Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

[Adrija]

Other than 5 villages and possibly their names, none of this 'intent' alluded to (by me.. aka writer of original article I refer to) is part of Mahabharata text. This is rather interpretation of it in our times.

IIRC, the five villages asked for by the Pandavas were the "panch pat"- Khandavpat (subsequently Idraprastha after the Pandavas cleared the forest and built the fort/ city leveraging Vishvakarma), Sonpat (now Sonepat), Tilpat, Baghpat and Panipat

This division of the Kuru kingdom was actually forced on Dhritrashtra/ Duryodhan by the Kuru elders.........

Nileshji, I think the names of these villages are cited most recently by Valdiya as part of the Mahabharat text....will need to confirm though

[ramana]

The five villages were
1) Paniparastha (Now known as Panipat)
2) Sonaprastha (Now known as Sonipat)
3) Indraprastha (Now known as Delhi)
4) Bahakprastha (Now known as Baghpat)
5) Tilprastha (Now known as Tilpat)

Refer History of Ancient India: From 4250 BC to 637 AD By J.P. Mittal

The division was by Bhisma to avoid confrontation.

[ramana]

Bji, Can you use game theory to explain Yudhistir's deep play with Duryodhan on the last day of battle?

It looks irrational but I think it was a rational play to induce D to come out of the lake and fight Bhima and bring closure to the War.

[abhishek_sharma]

Did Kunti join Pandavs during their Vanvaas?

[ramana]

Did Kunti join Pandavs during their Vanvaas?

No. She stayed with Vidura.
Iravati Karve says she wanted to stay in Hastinapura to remind the Kauravas that the Pandavas had a hereditary right. By staying with Vidura instead of the Palace she was reminding Dritharastra of the Kauravas meanness.

By tradition elder brother and his wife are like parents. By staying with Vidura, her husband's younger brother she was insulting D&G.

[abhishek_sharma]

Thanks. I will start Narendra Kohli's Vol 5 today.

[ramana]

Great I was getting restless.

[Adrija]

Finished Valdiya's latest book (which Ramana has linked earlier in the Book Review thread as well)............lots of interesting stuff but most radical (to me at least) was the explicit acceptance of the Indus Valley sites being Puranic! He cites a long list of scholars with the same view, stretching back to the 1960s...

Now someone please let our education establishment know as well?

Another trivia- he also postulates Swarga/ Indralok being located in the current CAR area, and identifies Mount Meru with the Pamir Massif

[Ashok Sarraff]

^
Geography, People and Geodynamics of India in Puranas and Epics

Author : KS Valdiya

Publisher : Aryan Book,Rs 495

Noted geologist KS Valdiya investigates the geological history of the Indian subcontinent as mentioned in the epics and Puranas, hitherto a largely neglected field, writes Rohit Srivastava

[ramana]

Bji, Can you use game theory to explain Yudhistir's deep play with Duryodhan on the last day of battle?

It looks irrational but I think it was a rational play to induce D to come out of the lake and fight Bhima and bring closure to the War.

I think in retrospect this is a deeper gamble than the dice game. And Yuddhistir also had to have Duryodhan's Theory of Mind/how he thinks very well understood to have made this offer.
All along kauravas had used Yudhistir's Theory of Mind to game him into situations where he would lose to their benefit. They always used his adherence to Dharma to back him into a corner where they benfit.


Eg. The Pandavas did the fighting, eliminated Jarasandha and performed the Rajasuya yagna and became the overlords of Bharata-Varsha.
Kauravas by defeating, Yudhistir in a fixed dice game got the benefits of overlordship and with Bhisma the undefeatable and Karna they could continue to enjoy the power.
True Duryodhana sent Karna around to beat up the dead horses but it was less difficult effort as there were no one to oppose him.


In the death of Drona episode for first time Yudhistir uses his reputation to deal a blow to the Kauravas. Aswatthama could have showed up soon after the lie and made it all look bad.

Next time Yudhistir uses his new found capability is in the lake episode to bring out Duryodhana to fight and get killed. This is needed to bring closure to the war. And thus Yudhistir who was so far a king by inheritance is now a king by conquest.


In fact after Ashwatthama kills the sleeping UpaPandavas and the Panchalas, Draupadi asks Yuddhistir what he plans to do as the king to meet punishment for that adharmic act? He needs no coronation ceremony after the death of the rivals.

[Nilesh Oak]

Finished Valdiya's latest book (which Ramana has linked earlier in the Book Review thread as well)............lots of interesting stuff but most radical (to me at least) was the explicit acceptance of the Indus Valley sites being Puranic! He cites a long list of scholars with the same view, stretching back to the 1960s...

Now someone please let our education establishment know as well?

Another trivia- he also postulates Swarga/ Indralok being located in the current CAR area, and identifies Mount Meru with the Pamir Massif

Adrija ji,

Does he (Valiya) say anything specific about SSVC (IVC) sites being post Mahabharata?

In any case, I have made a case -based on my dating of MBH war and archeological dating of IVC (mature phase and not earlier Mehagarh phase), that mature IVC is post Mahabharata. That is the reason I ask this question.
-------------
What is 'CAR' area?

TIA

[sudarshan]

Central Asian Region? Shades of AIT again? Or some precedent for laying claim to those lands?

[ramana]

Contrafactual culture at work

Ravana was great king

Off course but a bad person!

Ravana was a great ruler

BY DANFES, AGENCY

Contrary to popular wisdom in India, a new book on Ravana, the 'demon king' in the Ramayana epic, says he ruled a rich and vast kingdom in ancient Sri Lanka, wrote books and built a maze of underground tunnels to protect his empire.

According to "Ravana, King of Lanka" (Vijitha Yapa Publications), Ravana may not have lost the war to Lord Rama but for the "betrayal" by his wife Mandodari and half brother Vibhishana "who gave away war secrets to the enemies". The 174-page book on Ramayana's villain is based on extensive research by a Sri Lankan, Mirando Obeysekere, based on archaeological evidence as well as palm leaf writings from a bygone era.

According to the book, published in Sri Lanka, the Ravana kingdom was spread over a vast region that included today's Nuwara Eliya, Badulla, Polonnaruwa, Anuradhapura, Kandy, Monaragula, Matale and Chilaw.

"Ravana civilization was a highly advanced civilization. It was a very prosperous culture and a civilization that developed centring (Sri) Lanka. That civilization was destroyed with the advent of an Aryan group headed by Rama."

Ravana himself is said to have lived in Sigiriya, now a Unesco heritage site about 170 km from Colombo. He was a member of "a highly advanced and intelligent" Yaksha tribe.

It was due to Ravana's influence that some places in Sri Lanka were named after him: Ravana Ella and Ravana Cave in Badulla district, Ravana Kotte in Trincomalee and Ravana Kanda in Ratnapura. Ruhuna, another place in Sri Lanka, was earlier called Ravana Desh, the book says.

Two villages in the Kandyan region carry his name: Uduravana and Yatiravana. It says ruins of the Ravana era are spread over villages in Haputale, Badulla, Bandarawela, Welimada, Uva, Pasara, Soranatota, Viyaluwa and Mahiyangana "unharmed, giving an added impetus to Ravana history".

Ravana reportedly built a temple in honour of his parents in Anuradhapura, to the north of Colombo. The Portuguese allegedly destroyed this temple.

The book admits that Ravana's abduction of Sita, Rama's wife, led to his undoing and his kingdom's decay. It also speaks glowingly of Rama.

"Rama was an honest unassuming person," it says. "Rama did not possess aircraft nor did he have unlimited wealth like Ravana. He did not have people of 10 countries under him. His main motto was 'Truth will win'."

But it portrays Ravana in a grander manner.

"King Ravana was an expert among warriors; a specialist among medical men; a Rishi among astrologers; a superior statesman among rulers; a maestro among musicians."

Describing Ravana as an adherent of Buddhism, the book says one of his works was "Agni Tantra", on how to walk on fire, and another on children's diseases.

Among the book's other claims, some sensational:

- The Ravana flag can be considered the earliest flag of Sri Lanka.

- The architecture in the Ravana kingdom was "magnificent" and houses were built on costly timber; this is why Hanuman easily set fire to them.

- Ravana did not die in the Ramayana battle but only lost consciousness after being hit by a poisoned arrow.

- Ravana was an artist of the highest order.

- Ravana's soldiers were the first in the world to wear camouflaged headgear in battlefield.

- Ravana possessed aircraft and a trained navy.

- Many oriental musical instruments were designed according to Ravana's creations.

- The Yakshas of Ravana era had chemicals that could soften rocks like loaves of bread. This is how they bore through huge rocks to create underground tunnels and pathways.

- Live burial of criminals was done during Ravana's rule.

- Cobra venom was used in Ravana's explosives.

[Manish_Sharma]

Describing Ravana as an adherent of Buddhism, the book says one of his works was "Agni Tantra", on how to walk on fire, and another on children's diseases.

Buddhist Ravan creates "Shiva Tandav Stotram" for Bhagwan Bholenath :

[Manish_Sharma]

Osho on 'Sanaatan Dharma' vs. 'un-natural other dharmas' :

Question 3
BELOVED OSHO,
IN THE HINDI INCARNATIONS OF GOD THERE ARE A WOMAN AND A MAN
TOGETHER -- LIKE VISHNU AND LAXMI, SHANKAR AND PARVATI, KRISHNA
AND RADHA, RAMA AND SITA, ETC. ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE ARE
OTHER RELIGIONS LIKE JAINISM, BUDDHISM, TAOISM, MOHAMMEDANISM,
CHRISTIANITY, ET CETERA, WHICH HAVE NO PLACE FOR WOMEN.
PLEASE COMMENT.

Ans: Compared to Hinduism, all these religions -- Taoism, Jainism, Buddhism, Christianity, Mohammedanism, Judaism -- are very new. Hinduism is very old; hence it has some unique characteristics. Because it is the oldest religion in the world, a few things are in it which you will not find in other religions.

For example, you are asking that Hindu incarnations of God are always with a woman
consort: Shiva is with Parvati, Krishna is with Radha. In India, Jainism and Buddhism
flowered twenty-five centuries ago. They had to fight against Hinduism. Hinduism was
the only religion.

You will be surprised: it was so alone that it had no name. A name is needed when there is more than one thing; if there is only one thing, what is the use of a name? Hinduism was the only religion, so it was simply called dharma -- religion.

There was no need to put an adjective to it. Jainism and Buddhism were born out of Hinduism, offshoots of the old religion, but then they had to make some specialities to stand aloof; otherwise the oceanic Hinduism would have drowned them.

Hinduism was very natural, that's why the reincarnations are not celibate. The idea of
celibacy had not entered in the mind of the Hindus because it is unnatural, so even their incarnations of God have their wives. They are just as natural as you are.
Jainism and Buddhism both made it a point that man has to go above nature, beyond
nature, only then he is religious -- Hinduism is not religion. What kind of a religion is it if just to be natural is to be religious?

Then there is no difference between you and animals, because all animals are natural. They had a point there, and they created great logical systems against Hinduism. One of the basic points was that you have to go beyond nature -- and that starts from celibacy, because that is the basic nature, sexuality.

So Buddha is alone, Mahavir is alone, and for these twenty-five centuries, all their monks and masters have been alone, celibate. You will be surprised to know that their celibacy was such a thing that the common masses became very impressed. Their ascetic attitude towards life... because Hindus were not ascetic -- I mean Hindus before Buddha and Mahavir -- were not ascetic. Even their seers lived in comfort and luxury. They had their communes in the mountains, in the forests, which their followers went on donating to.

The Kings, their sons, their daughters -- all had to go to be there in their monasteries to learn.

So they had immense power. One great Hindu wise man had many kings as his followers, and lived in luxury, comfort. His whole commune of disciples and teachers, they all lived beautifully. They were not other-worldly people.

Jainism and Buddhism are ascetic; they went on point by point against Hinduism, to
make a distinct identity. Comfort is not even heard of; discomfort is the way. The more
you can keep yourself in discomfort, the more spiritual you are -- because the body is the enemy of your soul, so torture the body so you can find your soul. This world is the
hindrance for the other world, so renounce it.

Jainism and Buddhism did so many strange things that even the Hindu masses became
impressed; even Hindu wisemen, brahmins, started thinking how to fight against the
rebellious Jainas and Buddhists. The only way was that they also had to be ascetic --
more than they were. So after Gautam Buddha you will not find any Hindu master with a woman.

Shankaracharya, Ramanujacharya, Nimbarkha, Vallabha -- great masters, but
you will not find them with a woman. What happened? They all had to be celibate. They had to be to fight with the Buddhists and the Jainas; otherwise they were ordinary people, they were not spiritual.

And they were all ascetic, just like Jainas and Buddhists were; they were ascetic in their own way. They renounced the world, they renounced all comforts -- just to counter-attack.

Hinduism got spoiled by Hindus themselves; otherwise it was a beautiful religion, very
natural, very simple, very innocent. But it became more and more complicated. These
three religions have been fighting for twenty-five centuries, arguing, writing treatises
against each other. And those treatises have become more and more complicated -- to
such a point that even to understand them has become a difficult expertise.

And there are treatises which scholars have been trying for years to translate into English but have not been able to. Because of the complexities of ideas, language, its nuances, it is difficult to be authentic to the original and to translate it; the translation looks very poor.

Judaism, Christianity, Mohammedanism, Sikhism, all are later additions to human
consciousness -- after Buddha. In fact Buddha should be the demarcation line, not Jesus.

We say, "Before Jesus Christ, after Jesus Christ." Jesus has become the demarcation line
dividing history, but that credit should go to Gautam Buddha, who came five centuries
before Jesus and really divided human consciousness and its growth.

Jesus himself had traveled to India while he was young. THE BIBLE has no account of
him between the age of thirteen to thirty; THE BIBLE has no account of where Jesus had been. This looks strange -- a small life -- he lived only thirty-three years -- and in those thirty-three years THE BIBLE has accounts of only three years, the last three years.

About his earlier life are only two incidents -- minor, meaningless. One was of his birth
and the coming of the three wisemen from the East to pay tribute; and second, his getting lost in the temple of Jerusalem, arguing with rabbis. These are the only two incidents.

And then from the age of thirteen to thirty, seventeen years, nothing is mentioned -- what happened to this man, where he was.

These seventeen years he traveled to Egypt, to India, to Ladakh, to Tibet, and all these
places were Buddhist at that time. Buddha had died only five centuries before, and his
impact was still very alive. Jesus visited Buddhist monasteries. I have been to a Ladakh
monastery which Jesus had visited, and I looked in their records of visitors, which they
have kept for two thousand years.

And I asked them if they had a record of all the visitors and their impressions about the monastery. It is one of the most beautiful monasteries, and Jesus stayed there for almost six months, studying Buddhism from the monks. There are, in their official record, the impressions of Jesus, his signature, the date. He became immensely influenced by Buddhism, so his celibacy, his ascetic attitude, his praise for poverty, his condemnation for riches, were all borrowed ideas from Gautam Buddha.

Naturally these people followed a certain pattern that Buddha left behind him. They don't have a woman companion, which would be natural. Hinduism seems to be very natural -- even its gods are very natural. There is no desire to be beyond nature; there is only one desire:to be totally natural. But in a way all other religions are reactions, rebellions against Hinduism.

It had no name. It was known as the eternal religion because it had always been there.
Nobody can say when it was born, who was the founder of the Hindu religion. You can
find founders of all other religions except Hinduism. Who was the original man? There
seems to be no one. Hindus themselves used to call it sanatan dharma: the eternal
religion. How did they become Hindus? Who started calling them Hindus? It was in a
very strange way that they got the name, Hindus.

It was by the foreigners who were constantly invading India that the name was given,
because every invader had to pass one of the greatest rivers of India, Sindhu. The first
invaders, were the Hunas, who have disappeared from the world now -- a wild tribe. In
their alphabet they had no sound for `sa', for `s'. The closest sound to `s' was `h', -- `ha'.

`Sa -- ha' -- that was the closest. They could not pronounce the river Sindhu; they
pronounced it, the river Hindu, and because of their language, and because of their
pronunciation, the people who lived beyond this river, they started calling Hindus, the
people who live beyond the river Hindu.

It is beautiful sometimes to look at the history of how a word evolves, in what phases it
moves, what turns it takes, what colors it takes.

Because of the word `Hindu' the land of the Hindus became Hindustan, and the religion
became Hindudharma, Hindu religion. And from the Hunas, invaders used to be
continually coming.

The country was so rich that another group of invaders, Mongols from Mongolia... who were the most terrible invaders, who produced the Tamerlane, and Genghis Khan, the most terrible of men. In their language -- now it had become established because of the Hunas -- the name of the Sindhu became Hindu, the land became Hindustan, the people became Hindus. They did not have any sound in their alphabet for `h', for `ha' -- the closest for `h' was `i'. They could not pronounce Hindu, they could only pronounce, Indu.

It looks close: Hindu-Indu. And because of the Mongols, the river became Indu and the
country became India -- from Indu -- and the people became Indians. But it all happened because of that river which has a name, accidentally. But Hindus themselves don't have a name, neither do they have a name for their country.

They have been always there, their religion has been always there. They don't know any beginning of their religion.

So it seems it has grown very naturally with the natural man. Buddhism was the first
effort on man's own part to create a religion. That's why I say Buddha should be the
demarcating line; because what was natural up to then became something man-made,
manufactured. And now religion is manufactured, so many religions are manufactured.
Nature is one, but once you start manufacturing then you can manufacture, as you like,
different religions, different creeds, different cults, different philosophies.

Buddha certainly stands just in the middle of this change.

If you understand me, my whole effort is to reverse the whole process. Man does not
need man-made religions; man simply needs to be natural. Nature should be the only
religion, and then there will not be divisions of Hindus and Mohammedans and Christians and Buddhists.

Nature does not make any divisions; it is undivided and it is one.

- Osho

[Adrija]

Adrija ji,

Does he (Valiya) say anything specific about SSVC (IVC) sites being post Mahabharata?

In any case, I have made a case -based on my dating of MBH war and archeological dating of IVC (mature phase and not earlier Mehagarh phase), that mature IVC is post Mahabharata. That is the reason I ask this question.
-------------
What is 'CAR' area?

Nileshji, apologies for the delay in replying, wanted to refer to Valdiya to ensure I write the precise words, which took some time

He says that they are all pre and MB era. page 197- "if the postulation that the Purans and epics describe the people and places of the Harappa civilisation (Rao 1991, 1999; Gupta, 1996; Lal, 1998, 2002; Bisht 1998; Valdiya 2002, S Singh 2008) is true, then it can be safely stated that there was a remarkably sophisticated lifestyle and advanced construction technology....."

In a separate location he mentions that it can be inferred that the drying up of the Saraswati and the MB happened in the 1800-1500 BC timeframe. Here is the exact quote (page 175):

"It was a strong tectonic movement that caused loss of water of the Saraswati (Godbole, 1961; Valdiya, 1968, 1998, 2002) during the twilight between the Rigved and Brahman periods (Bhargava, 1964).

The Himalyan Frontal Fault (HFF), defining the southern limit of the Siwalik against the Indo-gangetic Plains, was reactivated when the NNW-SSE trending Paonta Sahib fault was formed. The reactivation of the HHF is manifest close to the intersection of the two faults in the 20 m uplift of a stream-bed gravel containing carbonaceous matter. The carbonaceous matter is dated 3663+_215 YBP (Wesnousky et al, 1999). That implies that the faulting took place sometime in the period 3878 and 3448 yrs BP (Valdiya, 2002)."

Emphasis all mine, not Valdiya's

There you have it- he dates the shifting of the Tons and the Drishadwati away from the Saraswati (causing first the reduced flow and then the complete drying up) to ~ 1500-1800 BC based on the dating of the carbonaceous matter found in the stream bed

Separately, yes, CAR refers to the Central Asian republics. Based on the identification of Mt Meru to the Pamir Massif, he makes the following ==

1. Suchakshu river= Amu Darya
2. Bhadra river= Syr Darya
3. Sita river= Tagdumbas branch of the Yarkand river
4. Bhadrashwavarsh= Sinkiang
5. Kuruvarsh= Kazakhstan
6. Harishvarsh= Southwestern/ western Afghanistan
7. Ketumalavarsh= Turkmentistan
8. Nishad= Hindukush mountains
9. Gandhamadana= Karakoram
10 Ilavritvarsh= Tajikistan (this is where Vishnu, Brahma and the Lokpals (Indra, Agni, Vayu, Yam) stayed in the early Purans)

He also has a table on the varying precipitation rates, will see if I can scan and post it here

Hope this helps

[RamaY]

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

Suryag gaaru,

blast from past

I got a flash of thought on this in my meditation. See if this makes sense.

Imagine you start calling your mother "Pitaa, Pitaa" knowing well about the meaning of Pitaa=Father. Your mother will smile at you first few times knowing you are being naughty. But after few times she gets irritated. I think this is what happened in your experience.

Mahaapatakanaasani = Destroyer of worst evils, is the name of Durga maata not Saraswati. You are meditating on Saraswati using the mantra-naama of Durga consciousness.

If you want to meditate on Saraswati, perhaps you may want to do japa on "Om, Im Saraswatyai namah!".

[RamaY]

Contrafactual culture at work
Ravana was great king
Off course but a bad person!

Ravana was a great ruler
BY DANFES, AGENCY

Buddhists of Sri Lanka are taking/seeking support of native culture to strengthen their case/causes

Ravana-Brahma (Paulastya = Son of Pulastya Brahma) was an Arya to boot. He took Lanka from his brother Kubera, who was/is a dikpalaka and devata. Rama, on the other hand is an Ikshwaku, originated in Krishna-Godawari region, whose ancestors (along with Vashista) moved to and settled in Ayodhya. That is why Rama is dark skinned and is a Dravidian if one persists.

[RamaY]

Is Advaita against individual actions that differentiate karta, karma and kriya (Object, Subject and Action)
While Adi Samkara himself was an Advaiti and has proclaimed Nirvana Satakam, he went on to reform the individuals one by one. If he were to be God-realized and is Advaita (Same with everyone else) then how did we all NOT got God-realized along with Adi-samkara? Because only the God-realized is Advaiti yet he keeps his individual existence.

{Added Later:} This is what Aurobindo tried to achieve. One of the seekers go to Satya Loka and brings it down to Manavaloka (where people are living thru cycles of action/consequences)

Is Hindu ethos and religion against religious conversions?
No. Adi Samkara himself brought 72 different matas (religions) in to Hindu fold and converted/reverted their followers in Hindu dharma. Hence it is hindu religious duty to reform other non-Dharmic religions and their followers.

[Yagnasri]

Ramay sir, are you sure about Ishwakus from Godavari area. Vijaya Puri rulers are Ishvakus, but they are of resent period - at the fag end of Shathavahanas and they came from north. If we read the Surya Dynasty line upto Lord Rama himself - all of them are rulers of Ayodhya only.

[ramana]

But suryag, you are truly blessed that you got to see Sarawati Devi even if swatting you with the veena.

[SaiK]

ramay, did you see the adi sankara movie (original sanskrit - i saw the english subtitled one).. the feeling after seeing the movie was sad at the end of the day. can you tell me why i felt that way? i am still searching within me for that answer. may be you are the dharmically right person to answer this question.

so far the only answer i was able to make up:

the director of the movie made it so.. true/false/nothing to do with him?

[RamaY]

Ramay sir, are you sure about Ishwakus from Godavari area. Vijaya Puri rulers are Ishvakus, but they are of resent period - at the fag end of Shathavahanas and they came from north. If we read the Surya Dynasty line upto Lord Rama himself - all of them are rulers of Ayodhya only.

Narayana Rao garu,

Following are a research by Smt. Satya Sharada Kandula
1. Ikshvakus
2. Sri Rama's ancestor Vaivaswata Manu

Satyavrata Manu moved north with Vasishtha and the other Saptarishis as well as one of his sons Ikshvaku, who established Ayodhya after the flood waters had receded. He was also known as Vaiwasvatha Manu and Sraddha. His other sons stayed back and survived with the help of Ganesha and Uma. (Pralaya Katha Vinayaka and Mata: Kruta Yuga Flood Narrations)

Now we need to find out the people who stayed back and survived with the help of Ganesha and see how the links come back.

Another cross-reference is that Gautama/Ahalya lived in south India near Trayambakeswar where they found Godavari river (origins of?) and made it flow into today's Andhra Pradesh region. The same Gautama/Ahalya appear to us in Ramayana (balakanda) where Ahalya comes back to life when Rama goes with Viswamitra in the foothills of Himalayas. It establishes the fact about South-to-North migration/movement.

Interestingly in the story of Gautama, some brahmins out of jealousy invoke Ganesha to hurt Gautama. Ganesa {He was invoked, thus must do something} creates the illusion of a cow death when Gautama throws a darbha grass at it, and also curses brahmins with a severe draught, which eventually led to finding of Godavari by Gautama

Now we need to figure out (if possible scientifically) how the dating of Ramayana fits into the last great flood and then work the generations between Manu to Sri Rama and come to some historical conclusions.

JMHT.

[SaiK]

may be my assumption : advaita has reached only to <1% of our population, the reason for that feeling... and what an effort by the great man has not been utilized by our gen.

[Vayutuvan]

Satyavrata Manu moved north with Vasishtha and the other Saptarishis as well as one of his sons Ikshvaku, who established Ayodhya after the flood waters had receded. He was also known as Vaiwasvatha Manu and Sraddha. His other sons stayed back and survived with the help of Ganesha and Uma. (Pralaya Katha Vinayaka and Mata: Kruta Yuga Flood Narrations)

Shraddha - which is mostly used as a name female name - has been portrayed as Manu's wife in Jaishankar Prasad's Kamayani. Jaishankar Prasad is the foremost (and may be the first?) Chhayavad poets of hinid literature.

Chhayavaad (Hindi: छायावाद) ("romanticism") refers to the era of Neo-romanticism in Hindi literature particularly Hindi poetry, 1917–1938,[1] and was marked by an upsurge of romantic and humanist content. Chhayavad was marked by a renewed sense of the self and personal expression, visible in the writings of time. It is known for its leaning towards themes of love and nature, as well as an individualistic reappropriation of the Indian tradition in a new form of mysticism, expressed through a subjective voice.

[abhishek_sharma]

>> Jaishankar Prasad's Kamayani.

I picked up the book, but it was quite difficult to understand. It is considered one of the best works in modern Hindi poetry.

OT. sorry.

[Agnimitra]

{Added Later:} This is what Aurobindo tried to achieve. One of the seekers go to Satya Loka and brings it down to Manavaloka (where people are living thru cycles of action/consequences

Just for the record - Aurobindo was not an Advaitist. If you read his initial writings published from Puducherry, it was very critical of Advaitist philosophy. Check his Ishavasya Upanishad commentary. But the publishers and readership were mostly TamBrahms affiliated with Shankara mathas. So after a while the complaints and outrage kept increasing, and they threatened to stop publishing him. He was helpless - confined to his home in Puducherry, unable to re-enter Brit-occupied India. His Isha Upanishad commentary, the lengthiest, remained unfinished and he was forced to abandon it. So he adopted a very different style. He adopted a quasi-Advaitic metaphor, but did a brilliant job of building a bridge to the Dvaitic side. The Kapali Shastri Instt at B'lore acknowledges Madhvacharya's Rg-Bhashya for Aurobindo's own meditations on the RigVeda.

One cannot truly connect with Aurobindo's writings without understanding his life circumstances, his wit, deadpan sarcasm and humour in the face of the pressures he was under from all sides.

[RamaY]

^ could be.

I have very high regards for Aurobindo. But I am talking about how all these different PoVs differ. In fact I picked it from the commentary on Kathopanishad by Sri Sundarachaitanyananda.

You can find it on surasa.net

[Manish_Sharma]

Interest blog, with story of Mahabhart told through the perspective of Bheem in first person:

http://prempanicker.wordpress.com/2009/ ... pisode-63/

Krishna was waiting for me when I returned to my lodge that night. He needed to talk to me, he said.

In all these years of knowing him, Krishna was invariably punctilious in doing what he saw as his duty. Whenever he visited us, he made it a point to go first to see Yudhishtira and then, as inevitably, he would seek me out, touch my feet and ask after my well-being before going off to find his friend.

But never once had he sought me out for a private conversation, never once asked for my advice, my help, as he was doing now.

“You must talk to Yudhishtira,” he told me. “You are the only one who can. It is not good for him and Arjuna to quarrel.”

When Karna led the Kaurava troops out at dawn on that 16th day of the war with Shalya as his charioteer, I’d guessed there would be trouble.

My brother – ever since the day Visokan had told me who he really was, I often caught myself thinking of Karna as my brother and even feeling a momentary twinge of anger when others referred to him as the suta putra – had wanted this command; it was this desire that had led to his quarrel with Bhisma.

From the moment the heralds signaled the start of combat, Karna hit us with the force of a whirlwind. If Bhisma and Drona had deployed strategies and tactics based on the principles of war craft we had been taught since we were young, Karna’s tactics were more free-flowing, and considerably more dangerous.

He led the Kaurava troops in a series of raids, swinging from one end of the field to the other, catching us off balance and hitting us hard, causing immense losses to our foot soldiers and cavalry.

Nakula was the first among us to face the full force of his fury. Karna caught him at an unsupported moment in his defensive position on the right side of our formation and engaged him in combat. While his forces decimated the troops Nakula led, Karna toyed with my brother, destroying his weapons one by one, cutting his armor to shreds, wounding him in a dozen places and finally, in a supreme act of contempt, jumping onto Nakula’s chariot, grappling with him and throwing him out into the dust.

I spotted him as he was leaving the field to seek treatment for his many injuries. “That suta putra told me to tell mother Kunti that he remembered his promise, and would spare even the sons of Madri,” a bewildered Nakula told me. “What promise? What did he mean? And why did he let me go? When he jumped onto my chariot, I thought the end had come…”

I had no time to explain, even if I could – Ashwathama’s peculiar war cry rang out just then, and I turned to confront this challenge.

Drona’s son had a voice unlike any other – more the shrill neigh of a horse in rage than anything human. The story I heard was that when the startled wet nurses first heard his cry at birth, they gave him the name ‘Ashwathama’ – the one with a horse’s voice.

I looked to use the same tactics that had worked so well against Karna – with Visokan keeping a distance from Ashwathama’s chariot, I tried to use my remaining stock of larger arrows and my superior shoulder strength to hurt him, tire him out before closing with him.

Ashwathama’s skill as an archer was without parallel – and I was now finding out that he was considerably shrewder. Where Karna had felt insulted at being bested by me and repeatedly tried to close the distance, Ashwathama increased it and, staying just out of ideal range, effortlessly cut down the arrows I aimed at him.

My stock of special arrows was rapidly running out; the danger for me would come when they were all gone, and Ashwathama could close the distance and use his greater skill to good effect.

“Save one or two of those,” Visokan, as aware of the danger as I was, said over his shoulder. “Let him think they are all used up – when he looks to attack, you might get a chance to use them.”

It was a desperate ploy; I thought afterwards that only the skill of Visokan and the timely arrival of Satyaki saved me from humiliation or worse.

The prolonged combat had drained me; besides, I needed to replenish my stock of arrows. I signaled to Visokan to drive off the field, but we were cut off by a band of Duryodhana’s brothers attacking in formation.

For this I needed no strategies, no tactics – just the deep, burning anger that surged up within me whenever I caught sight of any of my cousins. The skill level of the younger ones in the group was rudimentary – in a few moments of furious combat, with Visokan weaving the chariot in and out of their ranks, six of them fell to a combination of my arrows and spears.

With only Chitrasena and Vikarna left standing, I vaulted out of my chariot, sword in hand. Chitrasena fancied himself as something of a swordsman – back when we all trained together, he loved to show off his skills.

It was with drawn sword that I met him. He was good, no question – fast on his feet and lightning quick at switching the angles of his attack. Against him I used my sword like a bludgeon; instead of merely deflecting his attacks, I repeatedly smashed my sword against his on the blocks, using my superior strength to drain him.

From the diminished power of his strikes and the time he took to bring his sword back in line after each thrust, I sensed that he was tiring fast. There is a trick that I had learnt during my time with the Nagas – they use it with spears, but I had practiced it with the sword whenever Arjuna and I trained together.

Instead of repelling his thrust, I caught Chitrasena’s sword on the blade of my own and rapidly twirled it around in quick circles. The pressure of holding on to the sword began to tell on Chitrasena’s already weakened wrists; I judged my moment and, when our swords were at the lowest point on the circle, suddenly disengaged and with a reverse sweep, cut deep into his neck.

Vikarna ran to where his brother lay in the dust, his life blood gushing out through the cut in his neck. I had no intention of killing this youngest of my cousins; I had never forgotten that when Duryodhana, Dushasana and others insulted Draupadi that day at Hastinapura, Vikarna was the only one in the Kaurava ranks to brave Duryodhana’s anger and to protest the wrong that was being done.

I was walking back to my chariot when his challenge stopped me in my tracks. “I don’t want to fight you,” I told him.

His answer was to rush at me with his sword raised high. I decided to finish this fast – it was the only thing I could do for him. I blocked his downward cut with my elbow against his forearm, knocking his sword out of line; before he could recover, I buried my sword in his chest all the way to the hilt.

Catching him as he fell, I lowered Vikarna gently to the ground and pulled my sword out. For a long moment I stood looking down at this most honorable of my cousins, wishing things had been different, wishing I could have befriended him, wishing his decency had prevailed with his own brothers…

I strode back to my chariot and ordered Visokan to drive me back to my lodge, wanting space, needing some time to myself. The last thing I expected was to find Krishna waiting for me.

“Yudhishtira and Arjuna had a huge quarrel today,” he told me.

Alarmed by the havoc Karna was creating, my brother had foolishly challenged him. Karna toyed with Yudhishtira, destroying his chariot and disarming him with ease. He then threw aside his own weapons and attacked Yudhishtira with his fists, battering him into submission. Yudhishtira fell; Karna stood over him, mocking, taunting, then left him lying there in the dust with a parting word and a kick.

My brother retreated to his lodge, and found Arjuna there.

“That set him off,” Krishna told me. “He called Arjuna all sorts of names, upbraided him bitterly for leaving you alone on the battlefield…”

Krishna had tried to pacify Yudhishtira, but that only goaded my brother more. “I’ve been listening to his boasts for thirteen years,” Yudhishtira said, “I’ve been hearing him talk endlessly about how he will deal with Karna – but now that the time has come, he hides here while Karna destroys our forces!

“Coward!,” he said. “If you can’t do it, give your Gandiva to Krishna – maybe, like that suta putra you are so afraid to face, driving a chariot is what suits you best!”

Seeing Arjuna’s hand tighten on the hilt of his sword, Krishna had hastily come between my brothers, looking to make peace. But Yudhishtira’s words had pushed Arjuna over the edge.

“This fellow – what has he ever done but live off the fruits of others?” Arjuna lashed out. “From the moment he saw her he wanted Draupadi, and he managed to trick mother into getting her married to all five of us!

“He talks of cowardice, this man who has always stayed a mile away from any actual fighting, hiding in the middle of our troops and letting others kill and die so he can be king. If Bhima calls me a coward, I’ll take it – but not this…”

Krishna had somehow managed to push Arjuna outside before either of them could say something irrevocable. “But now Arjuna has shut himself up in his lodge; he says if Yudhishtira wants a kingdom let him shed his own blood, win the war if he can.

“You are the only one they will listen to,” Krishna said.

As I walked over to Yudhishtira’s lodge, I couldn’t help thinking that our real problem was not the Kauravas but the bitterness each of us had accumulated over the years.

Here is the full story in pdf:

https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=c44cd1dd ... pp=WordPdf

[RamaY]

Recently I stumbled upon speeches of Ramanaananda Maharshi in Andhra Pradesh.
http://www.shirdisaianugrahapeetam.org/satsang.html

This swamy is using 'Shaktipata' route. Shaktipata is when a guru, out of his love, invokes the kundalini in a seeker just by touch; thus initiating them into the path of Brahma Jnana. Apparently he gave shaktipata to more than 60,000 people.

I agree with this guru that sometimes it is important to jump start the kundalini process in order to make a society dharmic at large scale.

Anyways, the point is he was talking about Bhranti-Jnana and Brahma-Jnana (Friday 7/26, Bhakti channel) and made some interesting observations.

First definition of Bhranti Jnana and brahma Jnana. Anything we learn with our mind/Buddhi and manas are called Bhranti-Jnana. brahma-Jnana comes only thru anubhuti (experience is not the right translation). One may learn all the Vedas and Upanishads but even then without anubhuti/realization one remains to be a Bhranti Jnani.

He gives the example of Jaimini Maharshi. When Vyasa separated the Vedas, he taught Samaveda to Jaimini so he can propagate that knowledge. After learning Samaveda from Vyasa and understanding it, Jaimini proposed Nir-Iswara vada and claimed that all that need to be done is Yajna (action/project execution and enjoy the results) and nothing else. This is the best example between Bhranti and Brahma jnanis. Both knew Vedas. But Vyasa by realizing them is a brahma Jnani and Jaimini just a Bhranti Jnani. Vyasa had to disown his student Jaimini for his Charvaka (the thought process existed even before Vyasa, during Ramayana jaabali was a famous Charvaka philosopher. For details one can study the episode where Bharata comes to Rama begging him to come back to Ayodhya and how jaabali analyzes the whole dasaratha/Kaika/Rama/Bharata conundrum)

Then he gives the example of Vidyaranya and Sayanacharya. Sayanacharya is the one who wrote commentary (Bhashya) on Vedas, yet he is just a Bhranti Jnani, on the other hand Samkara is a brahma Jnani.

[ramana]

So action and not just literal knowledge is the discriminator.

[RamaY]

Here the focus is not about action but 'realization' that is experienced by Atma and not Manas or Buddhi.

Mere action alone is again nariswara vada. Mere knowledge alone useless.

There is a beautiful sloka that explains the relationship between Karma and Jnana.

JnAnasya kAraNam karma, jNAnam karma vinASakam
phalasya kAraNam pushpam, phalam pushpa vinASakam

Like formation of fruit results in destruction/end of a flower eventhough the flower is the reason for creation of fruit; action creates Jnana but once Jnana comes the action dissolves for a brahmajnani (not for Bhrantijnani).

[SaiK]

conpused onlee ramay.. on the term "experienced by atma".. so, the object atma is an entity by itself?

[RamaY]

That is why I mentioned "experience" cannot capture the word "Anubhava/anubhuti" and here the language becomes limitation. The self-realization or Atma-tatva cannot be "realized/experienced" by manas/Buddhi. It is beyond the senses and even manas/Buddhi.

When you sleep your Buddhi and manas do not exist. Yet you are there. What that is there is, you.

And you are Atma, and that is what is there all the time. Since it is Anantam, Jnanam and Satyam, it is the God-conscious too (there cannot exist two Satyams and two anantams)

[SaiK]

so, essentially you are saying, there is a disconnect between atma and the physical heart/brain combo when it is "me" alone.. and the realization is just the transformation of reality, filtered out for atma at sleep. when atma gains the learning (logical entity to be precise), it (inherently me) becomes the learned self.

[RamaY]

You are Atma but you were not self-aware. You think you are that manas/Buddhi/senses and body.

I liked this example. A guy lost his mind and is roaming the roads like a beggar. One fine day he got his mind back and realized the billionaire that he always was. Makes sense?

Then comes the real fun if living the life if a billionaire

[johneeG]

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

I think JambAvan(not JambUvan) gets moksha from Lord Shri Krushna after the marrying the daughter(Jambavathi) of JambAvan.

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 ?

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 ?

According to my calculation from what I understood of MB, Arjuna was about 60 yrs(2 yrs younger than Yuddhishtira).
Link to an old post on same topic

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

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

(K M Ganguli)

The sanskrit version:

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

Link

K M Ganguly version mentions a footnote:

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

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

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

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

Link to another old post on same topic

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 ?

Shri Krushna offered a specific battalion named Narayani Sena. It was one of the battalions of Yadhavas.

In Dhwapara Yuga, Raakshasas were born in various ruling families of that time. Shri Krushna was born to cull all these(just as Parashu-Rama had done earlier) i.e. paritranaya saadhunaam vinashaya cha dhushkrutaam, dharma-samsthapanaya, sambavaami yuge yuge.

Malladi Chandhrashekara Shasthri, an expert pravachan-kartha, says that when Shri Krushna was born in Yadhava clan, all the people from Vaikunta were also born in the Yadhava clan. But, some of the smart-aleck Raakshasas also chose to be born in Yadhava clan, so as to do a hit-job from inside on Shri Krushna. Kamsa is one such figure. MB gives a long list of all the various Raakshasas who were born in various clans as Kings.

Narayani Sena was comprised of these Raakshasas who were born in Yadhava clan. Shri Krushna did a clever trick on Dhuryodhana by offering the Narayani sena in war. Ek teer dho nishaan(rondu pittalu). Shri Krushna ensured that Narayani Sena(i.e. all the raakshasas born in Yadhava clan) would be in the opposite camp, so that they could be taken out. And He made it seem as if He was helping Dhuryodhana. Ramana garu was talking about gambling by reading the mind of Dhuryodhana. This is also similar. But, here, Shri Krushna gives the choice to Arjuna instead of Dhuryodhana. Of course, Dhuryodhana wanted Narayani Sena and Arjuna wanted Shri Krushna. So, each got what they wanted. And both were happy with the bargain. Thats the magic of Shri Krushna.

The rest of the Yadhavas did not participate in the MB war, except a few(who had personal relationships with the people fighting in MB). For example, Sathyaki was a student of Arjuna. So, Sathyaki fought from Pandava side. Bala-Rama was the teacher of Dhuryodhana and Bhima in mace fighting. Bala-Rama chose to go on pilgrimage of holy sites on the banks of Saraswathi river to avoid participating in the MB war. He was returning from the pilgrimage when Bhima killed Dhuryodhana. This shows that the Kurukshethra that is being talked about in MB is a very large place approx. extending from west of Dilli to eastern banks of Saraswathi river.

All the various ruling clans fought in MB and lost several men. Yaadhava clan survived pretty much intact without any damage because they did not participate in the war. Gaandhari cursed Shri Krushna on this point thinking that Shri Krushna protected His own clan but destroyed other clans. Lord Shri Krushna, then, declares that Yaadhava also had to be taken out and so the Gaandhari's curse would be handy in that venture. Shri Krushna also says that since people born in Yaadhava at that time had descended from Vaikunta, they were invincible for others. So, they had to die in each other hands. Thats the plan.

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

Ramana gaaru,
what I do is very simple. I have downloaded K M Ganguly's translation. I search for keywords and check the sanskrith version if there is something interesting. My sanskrith is very elementary.

So, I searched for Brihaspati, but I couldn't find anything much on Yuddhanithi.

Vakra niti?! Are you talking about Shukra Nithi?

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.

Yep, I too think Dhuryodhana was just trying to induce Dhrona to catch Dharmaraja. I don't think Dhrona would have agreed to catch Dharmaraja, if Dhuryodhana revealed that he was going to kill Him.

In "Parva", a kannada novel by SL Bhyrappa, where he looks at MB realistically, he says that Ganga throwing her baby in the river to mean Ganga giving the children to her matrimonial home. And Shantanu wanted a male heir, so he begged her to leave the 8th with him.

Realistically?!
Saar,
what is unrealistic about parents killing their own children?

Sure, indian scriptures have allegories. But, this whole business of trying to interpret straight-forward but (potentially) inconvenient points as allegories is not right.

If Ganga was giving children to her father's home, then there is no reason to express it in allegory. It could have been mentioned clearly in MB itself. MB mentions that Arjuna's son Babruvahana was given to his mother's family. Babruvahana even fights Arjuna and kills him. Yep, he kills Arjuna in war.
Link to a post on Arjuna's death at the hands of his son

So, why resort to allegory in one case and not in another case? That does not make sense.

MB mentions many other very inconvenient points in a very clear manner. For example, Dhraupadhi marrying five husbands and the insults that she had to bear due to this abnormal arrangement(prominently from Karna in Vasthra-apaharana). Also, the birth of Sathyavathi is spelled out clearly. Birth of Dhrona and Kripa are clearly mentioned.

Also, MB does not mention any 'father's home' to Ganga. Ganga was not born again. She just assumed a human form. She had no parents. Her original parents are supposed to be Himavath(father of Paarvathi).

If those children were only given away to another clan and continued to be alive, then their later whereabouts should have been mentioned, no? No such thing is found in MB. Those children would have been brothers of Bhishma. Such a thing would have made them quite famous, even if they were not famous by their own deeds.

BTW, Kunthi is also given in adoption to Kunthibhoja. Kunthi's original name is Pritha(thats why Paandavas are called Paarthas). Kunthi's biological father was Shurasena. Shurasena was also the father of Vasudheva(father of Shri Krushna). That means Kunthi was the aunt of Shri Krushna. So, Arjuna marries his cousin, Subhadhra, from mother's side. This kind of marriage is allowed because they have different Gothras.

Just suggesting : people with the knowledge can explore the possibility of emphasizing the two cases that have recently struck me in my model of MB as a dual layered narrative - at one deeper level encoding astronomical observations too. In any case these two for the moment are

(a) the pancha Pandava and Draupadi could be a five-star group centred around a prominent axial star
(b) the repeated theme of ashtama garva - as in Devabrata : and Ganga - is it any seven star grouping crossing into Milky Way?

There is a saptha-rishi with Arundhathi. Shri Krushna is also an Ashtama-garba.(Dhurga replaces the ashtama garba).

So, there may be some truth there. But, I think it is not either this or that. Rather, there may be multiple meanings at multiple layers. But, I personally think that MB's main story is not allegory. Though, some allegories may be hidden in them, but the story itself cannot be brushed aside as featuring only allegory.

But suryag, you are truly blessed that you got to see Sarawati Devi even if swatting you with the veena.

So, true. Suryag saar,
if it is ok with you, please elaborate on your experience. How did She appear to you? How was Her face? What did She wear? ...etc.

Central Asian Region? Shades of AIT again? Or some precedent for laying claim to those lands?

True, it sounds like AIT to me.

Actually asking for 5 villages after 13 long years too can be construed as a gamble. What if D would have agreed or Dhrithrashtra forced him to agree to 5 villages. Pandav then could not go back fighting Hastinapur because they would have gotten what they asked for.
It was fraught with Risk and they were counting on D's inherent desire to not give an inch to 5 brothers which would bring war and eventual destruction of the house of Puru.

I remember reading somewhere (no details unfortunately handy + the identification of those 5 villages could always be disputed) that the five villages Pandavas demanded were of strategic importance, and thus, assuming D had accepted the offer, Pandavas felt comfortable building their empire from there.

Other than 5 villages and possibly their names, none of this 'intent' alluded to (by me.. aka writer of original article I refer to) is part of Mahabharata text. This is rather interpretation of it in our times.

Still your point of gambling (by asking for 5 villages) is valid and remains unaffected.

Udhyoga Parva:

SECTION 31
"Yudhishthira said, 'O Sanjaya, the righteous and the unrighteous, the young and the old, the weak and the strong, are all under the control of the Creator, It is that Supreme Lord who imparts knowledge to the child and childishness to the learned, according to his own will. If Dhritarashtra asks you about our strength, tell him everything truly, having cheerfully consulted with everyone here and ascertained the truth. O son of Gavalgana, proceeding to the Kurus, you will salute the mighty Dhritarashtra, and touching his feet enquire after his welfare speaking in our name. And when seated in the midst of the Kurus, tell him from us, ‘The sons of Paandu, O king, are living happily in consequence of your prowess. It was through your grace, O repressor of foes, that those children of tender years had obtained a kingdom. Having first bestowed a kingdom on them, you should not now be indifferent to them, for destruction then would overtake them!’
The whole of this kingdom, O Sanjaya, is not fit to be owned by one person. Tell him again, from us, ‘O sire, we wish to live united. Do not suffer yourself to be vanquished by foes.’
You should again, O Sanjaya, bending your head, in my name salute the grandsire of the Bharatas, Bhishma, the son of Shanthanu. Having saluted our grandsire, he should then be told, ‘By you, when Shanthanu's family (lineage) was about to be extinct, it was revived. Therefore, O sire, do that according to your own judgment by which your grandsons may all live in amity with one another.’
You should then address Vidhura also, that adviser of the Kurus, saying, ‘Counsel peace, O amiable one, from desire of doing good to Yudhishthira.’
You should address the unforbearing prince Dhuryodhana also, when seated in the midst of the Kurus, beseeching him again and again, saying, ‘The insults you had offered to innocent and helpless Draupadi in the midst of the assembly, we will quietly bear, simply because we have no mind to see the Kurus slain. The other injuries also, both before and after that, the sons of Paandu are quietly bearing, although they are possessed of might to avenge them. All this, indeed, the Kauravas know. O amiable one, you had even exiled us dressed in deer-skins. We are bearing that also because we do not want to see the Kurus slain. Dussasana, in obedience to you, had dragged Krishna, disregarding Kunthi. That act also will be forgiven by us. But, O chastiser of foes, we must have our proper share of the kingdom. O bull among men, turn your coveting heart from what belongs to others. Peace then, O king, will be amongst our gladdened selves. We are desirous of peace; give us even a single province of the empire. Give us even Kusasthala, Vrikasthala, Makandi, Varanavata, and for the fifth any other that you like. Even this will end the quarrel. O Suyodhana, give to your five brothers at least five villages.‘
O Sanjaya, O you of great wisdom, let there be peace between us and our cousins. Tell him also, ‘Let brothers follow brothers, let sires unite with sons. Let the Panchalas mingle with the Kurus in merry laughter. That I may see the Kurus and the Panchalas whole and sound, is what I desire. O bull of the Bharata family (lineage), with, cheerful hearts let us make peace.’
O Sanjaya, I am equally capable of war and peace. I am prepared to acquire wealth as well as to earn virtue. I am fit enough for severity and for softness.'"

--------

Ramay sir, are you sure about Ishwakus from Godavari area. Vijaya Puri rulers are Ishvakus, but they are of resent period - at the fag end of Shathavahanas and they came from north. If we read the Surya Dynasty line upto Lord Rama himself - all of them are rulers of Ayodhya only.

Narayana Rao garu,

Following are a research by Smt. Satya Sharada Kandula
1. Ikshvakus
2. Sri Rama's ancestor Vaivaswata Manu

Satyavrata Manu moved north with Vasishtha and the other Saptarishis as well as one of his sons Ikshvaku, who established Ayodhya after the flood waters had receded. He was also known as Vaiwasvatha Manu and Sraddha. His other sons stayed back and survived with the help of Ganesha and Uma. (Pralaya Katha Vinayaka and Mata: Kruta Yuga Flood Narrations)

Now we need to find out the people who stayed back and survived with the help of Ganesha and see how the links come back.

Another cross-reference is that Gautama/Ahalya lived in south India near Trayambakeswar where they found Godavari river (origins of?) and made it flow into today's Andhra Pradesh region. The same Gautama/Ahalya appear to us in Ramayana (balakanda) where Ahalya comes back to life when Rama goes with Viswamitra in the foothills of Himalayas. It establishes the fact about South-to-North migration/movement.

Interestingly in the story of Gautama, some brahmins out of jealousy invoke Ganesha to hurt Gautama. Ganesa {He was invoked, thus must do something} creates the illusion of a cow death when Gautama throws a darbha grass at it, and also curses brahmins with a severe draught, which eventually led to finding of Godavari by Gautama

Now we need to figure out (if possible scientifically) how the dating of Ramayana fits into the last great flood and then work the generations between Manu to Sri Rama and come to some historical conclusions.

JMHT.

Adding to this, my other notes...

Lineage -------------- Avatara
Kasyapa Prajapati
Hiranyakashapa >>>> Narasimha
Prahrada
Virochana
Bali >>>>>>>>>>>>> Vamana
Bana
Usha >>>>>>>>>>>> Married Sri Krishna's grand-son, so Sri Krishna should belong to the generation of Bali/Virochana?

I am going to make a mind map for all this... The lineage maps are not halpful at this point....

Saar,
a) I think Satya Sharada Kandula's arguments and assumptions do not fit the data of Puranas and Ithihaasas unless one is ready to discard much of the scriptures as fiction. Vashishta/Vyasa are considered to have lived long across several generations of normal human beings. In fact, they are still supposed to exist, according to scriptures.

b) Your assumption that if two people marry, then their parents must be of same generation also does not fit the data of Puranas and Ithihaasas unless one is ready to discard much of the scriptures as fiction.

PS: Which mindmap software is good?

Link to post

RamaY saar,
welcome back. Really missed you. RajeshA saar has not been posting for sometime. Miss him too, specially in OIT thread. Shiv saar's posts are also missed on OIT thread.

coming to the topic:
you are going about it, in a very wrong way.
You have only two data points:
a) Gauthama used to live in Nasik(Trayambakeshwar).
b) Gauthama used to live in North with Ahalya where Shri Rama went to kill Tataka.

Based on these two, you are speculating the migration from south to north. You don't know the chronology. It could have been migration from north to south.

Either way, it does not mean much. Why? Because, these are Rushis... people who live a migratory life, moving from one place to another, setting up their hermitages in forests. So, they keep migrating all over the country from one place to another. Sometimes they go to holy sites, sometimes the places that they stay become holy due to their stay. So, one cannot really say whether Gauthama was from north or south based on this info.

If you want to know where Gauthama was from originally, you will have to track down his lineage.

So, what is the lineage of Gauthama?
This is an interesting question.
First and foremost, some info:
Lord Brahma started the creation. He first created 4 Kumaras. These 4 Kumaras were not interested in the procreation of the world and so, they adopted renunciation(nir-vritti marga). Then, Lord Brahma again created another set. These were:
Vasishta, Bhrigu, Angira, Kardama, Athri, Krathu, Pulasthya, Naaradha, Daksha, Swayambhuva Manu...etc.

Naaradha also became renunciate and disciple of Sanath Kumara.

The others became Manu, (saptha)Rushis, and Prajapathis. They all adopted Pra-vritti marga(i.e marital life).

Angira had 2 sons: Utthaya and Brihaspathi.
Utthaya's wife is Mamatha. Utthaya's son was Deergha-tamas. Deergha-tamas was born blind. Due to his blindness, he was abandoned by his sons and wife. Later, after Parashu-Rama had killed all royalties(before the birth of Shri Rama), some King wanted to revive his lineage, so he sent his wife to Deergha-tamas. The queen did not want to go, so she sent her maid. Deergha-tamas had 5 sons from that woman: Anga, Vanga, Kalinga, Pundra and Sushma. 5 kingdoms were established by them on their names.

Deergha-tamas got rid off his blindness by praying to Lord Keshava. Because he got rid off his blindness, he came to be called as Gothama. 'Thama' means darkness. Gothama means one who destroyed darkness.

Gothama's lineage is called Gauthama. (That raises another question: is Buddha, Gauthama or Gothama? or just a motif copied?)

So, Gauthama maharshi was someone who was born in the lineage of Gothama. He could be one of the many sons of Deerghatamas. Or he could be grandson or greatgrandson...etc.

Deerghatamas himself seems to wandering from one place to another either voluntarily or forced by circumstances.

In MB, Kripacharya's father is called Gauthama because he is the son of Deerghatamas. That Gauthama also wanders from one place to another. All the various progeny of Deerghatamas may be called as Gauthamas.

Ahalya was created by Lord Brahma.

Even in Valmiki Ramayana, Gauthama is not in his hermitage when Shri Rama comes. He had left for some other place after cursing Ahalya. That proves that their stays are temporary and keeps changing. In short, it is not possible to say that they belong to one particular region.

Interest blog, with story of Mahabhart told through the perspective of Bheem in first person:

http://prempanicker.wordpress.com/2009/ ... pisode-63/


Here is the full story in pdf:

https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=c44cd1dd ... pp=WordPdf

Seems like another irreverent and distorted perspective. Change some scenarios and change the dialogue, the whole thing seems completely different. Of course, one can pass it off as a new perspective. And such irreverent perspectives can also earn awards and all. But, one can say that this is not how the original presents. Yes, the difference may be very slight. But, that slight change is the critical one. Thats why, I generally avoid these kind of things.

Recently I stumbled upon speeches of Ramanaananda Maharshi in Andhra Pradesh.
http://www.shirdisaianugrahapeetam.org/satsang.html

This swamy is using 'Shaktipata' route. Shaktipata is when a guru, out of his love, invokes the kundalini in a seeker just by touch; thus initiating them into the path of Brahma Jnana. Apparently he gave shaktipata to more than 60,000 people.

I agree with this guru that sometimes it is important to jump start the kundalini process in order to make a society dharmic at large scale.

Anyways, the point is he was talking about Bhranti-Jnana and Brahma-Jnana (Friday 7/26, Bhakti channel) and made some interesting observations.

First definition of Bhranti Jnana and brahma Jnana. Anything we learn with our mind/Buddhi and manas are called Bhranti-Jnana. brahma-Jnana comes only thru anubhuti (experience is not the right translation). One may learn all the Vedas and Upanishads but even then without anubhuti/realization one remains to be a Bhranti Jnani.

He gives the example of Jaimini Maharshi. When Vyasa separated the Vedas, he taught Samaveda to Jaimini so he can propagate that knowledge. After learning Samaveda from Vyasa and understanding it, Jaimini proposed Nir-Iswara vada and claimed that all that need to be done is Yajna (action/project execution and enjoy the results) and nothing else. This is the best example between Bhranti and Brahma jnanis. Both knew Vedas. But Vyasa by realizing them is a brahma Jnani and Jaimini just a Bhranti Jnani. Vyasa had to disown his student Jaimini for his Charvaka (the thought process existed even before Vyasa, during Ramayana jaabali was a famous Charvaka philosopher. For details one can study the episode where Bharata comes to Rama begging him to come back to Ayodhya and how jaabali analyzes the whole dasaratha/Kaika/Rama/Bharata conundrum)

Then he gives the example of Vidyaranya and Sayanacharya. Sayanacharya is the one who wrote commentary (Bhashya) on Vedas, yet he is just a Bhranti Jnani, on the other hand Samkara is a brahma Jnani.

Saar,
I saw this guy on TV and he seems like a fake to me.

Anyway,
there are two types according to Adhi-Shankara-bhashya of BG:
a) Gyani: one who has the knowledge from the book(about Brahman).
b) Vigyani: one who has experience(about Brahman).

Then, there is agyana or brama.
agyan or brama is not lack of knowledge. It means wrong knowledge. Strictly speaking, no one is completely devoid of knowledge. But, many people(if not all) have wrong knowledge. To remove this wrong knowledge is the aim. What is the wrong knowledge? Identification with the world, body, mind and prana. Once these false identifications are removed, then the right knowledge dawns by itself.

Knowledge DOES NOT arise from actions. Actions only cleanse the sins. Once the sins are removed, the wrong knowledge goes. Why is this important? Because, anything that is born must die. That means, there must be an expiry date, if there is a manufacture date. If the knowledge had arisen from a particular action(s), then such knowledge would have an expiry date. So, it cannot be a permanent Moksha(liberation).

In Adhi-Shankara biography, Shankara Himself says that Jaimini's suthras were not wrong. It was the interpretations by later followers like Kumarilla and Mandana Mishra that were wrong(in the sense that they ignored the existence of God and Upanishad parts). As far as I know, Vyasa never disowned Jaimini. Jaimini remains one of the foremost authorities in Hindhuism.

In Valmiki Ramayana, Vasishta says that Jabali advocated the charvaka-ness only to somehow convince Shri Rama to return to Ayodhya. Jabali was not a follower of Chaarvaka. There is an upanishad called Jabali Upanishadh. Some people had created a cult based on the charvaka teachings of Jabali in Valmiki Ramayana, even though Jabali himself was not serious about them.

There is some controversy on who exactly is Sayanacharya. Traditionally, it is accepted that Sayanacharya is same as Vidhyaranya. Vidhyaranya was a Brahma-gyani. I don't think this guy has the stature to talk about people like Vidhyaranya swami.

[RamaY]

Good points JohneeG garu.

This Sundays eenadu weekend edition has a sthala-Purana (regional historical account) about Edupayala, Medak district. This place is said to be the location of, hold your breath, Janamejaya's sarpayaga.

I do not have any fool-proof answer to any of the questions. I am just sharing what I think and come across. I think Smt. Satya Sarada Kandula is doing a great work, in her own way. We are collecting various perspectives and data in this forum/thread so we can cross-reference and learn. So I would give equal weight to what she says to and what other say as long as they do not propagate aryan-Dravidian divide kind of western nonsense.

Coming to Ramanananda, I wouldn't dismiss anyone. He is propagating Hindu Dharma in his own way and I salute his work. Shaktipata is a valid marga of Kundalini awakening. Shaktipata just triggers the Kundalini and the seeker get to experience it first hand. From there it is upto the seeker to raise his awareness further. More over I like his approach for he is going thru Grihastha marga, which is important at this point of time.

Again, JMHT. Take them for what they are worth.

[SaiK]

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

I think JambAvan(not JambUvan) gets moksha from Lord Shri Krushna after the marrying the daughter(Jambavathi) of JambAvan.

Thank you for the corrections and the story.. btw is it krishna or krushna? Just wondering if that means something else or is this a vowel thingie for the color BLACK.

[ramana]

johneeG. Thanks for answering. Still can you summarize the other nitis while I try to figure out what I ment by Vakra niti!

And don't you dare put yourself down.