Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

[Murugan]

I have a special place for Raskshas, Asuras, Daityas and Daanavs.

Once heads of these ganas grow out of proportion, Lord vishnu creates special forces to eliminate them. Very meticulous planning is made and he is always a commander of special forces. He has his mission charted out and heads to be cut earmarked for special execution by lord himself.

No Raksaha/Asuras/Daityas and Daanavas = No Avatar of Lord

Lord Vishnu always kill these guys himself, keeping others to be eliminated by other ranks.

(Ekalavya was one such guy, that Lord killed him by his own hands)

***

Who was ravana/kumbhakarna/vibhishans's guru?

[Yagnasri]

When asked for permission to wage war - Bhishma says - Please that we are all servents of wealth. I am fightng in the side of the King as I am his servent. I am very pleased that you are following Dharma etc.

Karna - When told about the birth story Karna says - that I know the secret of my birth but now I can not switch sides. All these great warriors shall not die out of old age and the war shall not stop. Furthar entire world is waiting to see what punishment will be given by the lord for the insult of Drupathi. The insult to women shall not go unpunished.

When Saidhava Killed Karna himselfs says to Dhuryodhana - do you think it is possible to defeat the Arjuna coming to fight in a chariot driven by the Lord Krishna himself? On the same days Karna's sun was killed by Arjuna in front of Karna himself.

One more incident when Drona was made Senapathi - He was pleased veru much and asks Duryodhana what boon he wants - Drona was asked to seize Dharma Raja and give him to Dhuryadhana - Drona was very much pleased to see that Dhuryodhana does not want to kill Dharma Raja and says - I am please that you want to win the war and return the kingdom as a winner. For that Dhuryodhana says - No. If I kill all the pandawas also Lord Krishna will not leave me and destroys us and even makes Kunthi as King of Hasthinapura. So if we can capture him and make him play the game once again they we can send them for frest once again. From this talk we know even even Dhuryodhana knows that Lord Krishna is on Pandava side and thus winning is improsible.

Bhishma fought for 10 days and after telling how he can be killed he got killed. Drona killed Virata and Drupada before dieing on his own. Karna and Selya died fighting in the war. Duryodhana ran away to hide and was made to come out and fight. When left to die he plans to kill sleeping people and Ashwadhana does it and then runs away out of fear.

What does this tells us. There are some though on the evil side - did their duty their king and died for that. the kings son has run away and was hidding. This is want happens in real world also.

[ramana]

origin of Kedarnath shrine

Capt Ajit Vadakayil

Kedarnath origins

[Murugan]

Some engineering feats in Ayodhya of Ram

सूत मागध संबाधाम् श्रीमतीम् अतुल प्रभाम् |
उच्चाट्टाल ध्वजवतीम् शतघ्नी शत संकुलाम् || १-५-११

She that prosperous city Ayodhya is muchly crammed with many a eulogist and panegyrist, yet she is highly splendorous with many a bastion, flag and hundreds of batteries of canons, and Dasharatha dwells therein. [1-5-11]

Comment: This shataghnii literally is that which can kill a thousand people, and it is said to be a canon and also said to be thorny weapon: shataghnii catuH talaa loha kaNTaka sa~ncitaa | ayaH kaNTaka sa~ncchannaa mahatii shilaa -- elaborate accounts of this shataghni, kshipaNi are there in yajur aaraNyaka .


प्रासादै रत्न विकृतैः पर्वतैः इव शोभिताम् |
कूटागारैः च संपूर्णाम् इन्द्रस्य इव अमरावतीम् |१-५-१५

Buildings are ornamentally studded with precious gems, and with such multi-storied sky scrappers she is adorned, and filled with them she is like Amaravati, the capital of Indra. [1-5-15]

विमानम् इव सिद्धानाम् तपस अधिगतम् दिवि |
सु निवेशित वेश्मान्ताम् नरोत्तम समावृताम् ||१-५-१९

Ayodhya is like a hovering space station attained by sages by their ascesis, and its edifices are well planned and it is teeming with best people. [1-5-19]

[Murugan]

Balakand

Gurus, Gurukuls and Rules

स्व कर्म निरता नित्यम् ब्राह्मणा विजितेन्द्रियाः |
दान अध्यन शीलाः च संयताः च प्रतिग्रहे || १-६-१३

13. sva karma nirataa = in one's own, rituals, works, engaged in; nityam = always; brahmaNaa = Brahmana-s; vijitendriyaH = with conquered, senses; dana adhyana shiilaH cha = donating, practicing, minded, also; samyataaH cha = principled, also; pratigrahe = in accepting donations.

The sense-controlled scholarly Vedic Brahmans are always engaged in their rituals, and they donate the education of Vedas to their students, as well practice their own, and while receiving donations they are principle-minded. [1-6-13]

The donations received by Vedic scholars are not alms to beggars or charities to the destitute. The Vedic scholars do not receive them from anybody or everybody. There are set rules to accept such donations like cows, gold coins, villages, temples etc., from a befitting hand. Otherwise, the recipient is destined to go to Hell for having received greedily. Thus, if ever somebody wants to donate to such a scholar he should first notify his bona fides, which are verifiable by the recipient. Another kind of donation is referred here as daana adhyana, meaning that these scholars while receiving donations from a righteous source, they also have to donate something to others. It is the education in Veda, which they have to impart to their students free of any charge and that too, to the befitting students only. Thus, the words, daana and pratigrahaNa mean all these rules to accept a donation or to accord it.

.

[Murugan]

Everyone (from all four CASTES) were invited in Ashwamedh Yajna by Guru Vasishtha organized by King Dasharath

ततः सुमंत्रम् आहूय वसिष्ठो वाक्यम् अब्रवीत् || १-१३-१९
निमंत्रयस्व नृपतीन् पृथिव्याम् ये च धार्मिकाः |
ब्राह्मणान् क्षत्रियान् वैश्यान् शूद्राम् च एव सहस्रशः || १-१३-२०
समानयस्व सत्कृत्य सर्व देशेषु मानवान् |

19b, 20, 21a. tataH sumantram aahuuya = then, Sumantra, on calling for; vashiSTaH vaakyam abraviit = Vashishta, [this] sentence, said; pR^idhivyaam ye dhaarmikaaH nR^ipatiim nimantrayasva = on the earth, those, that are righteous ones; [those] kings, be invited; sarva desheSu maanavaan = from all, kingdoms, people; brahmaNaan kshatriyaan vaisyaan shuudraam = Brahmans, Kshatriya-s, Vaisyaa-s, Shuudra-s; cha eva sahasrasaH = also, thus, in thousands [scores of tem]; satkR^itya sam aanayasva = on honouring, let them be invited.

"Then on calling for Sumantra, Sage Vashishta said these words to him, "Let all those kings of the earth that are righteous be invited, and let all the people from all the kingdoms, say Brahmans, Kshatriya-s, Vyasya-s, Shudra-s be invited in scores duly honouring them." So said Vashishta to Sumantra. [1-13-19b, 20, 21a]

[SaiK]

have heard the mara mara becoming rama rama story. in sanskrit/hindi i guess it would mean death death.. in tamil, it would be tree tree. kamba ramayanam in tamil written by kamban(r) is supposed to be greatest literary works of 12th century. Of course the valmiki content and story-telling is different from kambar's poetic format.

[Vikas]

How old was Arjuna at the time of MBH war. My guess is that he was around 45 and at peak of his prowess.
How I reverse calculate his age is as follows.

He was banished for 12 years while Yudhishtra ruled the Indraprasath, then he spent 13 years in forest thanks to Yudhisthra, He was almost out of teenage when he married Draupadi, so about 20. 20 this and 25 in forest make him about 45 years old.
Is that approx correct age of Arjuna ?

[Atri]

He and krishna were 84 years old. Krishna died 36 years after the war at the age of 120

[Vikas]

84 ?
And he had a son who was just a teenager ? So Arjuna was about 70 when banished to Forest ?
Is there any time line of major events in the life of Arjuna to tie it to 84. I mean how old was he when he married Draupadi and how long did he enjoy Indraprasatha with his brothers before the war ?

[Vikas]

When Sri Krishna offered his Army to both Arjuna and Duryodhna, Was he offering just the foot soldiers or the complete Yadava Army as force multiplier ? We don't hear about Krishna or Balaram's kids participating in the war. Where was the Yadav clan during the war except for 2 -3 Yadava characters.
Were they also sitting out like Balaram and Rukmi ?

[Murugan]

Even there is no mention of Lord krishna's grand children participating in the holy war. If he was 84, his grand kids must be of recruitable age. (forgive me!)

[negi]

They were on Somras or some such thing.

[johneeG]

Glorifying Karna as a victim is a recent say last hundred year phenomenon. If you see old Sanskrit commentaries of MB he is not commented on.

As SwamyG posted the 1964 Tamil movie Karnan which was dubbed in Telugu and Hindi set the pace. In 1978(?) NTR made Dhana, Veera Shoora Karna aka DVS Karna which furthered made him into an OBC icon.

Iravati Karve in her book "Yuganta" portrays Karna as a victim.

Ramana garu,
it seems that a sympathetic look at Karna started from the acclaimed sanskrith poet Bhasa's work named 'Karna Bhaaram'. Bhasa was predecessor of Kalidasa. Kalidasa, it seems, regarded Bhasa highly.

Bhasa's another work Dharidhra-Charudhattha was remixed by Shudraka by mixing the Buddha's previous life(where Buddha was impaled on wrong accusation. Buddha's story, in turn, seems to be inspired by the previous life of Vidhura and Ani-Mandavya mentioned in MB). Shudraka's work is Mrichchakatika. This play was used to make the movie Vasantsena starring Rekha. Of course, it is typical 'leftist' stuff with many crude insinuations.

Bhasa is credited with another play named Urubhanga where Dhuryodhana is portrayed in a more sympathetic manner. Bhasa does not villainize the Pandavas. But, he takes a more sympathetic look at Dhuryodhana(Urubhanga) and Karna(Karna Bhara).

Similarly, he has another play where he takes a sympathetic look at Shri Rama being sent to exile by Kaikeyi. Kaikeyi is portrayed as someone who is ready to bear criticism for the greater good of the world.

It seems Bhasa was highly regarded. So, his works may have been the first seed. And it slowly devolved further and further, so that we finally have NTR's movies where villains become heroes(including Kichaka) and heroes becomes wimps.

BTW the pravachanam guru said Draupadi hardly had the time to laugh at guests while being in charge of the rajasuya yaga arrangements. He categorically says that Bhima and Arjuna were the ones who laughed when Duryodhana slipped and fell. Yudhistir rushed Nakula to get dry clothes.

And as an aside, its basic human nature to laugh when there is a slip. Thats the basis of slap-stick humor.
And when its the mighty Duryodhana wouldnt the Pandavas whom he humiliated and conspired to kill many times be excused for laughing?

The real takleef is Duryodhana was jealous of the Pandavas prosperity and imagined insults and induced his father to command them to a game of dice which he was going to fix.
In fact Dhritrastra says he will build a better bhavan/sabha but Duryodhana says its the Pandavas possessing the Maya Sabha that he is jealous of.

Exactly Raman garu. It is natural to laugh when someone slips and falls. No malice in intended. It just looks comic and evokes laughter. Anyway, Dhuryodhana makes it amply clear that his real takleef is with the might and prosperity of the Pandavas. He also realizes that with the death of Jarasandha, Pandavas have become very powerful. And the killing of Shishupala was a shocker to Dhuryodhana. No one dared to criticize the killing of Shishupala. Everyone(inlcluding the Dhuryodhana) kept quiet lest their head may also be severed.

Having read the MB and by the pointers given by Malladi Chandrashekhara Shasthri:
Generally, in Dhuryodhana visiting the Mayasabha episode, many people make an assumption that all the events described happened in one stroke. But, it seems that Dhuryodhana had stayed back at Indhraprastha for sometime. And these events happened while he stayed there. He may have happened during the course of many days(weeks/months). That also explains why there was not a guide all the time. If it was just one tour of the Mayasabha, there would have been a guide. But, since it was a short stay, Dhuryodhana may have ventured on his own thinking that he knew the place. But, the place was filled with illusions.

Dhuryodhana keeps claiming that different people laughed at him. Sometimes, he says that Dhraupadhi laughed at him. Sometimes, he mentions Bhima. Sometimes, someone else. Since, he mentions different names, many people take it as a sign of lying. I think he was mentioning different instances. In one instance, Dhraupadhi may have laughed at him. In another, Bhima may have ridiculed him. So on and so forth.

Such kind of banter is really not out of place. Of course, Dhuryodhana had already tried to kill Pandavas in Lakshagruha by that time. So, there may have been some hatred in the hearts of Pandavas also. So, they may have enjoyed his fumbling. But, this is really a very small issue. Even here, Yuddhishtira was very careful that Dhuryodhana is not humiliated in any manner.

He appoints Dhuryodhana as cashier/gift-receiver in Rajasuya. He appoints Dhushasana as the monitor of Dining arrangement along with Bhima. These are posts that are only given to very trustworthy people. After rajasuya, everyone leaves(including Krushna). Only Dhuryodhana and Shakuni stay back. Shakuni may have also encountered similar confusion. After all, it is natural to get confused and fumble in a new place. And it is natural for people to have some laughs at the expense of such behaviour. But, this issue is blow out of proportion to justify attempted rape...

If you note in Nala Damyanti story, Nala gets a repeat chance to defeat the other guy at dice and win backs his kingdom.

But the Kauravas dont want a repeat of the game as they know Yudhistir learnt to play dice while in Aranyavas.

Yep, Malladi says the same thing. But, reading the KM Ganguly's translation, it seems Dhuryodhana was not aware of Yuddhishtira having learnt the capability. Dhuryodhana pleads Dhrona to catch Yuddhishtira alive so that they can be made to play the game of dice again. Maybe Shakuni was aware. Anyway, Dhuryodhana did not have to wage the war and catch Yuddhishtira alive to make him play the game of dice. If he formally challenged Yuddhishtira to play the game, he would have played. Because, he had a vow that he would never refuse any challenge to war or game of dice.

Samavedham Shanmukha Sharma says that Nala-Dhamayanthi story is Bimba(image) and MB(Pandava story) is a Prathi-Bimba(reflection).

According to the rules of the game of dice, the winner must be ready for a rematch whenever the other side(the losing party) wants to challenge. Nala is the losing party, so he has the right to ask for a rematch anytime. Nala asks for a rematch. Nala was defeated in the game of dice by his brother(who was inspired by Kali). Nala lost all his wealth and possessions. Nala came back and demanded a rematch. Of course, Nala had lost all his wealth, so what would be he stake in the rematch?
Nala staked his wife Dhamayanthi in the rematch. He won the match and regained all his wealth. Dharmaraja had lost the stake while Nala had won the stake. No one remembers that Nala had won the stake. Everyone remembers that Dharmaraja lost the stake.

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.

Link to original post

^ 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.

Link to original post

Saars,
I had actually posted the Sanskrith verses. Link to the post

But, I am not convinced by Malladi's interpretation. He may be correct about the Dice, but connecting that Krishna's conversation with Karna to dice seems far-fetched to me.

In the whole game, Dharmaraja does not touch the dice even once. The dice is always thrown by Shakuni only. Actually, Dharmaraja warns Shakuni not to cheat in the beginning of the match itself. As soon as he loses a stake, Dharmaraja complains that he was defeated unfairly. He complains several times during the game itself. Dharmaraja also makes it clear that it is against the rules of game for one person to stake(Dhuryodhana) and another to throw the dice(Shakuni). Further, Dharmaraja clearly mentions what he is going to stake, as in, I am putting X in stake. Then, he asks Dhuryodhana to clarify what he is staking. Dhuryodhana does not clarify his stake. He merely mentions that he has lot of wealth and does not want to boast! Imagine that! Dhuryodhana does not even mention what he is putting in the stake.

So, that game was null and void from so many angles. Bhishma fails to notice all these things. Asuras mention that Bhishma was possessed and hence he was unable to recognize Dharma and Adharma.

As for Dhamayanthi, yep she killed a tribal who tried to rape her by her gaze. Seetha-amma warns Ravana that She has the capacity to kill him but is refraining out of respect for Shri Rama. Hanuman says in MB that He could have killed Ravana but refrained because that credit should go to Shri Rama.

Similarly, Gaandhari has great powers.(But, the power of Dhritharashtra was physical. He was born very strong like Bhima. But was blind).

Similarly, Dharmaraja had the capacity to kill all the guys assembled in Kurukshethra. But, he refrained from doing so. He also had divya-dhrishti. He reveals this to Dhritharashtra after the war.

Speaking of Bhim's understated role in the MB, what was Shatrugan's role in the Ramayan? The focus is massively on Ram, Lakshman, and Bharat. Did poor Shatrugan have a role at all?

I'm extremely unfamiliar with the Ramayan, so this could well be a newbie question.

Shathrughna killed Lavana. Lavana was a cousin of Ravana.

Meanwhile, rishis from a certain forest area petitioned to Rama for protection from a Rakshasa named Lavana. In Krita Yuga, there was an asura named Madhu, eldest son of Lola. He was a dharmic asura. Pleased with his dharmic conduct Lord Shiva gave him a shula(spear or maybe a trishul/trident). Lord said that no one can defeat the one holding this shula. Madhu requested that the weapon stay within his family even after his death. Lord did not agree to this request but instead told that the weapon(shula) will stay in his family for the next generation i.e. Madhu's son. After that, the weapon will return to Lord. Madhu had established a city named Madhupuri. He married Kumbhinasi. Kumbhinasi is the sister of Kaikasi(mother of Ravana). Lavana was the son of Madhu. So, Ravana and Lavana are cousins(from mother's side). After Madhu departed, his son, Lavana, inherited all the possessions of Madhu(including the invincible shula). With this shula, Lavana became invincible. Lavana, by nature was cruel and took to cannibalism(killing humans and other creatures for food). Lavana was so powerful that he had even defeated Mandata(ancestor of Sri Rama). The rishis wanted Rama to end the menace of Lavana.
Shatrughna, brother of Rama, volunteered for the job. Sri Rama gave him the job and adviced him on how to tackle this Lavanasura. Sri Rama said that Lavana had to be attacked in rainy season, when he would least expect an attack and he must be attacked when he is not in the possession of his invincible shula. Sri Rama also gave a great weapon to his brother to kill Lavana. Following Sri Rama's advice, Shatrughna left for the Madhuvan(forest of Madhu) to slay Lavana. On the way, he spent a day in Valmiki's ashrama. On that very day, Lava and Kusha were born. Shatrughna was pleased to learn the good news, but did not visit the children or Sita amma. He resumed to Madhuvan and killed Lavana with the weapon given by Sri Rama. Lavana was returning from a hunt and was not in possession of the divine shula.

After killing the Lavana, Shatrughna ruled the Madhupuri(Madhuvan) and re-established a city there. It came to be known as Mathura. It was situated at the bank of Yamuna. It took 12 years for Shatrughna to re-establish the city.

Link to a post on Lavana

MB and Ramayana are not shy of stating things as they are.

Hanuman flight to Lanka.

Some king who is the real father of Satyavati.

So why would they use euphemism when they have not been shy of it in other locations?

True.

Ramana garu

Vyasa was perhaps a designation and many vyasa were there aft veda vyasa, like todays sankacharya and adya sankaracharya. There may be more than one ved vyasa

Each Mahayuga has its own Vyasa figure. Vyasa means editor/compiler. The job of Vyasa is to compile or edit the Vedas and Puranas so that they are intelligible and accessible to people of later Yugas(particularly Kali Yuga). Krishna Dwaipayana(son of Satyavati) is the Vyasa figure of the present Mahayuga. Other people have occupied that position before. For example, Krishna Dwaipayana's father Parashara was Vyasa figure for a certain Mahayuga. And Valmiki(who authored Srimadh Ramayana) was also a Vyasa figure for a certain Mahayuga.

- According to Vishnu Puranam(by Samavedam Shanmukha Sharma) and other sources.

I remember my vaishnava Sanskrit teacher calling out that no parents would name their son as Duryodhana.

They say his real name was Suyodhana , sounds logical too why would anyone name his/her own son Dur-yodhana ?

Link to an old post on this issue

Bhima is like Narasimha avatara to the Kauravas in many ways: killed them all, gruesomely killed the eldest two Kauravas. And did it beyond normal code of conduct.

happened to watch a kathakali performance in Thrissur few years ago. The scene was when Draupadi wishes the lotus flowers in the lake and how Bhima-Draupadi romance develops while in exile and hwo delicately he handles her and promises to bring the flowers to her. In the process, he kills rakshasas, has his own ego busted (the hanumana-tail scene), yet returns with the flowers..

Bhima loved Draupadi and Draupadi loved Arjuna. quite a complicated story. She is the single point of softness and affection in his life. His marriage to Hidimbi was more of a political relation. He did not even visit her after impregnating her. He did not screw around like Arjuna did (subhadra, ulupi, chitrangada). really a fascinating character. contrast this to blood-drinking scene.. quite a wide range. Someone like Ajay Devgan would play Bhima fantastically (only much stronger built and more height).

Saar,
I think this is not a accurate portrayal. Dhraupadhi, it seems was partial to Arjuna(but only slightly). Actually, it seems she would transform mentally whenever she was with one of her husbands. It is as if 5 women reside in a single body. I heard it somewhere, have to check MB.

Anyway, Dhraupadhi knew that Bhima was the one who could be stoked to try daring deeds. Other Pandavas would not do it, unless given permission by Dharmaraja. Bhima is reckless to an extent. And Dhraupadhi stokes it, when she has some need. This is seen in Kichaka-vadha and in flower episode also. Sahadheva also seems to be angry guy. Arjuna is more balanced and tries to imitate Dharmaraja. Bhima gives priority to Artha. Dharmaraja is really several notches above the others. The only one who can advice him is Shri Krushna. Shri Krushna has His own agenda(paritranaya sadhunam, vinasaya ca duskrtam, dharma-samsthapanarthaya, sambhavami yuge yuge).

Dharmaraja did not need any BG. He already knew by the time of war. He had made up his mind and was not going to change it. Bhima did not have the doubts that Arjuna had. Arjuna was somewhere in between Bhima and Dharmaraja. Bhima was sure about the justness of his cause. Arjuna was very attached to Dhrona and Bhishma. So, to him, it was really difficult.

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.

Saar,
One can hypothesize any theory by conveniently selecting the data. Any data that does not fit the hypothesis will be rejected as interpolation or extrapolation or some other thing. By this method, one can accept or reject or claim any thing.

One can say that the core story of MB is only war. The rest of the story was added later. How will you disprove my theory?

Or I can say that the BG is the core of MB. All other parts were added later. How will you disprove my theory?

In this method, there is not ending. It is like bottomless pit. One is free to accept or reject anything and concoct any narrative to suit one's taste.

best rebuke is - क्लैब्यं मा स्म गमः पार्थ नैततत्त्वय्युपपद्यते । क्षुद्रं हृदयदौर्बल्यं त्यक्त्वोत्तिष्ठ परन्तप - literally "Stop being an impotent Eunuch Arjun, set aside the wuss-ness in your heart, stand up and start being a Man !!!!"

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..

That rebuke is the first level. Generally, that rebuke is enough to spur any self-respecting man(specially, a warrior).

For example, while leaving for Hasthinapura to try for peace, Shri Krushna asks for views of various people. At that time, Bhima says, "Try for peace."

Shri Krushna says, "What Bhima, you are suing for peace?! Have you developed cold feet? Are you really Bhima or are you some duplicate pretending to be Bhima?"

Those words are enough to propel Bhima. So, there is no need for BG. But, in the case of Arjuna, these words are not enough. Because, Arjuna is genuinely confused about Dharma. Bhima was not confused. He was sure about the correctness of his cause.

So, BG becomes necessary.

Actually, Shri Krushna answers Arjuna comprehensively in a single chapter itself(2nd chapter of BG). But, Arjuna does not grasp it. Then, he explains the whole thing in the rest of the chapters. One would find that Arjuna repeats many questions, but everytime Shri Krushna answers it from a different angle. So, in 18 Chapters, he comprehensively removes the doubts of Arjuna. Now, Arjuna is again convinced about his course. Thats why, he says I have got my memory back.

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.

I have heard this argument before, but this seems like a really weak argument to me.

First and foremost, 2 hrs is not really such a big deal in a war. And it was the first day of war. It was not as if the war was stopped in the middle and BG was preached. It is quite normal, I would think, for the forces to take time get down to war, specially on a first day(and also, mostly people on both sides had known each other or were related to each other). Further, it was do or die war. So, it is quite natural to take time.

Also, these armies had come from diverse kingdoms. They did not practice with each other. Even the commanders in the same faction had come together only recently. So, it is normal to take time. War started 10 days/1 week(I forget which), after the Shri Krushna's journey to Hasthinapura for peace.

And this is a very recent theory. Why did no ancient ask this question?
Most probably because they were acquainted with the battle tactics of those times and did not find anything peculiar in sometime delay before the start of war.

Also, one must not forget that Shri Krushna is the God here. In Rasa Leela, Shri Krushna converts a single night into 1000 nights. In fact, in BG itself, He says that He is the Kala(Time). So, Time is really not a factor here.

How much time did it take for Arjuna to understand the message?
Shri Krushna taught Arjuna until he understood. So, 18 Chapters were required for Arjuna to understand. Maybe, others would need many more chapters(may be 108 Upanishads or even more).

There is a dialogue in Deewar movie,
Character 1: Shri Krushna ne BG mein kaha tha....
Character 2: Han, lekin BG sunnene-wala bhi koi aur nahin, balki Arjun tha...

One must not forget that Arjuna is Nara of Nara-Narayana pair. Arjuna had already performed a tapas for Lord Shiva and got His blessing. He had shared the Indhra's throne. To such a man, it took 18 Chapters to understand the message. That too, when Shri Krushna Himself was doing the teaching.

While Bhisma is the commander the war was attrition style. Bhisma's war aim was to kill the Pandava forces and make them come to peace table. He is on a killing spree.

Once Drona takes over the war aims change to capture of Dharmaraja and thus changes to gruesome warfare.

Very intresting analysis, Ramana garu. Please continue it for other commanders also. And also what was the strategy from Pandava side?

question for the gurus: why did not Hanuman fly back with Sita mata when he went to lanka?

Link to an old post on this topic

I want to know more about Ekalavya?


Why did he come to Drona?

What was he before he came to Drona?
What did he do after in life?

Did he fight at Kuruksehtra?
And on whose side?

Dhrona was one of the famous teachers of his time. His school was like a school to university. All the guys wanted to get enrolled in his school/university. Dhrona was the student of Bhardwaja(his own father) and Parashurama.

People from all over flocked to him. Dhrona was primarily a teacher of arms. So, mostly, it was royalty that came to him. Ekalavya was also a prince, Nishadha prince. Karna also studied under Dhrona from young age. Later, Karna went to Parashurama to learn about Brahma-asthra.

Dhrona comes across as a partial person. For example, he used to send all his pupils to fill the water. He used to give them a vessel with a small mouth, while he gave a large-mouthed vessel to his son. So, his son would complete the chore quickly, while the others would still be doing their task. During this extra-time, Dhrona would teach advanced skills to his son(Ashwatthaman).

Arjuna noticed this and used his archery skills to complete the task quickly and participated in the lessons taught by Dhrona to his son.

Also, Dhrona instructed his staff never to give food to Arjuna in the dark. Because, Dhrona recognized the potential of Arjuna. So, he tried to keep Arjuna from surpassing his son. But, one day while Arjuna was eating the lights went off. Arjuna got an idea that just as he could eat even in the dark due to long practice, similarly he should be able to shoot in the dark. So, Arjuna began to practice in the dark. Arjuna used to practice really hard. Even though he was better than all his peers, he used to toil very hard and practice day and night. Eventually, Dhrona was won over by Arjuna's dedication. Once Dhrona started liking Arjuna, he became partial to Arjuna. In fact, he became so fond of Arjuna that he loved him more than his own son. That is the character of Dhrona. At one time, he promised Arjuna that Arjuna would be his best student.

Dhrona had the ability to recognize potential. He had recognized the potential of Arjuna and tried initially to suppress him. Similarly, Dhrona recognized the potential of Ekalavya. Anyway, Ekalavya was rejected. It seems he was rejected on the basis that he was a Nishadha. Interestingly, Nala was also a Nishadha. It seems Nishadha was born from a King named Veni. Veni was adharmic king and was killed by his priests. The priests then applied a process on the dead body of Veni to create another person. He was Nishadha. He was driven away to forests according to Puranas. Then, Prithu was created by the same process. Prithu was coronated as the King. The earth is called Prithvi as a tribute to the King Prithu.

Ekalavya practiced on his own and learnt archery. Arjuna became jealous of Ekalavya.

Dhrona went to Ekalavya and said,"If you are my pupil, I demand fees.' Dhrona was trying to keep his word. If Ekalavya had said that he was not the pupil of Dhrona, then that would have been over. But, Ekalavya said that Dhrona was his teacher. So, Dhrona took away the thumb of right hand. Ekalavya still could shoot with his other fingers, but he had lost that edge.

Ekalavya was under the patronage of Jarasandha. Jarasandha had collected people like Kamsa and Shishupala. Kala-Yavana may have also been his ally. If Dhuryodhana(with Karna) had united with Jarasandha, then it would have become a very formidable front.

So, Shri Krushna took them out one by one. Karna was divested off his armor and ear-rings. Then, Ghatotkacha was used to waste his Shakthi weapon. Similarly, the thumb of Ekalavya was taken out. Similarly, Kamsa was killed. Then, Jarasandha's friends(Hamsa and Dimba) were taken out. Then, Jarasandha was eliminated. Then, it was Shishupala's turn. Ekalavya was also killed by Shri Krushna. Then, Arjuna killed Karna when his chariot wheel was stuck in the earth. Finally, it was the turn of Dhuryodhana. This was well-planned by Shri Krushna.

In fact, many of the rakshasas killed by Bhima would also have joined the other side. So, they were all taken out one by one. Perhaps, Kichaka was the only one who would have been on Pandava side, if he were not dead.

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.

Yep, it seems Arjuna was given a special vision. Vishvam is alway filled with Vishnu. But, one is unable to perceive it. Arjuna was given special vision for a brief period to perceive how vishnu was in vishvam. Arjuna is unable to bear it.

----
Nilesh Oak saar,
congrats on your nomination for the award. And all the best for your other ventures.

[Murugan]

johneeG garu

1) Excellent. Much appreciated about info on various vyasa. Isnt that true for parsurama, there were more than one parsurama?

2) Selective casteism propelled by dark forces. According to these DFs Drona refused Karna on caste bases. But parsurama recruited karna. == There was no casteism.

3) Name calling of Arjuna by Lord Krushna. You have rightly said that those words were used to instigate and propel for a commitment. In BG we find Krushna calling Arjuna with different names, parth, dhananjay, kaunteya, paandav, goodakesh, arjun, savyasachi etc. These all words are used at different different level to pacify, instigate, insult or taunt Arujn and it is totally psychological. Lord Krushna is also psychologists' guru.

krushnam vande jagad gurum

[ramana]

When Sri Krishna offered his Army to both Arjuna and Duryodhna, Was he offering just the foot soldiers or the complete Yadava Army as force multiplier ? We don't hear about Krishna or Balaram's kids participating in the war. Where was the Yadav clan during the war except for 2 -3 Yadava characters.
Were they also sitting out like Balaram and Rukmi ?

Krishna offered his Narayani Sena(they were his and not the Kingdom's) on one side and himself without weapons on the other side. Arjuna chose Krishna with "nihattar" or with out weapons.
Kritavarma, Brihadbala fought on Kaurava side. In the Musala parva, some of the Yadavas chide Kritavaram for the sneaky killing of Abhimanyu.

Balarama chooses to go on teerth-yatra and that was the standard followed by the others.
They became neutral.

Pradyumna was not available to take part in the fight.

We already discussed in this thread that one of Krishna's son was married to the Kaurava princess.

[suryag]

Gurus my friend who is a marathi once read me an entire chapter from a Marathi book. The book is essentially the story of Mahabharat as seen from the eyes of Duryodhana and narrated by him when injured and closer to death to a passerby. Duryodhana sounded really convincing in the stand he had taken. Can anyone please tell me the name of the book?

[Vayutuvan]

Did Aniruddha, son of Pradyumna, grandson of Sri Krishna fight in the war and survived and shared the fate of all the yadavas?

[SwamyG]

origin of Kedarnath shrine

Capt Ajit Vadakayil

Kedarnath origins

My my my, I get it Ajit does not like "Tamil Iyers" Communities in India, like elsewhere have grown up to distrust and blame others. And sometimes one sees evidence of such bias/hatred when one least expects (sometimes in BRF too). Ajit talks about AS born in Kerala - he tries to benefit from the association. Nothing wrong perse though Kerala or Tamil Nadu did not exist during those times. His date of AS's times is 2000 BC. At that time both Tamil and Malayalam did not exist as it exists now. You know where I am going, but that is not relevant now. Or maybe that is really it - the thorn. Sometimes brothers/cousins hate each other more than non-family members.

However his hasty generalization and factual inaccuracies have to be called out.

It was not Tamil Iyers, stooges of the British as he calls, who moved the dates. It was a handful of people belonging to one mutt - a mutt that started out as a branch of the Sringeri mutt. Ajit says:

Adi Shankaracharya who was born in Kerala at Kaladi , was kicked forward in time by the white Christian invader and their Tamilian Iyer Brahmin stooges by 2800 years .

In return for fudging ancient Indian history, they granted the death of Adi Shankaracharya at Kanchipuram – which is a white lie.

The Iyers who have adopted Sankaraparampara, come into two broad categories. One follows the Kanchi mutt, the others follow the Sringeri mutt. The controversy rests with the Kanchi tradition and not the Sringeri tradition. The details of the controversy have been analysed for decades now, and there are plenty of websites arguing about it. Kanchi mutt is the one that provides a lineage 2500 years old. Kanchi peetam states the following on their websites:

Shri Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham was established by Sri Adi Sankara in the year 482 B.C.

Link: http://www.kamakoti.org/

So Ajit's arthimetic does not work out here. Rolling from 2000BC by 2800 years comes to about 800AD - and that is not the date given by Kanchi peetam.

Let us check with Sringeri peetam (my family belongs to this parampara): Website: http://www.sringeri.net/history

Jagadguru Sri Adi Shankara Bhagavatpada established the first of the four Amnaya Peethams1 at Sringeri more than twelve centuries ago to foster the sacred tradition of Sanatana Dharma.

12 centuries ago from the 20/21st century, leads to about 800AD. So it is Sringeri peetam that sticks to the date of 800AD. Damn the "Mysore Iyers" or "Kanndiga Iyers".

While the other mutts do not either provide the history, or do not have good websites of their own to clearly state their history/views on this topic. However in 2003 some of the Sankaracharyas agreed upon the date of April 3rd. 509BC as the birth of AS.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1030121/a ... 593957.asp
The news states Kanchi, Puri, Dwaraka and Badrinath peetams accepted that date. Sringeri is notably absent. And Tamil Iyer Stooges, who follow Kanchi can at best be accused of fudging the date back and not forward. I say fudge because most scholars place AS around 800AD (which is what Sringeri believes too - the first peetam established by AS).

The flamboyant (I should call moron) Ajit goes on to say:

Kanchi Mutt which Tamil Iyers stooges of the British keep shouting from tree tops about, did NOT exist in Adi Shankaracharya’s scheme of affairs. Kanchi Mutt is the one who kicked Adi Shankaracharya 2800 years forward in time Fake Kanchi mutt records were created in collusion with desh drohi Tamil Iyers..

So Tamil Iyers are now desh drohi, for fudging the date back? Granted Kanchi propaganda is solid and has popular following; if at all they wanted to fudge the date from 800AD (which was want Britishers and other stooges believed) to the hoary past; why did they move to about 500BC? If they were just fudging why not move it to 2000BC - what is the big deal just another 1500 years only right?
Who is going to notice.

Ajit's rants at best indicates his deep seated hatred towards another community - tamil iyers. Sadly Ajit has a following now, and many are going to believe Tamil Iyers are desh drohis, and have fudged the numbers. If at all any fudging it has been the other way around from what is commonly accepted by scholars. Unless one really believes Sankara's age was 2000BC. In that case the Tamil Iyer stooges of the White British moved it from 2000BC to 500BC (1500 years) and not 2800 years as claimed by Ajit. And then the "Gujarati Iyers", "Odishi Iyers", "Kumaoni Iyers" followed the footsteps of "Tamil Iyers"

So this 2000BC number is not accepted by any peetams or scholars. But that in itself does not prove anything one way or the other. AS could have been really born in 2000BC. However that claim has to be analyzed a little further before agreeing or disagreeing. I have no problem moving AS to 2000BC, then one has to move other dates back - which again I have no problem as long as everything ties together and makes good sense.

[SaiK]

swamy-gin, i seriously think you need a separate thread for that or some OT thread.

[SwamyG]

So what do you recommend the title to be "How Indians hate each other" ?

[SaiK]

Start the thread, and pool in resources to title it appropriately, if you don't like what you are trying to bring out. Why not? what is wrong with that thread if it reflects some real scenario that needs big time correction.

PS: Abomination Thread!?

[SaiK]

taking swamy-gin out of nukkad thoughts, how does Jambuvan's story ends?

[ramana]

SwamyG, My point was the origin of Kedarnath and you went off on a rant on the non germane parts of the link. Good job.

The epics say the Hamsa bird can separate the milk from water and drink only that.

[SwamyG]

Ah...so I comment on the posted article, and my comments become irrelevant. Kedranath and AS are linked, AS and his mutts are linked. And Ajit was making nonsensical accusations on a community. If I point that out, how does it become non-germane and rant?

[Yagnasri]

There may not be one Shankara or Budda. In respect of Budda I think we basically took what aswaghosha says and dating is too much mess with each nation and sect giving one date. Tradition of other 4 matas do not agree Kanchi peeta as not the 4 formed by Shankara Bhagavathpada. Is there 2 Shankaras??? There is no evidence of that.

The dating of Indian personalities before 1000 years is always proving to be problematic. We do not know who is Bhoja for sure. We also do not know who is the historical Vikramadithya for sure. Traditional indian texts do not agree with the Alexander based dating at all. National historical books like Kalhana's Rajatharangini also does not agree with present dates. Entire dating of epics is difficult even when we have a clear list of rulers and dynasties from the epic heros - Lord Rama to Shivaji/Maha Rama Prathap, Jarasandha to Mauryas, Randavas to Cholas etc. The periods mentioned are to be seriously reviewed.

[member_22872]

RajeshA ji had posted a nice article about avatara Buddha and Sakya muni Buddha.

[ramana]

Guys mixing epics and history leads to confusion and disarray. Please write enquire about hisoricity in the Distorted Historicity threads. Thanks.

Also Narayana Rao, Please obeserve puntuation and write clearly as I expect more from you in particular due to your training.
For example one has to read this sentence twice:

When Saidhava Killed Karna himselfs says to Dhuryodhana...

it should read

When Saindhava was killed, Karna himself says to Dhuryodhana....

[ramana]

While Bhisma is the commander the war was attrition style. Bhisma's war aim was to kill the Pandava forces and make them come to peace table. He is on a killing spree.

Once Drona takes over the war aims change to capture of Dharmaraja and thus changes to gruesome warfare.

and
johneeG

Very intresting analysis, Ramana garu. Please continue it for other commanders also. And also what was the strategy from Pandava side?

I hesitated till I completed hearing Drona parvam.

It is clear from the last day of Drona Paravam, ie the 15th day of the Mahabharat war, it was Yudhisthir who set the strategy and not anyone else.

All this time I was lost thinking the Pandavas were fighting without aiming. I guess like US chatterati think about present day India.

What I could deduce is the Pandava strategy is to eliminate, neutralize and if needed kill the Kaurava commander-in-chief hoping that Duryodhana will see the light and neogtiate.
They leave Duryodhana alive till the last day.*

If you notice, its Yudhisthir who goes to Bhisma and asks for a solution to remove him from the battlefield. It is he who decides Drona has to be killed on the 15th day and sets the plan in motion. Moves the Pandava warriors behind Arjuna with Dhristadyumna (DD) alongside for he is born to kill Drona. After that on that very day Drona kills Virata raja and Drupad Raja. So DD is quite incensed. Meantime Krishna says Drona won't be killed without him dropping his weapons and the way to do is to announce that his son was killed. Yudhisthir is not convinced and wants to tell a lie that is close to truth. Bhima kills an elephant with apet name Ashwathama and says "Ashwathama is dead!". Drona looks to Yudhisthir and asks for confrimation. He says "Ashwathama hatha, kunjera!"

Well Karna's time as C-i-C is two days and all he wants to do is kill Arjuna. Not much of a strategy as its a private goal.

Aside; I think Karna wasn't a very good C-i-C for all along he had a personal vendetta which began without reason and died for it. His pratignas all were detrimental to Duryodhana's war aims: keeping aloof for first ten days, giving abhayam to Kunti that he would kill only Arjuna, his giving up kavacha kundalas for a single use Shakti and not using that at first chance. He already had been defeated by Arjuna many times earlier. A murkh friend for a parma murkh leader.

Drona tells Duryodhana that Kaurava fate is decided when Bhisma fell and it was only matter of time for full and final defeat.

And in full version, the Maharishi contingent (Vishwamitra, Jamdagni, Bhardwaja, Gautama, Vashista and so on) arrives in the battlefield and admonishes Drona for taking up weapons and killing so many people. And right then the "Aswattama hatha kunjerah" is said.

So he sits on the chariot on a mat of grass and gives up life which is seen by the Pandavas and Krishna and Sanjaya.

DD runs and beheads a dead body.

Arjuna is grief struck and Dharmaraja admonishes DD for beheading dead corpse.

So the popular thing that DD killed Drona is wrong. For he had already given up life.

Then Aswatthama comes and launches a Narayan Astra on the Pandavas which is nullified by Krishna to drop their weapons and get off their chariots.

When the Narayanastra is nullified, Ashawathama falls on his knees and cries. Then Vyasa appears and tells him the Nara-Narayana background and that the Pandavas are not ordinary humans and can't be destroyed by any weapon or anyone.
I guess that is why he killed the others in the camp raid on 18th night.
----

Narayan Rao, Nala was the king of the Nishada rajayam. He was not a Naishida ie a tribal hunter.
In fact Damayanti burns alive a Naishida who wants to molest her after rescuing her from a python.
----
* Note Bhisma starts killing the Kauravas one by one form the lesser ones to all the way till Dushasana. Yet Duryodhana doesn't get it as he still thinks Karna or Salya are still there.
Finally he appoints Ashwathama who kills the Upapandavas in bed.
-----------

BTW on the last day when Duryodhan admonishes Drona, he says what did you expect when you guys tried to disrobe Panchali.

So there are many refs to the disrobing incident and not just in the Sabha parvam.

------------

After Drona's death Duryodhana appoints Karna upon advice of Ashwatthama! Note Salya was considered a more mighty warrior and had brought one whole akshauni sena from Madra desa. So ability and resoruces were ignored for a reason.

The hope is Karna will kill Arjuna.
By now he doesn't have any useful weapons.

[ramana]

JohneeG, I think I have a perfect project for you.

All across the Vyasa Bharatam, there are numerous references to Brihaspati Yuddha Niti. Duryodhana quotes Brihaspati on balance of forces between the two groups while assuring Dhritarastra. Yudhishtir quotes Brihaspati during the Karna parva of battle formations. I havent listened to full text of Bhisma's discourse in Shanti Parvam.

So can you work on collecting all the quotes on Brihaspati Yuddhaniti to the extent we can? Later publish it as e-book for starters.

It can be followed by a series Vidura Niti, Vakra Niti and Bahuka Niti to provide different tools for the mind.

Thanks, ramana

[member_22872]

ramana garu, where do you listen (any site?), is it the same site as RamaY garu posted? just want to do the same.

[ramana]

Yes. I downloaded multiple versions of the discourses on to a 32G micro SD card and put it on my phone. Reason for multiple versions is each guru has his prespective of the audience capability to absorb.

I would start with ushasri's short version of MB.
Next listen to MCS for long version.

Shanmukha Sarma is in between.

Then to Undrajavaram version (66days!) which has many gurus giving discourses.

Most of the non-MCS types deal with Andhra Mahabharatiyam.

For example even when Undrajavaram organizers gave no time limits the person dealing with Virata parvam didnt give it full justice and excised Sudeshna's admonitions to Kichaka. So have to go to Ch Koteshwara Rao who spoke for many days only on Virata parvam. I haven't heard this as I need another SD card!

Wish all these were available when I was younger and could benefit!!!

Thanks to Narayana Rao garu, I listened to Gajendra Moksham by Ch Koteswara Rao who gave word to word Pothana Bhagavatam like a cricket commentary.

Being deficient in reading Telugu, especailly old time Telugu, its great service being rendered by all these experts.

[Nilesh Oak]

-----------

BTW on the last day when Duryodhan admonishes Drona, he says what did you expect when you guys tried to disrobe Panchali.

So there are many refs to the disrobing incident and not just in the Sabha parvam.

------------

You mean Drona admonishing Duryodhana on 15th (last day for Drona) of the War?

I will check the exact references. I know besides Sabha Parva, there are 2-3 places where disrobing (vastraharan) is mentioned....against 50+ places where vastraharan is not mentioned.. but simple torturing, bringing forth Draupadi to the court etc..

[SaiK]

Why did the panch pandavs play to lose rights over Draupadi? Why did not they think that is adharmic?

why Yudhistra played into this, even when confronted by few of his bros?

[member_22872]

ramana garu, thanks. Oh, I thought you are proficient in Telugu, unfortunately neither am I, bane of CBSE syllabus (in my case)

[ramana]

Why did the panch pandavs play to lose rights over Draupadi? Why did not they think that is adharmic?

why Yudhistra played into this, even when confronted by few of his bros?

Zero of all they didnt lose rights over Draupadi. She was and is their wife.

First of all "panch pandvas" did not do that. Only Yudhistir did.

And for a reining monarch, an inviation to a dice game was equivalent to a call for battle. Recall Nala Damyanti story.
Besides Dritharastra was an elder to Yudhisthir and it was more a command then a challenge.

As for staking Draupadi in the game the chronology shows it was done on suggestion of Shakuni and after Yudhistir lost himself.

So having been lost he could be obeying a command by his master's representative.

But it also means the master's representative thought that Draupadi was free unlike the earlier idea that a wife and brothers were the property of the King Yudhistir.

That is why Bhisma is flummoxed about law points of Dharma.

Yet the moral comapss was that a wife nor the brothers should have been staked.
The game should have ended at the loss of the kingdom like it did in Nala's time.

Also RamaY had explained that old dice game wasn't the same as rolling a six faced die.
Yudhishtir never got a chance to roll the dice at all.
It was Shakuni rolling the dice all along.

I feel MahaBharata has many instabilites in the story from the begining.

First is Dushayanta who refuses to acknowldege his wife Shankuntala and his son Bharat. And he had married her in accoradance with the wedding customs prevalent to Kshatriyas.

Next is Bharat who nominates his minister's son as his sucessor bringing in the idea of ability to rule being the criterion to be the king. Will come to this later.

Next is Yayati who cheats on his wife Devayani and further swaps his oldage with Puru and makes him the king thus dynastic primogeniture(eldest son) is set aside.

Next on down it is King Shantanu who despite his being married to the most beautiful woman Ganga and his 8 children with her and somehow breaks up his marriage and later desires the much younger Satyavati.

Next its Bhisma who decides to pander to his father King Shantanu's undesirable wishes and gives up his rights to the throne and takes vow of celibacy. Now recall King Bharata setting aside his own son in favor of a capable person to be the king? Here Bhisma a capable person who is setting himself aside for an unkown person of unknown capability who is yet to be born!

Then the deaths of Chitrangadha (fighting wiht people more powerful than him) and Vichitraviraya (marrying more women than he can handle and not being bale to impregnate either) without dynastic issue.

Now suddenly the dynasty remembers Bharata's requirement of kingly capability and makes Pandu the King setting aside Dhritarastra.

But the greatest instability is Pandu making Dhritarastra sit on the throne and retiring to the forests with his wives Kunti and Madri.

If Bharata's requirement for kingly ability made him seek someone outside his dynasty, why didn't Pandu nominate someone else who was capable to be the king who could rule and put an end to the instablity?

Next on it is Yuddhisthir who joins the dice game and looses his moral compass.

So the whole Bharat vansh is like an unstable tower of disks which needed one throw of the dice to bring it down and that is what Shakuni did.

[SaiK]

thanks for the reflections, ramana.

shakuni must have been a probability master, as he knows the outcomes already from his moves.

[ramana]

One of the gurus, MCS, says that Shakuni had masterd the dice game. He calls it Aparavidya and people from his region are known for mastery over such non-traditional learnings. Further in Aranya Vasa, after narrating the Nala Damayanti story, one rishi teaches Yuddhistir the art of dice game. And as Kankubhatta, he sues those skills to amuse Virata Raj during the Agnyatavas.
So there is no talk by Shakuni of rematch. However Duryodhana tells Drona that he will seek a dice game again if he catches Yuddhisthir alive.

This I think was an inducement to Dorna to capture him alive. Just my opinion Duryodhana would have killed him then somehow. Only my opinion based on previous behavior.

[ramana]

As kid we used to play a game of three to five shards of clay pottery which we had to knock off with a ball!

[SaiK]

Was that called lagori or something in one of the SI language?