furious at Rama for breaking the Shivadhanush, he comes charging into Janaka's assembly with the Vishnudhanush (IIRC) and challenges Rama to string that bow. When Rama is able to easily do it, that's when Parasurama realizes that Rama is the same as he is - i.e., Vishnu. This is recognized in the Ramayana, why not by Bhishma in the MB? That was what I was wondering. I agree that if all the avataras of Vishnu were named in the Sahasranama, it would become more like Kotinama or beyond.

Edit: I guess at the back of my mind, there was also this lingering effect of western brainwashing going on. Lots of western "experts"/"commentators" or more accurately "meddlers" have speculated that the MB was written in pieces by different authors, that it displays lack of consistency, that the Ramayana could actually have been composed after the MB, and a whole lot of other nonsense. That's where I was going with the "evolving civilization" thingy, at least subconsciously. If the Ramayana was written after the MB, would it not refer to terms like *-Rathi a lot more often? Whereas if the *-Rathi terminology was in evolution between Ramayana and MB, that would indicate that the lack of mention of this terminology in the Ramayana was corroborative evidence of its preceding the MB.

Anyway, I haven't got my thoughts on this fully straight yet. Just a vague subconscious sense right now, that there might be something of significance in this evidence....

[RamaY]

^ adding to Ramanaji's post. I will check that speech again. But it goes like this.

Imagine A and B are playing and A is rolling the dice

4 means A won
3 means A get to roll the dice again
2 means B get to roll the dice
1 means B won

All Sakuni had to do was to get 4 and 3 for enouogh number of times and Dharmaraja get 1 and 2 few times. The betting happend hardly 10-15 times (started with gems and ended with Draupadi).

The cross reference given in that speech was -

When Krishna talks to Karna after Rayabara, he tells him something like this this is not Satya or Treta Yuga (indicating 4 and 3 padas of Dharma - in this case sarcastically telling them about their Adharma) but this is Dwapara and soon we are going to enter Kali; meaning soon Kauravas are going to get 2s and 1s rolled in their dice.

[Atri]

Parshurama is a destructive avatara. Therefor his avatarahood has beginning and end. His avatara started when he saw the head of his father lying in dust cut by kaartaveerya Arjuna of Maheshwar. He eliminated all the bad blood in kshatriya cadre. His avatara ended when Raama tied the vishnu dhanushya while returning back to Ayodhya from Mithila. This is where Raama's avatar begins and Parshurama's avatara ends. Thereafter he is seen only in form of an emeritus professor.

There is o e story that he gave Krishna his sudarshana when krishna travelled as far as gomantaka (goa) while running away from Jarasandha's army' 16th Mathura invasion.

This same logic will apply to Kalki.

[Agnimitra]

Are there more examples of the usage of these *-Rathi terms in the Ramayana? Just yes or no would do - I'm not asking you to quote verbatim. Also, how about terms like "Akshauhinis," which are used very often in the MB war to refer to troop strengths? Do they also occur in the Ramayana?

Yes, akshauhini exists: Ramayana 1.19.3:

इयम् अक्षौहिणी पूर्णा यस्याहं पतिरीश्वरः ।
अनया संवृतॊ गत्वा यॊधाहं तैर्निशाचरैः ॥

The continuing usage of words in Sanskrit doesn't mean "ossification" of civilization/technology. Sanskrit is a different linguistic model. There are no words for objects in Sanskrit. Sanskrit words only indicate properties. In different times and places and subject matters, the same word can contextually indicate different: (a) technological manifestations of the same application-purpose of an object, (b) totally different and physically unrelated objects.

To give an example of (a) - we can have an akshauhini in today's army also, but that would presumably be very different in its technology than an akshauhini 1500 years ago or 10K years ago. to give an example of (b) - the word "shaakhaa" usually is used to refer to a "branch", usually a branch of a tree. It actually comes from the roots "sha" and "kha". "kha" refers to space or sky. "sha" refers to the state of lying flat against - for example the word for lying down is "shayana" - a derivative of the same root. So "sha" + "kha" literally means "lying flat against the sky"! This is because when one looks up at a branch of a tree, it appears to lie flat against the sky! so if one goes into Sanskrit roots, it is pretty far out...

As for the avatara query, I was just surprised that somebody like Parasurama wasn't recognized as Vishnu in the Sahasranama. Even Vyasa is recognized ("Vyasaya Vishnuroopaya," etc.).

Vyasa is also an Avesha avatara, like Parshurama. So perhaps his archetype is selected because of the intended process of the VSN, which may focus on sattva guna, I dunno. In any case, all avatara categories are represented.

Edit: I guess at the back of my mind, there was also this lingering effect of western brainwashing going on. Lots of western "experts"/"commentators" or more accurately "meddlers" have speculated that the MB was written in pieces by different authors

I know that was in the back of your mind.

[ramana]

sudarshan et al,

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 mono myth theory of Joseph Campbell, bless his heart, falls in this genre.

The key thing is Mahabharat is one of the many books that has to be read together. Some things are not mentioned in MB but in Bhagavatam and or the Puranas.

[sudarshan]

sudarshan et al,

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 mono myth theory of Joseph Campbell, bless his heart, falls in this genre.

The key thing is Mahabharat is one of the many books that has to be read together. Some things are not mentioned in MB but in Bhagavatam and or the Puranas.

Yes, never trust any western author on Indian subjects. They've built up this image of being impartial scholars who study "native cultures" and interpret them for themselves, also for the natives to know who they are and what they should think of themselves. Why should Egypt studies be conducted by the British and the French, why should the Germans or the British interpret Indian scriptures and enshrine our relics in their museums? The bloody natives are perfectly capable of scientific study of themselves and their cultures - the myth created by the Europeans is that the natives are "biased with notions of their own superiority," and that the Europeans are the impartial arbiters and scholars. It's a racket that worked well for two or three centuries, hopefully the "natives" are now catching on, and will get their own scholarship going.

Carl ji, and Atri ji, thanks for the responses. No shame in admitting western brainwashing . Barring a small lucky fraction, we're all in that boat to some degree or the other, even the ones who are aware of western perfidy still have some introspection to do to determine the full extent of the perfidy. I'm lucky that I got started with the process at a young age, even when my parents were still victims. Not that they weren't/aren't proud of their culture, but they did fall for the Aryan Invasion and some other assorted claptrap (notably, Nehruvian secularism, and also other Nehruvian baggage like "Bharat ek khoj" and how the Pakis are our long-lost biraders), and are only just beginning to see the light.

Shedding western brainwashing is a long process - like emerging from a dank lightless tunnel. First you marvel at how much you can see when you reach some small lighted spot, and you feel sorry for the others you left behind, who are still cowering in the dark. You follow the clues left by your predecessors, and then you reach an almost blocked-up airhole covered by a grille, and the light level is too intense for your enfeebled eyes, and you think "no more, it can't get any brighter than this." Then you see the light at the end of the tunnel. It grows brighter, your eyes get accustomed, and at each step you think - "I'm there, I see clearly now." Then you emerge into a moonlit area, and you're convinced you're there, at last. Nope, the full glare of the sun is still a long way away.

But once the process starts, there's no going back, is there? That's the best part of it. If you can initiate the process in somebody else, all the better.

[Agnimitra]

No shame in admitting western brainwashing . Barring a small lucky fraction, we're all in that boat to some degree or the other,

You bet. I knew what was in the back of your mind because I saw it in the back of my own mind onlee.

[ramana]

The British & French claimed to be descendants of Egyptian->Greek->Roman->Judeo-Christian civilization.


British and Germans both were Orientalists. The British to dominate India the crown jewel of the empire and the Germans to find a non-Hunnish identity.

[Nilesh Oak]

Question: Does reference of 'Matali' as charioteer of Indra appear anywhere else (specific references are required) other than Ramayana, when Matali assists Rama by being latter's charioteer during his fight with Ravana?

Appreciate the help.

[ramana]

[edited. Wrong information]

[Atri]

In Mahabharata, when Arjuna is wandering alone (in Pandava vanvaasa) for celestial weapons, Indra meets Arjuna in form of a Yati (tantrik sage) and advises him to please Shiva first and gain Paashupata Astra. When Arjuna does so post "Kiraata-Arjuna" episode, Indra sends Maatali to bring Arjuna to Swarga so that he may acquire other weapons of gods there..

There is one nice discussion between Arjuna and Maatali en route..

[Anand K]

.....
Vinata while being a slave to Kadruva due to a bet about Ucchisrava's white color, bears two eggs and unable to wait for them to hatch she breaks open one and Matali emerges and tells her she will be redeemed by Garuda who will be hatched from the other egg.

Err, wasn't that Aruna? Aruna is Surya's charioteer and Matali is Indra's AFAIK.
BTW, I googled and found some references to Matali's search for a Son-in-Law in the realm of the nagas.

[ramana]

You are right.

[Agnimitra]

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.

Klaus ji, I have put the question to some scholarly friends. I await their reply. Meanwhile, this is what I know: Vaishnavas have 3 kinds of samadhis for their acharyas -

The first is the full-body samadhi, where the body is buried deep in the ground in a salt chamber to preserve it. A rod touching the head reaches up to ground level, and usually an archa-vigraha is placed on top of that so that devotees can "touch" the departed acharya.

However, during Islamic domination, there was always the threat that the samadhis of the Vaishnavas would be desecrated or disinterred by Moslems. So, they took to the practice of cremating their acharyas. The ashes would then be treated as other articles in what are called pushpa-samadhi or smriti-samadhi. Here, many personal effects of the acharya are buried and a samadhi constructed on top of it. This usually included any personal shastras - though keeping their contents secret was not the intention.

[Klaus]

^^^ Agnimitra a.k.a Carl ji, thanks for the info and reply. I was laid low by recent surgery hence been slow to follow up. Awaiting the response from scholar friends.

So basically, the pushpa-samadhi and smriti-samadhi came into being only after Islamic invasions. I will do some reading on this.

More later. And I will get back to you regarding your query on another thread as well.

[Agnimitra]

Wishing you a speedy convalescence Klaus ji!

So basically, the pushpa-samadhi and smriti-samadhi came into being only after Islamic invasions. I will do some reading on this.

Smriti and pushpa samadhis were already a known practice, but they used to be distinct from the main full body samadhi. for example, if I have a hair of some great acharya who is buried in Vrindavan, I can create a smriti samadhi in Jaipur. Or even some personal article such as his footwear or clothes, or stylus, etc. Similarly, some parchment with his writings also qualify.

What changed during Islamic invasions was that it became risky to do the regular full body burial, because desecration was very likely. The recent desecration - and exhumation - of revered centuries old graves of Shi'a stalwarts in Syria is a live example. That's how it used to be. Therefore, to spare the community that humiliation and trauma, they dispense with full body burial samadhis in many cases and cremated the saint's body. Then they created a pushpa or smriti samadhi with those ashes.

I got one response from a scholar, and he is apologetic - says his knowledge is limited to his sampradaya's history, and is not aware of traditions from "Vedic" times. But he did say that the goswami-granthas are considered such esoteric knowledge that some adherents of his sampradaya consider it more precious and therefore more esoteric than the Vedas. so he thinks it is specific to sampradayic practice rather than a "Vedic" thing.

[putnanja]

Ramayana and Mahabharatha, both don't make any mention of weekdays (sunday, monday etc). They do specify the thithi (dvitiya, thritiya, chaturthi etc).

Are weeks a later construct in ancient India?

[Yayavar]

It does seem a later construct. Dont remember reading that in any panchang description. It was more event based - time for leisure, celebration, specific tasks - as against a more organised modern calender with a '7th day' holiday built in.

[vishvak]

Panchang - Hindu tithi patrika - can have 15 day tithi patra as per shukla/krishna paksh for social tithi lekh.

[Vayutuvan]

paksha = one of the two sides or one of the halves
shukla = white or bright
krishna = black or dark
So
a month of 30 days has two halves
1. One half is called shukla paksha meaning the bright halve (of the month) which culminates in poorNima (Full moon)
2. the other half is obviously called krishna paksha meaning the dark side of the month which culminates in amAvAshya (No moon)

Here is a a reference on calendrical calculations:
Calendrical Calculations [Paperback]
Nachum Dershowitz (Author), Edward M. Reingold (Author)

By the way, both are excellent teachers. The first author is a well known rewrite systems, logic programming professor (now in Israel) and the second is a well-known algorithms professor. The second author had given an interview on NPR back in 1999 just before Y2K problem and he said (I paraphrase) "Hindu calender system is the most logical calendrical system ever invented". FWIW and HTH.

PS: A comment from Danny Hillis (the guy who founded Thinking Machines and the thesis The connection Machine which also is an MIT Press book - last I heard about him, he was involved in a project called Long Now which honestly looked a little wonky to me - no idea where they are at currently.

5.0 out of 5 stars Just what I needed., January 18, 1999
By Danny Hillis (Los Angeles) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
This review is from: Calendrical Calculations (Paperback)
In the course of building a 10,000 year clock I needed to know a lot of obscure details about various calendar systems. Calendrical Calculations not only answered all my questions, but it also introduced me to a lot of interesting information that I never would have thought to ask about. It is one of those rare books that is both an authoritative reference source and a fun read.

[ramana]

Hnair, Recall you were lookinn for images of Hindu Gods and Goddesses for little children to color?

www.sanatansociety.com has downl oadable pictures for coloring.

http://www.sanatansociety.org/hindu_god ... desses.htm

Amazon has a book :"Hindu Dieties' by Sanjay Patel which is very cute intro for kids.

[Klaus]

I got one response from a scholar, and he is apologetic - says his knowledge is limited to his sampradaya's history, and is not aware of traditions from "Vedic" times. But he did say that the goswami-granthas are considered such esoteric knowledge that some adherents of his sampradaya consider it more precious and therefore more esoteric than the Vedas. so he thinks it is specific to sampradayic practice rather than a "Vedic" thing.

Many thanks for this response! Could you kindly ask the scholar if he knows of any cross-pollination of ideas and/or practices taking place between the specific sampradaya or the goswami-granthas and titular heads in Zoroastrianism or Judaism? Any known earliest contact by scholars from the Levant?

I am just researching potential links leading up to U-Turn phenomena first expounded by Rajiv Malhotra.

[johneeG]

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

I don't know anything about this, but I heard a puranic story: a king starts chanting(Japa) of pancha-akshari mahamantra. He stands in river while doing so. He practices it for sometime. After a while, he starts witnessing black crows coming out of his body in droves and then burning to ashes and falling down on ground. The king is frightened and goes to his guru. His guru tells him that those crows symbolize his sins(accumulated over various lives). By chanting the mantra, all his sins of many lives are being cleansed, according to his guru.

----

Thus we have:
1. Purusha
2. Prakriti
3. The Organism - a particular degree of disorderly or harmonious interaction between Purusha and Prakriti
4. Laws and Formulas in relation to the Organism in any time-based Condition - Maya

Agnimitra(Pavan? ) saar,
I am afraid that what you are saying is completely different. In sankhya, there are only two entities:
Purusha and Prakriti.

Prakriti comprises of:
01-05) Pancha-indriya(ears, eyes, nose, tongue, skin)
05-10) Pancha-tanmatra(sound, sight, smell, taste, touch)
10-15) Pancha-karmendriya(legs, hands, anus, genitals, mouth)
15-20) Pancha-bhutas(Akasha/Ether, Vayu/Air, Tejas/Energy, Apas/Liquid, Bhumi/earth)
21) Manas/Mind
22) Ahamkara/Ego
23) Mahat or Buddhi/Intellect
24) Mula Prakriti.

Mula Prakriti is made up of 3 gunas: Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas. Everything manifests from Mula Prakriti. But, Mula Prakriti itself is considered inert on its own.

Purusha is devoid of Gunas. He is devoid of all the other 23 aspects(that have been listed above) also. So, Purusha is Self/Atma/Brahman. Purusha is not inert. But, it does not act by itself. Prakriti is inert, but has the ability to act. The combination of Purusha and Prakriti leads to the manifestation of the world. The world cannot exist only due to Prakriti or only due to Purusha.

The goal is to experience this Purusha. The method is to filter out all aspects of Prakriti until only the Purusha is left. This is neti(not this) neti(not this) method.

To give an example, one is trying to find a small diamond in a sand. So, each particle of sand is picked and is checked whether it is diamond or not. If it is not the diamond(i.e., if it does not have the qualities of a diamond), then it is discarded. Then, one goes to the next particle and repeats the procedure. This goes on until the diamond is found or all the sand particles have been exhausted.

The same procedure occurs here. Once the Purusha is found(i.e., experienced), it is Moksha(liberation). A Purusha which is under the bondage of Prakriti is called Jeeva. A Purusha with is not in such bondage is called Mukta.

In Yoga, the concept of Ishwara is brought. In Sankhya, due to its procedure(Gyana Marga) there is no scope for the concept of Ishwara. But, in Yoga, there is concept of Ishwara. Why bring Ishwara into the equation?

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

So, Yoga defines Ishwara as a special case in Purusha within the Sankhya scheme.

In Vedhantha, Prakriti is called Maya(not the relationship between Prakriti and Purusha). Infact, it is Mula Prakriti which is called Maya.

Maayam Tu prakrithim vidyaat,maayinam tu maheswarah-Svestasvatara Upanishad.

Maya is Prakriti and Mayina(Purusha) is Shiva. Shiva-Shakti, Prakriti-Purusha, Brahman-Maya. Same concepts. One could even add, Sri Rama-Sita Amma to the list.

The basic point about Adhvaitha Vedhantha is:
Brahma Sathyam Jagath mithya, jeevo brahma eva na aparah

What does Jagath mithya mean?(This is where Vedhantha seemingly diverges from Sankhya and Yoga)
There are two levels of understanding:
a) Mithya means one which cannot be called either Sathya or Asathya.
Sathya means eternal. Asathya means non-existent. Eg: horn of a rabbit.
Mithya means one which is neither eternal nor non-existent. That means it exists but is temporary. And keeps changing. So, in this level of understanding Mithya means temporary and changing. The world is called Mithya.

b) At a higher level of understanding in Adhvaitha Vedhantha(not acceptable or understandable to all), Mithya means illusory. Eg: dream. In this view, the world is seen as real as a dream.

By calling Prakriti as Maya, Adhvaitha Vedhantha is not insulting Prakriti. In fact, Prakriti is also worshiped as Shakti of Purusha/Brahman/Ishwara.

The story of how Totapuri supposedly insulted Goddess Kali is posted above. But, rest of the story should also be posted, otherwise a wrong idea about Vedhantha is conveyed. What Sri Totapuri said against Prakriti or Goddess Kali is not supported by Vedhantha. Infact, Adi Shankara Himself has penned Saundarya Lahiri in praise of Goddess. Further, Goddess is not just Prakriti. She is the Purusha also. That is the true Adhvaitha Vedhantha. What Adhvaitha Vedhantha says is that there is only one entity(not two) and that is Brahman/Atma. So, Goddess is Brahman/Purusha. Goddess is God. The fact that Goddess and God appear as two distinct entities is Maya.

Totapuri arrived at the Dakshineswar temple garden toward the end of 1864. Perhaps born in the Punjab, he was the head of a monastery in that province of India and claimed leadership of seven hundred sannyasis. Trained from early youth in the disciplines of the Advaita Vedanta, he looked upon the world as an illusion. The gods and goddesses of the dualistic worship were to him mere fantasies of the deluded mind. Prayers, ceremonies, rites, and rituals had nothing to do with true religion, and about these he was utterly indifferent. Exercising self-exertion and unshakable will-power, he had liberated himself from attachment to the sense-objects of the relative universe. For forty years he had practised austere discipline on the bank of the sacred Narmada and had finally realized his identity with the Absolute. Thenceforward he roamed in the world as an unfettered soul, a lion free from the cage. Clad in a loin-cloth, he spent his days under the canopy of the sky alike in storm and sunshine, feeding his body on the slender pittance of alms. He had been visiting the estuary of the Ganges. On his return journey along the bank of the sacred river, led by the inscrutable Divine Will, he stopped at Dakshineswar.

Totapuri, discovering at once that Sri Ramakrishna was prepared to be a student of Vedanta, asked to initiate him into its mysteries. With the permission of the Divine Mother, Sri Ramakrishna agreed to the proposal. But Totapuri explained that only a sannyasi could receive the teaching of Vedanta. Sri Ramakrishna agreed to renounce the world, but with the stipulation that the ceremony of his initiation into the monastic order be performed in secret, to spare the feelings of his old mother, who had been living with him at Dakshineswar.

On the appointed day, in the small hours of the morning, a fire was lighted in the Panchavati. Totapuri and Sri Ramakrishna sat before it. The flame played on their faces. "Ramakrishna was a small brown man with a short beard and beautiful eyes, long dark eyes, full of light, obliquely set and slightly veiled, never very wide open, but seeing half-closed a great distance both outwardly and inwardly. His mouth was open over his white teeth in a bewitching smile, at once affectionate and mischievous. Of medium height, he was thin to emaciation and extremely delicate. His temperament was high-strung, for he was supersensitive to all the winds of joy and sorrow, both moral and physical. He was indeed a living reflection of all that happened before the mirror of his eyes, a two-sided mirror, turned both out and in." (Romain Rolland, Prophets of the New India, pp. 38-9.) Facing him, the other rose like a rock. He was very tall and robust, a sturdy and tough oak. His constitution and mind were of iron. He was the strong leader of men.

In the burning flame before him Sri Ramakrishna performed the rituals of destroying his attachment to relatives, friends, body, mind, sense-organs, ego, and the world. The leaping flame swallowed it all, making the initiate free and pure. The sacred thread and the tuft of hair were consigned to the fire, completing his severance from caste, sex, and society. Last of all he burnt in that fire, with all that is holy as his witness, his desire for enjoyment here and hereafter. He uttered the sacred mantras giving assurance of safety and fearlessness to all beings, who were only manifestations of his own Self. The rites completed, the disciple received from the guru the loin-cloth and ochre robe, the emblems of his new life.

The teacher and the disciple repaired to the meditation room near by. Totapuri began to impart to Sri Ramakrishna the great truths of Vedanta.

"Brahman", he said, "is the only Reality, ever pure, ever illumined, ever free, beyond the limits of time, space, and causation. Though apparently divided by names and forms through the inscrutable power of maya, that enchantress who makes the impossible possible, Brahman is really One and undivided. When a seeker merges in the beatitude of samadhi, he does not perceive time and space or name and form, the offspring of maya. Whatever is within the domain of maya is unreal. Give it up. Destroy the prison-house of name and form and rush out of it with the strength of a lion. Dive deep in search of the Self and realize It through samadhi. You will find the world of name and form vanishing into void, and the puny ego dissolving in Brahman-Consciousness. You will realize your identity with Brahman, Existence-Knowledge-Bliss Absolute." Quoting the Upanishad, Totapuri said: "That knowledge is shallow by which one sees or hears or knows another. What is shallow is worthless and can never give real felicity. But the Knowledge by which one does not see another or hear another or know another, which is beyond duality, is great, and through such Knowledge one attains the Infinite Bliss. How can the mind and senses grasp That which shines in the heart of all as the Eternal Subject?"

Totapuri asked the disciple to withdraw his mind from all objects of the relative world, including the gods and goddesses, and to concentrate on the Absolute. But the task was not easy even for Sri Ramakrishna. He found it impossible to take his mind beyond Kali, the Divine Mother of the Universe. "After the initiation", Sri Ramakrishna once said, describing the event, "Nangta began to teach me the various conclusions of the Advaita Vedanta and asked me to withdraw the mind completely from all objects and dive deep into the Atman. But in spite of all my attempts I could not altogether cross the realm of name and form and bring my mind to the unconditioned state. I had no difficulty in taking the mind from all the objects of the world. But the radiant and too familiar figure of the Blissful Mother, the Embodiment ment of the essence of Pure Consciousness, appeared before me as a living reality. Her bewitching smile prevented me from passing into the Great Beyond. Again and again I tried, but She stood in my way every time. In despair I said to Nangta: 'It is hopeless. I cannot raise my mind to the unconditioned state and come face to face with Atman.' He grew excited and sharply said: 'What? You can't do it? But you have to.' He cast his eyes around. Finding a piece of glass he took it up and stuck it between my eyebrows. 'Concentrate the mind on this point!' he thundered. Then with stern determination I again sat to meditate. As soon as the gracious form of the Divine Mother appeared before me, I used my discrimination as a sword and with it clove Her in two. The last barrier fell. My spirit at once soared beyond the relative plane and I lost myself in samadhi."

Sri Ramakrishna remained completely absorbed in samadhi for three days. "Is it really true?" Totapuri cried out in astonishment. "Is it possible that he has attained in a single day what it took me forty years of strenuous practice to achieve? Great God! It is nothing short of a miracle!" With the help of Totapuri, Sri Ramakrishna's mind finally came down to the relative plane.

Totapuri, a monk of the most orthodox type, never stayed at a place more than three days. But he remained at Dakshineswar eleven months. He too had something to learn.

Totapuri had no idea of the struggles of ordinary men in the toils of passion and desire. Having maintained all through life the guilelessness of a child, he laughed at the idea of a man's being led astray by the senses. He was convinced that the world was maya and had only to be denounced to vanish for ever. A born non-dualist, he had no faith in a Personal God. He did not believe in the terrible aspect of Kali, much less in Her benign aspect. Music and the chanting of God's holy name were to him only so much nonsense. He ridiculed the spending of emotion on the worship of a Personal God.

KALI AND MAYA

Sri Ramakrishna, on the other hand, though fully aware, like his guru, that the world is an illusory appearance, instead of slighting maya, like an orthodox monist, acknowledged its power in the relative life. He was all love and reverence for maya, perceiving in it a mysterious and majestic expression of Divinity. To him maya itself was God, for everything was God. It was one of the faces of Brahman. What he had realized on the heights of the transcendental plane, he also found here below, everywhere about him, under the mysterious garb of names and forms. And this garb was a perfectly transparent sheath, through which he recognized the glory of the Divine Immanence. Maya, the mighty weaver of the garb, is none other than Kali, the Divine Mother. She is the primordial Divine Energy, Sakti, and She can no more be distinguished from the Supreme Brahman than can the power of burning be distinguished from fire. She projects the world and again withdraws it. She spins it as the spider spins its web. She is the Mother of the Universe, identical with the Brahman of Vedanta, and with the Atman of Yoga. As eternal Lawgiver, She makes and unmakes laws; it is by Her imperious will that karma yields its fruit. She ensnares men with illusion and again releases them from bondage with a look of Her benign eyes. She is the supreme Mistress of the cosmic play, and all objects, animate and inanimate, dance by Her will. Even those who realize the Absolute in nirvikalpa samadhi are under Her jurisdiction as long as they still live on the relative plane.

Thus, after nirvikalpa samadhi, Sri Ramakrishna realized maya in an altogether new role. The binding aspect of Kali vanished from before his vision. She no longer obscured his understanding. The world became the glorious manifestation of the Divine Mother. Maya became Brahman. The Transcendental Itself broke through the Immanent. Sri Ramakrishna discovered that maya operates in the relative world in two ways, and he termed these "avidyamaya" and "vidyamaya". Avidyamaya represents the dark forces of creation: sensuous desires, evil passions, greed, lust, cruelty, and so on. It sustains the world system on the lower planes. It is responsible for the round of man's birth and death. It must be fought and vanquished. But vidyamaya is the higherforce of creation: the spiritual virtues, the enlightening qualities, kindness, purity, love, devotion. Vidyamaya elevates man to the higher planes of consciousness. With the help of vidyamaya the devotee rids himself of avidyamaya; he then becomes mayatita, free of maya. The two aspects of maya are the two forces of creation, the two powers of Kali; and She stands beyond them both. She is like the effulgent sun, bringing into existence and shining through and standing behind the clouds of different colours and shapes, conjuring up wonderful forms in the blue autumn heaven.

The Divine Mother asked Sri Ramakrishna not to be lost in the featureless Absolute but to remain, in bhavamukha, on the threshold of relative consciousness, the border line between the Absolute and the Relative. He was to keep himself at the "sixth centre" of Tantra, from which he could see not only the glory of the seventh, but also the divine manifestations of the Kundalini in the lower centres. He gently oscillated back and forth across the dividing line. Ecstatic devotion to the Divine Mother alternated with serene absorption in the Ocean of Absolute Unity. He thus bridged the oulf between the Personal and the Impersonal, the immanent and the transcendent aspects of Reality. This is a unique experience in the recorded spiritual history of the world.

TOTAPURI'S LESSON

From Sri Ramakrishna Totapuri had to learn the significance of Kali, the Great Fact of the relative world, and of maya, Her indescribable Power.

One day, when guru and disciple were engaged in an animated discussion about Vedanta, a servant of the temple garden came there and took a coal from the sacred fire that had been lighted by the great ascetic. He wanted it to light his tobacco. Totapuri flew into a rage and was about to beat the man. Sri Ramakrishna rocked with laughter. "What a shame!" he cried. "You are explaining to me the reality of Brahman and the illusoriness of the world; yet now you have so far forgotten yourself as to be about to beat a man in a fit of passion. The power of maya is indeed inscrutable!" Totapuri was embarrassed.

About this time Totapuri was suddenly laid up with a severe attack of dysentery. On account of this miserable illness he found it impossible to meditate. One night the pain became excruciating. He could no longer concentrate on Brahman. The body stood in the way. He became incensed with its demands. A free soul, he did not at all care for the body. So he determined to drown it in the Ganges. Thereupon he walked into the river. But, lo! He walks to the other bank." (This version of the incident is taken from the biography of Sri Ramakrishna by Swami Saradananda, one of the Master's direct disciples.) Is there not enough water in the Ganges? Standing dumbfounded on the other bank he looks back across the water. The trees, the temples, the houses, are silhouetted against the sky. Suddenly, in one dazzling moment, he sees on all sides the presence of the Divine Mother. She is in everything; She is everything. She is in the water; She is on land. She is the body; She is the mind. She is pain; She is comfort. She is knowledge; She is ignorance. She is life; She is death. She is everything that one sees, hears, or imagines. She turns "yea" into "nay", and "nay" into "yea". Without Her grace no embodied being can go beyond Her realm. Man has no free will. He is not even free to die. Yet, again, beyond the body and mind She resides in Her Transcendental, Absolute aspect. She is the Brahman that Totapuri had been worshipping all his life.

Totapuri returned to Dakshineswar and spent the remaining hours of the night meditating on the Divine Mother. In the morning he went to the Kali temple with Sri Ramakrishna and prostrated himself before the image of the Mother. He now realized why he had spent eleven months at Dakshineswar. Bidding farewell to the disciple, he continued on his way, enlightened.

Sri Ramakrishna later described the significance of Totapuri's lessons:

"When I think of the Supreme Being as inactive — neither creating nor preserving nor destroying —, I call Him Brahman or Purusha, the Impersonal sonal God. When I think of Him as active — creating, preserving, and destroying —, I call Him Sakti or Maya or Prakriti, the Personal God. But the distinction between them does not mean a difference. The Personal and the Impersonal are the same thing, like milk and its whiteness, the diamond and its lustre, the snake and its wriggling motion. It is impossible to conceive of the one without the other. The Divine Mother and Brahman are one."

After the departure of Totapuri, Sri Ramakrishna remained for six months in a state of absolute identity with Brahman. "For six months at a stretch", he said, "I remained in that state from which ordinary men can never return; generally the body falls off, after three weeks, like a sere leaf. I was not conscious of day and night. Flies would enter my mouth and nostrils just as they do a dead body's, but I did not feel them. My hair became matted with dust."

His body would not have survived but for the kindly attention of a monk who happened to be at Dakshineswar at that time and who somehow realized that for the good of humanity Sri Ramakrishna's body must be preserved. He tried various means, even physical violence, to recall the fleeing soul to the prison-house of the body, and during the resultant fleeting moments of consciousness he would push a few morsels of food down Sri Ramakrishna's throat. Presently Sri Ramakrishna received the command of the Divine Mother to remain on the threshold of relative consciousness. Soon there-after after he was afflicted with a serious attack of dysentery. Day and night the pain tortured him, and his mind gradually came down to the physical plane.

Link

BTW, Puri is one of the titles bestowed on the Sanyasis related to Sringeri Matha, established by Sri Adhi Shankara.

----

Second question is about the Vishnu Sahasranama. Some of the names of Vishnu come from the Dashavatara - like Mahavaraho, or Naarasimha, or Vamanah, or even Rama. Why not Matsya, Kurma, or Parasurama? Parasurama was around in Mahabharata times, he even trained many of the warriors. Was he not recognized as Vishnu incarnate then?

As for the avatara query, I was just surprised that somebody like Parasurama wasn't recognized as Vishnu in the Sahasranama. Even Vyasa is recognized ("Vyasaya Vishnuroopaya," etc.). In the Ramayana, when Parasurama gets furious at Rama for breaking the Shivadhanush, he comes charging into Janaka's assembly with the Vishnudhanush (IIRC) and challenges Rama to string that bow. When Rama is able to easily do it, that's when Parasurama realizes that Rama is the same as he is - i.e., Vishnu. This is recognized in the Ramayana, why not by Bhishma in the MB? That was what I was wondering. I agree that if all the avataras of Vishnu were named in the Sahasranama, it would become more like Kotinama or beyond.

Sudarshan Saar,
Vyasaya Vishnuroopaya, is not part of the the Vishnu Sahasranama. The sahasranama(1000 names) start from 'Vishvam Vishnu Vashatkaro...'

Coming to the query:
Kurma avatara is mentioned in Stanza 19:
mahaabuddhir-mahaa- veeryo mahaa-saktir mahaa-dyutih
anirdesya-vapuh sreemaan ameyaatmaa mahaadri-dhrik.

(180) Mahaadridhrik -One who supports the great Mountain. In the Puranas, we find two instances, wherein the Lord has been described as the uplifter of or as having lifted and supported the mountains. While churning the milky ocean with the Mandara mountain we are told that the “churning-stick” sunk into the bottom and the Lord had to manifest in the form of the Great Tortoise (Koorma) and support it, while the Gods and Demons continued the churning, until they gathered the nectar (Amritam).

Again, the Supreme, as Lord Krishna, in order to protect the cows had to lift the Govardhana Mountain. Because of these two stories in the Puranas, Lord, the Protector of the mind in Saadhanaa, is called as Mahaadridhrik.

Vishnu is the Divine, that supports the mind-intellect of the Saadhaka while he is churning, through study (sravana) and reflection (manana), his own Milk-like pure heart-of devotion in order to gain the experience of Immortality (Amritam).

Matsya Avatara is mentioned in Stanza 40:
viksharo rohito maargo hetur daamodarah sahah
maheedharo mahaabhaago vegavaan-amitaasanah.

364. Rohitah -The term ‘Rohita’ means fish, and this name has come to indicate Lord Vishnu because of His first incarnation as the Fish.

There is another meaning: Ro means knowledge(i.e. Gyana, which means Vedha). Hitha means the benefactor. So, Ro-hithah means 'one who is a benefactor of knowledge or Vedha i.e. Matsya Avatara'.

Parashu-Rama Avatara is mentioned in Stanza 61:
sudhanvaa khandaparasurdaaruno dravinnapradhah
divah-sprik sarvadrik vyaaso vaachaspatirayonijah.

568. Khanda-parasuh -One who has the axe- weapon-called “Parasu.” The Lord used this weapon in His Incarnation as Parasuraama, the son of Jamadagni. It is endowed with terrible prowess in cutting down the unholy enemies of the nobler life and so it is called as the “Khanda-Parasu.” As such it means ‘one who wields the invincible Parasu.’

There is another point here: Khanda-Parashu carried by Parashu-Rama was given to him by Lord Shiva. The original One who carries the Khanda-Parashu is Lord Shiva. So, this name also applies to Lord Shiva. Of course, there are many other names of Lord Shiva which are part of Vishnu Sahasranama: Eg: Shiva, Bhima, Ugra, Rudra, Sthanu, ...etc.

Link

----

Two kwik kweschuns - apologize if they're elementary level.

I'm rather familiar with MB, not so much with Ramayan. In the MB, terms like "Rathi," "Athirathi," "Maharathi" keep occurring. Yudhishthir was a Rathi, Bhim & Arjun, Krishna and Satyaki, Ashwatthama etc. were Maharathis. Abhimanyu became recognized as a Maharathi after he passed a test, defeating Kritavarman (I think) in a sword duel (I think). It's a classification system which indicates the warrior's proficiency in battle.

Do these terms occur in the Ramayana also? I'd imagine Ram, Lakshman, Hanuman, Ravan, Indrajit, Kumbhkarn would all be Maharathis. However, I don't recall ever coming across warriors being described in these terms in the Ramayana. Maybe I'm wrong? Or were the terms not extant in Ramayan times?

Seriously, I was just wondering if the wartime doctrines/terminologies were in a state of evolution between Ramayana and MB times. Kind of like "dynamic civilization" vs. "ossified civilization."

Carl saar, thanks for the explanation. Are there more examples of the usage of these *-Rathi terms in the Ramayana? Just yes or no would do - I'm not asking you to quote verbatim. Also, how about terms like "Akshauhinis," which are used very often in the MB war to refer to troop strengths? Do they also occur in the Ramayana?

Saar,
very interesting questions.

First, we should try to understand the whole system of divisions:

Akshauhini

According to Adi Parva, Section 2, Akshauhini is defined as:

a) 1 Chariot, 1 Elephant, 3 Cavalry and 5 Infantry is the basic unit. It is called Patti.

b) The next unit is called Sena-mukha. 1 Sena-mukha == 3 Patti-s. i.e.
1 Sena-mukha contains 3 Chariots, 3 Elephants, 9 Cavalry and 15 Infantry.

c) The next unit is called Gulma. 1 Gulma == 3 times the Sena-mukha. i.e.
1 Gulma contains 9 Chariots, 9 Elephants, 27 Cavalry and 45 Infantry

d) The next unit is called Gana. 1 Gana == 3 times the Gulma. i.e.
1 Gana contains 27 Chariots, 27 Elephants, 81 Cavalry and 135 Infantry

e) The next unit is called Vaahini. 1 Vaahini == 3 times the Gana i.e.
1 Vaahini contains 81 Chariots, 81 Elephants, 242 Cavalry and 405 Infantry

f)The next unit is called Prutana. 1 Prutana == 3 times the Vaahini i.e.
1 Prutana contains 243 Chariots, 243 Elephants, 729 Cavalry and 1215 Infantry

g) The next unit is called Chamu. 1 Chamu == 3 times Prutana i.e.
1 Chamu contains 729 Chariots, 729 Elephants, 2187 Cavalry and 3645 Infantry

h) The next unit is called Anikini. 1 Ankini == 3 times Chamu i.e.
1 Ankini contains 2187 Chariots, 2187 Elephants, 6561 Cavalry and 10935 Infantry

i) And finally, the next unit called Akshauhini. 1 Akshauhini is 10 times an Anikini i.e.
1 Akshauhini contains 21870 Chariots, 21870 Elephants, 65610 Cavalry and 109350 Infantry.

In MB, 18 Akshauhinis fought the war. That means, 3,93,660 Chariots, 3,93,660 Elephants, 11,80,980 Cavalry and 19,68,300 Infantry.

All these various terms for the army do appear in Valmiki Ramayana. But, they appear as synonyms of Army, and not in their strict technical sense. For example:
Anikini is mentioned in Valmiki Ramayana in Yuddha Kanda 6, Shloka 24, Shloka 26, Shloka 30, Shloka 67.
Vahini and Chamu are mentioned several times in Valmiki Ramayana.
Chamu is mentioned in Valmiki Ramayana in Yuddha Kanda 6, Sarga 26, Shloka 42
Akshauhini is mentioned in Valmiki Ramayana in Bala Kanda 1, Sarga 20 or 19, Shloka 3 (Agnimitra saar, please check and verify whether it is sarga 20 or 19. According to the only version, it is sarga 20 and not 19...)
Gana is mentioned in Valmiki Ramayana in Yuddha Kanda 6, Sarga 3, Shloka 12

Further, these terms are also mentioned in Vedhas. In Yajur Vedha, Rudhram,
'Pattinaam pathaye namah'(salute to Lord of Patti-s) is found in 2nd Anuvaka. Here Patti is mentioned. Patti is the first basic unit. Patti contains 1 Chariot, 1 Elephant, 3 Cavalry and 5 Infantry is the basic unit.

Then, 'namo Ganebhyo GanaPathibhyah cha namo'(salute to Gana-s and GanaPathi-s) is found in 4th Anuvaka. Here, Gana is mentioned. 1 Gana contains 27 Chariots, 27 Elephants, 81 Cavalry and 135 Infantry.

Entire Rudhram has many things related to war sciences.

Ramayana says that the war of Ramayana was unlike any seen before or after. Infact, Valmiki(who is famous for his similes and metaphors) says that there is no simile or metaphor that can compare with the war of Ramayana. The war was fought in a very unusual manner between monkeys and asuras. It was not a regular war. Monkeys did not use any chariots, or horses or elephants. Even their weapons were not necessarily the regular weapons. Instead, frequently, they resort to fighting with large trees or boulders. They fight in the dark of the night as well with no light. The only light comes from sparks emitted by weapons. In short, it is an unusual war.
---

When it is said that 18 Akshauhinis fought in Kurukshetra, some people are incredulous.

For example:
Link

I have tried to critique his views. I am posting the critique:

Mahabharatha Army
Kurukeshtra
The name Kurukshetra applies to a circuit of about 128 kms. (This is the first mistake. Kurukshetra applies to a much larger field. The entire area between Hastinapura and Saraswati river is called Kurukshetra. Some of this area was filled Kurujangala i.e. forests of Kuru. Some of these forests were cleared by Arjuna and Sri Krishna to expand Indraprastha. So, it is not known how large the area was exactly. But it was quite large, infact very very large. )

These plains of Haryana have provided a battle ground for ages. 21 battles were fought between Parashurama and the Kashtriya kings at Kurukeshtra. (@5,000 BCE)(No, it is not 5000 BCE. It is 5000 years ago. That means about 3000 BCE. To be exact: 3102 BCE) Then it was named Samanta-panchaka, as 5 lakes at battle field were filled with the blood of the slain warriors. The MB war (@ 3,000 BCE) that killed thousands of soldiers was fought on the same soil. 60 kms to the South is Panipat(As far as I understand, even Panipat is part of Kurukshetra.). Three battles that changed the history of India were fought at Panipat. These battles claimed lives of thousands of soldiers and civilians.
Dhruturashtra calls Kurukeshtra the Dharma-keshtra(Not just Dhrutarashtra, but throughout MB, Kurukshetra is described as a holy place. But again, one should not assume that Kurukshetra is a tiny region. It is a vast territory starting from Saraswati river to Hastinapura. Infact, while MB war is being fought, Balarama goes on pilgrimage in this region.). Where the Paandav and the Kaurav had assembled with an army of 18 Akshauhini.

About 2,000,000 infantry had gathered from India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.(And central asia, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Myanmar, Bhutan, and many more . Perhaps, Greece and Rome also participated. Many of the various kingdom names mentioned in the MB are still open to interpretation.) Let's see the army maintained in the same area in later times. In 300 BCE Chandragupta Maurya's army was an incredibly large force of 700,000 men, 9,000 elephants, and 10,000 chariots. In Ashoka's time, the army consisted of 600,000 infantry, 130,000 cavalry, thousands of chariots and elephants. Still later in 16th century, Ibrahim Lodi, the sultan of Delhi, maintained an army of 100,000. (That means, Chandragupta Maurya supposedly maintained a greater army in BCE than Lodhi in CE! What was the population of India during Chandragupta Maurya period and Lodhi period? Also, one cannot simply equate the numbers given in MB with the later day wars or kingdoms. MB was not just another war. MB itself mentions several wars and conquests before and after the MB. BUT, MB stands out as the most extensive and complete and dangerous war. It was the world war of those times. So, comparing the numbers is nonsensical. Further, it is not enough to compare the numbers just like that. One has to see the extent of the kingdom, to know the prowess of the kingdom. Or one has to look at the number of kingdoms that participated in the war. MB war is comparable only to world wars. It is not even comparable to Panipat. Dilli Sultanate was vulnerable to attack from north-west and was consistently being attacked and raided by the Mongols, from the time of Timur. Timur even looted and sacked Dilli during the time of Khilji. Babar, the grandson of Timur, happened to not only raid the Sultanate but also defeat them and take over Dilli. Remember, Sultanate was facing powerful enemies within India itself like Vijayanagara and . Further, Sultanate were seen as alien invaders out to destroy the culture by natives. Even the sultanate was keen on destroying the local culture, civilization, and religions. So, there was constant conflict between the rulers i.e. sultanate and their subjects i.e. natives. Given these various factors, example of Panipat is not at all comparable to MB. Further, Lodhi was not ruling entire India, so his low numbers are consequence of that. On the other hand, Chandragupta Maurya was supposedly ruling the entire India, so his higher numbers reflect that. Now imagine, a world war, the numbers would be still higher. And MB is showcasing that event. So, comparisons are silly and nonsense. It is like comparing the local lake and trying to understand the Indian ocean. )
First battle of Panipat left 20,000 dead. Considering that as 10% of the fighting force, an army of about 200,000 was present in Panipat. Almost 100,000 people died in the third battle of Panipat. Considering that as 20% (high cause many died in this battle.) died in the battle, almost 500,000 people were present in Panipat.
About 700,000 to 100,000 infantry is seen in later times when the population in India was considerably more than the MB times. Thus a figure of 2,000,000 infantry (not including about 2 people per chariot, 3 people per elephant, 1 rider per horse, and supporting people like cooks, scouts, suppliers, care takers, doctors etc.) seems far fetched. (This is a subjective view. Each one can come up with what seems farfetched or not. 5 husbands may seem farfetched. Bhishma not fighting Shikhandi may seem farfetched. People going to forest for 12 years just for losing a game of dice may seem farfetched…)
If we consider, akshauhiNi, anikini and chamu to be one and the same then the army size comes to: (Why go this far? Maybe the one should consider Akshauhini to be same as Patti i.e. 3 horses, 1 chariot, 1 elephant and 5 foot-soldiers. That’s all. Maybe the whole war was fought between 11 pattis and 7 pattis. 18 pattis. Done and dusted, no?)
1 chamu / anikini / akshauhini = 729 chariots; 729 elephants; 3,645 soldiers; 2,187 horses
Paandav army (7 akshauhini) = 5,103 chariots; 5,103 elephants; 25,515 soldiers; 15309 horses
Kaurav army (11 akshauhini) = 8,019 chariots; 8,019 elephants; 40,095 soldiers; 24,057 horses
Total (18 akshauhini) would have about 170,000 people. (including 2 people per chariot, 3 people per elephant, and 1 rider per horse). Considering another 1000 people per akshauhini as support staff; there were about 180,000 people in Kurukeshtra. Considering that about 5% of the force was killed in the war, about 9,000 people must have been killed in the war.
These figures seem realistic. (What is 'realistic' is dependent on one’s own bias. Nothing more. The population at the time of Mahabharata war is not known to anyone. Any speculation is just that: speculation. Further, during massive wars, entire population is converted into armed forces. MB was certainly the world war of those times. So, even if the population is small, it is still possible that even the regular citizens were used to augment and swell the numbers. This would be especially true in terms of footsoldiers. The same thing had happened in Vietnam and the samething is happening in Afghanistan. The distinction between the regular soldiers and normal citizens vanishes in war times. The same thing had happened in different societies during WW1 and WW2. )

(Mahabharat in Adi Parva, Section 2, clearly mentions the number of cavalry, infantry, elephants and chariots. So, given such a clear mention, how can one start to obfuscate the numbers to suit one’s own bias or ideas of what is realistic? )

Many kings had sent 1 akshauhini force to help the Pandav / Kaurav. Kings of Sindh / Punjab / Bengal / Gujarat sending an infantary of about 3,000 is a possiblility that can be considered. (As against 10,000 infantry.)

MB mentions that ALL people died in the great war except: Ashwathama, Krupacharya, Krutavarma, Yuyutsu, Krishna, and the 5 Pandaav. I would rather take this to mean that ALL commanders, chiefs, and princes who had participated in the war died. Need not mean that EVERY soldier died. It has been seen in the Indian wars, that when ever the leader was killed, his soldiers would run helter skelter. Such scenes are described in the MB war too. Thus killing the leader would probably be the same as death of his whole team. And maybe hence the description. Even the references such as Bheeshma, Bheem, Arjun, Abhimanyu etc. killed x akshauhini on nth day, seems to mean the same. It could mean that they killed the leaders of those many units on the particular days. (Maybe, maybe not. This is just idle speculation. Mahabharata clearly describes large number of casualities. And clearly mentions that all the people who participated in the war died. It is possible that some of the soldiers may have run away. But to imagine that 95% of the army would simply run away is nonsense. If such a thing happened, that would be clearly described given that many minor incidents are mentioned. Further, even after the entire army of Kauravas is killed, Ashwatthama does not give up and goes and makes stealth attack in the night. Given such life-and-death situation, one would hardly let the soldiers, especially 95% run away. It is more probable the other way around: that means maybe 5% ran away and the rest of the 95% were killed.)
There is a reference to the Naraayaniya army that had vowed to kill or die in the war. This explicitly means that they did not have the option to leave the battlefield. Implying that all others had the option. (I haven’t seen this reference. As far as I know, it was the army of Trigarthas that had vowed to lure Arjuna away even if it cost their own death. The idea is that it was suicide mission like Kamikazi. That does not mean that other battalions are allowed to retreat. Such a thing is nonsense. But there may have been a custom of not killing the retreating armies. But again, in MB many of these rules get flouted as the war proceeds… For example, Duryodhana is not allowed to retreat, he is forced to fight.)
The weapons used in the war were not mass destructive. Irrespective of the fact that many people put forth, and MB mentions, that tens of thousands of people were killed by the single use of a weapon. (If one wants to depend on one’s own bias or imagination, then one can imagine whatever one wants to. But if one wants to take the text of the MB as proof, then MB clearly mentions the casualties and it also clearly mentions how many weapons and what kind of weapons were used when inflicting those casualties.)Weapons such as arrows, spears, swords, maces etc, can kill only one person at a time. That too, only if the weapon hits fatally. (But these are not ordinary arrows, spears, swords or maces according to the text of MB!! If these were ordinary arrows, spears, swords or maces, then the description in the MB would be completely off the mark. In that case, MB would be unreliable. Infact, one would be accusing Vyasa of lying. BTW, Itihaasa means ‘it happened indeed like this’. And MB is supposed to be an Itihaasa. So, the main war events are supposed to have been described the way they actually happened.
The reason people speculate on mass destructive weapons is because of the description of the impact of the weapons closely resembles the impact of the modern day mass destructive weapons. MB itself mentions clearly that the weapons used by many of them are special and have mantric abilities. Of course, one can choose to ignore these parts. But then, if one wants to pick and choose what one wants to believe in a text, then each to his own. One’s imagination is the limit. One could even argue that perhaps it was Duryodhana who won the war but MB mentions Yuddhishtira… IF MB is lying on one issue, it may as well be lying about another issue, no?
Even if one is insistent that Mantras be ignored, one cannot ignore the mention of Yantras/Machines. MB and Ramayana mention many kinds of weapons and Yantras. Shathaghnis are mentioned in Valmiki Ramayana in Kishkindha Kanda, while Hanuman describes Lanka to Sri Rama. They are also mentioned several times in MB, for example Bhishma is injured by several kinds of weapons including Shathaghnis. Shathaghni seems to be a kind of cannon. Shathaghni means ‘one that can kill 100s’. So, a weapon that could kill 100s, probably at one fire was available. Perhaps, it could even be reloaded. Nalikas are mentioned. Nalika means tube. Iron balls are mentioned. Tube and iron balls reminds one of guns and cannons. So, it is clear that there were weapons available to cause large number of casualties, even if one insists on disregarding the descriptions of usage of Mantric weapons i.e. Astras.)Thus after ALL the leaders of one side were killed, the war was over. We can assume that the number of people killed in the war was say around 5% of the force.(Nonsense) All these people belonged to different geographical areas and thus these areas were not severely affected by the war or the loss of people in the war.(This is an amateurish and shallow conclusion. First and foremost most of these, if not all, regions did belong to the Bharatvarsha. Remember that Bharatavarsha of those times was much bigger. It extended from parts that about Oxus river in the north to Sri Lanka in the south. It extended from certain parts of modern day Iran to Myanmar. Perhaps, even parts of Indo-China were part of sphere of Bharatvarsha. Kambhoja is situated in Modern day Iran. Kekaya is situated between borders of modern day Afghanistan and Pakistan. Sinhala are in modern day Sri Lanka. All these various kingdoms were considered part of Bharatavarsha or within the sphere of Bharatavarsha. So, their societies were interconnected and as such they could not escape the affects of war.
Further the Kingdoms that participated in the wars with men and resources would experience direct impact of the war regardless of the physical or geographical distance. When people directly participated in the event, then the geographical distance is irrelevant. Regardless of the farness or nearness, the people who participated in the event would be impacted. Victory or defeat could have far-reaching implications for the participant kingdoms.) The most affected regions remained the Kuru and the Panchal. (Actually, Kuru was the one kingdom that came out victorious. So, the negative impact on Kuru was least. Yadava Kingdom was not affected because most of the Yadava kingdom did not participate in the war. Manipur, of Babruvahana, was also not affected because he did not participate in the war.)

----
Sudarshan saar,
your query led me to an interesting points:

Guns and Cannons in Ancient India during the Vedic and Mahabharata Period
Details about guns used in ancient India are found in Shukra Niti. About weapons used in Vedic age are found in Atharva Veda. Information regarding cannons are found in Vana Parva of Mahabharata and also in Naishadham text of Sriharsha. The name given by ancient Indians to cannon was Shatagni.

Shatagni had the capacity to kill nearly 100 soldiers of the enemies. Puranas also give information about Shatagni.

Shatagni was a large gun which used to fire iron balls fitted with spikes. Shatagni gun was mounted on a vehicle which had eight wheels. This was far more superior to the first versions of modern cannons.

Guns were known as Bhushundi in ancient India. Small guns were known as Lagu Naliyam and those with bigger holes were known as Briha Naliyam.

There are archeological evidences that bullets were made using various metals in ancient India.

Treatise dealing with various weapons used in ancient India is found in Dhanur Veda. It mentions about machine operated weapons.

Link

[Agnimitra]

Thus we have:
1. Purusha
2. Prakriti
3. The Organism - a particular degree of disorderly or harmonious interaction between Purusha and Prakriti
4. Laws and Formulas in relation to the Organism in any time-based Condition - Maya

Agnimitra(Pavan? ) saar,

Was "Carl"

I am afraid that what you are saying is completely different. In sankhya, there are only two entities:
Purusha and Prakriti.

Those are two divisions of substance and category. But we can talk of phenomenal and numinous entities that belong to these categories or are the effects of the interactions between these substances. Thus, I agree that #3 and #4 in my list are not primary, but are "observed" or "derived".

[sudarshan]

Sudarshan Saar,
Vyasaya Vishnuroopaya, is not part of the the Vishnu Sahasranama. The sahasranama(1000 names) start from 'Vishvam Vishnu Vashatkaro...'

Yes, it's part of the preamble, but still....

Coming to the query:
Kurma avatara is mentioned in Stanza 19:
mahaabuddhir-mahaa- veeryo mahaa-saktir mahaa-dyutih
anirdesya-vapuh sreemaan ameyaatmaa mahaadri-dhrik.

(180) Mahaadridhrik -One who supports the great Mountain. In the Puranas, we find two instances, wherein the Lord has been described as the uplifter of or as having lifted and supported the mountains. While churning the milky ocean with the Mandara mountain we are told that the “churning-stick” sunk into the bottom and the Lord had to manifest in the form of the Great Tortoise (Koorma) and support it, while the Gods and Demons continued the churning, until they gathered the nectar (Amritam).

Again, the Supreme, as Lord Krishna, in order to protect the cows had to lift the Govardhana Mountain. Because of these two stories in the Puranas, Lord, the Protector of the mind in Saadhanaa, is called as Mahaadridhrik.

Vishnu is the Divine, that supports the mind-intellect of the Saadhaka while he is churning, through study (sravana) and reflection (manana), his own Milk-like pure heart-of devotion in order to gain the experience of Immortality (Amritam).

Ok, so it's a two-in-one term .

Matsya Avatara is mentioned in Stanza 40:
viksharo rohito maargo hetur daamodarah sahah
maheedharo mahaabhaago vegavaan-amitaasanah.

364. Rohitah -The term ‘Rohita’ means fish, and this name has come to indicate Lord Vishnu because of His first incarnation as the Fish.

There is another meaning: Ro means knowledge(i.e. Gyana, which means Vedha). Hitha means the benefactor. So, Ro-hithah means 'one who is a benefactor of knowledge or Vedha i.e. Matsya Avatara'.

Yes, I had an inkling that 'Rohita/Fish' was the same as Matsya, but I've also seen the other interpretation of this term, which confused me.

Parashu-Rama Avatara is mentioned in Stanza 61:
sudhanvaa khandaparasurdaaruno dravinnapradhah
divah-sprik sarvadrik vyaaso vaachaspatirayonijah.

568. Khanda-parasuh -One who has the axe- weapon-called “Parasu.” The Lord used this weapon in His Incarnation as Parasuraama, the son of Jamadagni. It is endowed with terrible prowess in cutting down the unholy enemies of the nobler life and so it is called as the “Khanda-Parasu.” As such it means ‘one who wields the invincible Parasu.’

Ok, got that. Didn't know this before.

That was an illuminating explanation of the warfare terms. Mucho thanks for that. Very enlightening, and some other places that I've come across these terms now come to mind. Like the BG, first chapter, where Duryodhana says "Pasyaitam Pandu putraanaam, acharya mahathim chamum...".

----
Sudarshan saar,
your query led me to an interesting points:

Guns and Cannons in Ancient India during the Vedic and Mahabharata Period
Details about guns used in ancient India are found in Shukra Niti. About weapons used in Vedic age are found in Atharva Veda. Information regarding cannons are found in Vana Parva of Mahabharata and also in Naishadham text of Sriharsha. The name given by ancient Indians to cannon was Shatagni.

Shatagni had the capacity to kill nearly 100 soldiers of the enemies. Puranas also give information about Shatagni.

Shatagni was a large gun which used to fire iron balls fitted with spikes. Shatagni gun was mounted on a vehicle which had eight wheels. This was far more superior to the first versions of modern cannons.

Guns were known as Bhushundi in ancient India. Small guns were known as Lagu Naliyam and those with bigger holes were known as Briha Naliyam.

There are archeological evidences that bullets were made using various metals in ancient India.

Treatise dealing with various weapons used in ancient India is found in Dhanur Veda. It mentions about machine operated weapons.

Hmm. What happened to all this yudh vidya in later times? Like when the Greeks came a'calling? For that matter, what happened to all the divya astras from Ramayana/MB times? Anu-shakti would have made mincemeat of the Greek/Mohameddan/European invaders, naa?