Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

[kmkraoind]

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?

Their utility (to counter super negative forces) is over. Even Arjuna failed to use his weapons or failed to save all of the Yadava's clan members from bandits. Do not worry, if all human endeavors fail to check the spread of Adharma, once again the history repeats.

Arjuna was unable to save the ladies, children and other older people of the Yadava clan. He was ashamed of himself and reached Hastinapur in a crestfallen state(See Mausala Parva). Yudistra heard everything from Arjuna about "the destruction of the Yadavas men using Mausalas (Iron clubs of miraculous origin) in Prabasha, the death of Lord Krishna and Balarama, the submersion of Dwaraka into the Sea and Arjuna's inability to rescue the Yadava women while bringing them to Hastinapur". On hearing all these, Yudistra, Bheema, Arjuna, Nakula, Sahadeva and Draupadi get dejected. They lose interest in the world. They conclude that now the time for their own departure from Earth has arrived. Consequently, King Yudistra coronates Parikshit as the king of Hastinapur. They start their journey towards the Himalayas for their departure

Wikipedia Link

[RamaY]

I posted this a long time ago in some thread. These thoughts further extrapolations...

Islam as a faith appeases to the animist desires, instincts and prejudices of Human being. Some say this is like living in Muladhara level of consciousness controlled. Some books also say basic humanism starts at Swadhistana, where order begins.

There is an discussion going in understanding islamism theread.

I think the ideology is framed in such a way that human consciousness is controlled at Muladhara level so the social consciousness is maintained at Swadhistana.

One way to counter this would be to induce thoughts, practices, education etc that push that individual consciousness in to Manipura. Then Order/Swadhistana comes from awareness and not fear.

How to achieve this?

I think the best power that can nurture and calm down the Muladhara is tantra-sadhana with its makaara panchaka; madya, māṃsa, matsya, mudrā, maithuna.

The counter to it would be encourage Shakti sadhana by Indics. After Mahishasura Samhara Tantra sadhana can dissolve into Shivam.

I think that was the idea behind Adi Samkara's life, work, vision and infrastructure.

[ramana]

RamaY, Am listening to the Undrajavaram Mahabharatam pravachanam. The AranyaParvam discourse is medicore. It does not fit with the quality of the other discources.

[RamaY]

Ramanaji

I noticed that the MB pravachanams in Telugu are rated from bad to worse. The issue is to do with three things.
1. Andhra Mahabharatam of Nannaya, Tikkana and Errapragada was not verbatim translation of Vyasabharatam
2. Further dilution by Tirupati Venkata kavulu - Which was instrumental in bringing the stage-play revolution
3. NTR effect which ba$tard1sed the story further - that mostly made anti-heros heros and Pandavas whimps

Add the caste equations of AP to that you have a bunch of story tellers who talk nonsense.

I am sorry for this but I was disgusted by some of the x-lations and speeches on MB, for the lack of simple logic, reasoning, historicity etc.,

One MB I found more readable, to my taste, is Sri Kappagantula Lakshmana Sastry's verbatim translation of Vyasa Bharata. 4-5 Parvas are available on Archive.org.

[RoyG]

My gf needs an indian myth for acting class. Does anyone know of any which are witty and have deep meaning?

[Murugan]

Does anybody know where and when adya sankaracharyas stotras were written and compiled. In which script they were written first?

[Murugan]

RoyG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahasaraswati

[Murugan]

Arjun Wijaya Jakarta indonesia

Http://jokosupratikto.files.wordpress.c ... 1/kuda.jpg

[ShauryaT]

My gf needs an indian myth for acting class. Does anyone know of any which are witty and have deep meaning?

Do not know of any myths, but do have some puraan based love stories, that I am writing about as a skit.

[ramana]

What happened to all this yudh vidya in later times?

Same thing that happened to Greek Fire which was lost more recently once the Christianity and Islam conquered Greece.

No need for hmm!

[RoyG]

My gf needs an indian myth for acting class. Does anyone know of any which are witty and have deep meaning?

Do not know of any myths, but do have some puraan based love stories, that I am writing about as a skit.

That would be great. Thanks!

[johneeG]

Agnimitra(Pavan? ) saar,

Was "Carl"

I know.
I was trying to say that Agni-mitra may mean fire's friend i.e. Wind(Pavan).

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".

Saar,
all the entities with qualities come under Prakruthi. Further derivatives and interactions between these derivatives also come under Prakruthi. Newer elements or substances created by the interactions of elements of Prakruthi also come under Prakruthi.
So, all of them are Prakruthi only.

The one that is devoid of all qualities(sattva, rajas and tamas) is Purusha.

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....

Saar, if you notice, 'Vyasa' is mentioned in the main Sahasranama also. And I gave you that verse also.

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

Sudarshan saar,
Sahasranama of any God/Goddess is supposed to contain comprehensive knowledge about that particular deity.
So, there can be extensive commentary on each name because a single name can be packed with lots of knowledge about the God/Goddess.
Routinely, a mantra has several meanings at several levels. Similarly, one single name of God/Goddess can have several meanings at several levels. There is a mantra aspect. Then, there is yoga/kundalini. Also, tantra. Then, there is stories/leelas of Puranas and Ithihaasa. Then, there is Vedhantha. There can be also Jyothishya and so on and so forth. So, each name can have several meanings at several levels. Because the name has so many aspects to it, it benefits the ones who chant it regularly. And the impact of the chanting will also be at multiple levels. Spiritual, financial, emotional, social, ...etc.

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...".

Exactly. Those terms are used again and again as synonyms of 'Army' or 'battalion' or 'division'...etc.

----
X-posting from Buddhism thread: Link to original post

Bji,
could you please post more on Buddhism's iconoclasm? Any leads/pointers which indicate destruction of temples or idols? Or even the philosophy or theory that demanded iconoclasm...

Bji,
it seems to me that Buddhism acted like a parasite. It would weaken the host(state). That may explain why India in Buddhist period was rich and powerful, but very pacifist. Interestingly, X-ism behaves in the same manner in the initial phases(i.e. during roman period and even subsequent dark ages), until they come in contact with jihadis. It seem X-ism was influenced by jihadi model to create colonial model.

You have hinted in the past that during Buddhist period, many war-sciences were discouraged and access to such knowledge may have controlled through viharas and universities(under Buddhist control).

Now, Sudarshan saar asked a very relevant question:

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

[quote:
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./quote]

Link to original post

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?

Sudarshan saar,
I am not saying that anu-shakti(or atom bomb) existed at that time. I don't believe in that theory. But, there may have been powerful weapons like cannons, mechanical semi-automatic bows that release several arrows at a time, some kind of bombs, and even guns.

What happened to such knowledge?
I think, it may have been lost during Buddhist period. Not just these high-profile ones, but even the regular warfare sciences like archery and chariots seem to have suffered. Even cavalry sciences may have suffered to an extent.

I mean, where are the chariots when the muslims were attacking? They mention elephants, but there is no mention of chariots(as far as I know).

So, my guess is that during buddhist period, desh lost the knowledge of war-sciences. Bji, please give your opinion on this.

Bji's reply: Link to original post

could you please post more on Buddhism's iconoclasm? Any leads/pointers which indicate destruction of temples or idols? Or even the philosophy or theory that demanded iconoclasm...

Taranath comes to mind first hand. Hieuen Tsang and Chinese chronicles, SE Asian chronicles too. I will try to give refs.

it seems to me that Buddhism acted like a parasite. It would weaken the host(state). That may explain why India in Buddhist period was rich and powerful, but very pacifist. Interestingly, X-ism behaves in the same manner in the initial phases(i.e. during roman period and even subsequent dark ages), until they come in contact with jihadis. It seem X-ism was influenced by jihadi model to create colonial model.

A striking observation. I think it was a deviation from what "was before" and was shaped up in a conjunctive need between long distance/foreign traders and imperialist ambitions. Just like "protestant" movements splintering in ever increasing cascades compared to the "catholic". Each new splinter needs to desperately prove its distinction from the parent and often finds an intense love-hate relation develop, often showing violently competitive tendencies.

The two streams you compare - share many other charactersitics - they both take off after being taken up by imperialist ambitions, both emphasize celibacy and a certain suspicion/looking down on the role of women, monasticism as both a means of preventing problems of sexuality as well as an organized structure that perhaps turns sexual repression and sublimation [as well as lack of typical family bonds that hold people back] into militancy. Jihadism added the predatory sexuality to keep motivation and mobility at the same time.

You have hinted in the past that during Buddhist period, many war-sciences were discouraged and access to such knowledge may have controlled through viharas and universities(under Buddhist control).

This is my hypothesis from observing that a similar phenomenon happened under middle phase of post Roman pre-medieval Church, and the curious mentions of how "dangerous" knowledge was segregated and isolated from the "unworthy" by the gate-keeper system of Buddhist uni's.

----
Come to think of it, MB and Ramayana describe large Chariots and powerful bows. If large chariots and powerful bows can be made then surely machines which release several arrows at a time can also be designed.

MB mentions balls lying on the ground in war-field while describing the war. These are not stones but balls. Then, tubes are mentioned. So, balls and tubes naturally remind of cannon or gun.

I think the only ingredient that is needed to make at least a crude gun/cannon(if you already have the tech to make advanced bows and chariots) is gun-powder. Or some kind of chemical or biological material that can ignite. In absence of such material, mechanical force may be used to make it work...something like a spring... like a trebuchet or catapult.

no, that would be the reflex bow, where the arms tend to move away from the user when unstrung. it is a further development along the path of the recurve bow.

one easy way to tell them apart is the classic 3piece (handle and 2 arms) look of Indian bows, which signify the reflex bow. these bows are harder to string and this is probably also why stringing bows is such an important part of the ramayan. remember the story of ram breaking shiv's bow ?

the steel bow above would probably be classified as recurve although the material gives its own advantage. do note the twists at either end of the arms to prevent permanent bends in the bow structure.

Link to original post

Try to read the posts on that page, its a good discussion.

---

My gf needs an indian myth for acting class. Does anyone know of any which are witty and have deep meaning?

I think the words 'mythology' or 'myth' are not appropriate in relation to the Indian Puranas and Ithihaasas.

Here are some suggestions:
-Parvathi Kalyanam(Marriage of Parvathi with Lord Shiva) and Kumara Sambhavam(birth of Kumara/Subrahmanya).
-Rukmini Kalyanam(Marriage of Rukmini with Shri Krushna)
-Satyabhama & Jambhavathi Kalyanam(Marriage of Satyabhama and Jambhavathi to Shri Krushna)
-Birth of Krushna and going to Nanda and Yashodha.
-Subhadhra Kalyanam(Marriage of Subhadhra to Arjuna)
-Sudhama's visit to Shri Krushna's palace.
-Mohini avathara and churning of milk ocean.
-Vamana avathara and Bali.
-Story of Prahaladdha.
-Arjuna's duel with Lord Shiva.
-Story of Shakunthala(and story of Vishwamithra).
-Hanuman's birth and childhood.
-Seetha Kalyanam(Seetha's marriage to Shri Rama and breaking of Lord Shiva's bow).
-Story of Tripuras and their destruction.
-Kaliya Mardhana(humbling of Kaliya in Yamuna by Shri Krushna).
-Story of Dhronacharya(his penury, insult by Dhrupadha, his vengeance by insulting Dhrupadha and birth of Dhraupadhi).
-Story of Bhishma.
-Kandava dahana (Shri Krushna and Arjuna allowing the fire to burn the forests of Kandava and then obtaining their weapons and chariot).
-Story of Yayathi.
-Hanuman's tail and Lanka.

The play writer can obviously customize the original story to suit the taste of audiences.

Does anybody know where and when adya sankaracharyas stotras were written and compiled. In which script they were written first?

As far as I understand, it was written in Dhevanaagari script and spoken in Sanskrith.

[Agnimitra]

I was trying to say that Agni-mitra may mean fire's friend i.e. Wind(Pavan).

Wind is friend only if its a forest fire. I am still just a flickering candle flame.

all the entities with qualities come under Prakruthi. Further derivatives and interactions between these derivatives also come under Prakruthi. Newer elements or substances created by the interactions of elements of Prakruthi also come under Prakruthi.
So, all of them are Prakruthi only.

The one that is devoid of all qualities(sattva, rajas and tamas) is Purusha.

Much of the arrangement and fluctuation of gunas is due to the interaction of Purusha and Prakrti. Thus, while Prakrti may be material and instrumental cause, Purusha is efficient cause over it. The act of Purusha observing Prakrti itself changes Prakrti. Therefore, one can speak of the laws of cognition and interaction associated with the inter-relationship of Purusha and Prakrti.

Purusha is not "devoid" of gunas, because that definition is itself qualitative. Rather, traigunatitya is transcendence of the gunas. When Purusha recognizes its own traigunatitya then it stops 'directly' observing Prakrti in a 'limiting' way. Then it realizes it is guna-paripoorna. That's my understanding.

[sudarshan]

Johneeg(ji), surprised that you don't believe that the divya astras were atomic devices. Personally, I'm ambivalent on that topic, though inclined to believe it. The descriptions of the effects of those astras in the MB are uncannily similar to the descriptions of the effects of nuclear weapons. Plus the news a few years ago that a highly radioactive city had been unearthed in Rajasthan, and that this city could be the location of landing of an astra from the MB war that went astray. However - all this is not proof by any means, and I'm withholding judgment on this until better corroborative evidence turns up.

The Indian concept of the bow is pretty unusual. Bows in other parts of the world are single-piece affairs. The Mongolian invention of the composite bow was supposed to be a great innovation, and this bow boasted great power for the times, being able, according to a TV documentary I watched once, to pierce armor at a hundred meters, and being accurate to 200 meters. The Greek and later European bows, including the English long-bows, were basically a single piece of wood. I doubt any other culture used metallic bows, like in India. The crossbows of Europe were metallic, I believe (or maybe not). The Mongolian composites were built of some combination of bone and hide, glued together. I remember reading somewhere some European's description of a "metal bow of great power, that he came across in India." The European guy found this bow very unusual, according to his account. Alexander nearly met his end, when heading south from his victory in the Punjab, by being shot in the chest by an arrow whose head was four fingers thick, and which penetrated his armor. The Greek surgeons had to dig it out.

You're right, it's funny that chariots were never used against the Muslims. I don't know how they'd have fared. What they lose in maneuverability against fast cavalry, they'd make up for in shielding the warrior, I'd assume. The horses would also not be running as fast, and the advantage of superior Arabian horses might have been reduced (maybe). However, the charioteer is fully dedicated to a non-combat role. For that matter, the Greek chariots of the Trojan war also disappeared in later times. Was it evolution, and could the chariots not survive later battle requirements?

The theory you propose is very interesting. That the Buddhists emaciated India by tightly controlling war-related knowledge. It's a powerful argument against mercantilist approaches to dealing with your enemies. That theory that if you hold your enemy in a tight enough embrace, he can't hurt you without hurting himself. On the other hand, even a mighty warrior like Arjuna wasn't allowed to become complacent. He was actively encouraged to seek even better knowledge, specifically to master the Pashupatastra. Very intriguing and instructive.

[sudarshan]

My gf needs an indian myth for acting class. Does anyone know of any which are witty and have deep meaning?

If she needs a feminine role, maybe Savitri would do the trick. The legend of Satyavan/Savitri is usually interpreted as showing the wife's devotion to her husband. This probably wouldn't gel with a modern audience, but it doesn't have to be that way. It could just as well be interpreted as one spouse's devotion to the other, which can even cheat death.

Savitri was pretty witty when she was debating with Yama about giving her back her husband.

[brihaspati]

Agnimitra - hmm. Didnt strike before. But Indo-Iranian revivalist? Dual-gotra Brahmin restorer of Buddhism? Definitely sufficiently religiously safe for poet laureate to try his first kavya on.

[Agnimitra]

Gee B ji you're always so political.

[member_20317]

Life has come full circle. Last page we were discussing why Yudhisthir did what he did during the dice game. And now in the Mahasamar thread we know how Krishna saves the day, being under no obligation to follow Yudhisthir's Dharm.

Hallelujah. The prayers of the faithful have been rewarded. Rejoice in the love of God, whose love is unconditional and who shall save your soul.

[ramana]

Thanks to Stan:

[ramana]

Also hear the discourse on Vidur neeti in the right hand side bar.

[member_22872]

Cross posting from debates and arguments thread...

On and off I have been having discussions/debates on OIT/AIT with a friend of mine. He is from the camp of AIT and staunch Dravidian cause supporter. Yesterday, when I mentioned to him that caste system was more an invention of British and that Varna system and caste system are not the same and that varna system was more fluid and that during pre-islamic days, the varna system was more accommodating that later period, he pointed to me couple of issues in Mahabharata and Ramayana to tell me that stratification of Hindu community is endemic to Hindu scriptures itself. He quoted the below two events, one from MB and the other from Ramayana:
1. Karna was proscribed and even cursed because he was suta. He asked me if anyone can learn anything under a guru irrespective of family one is born during pre-islamic gurukul system, why is that Karna was prevented from learning even early on?

2. In Ramayana, Shambuka was killed just was killed by Rama for trying to a penance for attaining higher celestial form. Shambuka was a Shudra and all devatas appreciate the Shambuka vad. Even though some scholars think this is a later addition to Ramayana, it appears many great Hindu thinkers failed to come to grips with this event as to how this is possible.

3. He is of the opinion that Gita too in many places encouraged looking down on shudras, he didn't quote any verses to prove his point.

4. Adi-Sankara though falls at the feet of chandaala, Sankara-mutts are predominantly are Brahmin dominanted. He argues that this is because Adi-Sankara himself encouraged such a practise.

As far as points 1, 2 and 3 are concerned, I find that troubling too, I can't understand how this is possible, I know this is a pure Dradivian drivel, would like to know counter perspectives to counter such point of views.

[abhishek_sharma]

>> Karna was proscribed and even cursed because he was suta.

He was cursed because he lied, right? I am not sure ...

[abhishek_sharma]

Duryodhana and Bheem learnt from Balaram, who was not a super Brahmin, right? How did Krishna and Balaram (and other Yadavs, who were not kshatriyas) got their weapon-related skills?

[sudarshan]

I too was troubled by 1 & 2. But there are some things which need to be considered, it's not black-and-white.

As for Karna, when was he "cursed for being a suta?" When he came to the forum to show off his skills, he was politely told by Drona and Kripa that only Kshatriyas were qualified to compete. At which point, Duryodhana decided to crown him king of Anga on the spot. Was there any objection from anybody to this crowning, on the grounds that sutas could not be kings? From that point on, Karna was generally accepted as Anganaresh. His subjects didn't protest that a suta was now ruling them. Where's the discrimination? The episode even highlights Duryodhana's noble qualities, and the initial prejudice against sutas by Drona/Kripa are highlighted to their disadvantage. Seems like a liberal viewpoint to me.

Draupadi refused to marry a suta, when Karna rose to take a shot at the revolving fish. This is her personal prejudice. No character in the MB is perfect. Except Krishna, maybe - but He's God incarnate.

Bheeshma puts Karna down a lot initially, to the extent that Karna takes a vow not to fight in the war so long as Bheeshma is fighting. But when Karna goes to meet Bheeshma after his fall, Bheeshma lovingly embraces him, tells him that he only put him down for practical and political reasons, and that he's aware of Karna's history (his being Kunti's son). The point is, Bheeshma didn't mellow towards Karna after learning that he was really a kshatriya. He was aware that Karna was a kshatriya all along, but still kept insulting him, because of Karna's adharmic acts on Duryodhana's behalf.

So the point is: nobody is perfect in the MB. Their prejudices against sutas can equally well be interpreted as personal prejudices, which are not condoned by larger society. In fact, even the villain of the piece, Duryodhana, is celebrated for his unconditional friendship towards a suta. This is portrayed as a noble quality of Duryodhana, in which some of the other "noble/dharmic" folk were lacking.

As for 2. Shambuka was doing higher practices for the sake of liberation. When Rama asks him to desist, Shambuka says "I crave liberation." So Rama kills him. Right? Maybe. The fact is, death at Rama's hands is identical to liberation. Kamsa, who was killed by Krishna, attained moksha. So did Ravana. Shambuka got his wish. The people who were unhappy with his practices were also mollified. Another way of looking at the issue, I guess.

WRT 3. Please ask your friend to quote specific verses. Also ask for his interpretation of the same. He might not have as much material as he thinks he does.

[member_22872]

abhishek ji,
Even though he lied, his cursing Karna implicitly is acknowledging that he was cursed because Karna hid the fact that he was suta. If being suta was no problem at all, Karna would have lied? that is argument from Davidian club.

[member_22872]

The problem is once you are hell bent on seeing something is wrong, you can find/invent reasons to see things are not correct in anything, they can take statements out of context to prove their point. And unfortunately they dump the burden to prove their statements wrong on you. Not knowing the context can be less helpful to prove they are wrong.

[member_22872]

Sudharshan ji,

My friend is not actually trying to verify the veracity of the version of the stories(MB/Ramayana). He is in fact is accusing that Hindu scriptures too actively encouraged putting down/exploitation of "shudras". This is important because such view point of his gives rise to divisions. May be it is time for me to read Rajiv Malhotra's "Dividing India"? not sure if he discussed anything of this nature in his book.

[sudarshan]

abhishek ji,
Even though he lied, his cursing Karna implicitly is acknowledging that he was cursed because Karna hid the fact that he was suta. If being suta was no problem at all, Karna would have lied? that is argument from Davidian club.

Are the facts straight here? I thought Parasurama was furious because Karna lied about not being a kshatriya. Karna himself was not aware that he was a kshatriya. Parasurama insisted that he was, because only a kshatriya could tolerate the pain level that Karna had just tolerated (bee digging into his groin). Where does "suta" even come into the picture here? Or did I get something wrong?

[sudarshan]

Sudharshan ji,

My friend is not actually trying to verify the veracity of the version of the stories(MB/Ramayana). He is in fact is accusing that Hindu scriptures too actively encouraged putting down/exploitation of "shudras". This is important because such view point of his gives rise to divisions. May be it is time for me to read Rajiv Malhotra's "Dividing India"? not sure if he discussed anything of this nature in his book.

I understand that, sir. Please be aware that you cannot convince such people, no matter what. Your aim in having counter-points is to convince the fence-sitters. Please make sure that you argue in front of a large audience, that you put your AIT friend on the defensive, and make the fence-sitters see for themselves that he's being an obdurate ass. That's where these talking points really matter.

[ramana]

Err, Virata's Queen Sudeshna and her brother Simhabala aka Kichaka were also sutas. Yet her daughter Uttara is accepted as the daughter-in-law by Arjuna and its her child and grandchild Parikshit and Janemejaya who rule Hastinapura.

Karna had many things going wrong with him. Name any thing wrong with good conduct he has done them all.


Yagnaseni explores the long fixation he has for Draupadi.

And Bhima in the roop of Valalla introduces himself as a fourth varna person who cooks and gets employed as the royal head chef in Virata.

Brahmin cooks is a post-Vedic practice.

[member_22872]

ramana garu thank you, I will read more on what you posted.

[member_22872]

Also one more question, who are rakshasas? what I thought is rakshasas are gunas in each and every one of us. For example a person could be a born brahmin but because of his traits could be called a rakshasa. Take for example Prahlada, he was a born demon, yet he was very close to Maha Vishnu because of his daiva guna. The reason I brought it up is, When I mentioned to my friend that Ravana, in spite of him being a descendent of Pulasya, a Brahmin, he was killed. He pointed to me that Ravana was a rakshasa and that people in Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka consider him a God . So it occurred to me that Rakshasas are not some fierce looking people but common folk with certain gunas.

[member_22872]

Sudharshan garu, you are correct about that, I refrained to discuss with him so far, but somehow got sucked into it this time.

[ramana]

Venug, Kashyapa maharishi had among many wives Diti and Aditi. The children of Diti are Daityas and children of Aditi are Adityas. The Daityas were in eternal confrontation with the Adityas who are also known as Devas. Jaya and Vijaya are born as Daityas Hiranyaksha and Hiranyakshyapu and get killed by Vishnu in Varaha and Narasimha avataras. Bali the grandson of Prahlad, son of Hiranyakshyap brings about Vamana avataara.

Ravana and Kumbhkaran are born to Vishsrawa and are Rakshasas not Daityas.


Next its Sishupala and another I forget killed by Krishna.

[Yayavar]

Ramana: It is Hiranyakashipu I believe not Hiranyakashyap. The former means golden haired -- blonde ??

[abhishek_sharma]

>> If being suta was no problem at all, Karna would have lied?

Right. But the next question would be: Was it possible for people who were not kshatriyas to become warriors? Did kshatriyas mingle with others to learn/teach war-related issues? In this case, we might want to look at Yadavs because they were not super-elite brahmins or kshatriyas. How did they become good warriors? Who trained them? Who taught Balaram, Krishna and Satyaki?

If Hinduism implied that Brahmins were somehow better than others, then maybe God (Krishna) should have been born as a brahmin?

[sudarshan]

Right. But the next question would be: Was it possible for people who were not kshatriyas to become warriors? Did kshatriyas mingle with others to learn/teach war-related issues? In this case, we might want to look at Yadavs because they were not super-elite brahmins or kshatriyas. How did they become good warriors? Who trained them? Who taught Balaram, Krishna and Satyaki?

If Hinduism implied that Brahmins were somehow better than others, then maybe God (Krishna) should have been born as a brahmin?

Datapoints to consider:

* Drona was a brahmin, who took up kshatriya duties. So too was Parasurama, though he would have hotly resented the very suggestion that he was following kshatriya dharma.

* Viswamitra was a kshatriya, who spared no effort to become a brahmin, and whose height of ecstasy was when Vasishta himself accepted - "you are a Brahmarishi."

* When the Pandavas, disguised as brahmins, were present at the swayamvara of Draupadi, Yudhishthira wisely advised Arjuna to wait till all the kshatriyas had failed to win her hand. Then he sent Arjuna to try his skill. The kshatriyas were resentful, but did not protest, because they had all failed by that point. But once Arjuna aced the test, the kshatriyas jumped up, saying "how can this jewel (Draupadi) be allowed to wed a brahmin beggar?" Krishna tried to calm them down by explaining that the very first kshatriya was descended from the loins of a brahmin. But the issue came to a fight, and Arjuna had to prevail in this fight before taking Draupadi away.

* Drona himself was reviled occasionally for letting his brahmin dharma go (not lighting fires or performing yajnas) and instead consorting with kshatriyas.

What does it all boil down to? That there was a caste structure, and that each caste was in general resentful of members of other castes poaching on their occupation. Natural trade rivalry. Very understandable. But there was no "dominant" or "superior" caste or "inferior caste." More like - this is not your dharma, why don't you go mind your own business? Just like a lawyer would say today, if some presumptuous engineer got up in court to argue against him. "I'm the one with the law degree. Isn't there some screwdriver somewhere with your name on it? Go twirl your screwdriver, and leave law to the professionals."

But once somebody proved his capability in the dharma of some other caste, (s)he was generally accepted in that caste, provided the person displayed an enduring commitment to that dharma, and did not revert to his/her original dharma as soon as the going got tough. I.e., if you want to be considered a brahmin, be steadfast in your duty as a brahmana. Don't go conveniently taking up some other caste dharma when you can't handle the brahmin dharma. This is why Vishwamitra had to undergo umpteen tests as a brahmin, before Vasishta recognized him as a Brahmarishi. On the other hand, you might be born a brahmin, but your status as brahmin is forfeit, should you fail to adhere to that dharma.

[Edit: PS to the above para: this is also what Krishna tells Arjuna in the BG - don't go trying to do what a brahmin would do, do your duty as a kshatriya.]

Where does the notion of "upper caste" and "lower caste" come from? From the European feudal structure, which the British artificially imposed on India. But that's another story for another day and thread.

[Vayutuvan]

>> Karna was proscribed and even cursed because he was suta.

He was cursed because he lied, right? I am not sure ...

You are right, if I remember my MB right. The story goes something like

Karna goes to Parashurama and lies that he is a brahmana (knowing Parashurama's antagonism towards kshatriyas as well as his astra sanyasa after his unresolved battle with Bhishma). So one day almost at the end of his education, Parashurama was sleeping using Karna's thigh as a pillow. A bhramara (tummeda purugu) starts biting Karna's thigh and makes a deep hole which starts bleeding profusely. The blood flows into Parashurama's ear thus waking him up. Parashurama realizes that Karna is not a brahmana. If he were to be one he would not have been able to bear such a great amount of pain and curses him that he would forget all he had learnt from Parashurama at a critical moment in the battle.

There is more at Wikipedia under Parashurama entry about his knowing Karna being a kshatriya but did not want Duryodhana to win as he would be bad for bharat varsha.

[Vayutuvan]

abhishek ji,
Even though he lied, his cursing Karna implicitly is acknowledging that he was cursed because Karna hid the fact that he was suta. If being suta was no problem at all, Karna would have lied? that is argument from Davidian club.

Are the facts straight here? I thought Parasurama was furious because Karna lied about not being a kshatriya. Karna himself was not aware that he was a kshatriya. Parasurama insisted that he was, because only a kshatriya could tolerate the pain level that Karna had just tolerated (bee digging into his groin). Where does "suta" even come into the picture here? Or did I get something wrong?

Karna was aware that he is kshatriya definitely before the war begins - Krishna tries to make him change sides and when he fails Kunti extracts a promise from Karna which in essence boils down to his agreeing that he would try to kill only Arjuna but none of the other 4 - there will be finally pancha pandava.

Did he know this before going to Parashurama?

In any case he lies that he is a brahmana. Probably venug's friend is pointing out that had he said he is a suta, would he have been accepted as a student by Parashurama? Something that is lost in translation (literally as well as culturally) is brought up now to use as a stick to beat a whole religion. And it is all some hypothetical stuff anyways - as Shiv would have said - if my aunt had a dick she would be my uncle.

[Vayutuvan]

OK. Sudarshan had very eloquently destroyed the "higher caste" and "lower caste" argument. But would the polemicists listen to reason?