VikasRaina wrote:Did Sanjay also see the vishwaroop of Sri Krishna while narrating events of MBH war.
Bookganga.comramana wrote: What would be the title and where can we get it?
Matrimc ji,matrimc wrote:Here is an apocrypha (cannot find an appropriate word for this in Indic, so please don't jump on me) I heard just recently. It could be Valimiki or Tulasi in the story but heard it associated with Tulasi.
tulasi just finished reciting his sundara kAnDa to a group of audience. One tEjaswin mahA purusha came up to tulasi and told him in no uncertain terms that his description of ashOka vana (ashOka vATika) is wrong as all the flowers in the garden were red - not white as tulasi described in his verse. tulasi insisted that the flowers indeed were white. The tEjaswin told him that tulasi cannot be right because he has seen ashOka vATika as it was at that time and he is hanuman himself who came in person to tulasi's recitation of sundara kAnDa. tulasi answered that the flowers were indeed white but hanumAn perceived them to be red in color as his were red with anger after seeing an emaciated and sad sita mAta incarcerated in the vATika.
Just posting without comments to ponder over.
i am trying to read the message.. the darshan is again a manifestation of human forms, however it is to say it so extra-ordinary by the human-form/structure/view.matrimc wrote:dhritarAshTra is described to have seen it during sree krishna rAyabAra. krishna grants him drishTi to see the vishwaroopa and in fact grants him the boon of restored vision, but dhritarAshTra declines the offer by saying that he is satisfied with vishwaroopa darshana.
Good question. To benefit one must be in a learning mode. Drithrastra was in a listening mode.SaiK wrote:Interesting.. in the sense bhagwad gita starts with "sanjaya uvacha".. so how come none of those learnings from BG, drithrastra was not benefited?
That did not read right - clarifying that the orange sentence does not apply to the green. Applies to India in that if it comes down to survival, then it may have to resort to even nuclear weapons. But as long as everybody lives by a creed of "live and let live" and not start engaging in adharmic behavior there is no problem.matrimc wrote:... One might wonder what is "dharmic way" of fighting a war in those times. I think it is akin to Geneva convention of today. One does not torture and kill presmued spies a la what happened in Pakistan.But if pushed into corner, there is nothing wrong in defending one's way of life by whatever means possible.
. this is more like divya (divine safron color) roopa dharshan now!
What is the panchatantra katha about the three fish named deergha drishThi, deergha kAlagnuDu and laghu drishThi (not toally sure about the last name, please correct if you know).Atri wrote:I doubt if BG was told by krishna as it is. It is impossible. They were in middle of battle ground. It takes one and half to two hours to recite whole BG ( 700 verses). Given that it was first time, it takes time for krishna to think and arjuna to respond and sink. Easily 3-4 hours. Impossible in middle of battle field. Most probably krishna explained some concise stuff to arjuna in max 15-20 minutes and vyasa elaborated on it for the benefit of reader.
Yes according to today's standards, but, BG recitation of 700 shlokas can be completed in less than two hours that includes sanjay/dhrutrashtra's and narration 11th chapter. This is possible, as lord does not have to think and arjun langot friend will not take much time to grasp. This was told in a car, arjun was sitting by his driver, taking view of the positions and formations of battlefield.Saar, BG's whole purpose was to restore memory. IIRC, Arjun confessed he benefitted (not, if he is lying)VikasRaina wrote:I wonder if Sri Krishna actually morphed into something that was like Vishwaroopa or did Arjuna for that nano second lost all fetters of human consciousnesses and became one with God. He became one with this whole universe hence the Vishwaroopam.
Maybe that is why what Arjuna could perceive what was not perceived by Dhrathrashta and Sanjay as they were simply observer of the event and not a participants.
Did Arjuna benefit from BG in the long run ?
He cried on the death of Abhimanyu, vowed crazily to kill Jayadratha or immolate himself, Found it very hard to kill Bhishama and Dronacharya and eventually lamented when on the path to heaven.
See how big the doubt and fear 'I feel the limbs of my body quivering'=='meri phat rahi hai' can be told by a Maharshi like VVSeeing my friends and relatives present before me in such a fighting spirit, I feel the limbs of my body quivering and my mouth drying up.
Chapter 1, Verse 29.
My whole body is trembling, and my hair is standing on end. My bow Gandiva is slipping from my hand, and my skin is burning.
Chapter 1, Verse 30.
I am now unable to stand here any longer. I am forgetting myself, and my mind is reeling. I foresee only evil, O killer of the Kesi demon.
Chapter 1, Verse 31.
I do not see how any good can come from killing my own kinsmen in this battle, nor can I, my dear Krsna, desire any subsequent victory, kingdom, or happiness.
Chapter 1, Verse 32-35.
O Govinda, of what avail to us are kingdoms, happiness or even life itself when all those for whom we may desire them are now arrayed in this battlefield? O Madhusudana, when teachers, fathers, sons, grandfathers, maternal uncles, fathers-in-law, grandsons, brothers-in-law and all relatives are ready to give up their lives and properties and are standing before me, then why should I wish to kill them, though I may survive? O maintainer of all creatures, I am not prepared to fight with them even in exchange for the three worlds, let alone this earth.
Chapter 1, Verse 36.
Sin will overcome us if we slay such aggressors. Therefore it is not proper for us to kill the sons of Dhrtarastra and our friends. What should we gain, O Krsna, husband of the goddess of fortune, and how could we be happy by killing our own kinsmen?
Chapter 1, Verse 37-38.
O Janardana, although these men, overtaken by greed, see no fault in killing one's family or quarreling with friends, why should we, with knowledge of the sin, engage in these acts?
Chapter 1, Verse 39.
With the destruction of dynasty, the eternal family tradition is vanquished, and thus the rest of the family becomes involved in irreligious practice.
Chapter 1, Verse 40.
When irreligion is prominent in the family, O Krsna, the women of the family become corrupt, and from the degradation of womanhood, O descendant of Vrsni, comes unwanted progeny.
Chapter 1, Verse 41.
When there is increase of unwanted population, a hellish situation is created both for the family and for those who destroy the family tradition. In such corrupt families, there is no offering of oblations of food and water to the ancestors.
Chapter 1, Verse 42.
Due to the evil deeds of the destroyers of family tradition, all kinds of community projects and family welfare activities are devastated.
Chapter 1, Verse 43.
O Krsna, maintainer of the people, I have heard by disciplic succession that those who destroy family traditions dwell always in hell.
Chapter 1, Verse 44.
Alas, how strange it is that we are preparing to commit greatly sinful acts, driven by the desire to enjoy royal happiness.
Chapter 1, Verse 45.
I would consider it better for the sons of Dhrtarastra to kill me unarmed and unresisting, rather than to fight with them.
Lord Krishna gave Arjun a pair of 'goggle' - a special pair of 'chakshu' to see Lord in his full glory, not suitable for ordinary charma-chakshu.Nilesh Oak wrote:Apparently he (Sanjay) did.VikasRaina wrote:Did Sanjay also see the vishwaroop of Sri Krishna while narrating events of MBH war.
At least we can make a case for it, based on Bhagavad Gita 11:9-14, where Sanjay described what Arjuna saw.
However, other than these Shlok, What was Vishwarup Darshan is based on first person account of Arjuna (BhagvadGita 11:15-31) and Krishna's own descriptons (Bhagavad Gita 11:5:8, but also 11:47-49.
And while what exactly Arjuna saw (perceived) is anybody's guess.. Krishna explains it as Jnana-Darshan that became possible through Arjuna's devotion (trust) in Krishna. (Bhagvad Gita 11:54)
--------
Are we witnessing a case of sophisticated hypnotism? I wonder.
Om to that.Atri wrote:I doubt if BG was told by krishna as it is. It is impossible. They were in middle of battle ground. It takes one and half to two hours to recite whole BG ( 700 verses). Given that it was first time, it takes time for krishna to think and arjuna to respond and sink. Easily 3-4 hours. Impossible in middle of battle field. Most probably krishna explained some concise stuff to arjuna in max 15-20 minutes and vyasa elaborated on it for the benefit of reader.
Good one. Afterall Krishna grew up being a cowboy and cowhand and thus his tone is indeed appropriate...Murugan wrote:Arjun and Lord were actually talking in a casual was like two friends (they were, indeed) were talking.
Dost1 = Meri phat rahi hai ye sab ko dekh ke, mere mama chacha se kaise ladu? Inko kaise maru?
Dost2= Abey saale, tu inko nahi marega to teri aur tere pure khandan ki ye log vaat laga denge. Achchha sun, dont worry, i have latest tech and outdo this guys but before that clarify your mind and believe me.
man that's brutal when spoken with right amount of disgust and sharpness. Especially sharp because Arjuna spent last year incognito as a eunuch, just prior to war..Also, lot of words and shlokas are repeated in different ways and combinations. It is all to make readers internalize the ideas being conveyed. In fact if one looks at the shlokas, some are of really high-quality and hang together better thna the others.Nilesh Oak wrote: Om to that.
Also as Ramana Garu said.. the gist of BG is in 2nd chapter. There is much truth in it. Even when Vyasa expanded it (Vyasa is using this as an opportunity to expand on the subject... great instructors are master digressors!------and even in this expanded view of 18 chapters, first 5 can be seen as the gist of what Vyasa wanted to convey... beginning 6 are appendices...and 18 as summary.
or depends on past learning, if that is not karma.Murugan wrote:..sometimes it is instantaneous, understanding and sense of interpretation depends on past karma.
Vikas ji download this book for free from here: "Krishna : The Man and His Philosophy" you'll get many answers.VikasRaina wrote:Some people doubt if BG was really recited on the battlefield or if it was a component added later. There is hardly any reference to knowledge of BG post first day. Some folks claim that it was Sankara who came up with the knowledge of Gita and somehow got it added to MBH.
VikasRaina ji,VikasRaina wrote:Some people doubt if BG was really recited on the battlefield or if it was a component added later. There is hardly any reference to knowledge of BG post first day. Some folks claim that it was Sankara who came up with the knowledge of Gita and somehow got it added to MBH.
Here is one answer from book "Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy"VikasRaina wrote: On second thought, Maybe Sri Krishna and Arjuna uvacha did take time. No where it is mentioned that they finished the discussion in 2 hours flat.
Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy
-by Osho
CHAPTER 16. ATHEISM, THEISM AND REALITY
The other question is equally significant. It takes four hours to go through the whole of the GEETA.
So it is a relevant question: how was such a lengthy dialogue possible in the midst of two inimical armies standing on the battlefield – ready to begin a decisive war like the Mahabharat? It does not seem probable How could they have suspended fighting for four long hours?
Someone must have raised the question: were they there to fight or to listen to a four-hour spiritual discourse? The question deserves consideration.
A historian, would say the dialogue of the GEETA in its original form must have been a brief one, which was elaborated in the course of time.
And if we put this question to one who is an authority on the GEETA, he will say the GEETA is an interpolation; it looks completely out of context in relation to the war of the Mahabharat. It seems the Mahabharat in its original text did have the GEETA as one of its parts, and was extended later by some ingenuous poet. It does not fit in where it is found in the Mahabharat. Certainly a war is no occasion for such a long spiritual discourse.
But I don’t accept the theory that the GEETA is an interpolation, nor do I believe it to be a later elaboration of a brief dialogue. I would like to explain it with the help of an anecdote from the life of Vivekananda.
When Vivekananda visited Germany, he was the guest of Duschen, a great scholar of Indology. He was as great an authority as Max Muller, and in many respects Duschen possessed deeper insights than Muller. He was the first western scholar who understood the UPANISHADS and the GEETA, and his translations of the UPANISHADS became well-known. It was Duschen’s translation of the UPANISHADS that thrilled Schopenhauer so much that he put the book on his head and went dancing in the streets of his town.
Schopenhauer said the UPANISHAD was not a book to be read but a song to be sung, a dance to be danced. And Schopenhauer was not an ordinary man, he was a renowned philosopher known for his very serious and sad temperament. He was a pessimist and a total stranger to things like music and dance. He believed that life is essentially painful, and happiness is just a bait to lure us into suffering.
The same person burst into a dance when he first read Duschen’s translation of the
UPANISHADS.
Vivekananda was Duschen’s guest. On a fine morning, Duschen was in his study going through a book in the German language. He had been with this book for some days and had been able to read only half of it.
Vivekananda entered Duschen’s study to say hello, and Duschen mentioned the book he was reading saying it was a great book.
When Vivekananda said he would like to have the book for an hour Vivekananda knew little of German so his host said that he would not be able to understand. Vivekananda then quipped, ”Is it guaranteed that one who knows German well will understand it?” Duschen agreed that it is not. Vivekananda added, ”Then the contrary can also be true: that one knowing less of German will understand it. However, you lend me the book.”
Duschen asked, ”How can you finish reading this book in just two days’ time that you are going to spend with me? I have been with this book for fifteen days and have hardly been able to read half of it.” His guest said with a grin, ”I am Vivekananda, not Duschen.” And Vivekananda took the book and left the study.
Vivekananda returned to Duschen’s study just after an hour, carrying the book in his hand. When Duschen enquired if he had read the book, Vivekananda said, ”I have not only read it, but understood it.” Duschen was amazed but he did not leave Vivekananda before putting him to test if he had really understood the book. He asked some searching questions from the chapters he himself had read, and he was dumb founded to see that Vivekananda had gotten it so well. He exclaimed, Vivekananda! It is incredible!
How did you work this miracle?”
His guest said with a smile, ”There are ways and ways of reading – ordinary ways as well as extraordinary ways.”
Most of us are familiar with the ordinary way of reading, and it is enough if we can read and understand even a dozen books in a lifetime. But there are different ways of reading. There are people who take a book in their hands, close their eyes and then throw them away. They are finished with their reading. This is called the psychic way of reading something.
As I understand it, Krishna does not speak to Arjuna through words; he communicates with him at the psychic level. It is such a wordless, silent communication between two persons that a third person standing close by will never know it. No other people present at Kurukshetra could hear it; otherwise a crowd would have gathered round Arjuna’s chariot. At least the Pandava brothers were sure to join them.
Even the Kauravas would not have resisted the temptation to listen to this unique dialogue. If a spoken dialogue between Krishna and Arjuna had taken place, lasting for four long hours, anything – including fighting – could have happened. But nothing of the kind occurred. No, it was an inner communion between the two, a psychic communication, It is significant that while no one present on the battlefield has any inkling of this dialogue, Sanjaya, who is far away from the battlefield, hears and relates it to Kaurava’s blind father Dhritarashtra.
Sitting in his home, Dhritarashtra anxiously asks Sanjaya, ”On the field of Kurukshetra my people and the sons of Pandu have gathered together, eager for battle. What are they doing?” They are miles from the battlefield and yet Sanjaya makes a verbatim report to Dhritarashtra. He tells him that when the two armies are arrayed and eager for fight, Arjuna feels depressed and confused and desists from fighting. And Krishna persuades him to come out of his despondency to fight as a warrior should fight. How does Sanjaya know this from such a distance?
This is a telepathic communication. Sanjaya is in telepathic contact with Kurukshetra and everything happening there. Otherwise he has no way to know and relate the goings-on at the battlefield. So first of all the dialogue happens between two persons at the psychic level and it is again at the psychic level that Sanjaya hears it and relates it in words to Dhritarashtra.
Dhritarashtra is the first person to receive the Geeta, and then the whole world receives it. That is how it found its way to the whole world and a place in the epic of the Mahabharat. Transcribed into words it now takes four hours to go through the whole text. But it is just possible the whole thing happened within four
moments. Maybe, it happened beyond time.