SaiK wrote:
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.
It is a vowel thingie, pshych saar.
The vowels in Sanskruth(and most, if not all, Indian languages) are:
a A(aa) i I(ee) u U(oo)
ru RU lru LRU e ai o ou am(anusvara) ah(visarga)
Some additional vowels in Thelugu are:
'small e' and 'small o'
The highlighted vowels are used in words like Krushna, Rushi, Nrusimha, Prutha(another name of Kunthi),...etc
ru or RU are the correct pronunciations of those vowels, as far as I understand. They are mis-pronounced as ri or RI in English.
So, it is not 'Rishi' but 'Rushi'. It is not 'Krishna', but 'Krushna'. It is not 'Dhritha-rashtra', but 'Dhrutha-rashtra'. It is 'Brihaspathi', but 'Bruhaspathi'. And so on.
I use the correct spellings for my own clarity.
Correct me if I am wrong...
ramana wrote: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.
Ramana gaaru,
the mention of these nithis seem to be scattered. I'll try to find the references, but can't promise anything(lest I break it). For ex, there is one reference where a particular battle formation is mentioned as prescribed in Bruhaspathi nithi.
ramana wrote:venug, Am still not clear on all details of Eakalvya. He was with Rukmi when the latter tried to attack the eloping couple of Krishna and Rukmini and was defeated by Krishna. I dont know the timing of his seeking Drona? Was it after the defeat? He also had full knowledge of other arts. its not a innocent boy seeking knowledge. And the biggest reason was he was working for Jarasandha who was an enemy king to Hastinapur.
Ekalavya sought education from Dhrona and mastered it(without the active acceptance of Dhrona) before Rukmini elopement with Shri Krushna. Arjuna demanded to know how Ekalavya was better than Arjuna when Dhrona had promised that Arjuna would be the best of the Dhrona's students. Dhrona tried to extricate himself from the position by placing an interesting option before Ekalavaya, "if you are my student, then give me fee. And that fee will be cutting off the thumb of your right hand."
Ekalavya had 2 choices:
a) deny that Dhrona was Ekalavya's teacher.
b) accept Dhrona as his teacher and pay the demanded fee.
Ekalavya chose the second option and has been immortalized by this choice. The idea of Dhrona was not to kill or incapacitate Ekalavya completely. The idea was to take away the edge(that he had over Arjuna), so that Arjuna could remain on the top.
Ekalavya could still shoot with his other fingers(middle finger and index finger). I heard somewhere that after this incident, tribals only learnt this type of shooting and avoided using thumb finger. But now, Ekalavya was inferior to Arjuna yet he was still a very good(infact, an extremely good) shooter.
When Ekalavya was rejected by Dhrona, he seemed to have only one intention in mind. He had grasped the potential of Ekalavya and feared that Ekalavya would surpass Arjuna(and other students). So, Ekalavya was rejected.
This raises a fundamental question: How can Dhrona promise Arjuna that Arjuna would become his best disciple? What if someone more talented, hardworking, devoted, and dharmic than Arjuna becomes the disciple of Dhrona? What will Dhrona do then? Will he not teach him completely, even though the disciple is deserving?
Second issue: If Dhrona wanted to make Ekalavya inferior to Arjuna, then he should have taught more to Arjuna instead of depriving Ekalavya. To me, Dhrona acted wrongly in this incident. And this immediately strikes chord with all the readers and listeners of MB. Dhrona was blinded by following things:
a) his bias for his favorite student: Arjuna
b) his need to keep his own promise to Arjuna.
c) and perhaps, even a hint of discrimination against Ekalavya due to his background.
It happened before the exhibition of prowess by the Kuru Princes(when Karna wanted to duel Arjuna and was stopped by Krupa. Consequently, Karna was anointed as the ruler of Anga by Dhuryodhana.)
All the while, Karna was also the student of Dhrona. Karna and Ashwatthama were befriended by Dhuryodhana. Interestingly, Dhuryodhana did not make overtures to Ekalavya. Or maybe he did, I'll have to study MB.
Ultimately, Ekalavya sided with Jarasandha and Shishupala. Jarasandha had created a formidable alliance apart from being extremely powerful. Shri Krushna eliminated the entire system setup by Jarasandha one by one. First, Kamsa's pointmen(and women) like Puthana, Shakatasura, ...etc were taken out by Krushna while He was in Vrundavan or Vraja. Then, He targeted Kamsa and took over Mathura.
Kamsa was ruling Mathura(UP & Vihar). Jarasandha was ruling Magadha(Vihar & Odhisha). Shishupala was ruling Chedhi(parts of MP). Narakasura was ruling Prak-jyothisha(Assam). Mathura, Magadha, Chedhi and Prak-jyothisha are very closely situated and they may also be in alliance with each other. Anga and Vanga(Bengal) may be semi-autonomous regions. At that time, they may have been occupied by Magadha(Jarasandha). Kurus may have only had a nominal claim on Anga & Vanga, but no physical control. So, Karna was made the King of this region by Dhuryodhana. It is like POK region for India. Or even Tibet. Lets say Abdul Kalam is designated as Chief Minister of POK by Indian Parliament but without occupying the POK in the first place. The same situation may have been when Karna was made the king of Anga.
Kamsa had acquired the throne by imprisoning his father and rest of the family(including his sister and brother-in-law who were parents of Shri Krushna). Kamsa was the son-in-law of Jarasandha. All these various kings(including Kamsa) were all born from Chandra-vamsha. The details of the lineage are given in one episode(when Shri Krushna advises Yuddhishtira to kill Jarasandha before attempting Rajasuya). The details are also given in Hari-Vamsha.
Shri Krushna occupied Mathura by taking out Kamsa and his acolytes. Then, He installed a democratic govt in Mathura headed by Shurasena. Shurasena was the father of Vasudheva(Krushna's father) and Kunthi. That means Shurasena was grandfather of Krushna. Kunthi and Vasudheva were brother and sister. So, Shri Krushna is a nephew of Kunthi. And Subhadhra is also a cousin of Arjuna. Their marriage is acceptable according to Hindhu customs because they have different Gothras.
After Kamsa was dislogded from Mathura, Jarasandha began his attacks on Mathura. Shri Krushna along with the population of Mathura retreated to a hill fort named Raivatha. That fort was considered more robust to defend against the attacks of Jarasandha. Jarasandha made several attacks(about 16, reminds one of Ghazni and Ghori). All these attacks were repelled by Shri Krushna with considerable casualties on Jarasandha's side.
Eventually, Shri Krushna decided to relocate to Dhwaraka and create a island-city to be safe from all sides from the attacks. Rukmini was the princess of Vidharbha(in modern day Maha). Vidharbha is the neighbour of Chedhi(Shishupala) and Magadha(Jarasandha). Rukmi, the brother of Rukmini, wanted his sister to marry Shishupala so as to be safe from any potential attacks. Rukmini loved Krushna and sent a proposal to Him. Krushna came alone to Vidharbha and eloped with Rukmini. Shishupala and Rukmi chased Krushna and were defeated by Him. I think this was before the relocation to Dhwarka. So, Krushna came alone from Mathura, passing through Chedhi(Shishupala's kingdom) and went to Vidharbha. Then, He again came back with the girl(Rukmini) alone crossing though Chedhi. This incident made Shishupala a big enemy of Krushna.
Jarasandha meanwhile had grown enormously powerful. He defeated several kings and imprisoned them. He had planned to kill all these kings in a human sacrifice to appease Shiva. (Krushna severely reprimands this idea of human sacrifice. This is also relevant to abrahanic creeds, but that would be a digression. But please notice that there is a difference between sacrifice of animals and human sacrifice.).
Krushna killed the commanders of Jarasandha by a ploy. The commanders of Jarasandha were Hamsa and Dimbhaka. They were close friends. Krushna somehow convinced Hamsa that Dimbhaka was dead. So, Hamsa committed suicide. Then, learning of the death of Hamsa, Dimbhaka also committed suicide. This proved very costly for Jarasandha. This incident also is very similar to the ploy used on Dhrona(when he was convinced that his son was dead and he committed suicide). Krushna had already tried this ploy on the commanders of Jarasandha before using it on Dhrona.
Meanwhile, Dhuryodhana had attempted to kill Paandavas in house of lac because he feared that they would be appointed as heirs due to the pressure of public and elders(like Bhishma). Paandavas spent about an year in disguise and succeeded in marrying Paanchala princess Dhraupadhi. When, Dhrutharashtra learnt that Paandavas acquired an alliance of powerful Paanchalas, he welcomed back the Paandavas.
Bhishma proposed to split the kingdom in half for Paandavas and Dhruyodhana(and his bros). Dhrutharashtra cleverly gave the uninhabited forested lands(Khaandavaprastha or Khaandava jungles) to Yuddhishtira while retaining the Hasthinapura. Yuddhishtira and his bros relocated to Khaandava and created a new city there. They cleared off the jungles and expanded their city. A new magnificent palace was built and the city was renamed Indhraprastha by the Paandavas. Then, Bhima learnt advanced mace techniques from Bala-Rama(bro of Krushna). Arjuna went on a 12 year exile from Indhraprastha. He covertly married Subhadhra(sister of Krushna and Bala-Rama) with approval of Krushna. So, Arjuna became the brother-in-law of Krushna.
Then, Shri Krushna proposed that Jarasandha be killed when Yuddhishtira wanted to perform Rajasuya. Taking on the might of Jarasandha was extremely risky(and mostly would have ended in the defeat of Paandavas). So, a covert action was planned. Jarasandha was killed in a duel by Bhima. Then, all the Kings were freed and Jarasandha's son was made the king of Magadha. All the freed kings and Jarasandha's son became allies of Paandavas.
Then, the Paandavas went on the conquest in four directions. They made all the kings accept the vassalhood and pay tributes. Even Shishupala(Chedhi) accepted the vassalhood and paid tributes.
But, Shishupala was killed by Krushna for impertinence during Rajasuya. Dhuryodhana was shocked that no one dared to object to the killing of Shishupala in the court. Dhuryodhana lost heart and confidence, at the same time, became jealous of the might and riches of Yuddhishtira. Shakuni proposed a covert plan to seize the Kingdom without a direct war: a game of dice. Dhrutharashtra was also convinced by Dhuryodhana.
Then, the game of dice proceeded. Yuddhishtira lost the game(most probably due to the cheating by Shakuni) and ended up losing all his wealth. He even lost himself and his brothers. In the euphoria of the win, Dhuryodhana and his brothers lost all sense of propriety and ended up insulting Dhraupadhi. This was the big mistake committed by Dhuryodhana. This allowed Dhraupadhi to argue her case and Dhrutharashtra(fearing dangers) returned all that was lost by Yuddhishtira.
Unhappy with this action, Dhuryodhana reconvened another match. This time the loser had to go on exile(12 years in forest and 1 year in incognito). Again, Yuddhishtira lost. And Paandavas went to exile in forest. Abhimanyu(son of Arjuna and Subhadhra) went to Dhwarka along with Subhadhra. Dhraupadhi's sons grew up in Paanchala. Kunthi stayed back in Hasthinapura.
During the forest years, Arjuna enhanced his arsenal tremendously. Arjuna was already immensely popular(due to his conquest before Rajasuya and winning of Dhraupadhi). Karna also acquired some weapons from Parashu-Rama. But he was also cursed. Bhima neglected his practice. Dhuryodhana went to Bala-Rama and perfected the mace. He practiced regularly specially keeping in mind Bhima. Yuddhishtira learnt some special arts like Aksha-hrudhaya. He was now immune to viles of Shakuni in game of dice. He also acquired prophetic eye(dhivya-dhrusti). They were all preparing for the eventual war.
Meanwhile, Shri Krushna killed off Ekalavya. Ekalavya was killed before MB. Shri Krushna also made sure that Narakasura was killed. Narakasura had imprisoned several girls(about 16000). All these girls were released by Krushna. They requested Him to marry them. And He agreed. Shri Krushna already had 8 queens.
Many powerful personalities were not allowed to participate in MB by Shri Krushna. (Even Krushna did not fight in MB, He was only a driver and adviser). Generally, it is said that those who died in the hands of Krushna attain Moksha.
Towards the end of exile in forest, Dhuryodhana tried to insult Yuddhishtira by showcasing to them their riches in forest. The plan backfired when he(and his army) had a face off with Gandharvas. Dhurodhana was imprisoned but was released after Arjuna and Bhima defeated the Gandharvas in battle. Karna had ran away in the battle with Gandharvas. Dhuryodhana decided to commit suicide than to live ignominious life. But soon he gave up the idea and became convinced that Paandavas will be defeated in the impending war. He also became convinced that Bhishma, Dhrona, Krupa and Ashwatthama will fight on his side against Paandavas.
Then, Karna went on a conquest and defeated all the various kingdoms(including Anga and Vanga).
Bhima regularly killed some or other Raakshasa. Indhra wanted to divest Karna of his special armor and ear-rings. Karna allowed that to happen despite being forewarned by Surya. (Nilesh Oak saar, could you provide the references of identification of Indhra with Surya? You had promised to do so,
here. Thanks in advance
)
In lieu of that Karna was given a superb weapon named Shakthi. Shakthi could be used only once but it was sure to kill anyone against whom it is used. Karna reserved it to use it against Arjuna.
Nilesh Oak wrote:All Gurujan here...
(1) Where do we find earliest-earlier-early references to the word 'Samvatsar'?
(2) What is the origin - root/sandhi etc. of the word Samvatsar?
TIA
Saar,
did you find the references you were looking for? If so, could you share them?
ramana wrote:JohneeG, The essentials of non-violence or ahimsa, vegetarianism are laid out very clearly in Anushasana Parva by Bhisma to Yuddhistir. So really these aspects in Jaininsm and Buddhism are really strands which owe their origins in Mahabharata discourse.
Please take a look at Aunshasana Parva.
And Bhisma says "ahimsa parmo dhrama" is there in the Rig Veda. At same time Ahimsa is not napunsak giving up willingness to fight in face of an attack. It is not subjecting 'life'/jiva to himsa or atyachar.
Aside, many of the Bhagavatam Purana tales are narrated by Bhisma to Yuddhistir in short versions.
And the duality of Shiva and Vishnu are very clearly stated as there being no difference.
It then begs the question why so many centuries were lost in Shaivate-Vaishanvaite duels!
We should have the MB pravachanams made more popular in all of India and not just in Andhra Pradesh.
True. There is another thing: The significance of 'White' color is also mentioned in MB(by Bhishma, I think, I am not sure though). So, dressing in white(as done by Jains and later copied by Buddhists) also has its origins in Hindhuism. And of course, Shiva Himself is digamabara(naked). This is also done by some sanyasis to this day. The same thing can be seen in digamabara sect of Jains.
About Shaiva-vs-Vaishnava: its a long subject saar.(and guys like Harbans will complain again, so I'll desist
). But, it seems there are instances of some guys in literature(Hindhu epics) also going Shaiva-vs-Vaishnava. For example, Gantakarna.
wiki link Wiki link is misrepresenting(demonolatary!
). But it gives a gist. According to wiki, worship of Bali Chakravarthi would also be demonolatry. Just goes to show that Hindhuism can never be understood as long as it is viewed from abrahanic perspective.
venug wrote:JohneeG garu,
Thank you, I never heard a pravachanam before(Before listening to Sri. Koteswara Rao garu), the last one was from my grand mother when I was growing up
. But kindly pl do suggest other eminent people who are good at expounding the texts if you could.
Certainly Dharma is not moksha/Nirvana. But Dharma is a vehicle for attaining moksha as per Sanatana Dharma. Similarly for Buddhists as per their own Dharma siddhanta. I apologize if my wording of my sentences was misleading. But since holding onto Dharma for Santana Dharmics alone leads to Moksha and since this Dharma must be as laid out in Vedas, that means:
Moksha is impossible for Buddhists even if they adhere to their own concept of Dharma. Because Vedas alone are the pramaana(is the basis or standard to put it in crude terms). Yes I do understand Vedas are not mere texts but they are the timeless and authorless. But Since Buddhists don't take that to be true, moksha is closed to them.
Nirvana is open to them, so now the question is: are the concepts of Nirvana and Moksha one and the same? Both lead to liberation from the rebirth cycle.
Venu G saar,
There is only one truth, If there are differing views on what is truth, then which is the view is correct and which is wrong needs to be ascertained.
Hindhuism talks about ancient laws(or truths) that were always valid. Others talks about what their respective prophets/gurus/avatars/guides/philosophers/ideologues told them. Thats why Hindhuism is called Sanathana(ancient) Dharma(law/truth).
Let me give you an example: Creatures need food, air and water to live. This is the universal truth.
It is also an ancient truth. No new methodology has come that can negate this ancient and universal truth. This law has been in practice from the time the life has come into being. So, the law was there as soon as life came to be.
Now, some people 'discover'(or 'rediscover') these ancient truths. They propose some hypothesis in connection with it. The hypothesis may or may not be correct. It may be correct in large parts, but may be wrong in some parts. Or it may be wholly wrong. or it may be completely correct. It may be correct when it was proposed and later modified and become wrong. Or it may be wrong when it was proposed and slowly refined to become closer to truth.
The same applies to the hypothesis about the 'ultimate purpose of life'.
Buddhism(or the various strands that go under that tag) propose several different hypothesis. Many of them closely resemble the one given by Hindhuism. So, there is ample chance for copy paste(with some imagination and corruption, either deliberately or inadvertently). The question is who copied from whom?
Now, the general narrative of Buddhists, EJs(who masquerade as neutral experts), ...etc is that Hindhuism copied from Buddhism. Thats why they put up the chronology in such a way that some parts of Hindhuism be dated after Buddhism. And then based on this manufactured dating, they claim that Hindhuism copied from Buddhism(when there is similarity in hypothesis about a subject).
This game did not begin with EJs. EJs only continue the game. The game had begun long back in the time of Buddhists themselves. If you carefully study the literature of Buddhism and Hindhuism, then there would be no doubt at all that one has copied from the other. To say that Hindhuism copied from Buddhism is most absurd because many of the figures mentioned in Buddhism are not even given any background details in Buddhism. To understand their background details, one needs the understanding of Hindhuism. So, to me, Buddhism copied from Hindhuism(and deliberately introduced corruptions in their narrative as a way of mocking/sarcasm and inculturation). Buddhism itself may have started off as a sanyasi(renunciation) branch of Hindhuism.
Some of the strands within Hindhuism lapped up this anti-Hindhu narrative to use it against its competent Hindhu strands. For example, some Hindhu strands accuse Aadhi Shankara of being Pracchana-Buddha for (re)proposing the concept of Maya. The concept of Maya is found in Upanishad itself though. Therefore EJs try to date Upanishads after Buddhism to justify their narrative.
But, this is unacceptable to Hindhus because Upanishads(Vedhantha) is considered part and parcel of Vedhas. And like Vedhas, Upanishads(being part of Vedhas) are considered eternal and without creation or death.
Nirvana has two meanings in Buddhism: heaven and a state of nothing.
'The state of nothing' is explained by different 'buddhist' philosophies in different ways. There are various schools and they are all differ from each other like cheese and chalk.
The same is true of 'Moksha'.
There are different schools in Hindhuism that explain 'Moksha' in different ways.
According to Adhvaitha Vedantha(and most prominent and popular philosophy), Moksha(freedom) can be attained only through gyana(an active experience). The actual point being that one is already free and only thing that needs to be done is to realise that one is free. It is a mental chain.
What is the solution to the problem? The gyana(realization/experience) that one is already free.
This is open to all(not just to one group or the other). Anyone who gets that realization knowingly or inadvertently, becomes free.
The obstacle in getting that gyana is one's own vasanas(habits/addictions). So, one needs to be de-addicted before one can realize the obvious(that one is already free).
What are the addictions?
All the mental and physical activities are part of habits/addictions.
How to be de-addicted?
One starts from the most vile/base habits/addictions. Such ones are absolutely prohibited. Then, slowly moving towards the others. Eventually, one will be completely de-addicted to all mental and physical activities. One may still perform them, but will not be addicted to them. So, the performance will also increase because one performs them without being in any addiction. So, it is performed only to the extent that it is needed. For example, if you are reading a book, does your mind become calm when you are turning a page? If you are de-addicted from all mental activities then your mind automatically becomes calm when you are turning the page and becomes active only during reading the book. So, it thinks only as much as it is needed.
This process of slow de-addiction is called as following Dharma.
Generally, mind gets addicted to any activity that it performs repeatedly. So, de-addiction is difficult because mind cannot be kept without activity. Incidentally, keeping the mind without activity(or focused on a single activity) is the goal of Yoga(chitha-vruthi-nirodhah).
Bhakti tries a different mechanism. Instead of trying to de-addict you to material things, Bhakti tries to addict you to God/Goddess. This works in the following manner:
lets say you are addicted to video games. To rid you off your video games, you are given a girl friend. Now that you are focusing on girl friend, you slowly reduce your time with video games. And eventually, you will simply give up video games when you are completely addicted to the girl friend.
The same mechanism is applied in Bhakthi. So, as one gets addicted to God/Goddess, one slowly becomes less addicted to material things. Eventually, one is completely de-addicted from the world focussing only God/Goddess.
This method is also open to one and all.
panduranghari wrote:Please delete or move if inappropriate.
Some people claim its inauspicious to keep a copy of Mahabharata home as it creates a lot of rifts within family. Where did this idea originate? How true is it?
I heard that this is a superstition.
Generally, it works in the following manner:
if you read a particular tragic incident in the epics, that particular tragedy will not occur to you. For example, you read about Seetha Amma's separation from Rama, then you will not suffer similar fate. The reason being:
when you read that particular part, your mind becomes sub-consciously identifies itself in that situation and starts experiencing the thing as if it is happening to it. Since you are already experiencing all the pain in this manner, the pain that was supposed to happen in real life will be avoided because you have already enjoyed it(while reading the epic).
The same theory applies to dreams. If you have had some nightmares, such experiences will not happen in real life. Similarly, if you have some nice dreams, then since you already enjoyed them, they will not happen in real life. Basically, it is your mind that is important, not the outside experiences.
But, there are also certain dreams that are considered to give signs of what is to come in real life.
sudarshan wrote:Another point: Jayadratha performed penance to Shiva to ask for the boon of killing all the Pandavas (after his humiliation at their hands, for harassing Draupadi in the forest). Shiva appears and says - I cannot grant you this boon. All I can grant you, is that you can hold off four of the Pandavas in battle as a one-time event. Why would Shiva make such a judgment as to what He can grant Jayadratha for his penance?
It's like a shop-keeper making his judgment as to what he can sell a customer, based on how much money the customer has. The customer might claim - "but I put in so much effort to earn money - I slaved on the docks, did manual labor, performed services...." Well, friend, your efforts are commendable, but the Rs. 2000 that you earned does not permit you to buy the product you desire. You'll have to be content with this smaller product. Likewise Shiva to Jayadratha - if you want the boon of being able to kill all the Pandavas, you will need to do much greater penance. For the penance you have performed, this is all the credit I can give you.
Make sense?
+108 saar.
Yep, God/Goddess is Karma-Phala-praadhatha i.e. giver of results of actions (mental, physical or verbal).
Nilesh Oak wrote:Fanne ji
My 2 cents.
Check out Bhagavad Gita18:14.
Onself, one's goal, one's qualifications and tools, various means (diversification) adopted to achieve the Goal.. 4 of them
And 'Daivam' - Fate is the fifth. Assigning equal weightage to each of these 5, Karma~80%, Fate - 20%
Even that fate is result of one's own past actions. So, basically everything is the result of one's own past actions.
venug wrote:Another question, what does Ishwara meditate on if he is numero uno? you see Shiva in meditative pose (Yoga nidra)=> Ishwara in some form meditates, what does he meditate on? what is the need of the meditation? in our case, we bring the mind to a standstill state, it's original state to grasp the subtle concept of Paramatma etc. But when Ishwara himself is perfect, what is the purpose of his meditation when he is already perfect? what is the point of perfecting the perfect?
God/Goddess is in samadhi sthithi(the highest state of Yoga). In that state, there is no 'other'. There is only one: Sath(eternal), Chith(conscious), Anandha(bliss).
Sathayam(Eternal), Gyanam(conscious or knowledge), Anantham(infinite).
Shiva's meditation or Vishnu's Yoga-nidhra are both of Samadhi state.
At that state, there is no 'world'. The 'world' manifests at lower states. From the point of view of Vishnu or Shiva, there is no other(to be loved or hated). Thats why, They are relaxed and happy all the time. And thats why, They are equidistant to 'all'.
venug wrote:From L&M thread vnmshyam wrote:
I have a different take on this..
Shri Ram might have been a Maryada Purushottam, but that did not make Sita very happy. Did it? Despite going through Agni pariksha, she ended up being sent away. Shri Krishna, on the other hand had many women in his life and kept ALL of them happy. Big difference.
Maybe, the 'bachelor' part is mis-interpreted. He may have been considered as not belonging to a single person ( as in belongs to many ) == bachelor ( who also does not belong to a single person ).
Is Sri Krishna a Brahmachari?, gurus please correct me if I am wrong:
There are 2-3 stories that are told to prove that Sri Krishna is a Akhand Brahmachari. One of the best one people talk about is about Ashwatthama releasing Brahma-astra to slay the fetus of Uthara, only a true Brahmachari could prevent the foeticide through the Brahma-astra. Then Sri Krishna says :
Yathime Brahmacharyam Syath (roughly, If I have performed the oath of Brahmacharyam )
Satyam Cha Avyahatham Mayi ( and if I have told only truths)
Dhena Jeevathu Balaka (give the balaka his life)
And revives the fetus back to life.
Brahmacharya has 2 kinds:
a) Without marriage: Complete celibacy. Eg: Hanuman.
b) Within marriage:
1) having sex with one's own duly wedded wife(s) at certain periods only is also Brahmacharya. Various Rushis and Munis followed this procedure.
2) There is another possibility: some people abstain from sex for certain period even though living with wife. For ex: Shri Rama and Seetha amma during the 14 yr vanvaas. Even Paandavas may have followed this custom when they were in exile.
It is said that the peacock feather in Krushna's cap indicates that Shri Krushna did not have sex(physical copulation) with his wives and that the procreation was done in a 'divine' manner.
It is believed in Hindhuism that peacocks procreate is a 'special' manner because the male peacock does not have sex organ. So, it is believed that male peacock's tears are swallowed by the female peahen and children are born. The modern science seems to not believe in this. According to it, peacock injects sperms(but does not have a penis) into peahen.
Anyway, according to Hindhuism, several ways of procreation are possible without the need for physical copulation. Thats why Vyasa is said to be the father of Paandu, Vidhura and Dhrutha-rashtra.
If it was physical copulation, then it does not explain why Dhrutha-rashtra would be born blind just because Ambika(Dhrutharashtra's mother) closed her eyes. Such things don't happen in normal procreation. So, that is the clue that it was supposed to be 'special' kind. The same thing applies to the birth of Paandavas and Karna. Or Hanuman.
The birth of Vyasa may have been the result of physical copulation between Sathyavathi and Parashara.
brihaspati wrote:venug wrote:Bji, isn't the definition of Brahmacharya the severest as far Hinduism is concerned? what I mean is before marriage the brahmachari is supposed to be celibate. May be the same definition applies to Sri Krishna? also read somewhere that he was considered Brahmachari in spite of his many "wives" is that he remained completely detached, which was possible only because be was Ishwara.
Remaining "detached" while doing "it". Celibacy is the easy way out to ensure "Detachment"- and has been made into a big heroic thing, that possibly covers for lots of unmentionable stuff. But denying satisfaction ensures "detachment"? Don;t think so - from the eyes of many of the "holy" men I have seen. Denial simply is a device for the corruption of the mind for the majority.
True Bji, being 'detached' while doing it seems wrong to me. Infact, as far as I know, it is recommended that both partners enjoy it, so that a proper child is born.
sudarshan wrote:Lakshman was considered a brahmachari, despite being married. The years in the forest without his wife's companionship counted as celibacy. So much so, that when it came time to face Indrajit, Rama could not do it. It required a brahmachari to face the master of illusion, Meghnad.
But the other celebrated brahmacharis were completely celibate, and unmarried as well - Hanuman, Narada, Bhishma.
As far as I understand, even Rama was a 'brahmachari'(celibate) while He was in forests even though He was living with His wife. I don't think there is mention of any such special condition to kill Indhrajith in Valmiki Ramayana.
Rama was in depression after seeing that Indhrajith had killed Seetha amma. Vibhishana said that Indhrajith had created an illusion to buy time for himself. And he was going to engage in a special worship in a certain place. He had to be killed before he completed that particular worship.
So, Rama sends a battalion under the leadership of Lakshmana to kill Indhrajith before he completes it. No mention of any 'brahmacharya'.
sudarshan wrote:Oh - mention is made of a son of Hanuman. However, this came about when a fish unwittingly swallowed Hanuman's seed and gave birth to a boy.
This story is not in Valmiki Ramayana. But, it seems it is in other places. And there, it is not 'seed' but 'sweat'. Personally, I am cynical about believing this story.
venug wrote:Sri MC garu hints at 3 Buddha avataras, not two. I will try to get references. He is of the view that Shiva purana mentions one such avatara, then Sri.Rama mentions one, the latest one is the Gautama in kalayuga. He says that this avatara is to do away with bad practices that set into Vedic practices. He says that Buddha merely concerned himself with human suffering than Moksha itself and that it was later that Buddhism diverged from Santana Dharma hence became nastika tradition. Just thought of sharing.
1) Shiva Purana mentions a 'Buddha avathara' of Vishnu during the period of Tripuras. This 'Buddha avathara' was called 'Arihanth'. He beguiled the Tripuras from practising the proper Dharmas, so that they could be killed by Shiva.
2) Skandha Purana mentions another 'Buddha avathara' in Kaashi during the period of Dhivodhas. This 'Buddha' avathara along with Ganesha(in disguise) as disciple turned the people of Kaashi away from dharma. So, Dhivodhas rules was ended. Then, Shiva returned to Kaashi after brief period. Originally, Shiva was made to leave Kaashi due to Dhivodhas's conditions.
3) Bruhaspathi's bro's son is called Gothama(or Dheerga-thamas). His descendents were called Gauthamas. There is one Gauthama who is the husband of Ahalya. Similarly, there is one more who is the father of Krupa(teacher of Paandavas) and Krupi.
The above are mentioned in Hindhuism.
In Buddhism:
In the previous life of Buddha, he was called Gauthama. In that life he was punished for a wrong that he did not committ(like Ani-Mandavya or Jesus). He gave birth to 2 children(a boy and a gal). They were entrusted to his teacher, hold your breath: Krushna-Dhwaipayana(i.e. Vyasa). Buddha turned Krushna-Dhwaipayana into a Kanaka-Dhwaipayana. That means the dark one became the golden one(not pale, mind you). His children were called Ikshvakus. These children started a lineage.
After the death, Buddha went to heaven. Then, he was reborn in the lineage as Siddhartha.
He married 8 wives(like Krushna). (It seems he had 3 wives namely Yashodhaara, Gopa and Mriggaja apart from 60,000 attendant women). And had a son(
8 wives,
3 wives (the last wife was supposedly taken one week before he left his home) but only one son?). Then, he adopted sanyasa and did tapas. He claimed to have discovered a new path: middle path. He taught this for the first time in Varanasi i.e. Kaashi.(8 beatitudes is copied from this).
-----
It seems to me that the Buddha's story is manufactured by the Buddhism by copying it from the Hindhu works. Whether any real Buddha ever existed is doubtful.
One famous motif of Buddha is Buddha with an elephant. The same was copied from Krushna and elephant(when Krushna enters Mathura to kill Kamsa).
EDIT:
And guess who was supposedly the teacher of Siddhartha? Vishvamithra(i.e. Kaushika)!(Just as Shri Rama) Siddhartha moved away a huge fallen tree which was unmovable for others.(Just as Shri Rama moved the corpse of a dead Rakshasa in Kishkindha).
Now, there are two options:
a) Buddha's story was copied by Hindhus and made into several stories like Bhagavatham, Valmiki Ramayana, Vyasa MB and Puranas
OR
b) Buddhists copied from Bhagavatham, Valmiki Ramayana, Vyasa MB and Puranas to create a fictitious biography of a fictitious character called 'Buddha'(which is also taken from Hindhu literature).
brihaspati wrote:
Venug -garu,
I am not disagreeing with the practises - I saw much of it in my roaming days. But the danger that I see now everywhere, and something I noted even then - was that for most people, the overt practice of celibacy or abstinence becomes a ritual glory overshadowing the real purpose. So that most of the time is spent on carefully observing oneself as to whether ritual pollution from celibacy norm was taking place. That is a fearful existence, constantly scared.
For many, it becomes a fragile shield to control their uncontrollable urges - which in turn comes out through very twisted fumes - like perhaps MKG's sleeping naked without sex with niece or other young women under same sheet.
Sorry, that disgusts me just as church or mullah perversions do, while I am saddened by the loss of the original simple principle. I am reminded of that old story about two monks coming to a river to cross. A young woman asks them to carry her across. The younger monk refuses but the older one agrees and carries her across on his back. Then he sets her down on the otherside and the woman and the monks go their different ways. In the evening when the monks stop for the day, the younger one finally bursts out in accusation - how could the older monk transgress celibacy rules [no touching included]?!! The older monk laughs surprised - "oh I put her down on the river bank - and you are still carrying her around?"
By getting this obsessed about celibacy is simply a mirror reflection of the paranoid obsession about sex shown by the western world. Sex and sexuality becomes the overwhelming shadow over all aspects of life. The extreme theist and atheist are both obsessed about God. One in the yes form and the other in the no form. Same seems to be happening with sex and sexuality.
I think thats why Hindhuism prescribes a step-by-step model for people to overcome sex:
a) have sex with only your wives. Any number is allowed. But don't marry a woman of your own Gothra.
b) have sex with only your wives. Any number is allowed(except from same Gothra). But only during certain periods.
c) have only one wife(eka-pathni-vrath). The wife must not be of same Gothra.
d) have only one wife(except sa-gothra). And have sex only during certain periods.
e) vanaprastha i.e. retire to woods and contemplate on God/Goddess and Moksha. Absolute celibacy is optional. Wife and husband can stay together.
f) Sanyasa. Absolute celibacy and wife and husband cannot stay together.
d) Moksha. From here on, it does not matter what a person does(not that he should 'wrong' things). Point is that he is above these things now.
The problem comes when people want to skip the steps. By directly going to 'Sanyasa' step or 'Moksha' step, people complicate and distort the matters.
If those who are not suitable for Sanyasa try to become complete celibates, then it backfires and it ultimately leads to perversions. This seems to have started in the period when Buddhism was on rise.
Buddhism's insistence on turning everyone into a sanyasi seems to have led to lot of perversions. The same can be seen in church or gandhigiri.
ramana wrote:johneeG, A request. Can you find the exact words that Bhisma tells Duryodhana after Arjuna shows up during Uttara Gau Grahana? Reason is there is some mix up on the Pandavas exile period being over or not.
[भीस्म]
कलांशास तात युज्यन्ते मुहूर्ताश च दिनानि च
अर्धमासाश च मासाश च नक्षत्राणि गरहास तथा
2 ऋतवश चापि युज्यन्ते तथा संवत्सरा अपि
एवं कालविभागेन कालचक्रं परवर्तते
3 तेषां कालातिरेकेण जयॊतिषां च वयतिक्रमात
पञ्चमे पञ्चमे वर्षे दवौ मासाव उपजायतः
4 तेषाम अभ्यधिका मासाः पञ्च दवादश च कषपाः
तरयॊदशानां वर्षाणाम इति मे वर्तते मतिः
5 सर्वं यथावच चरितं यद यद एभिः परिश्रुतम
एवम एतद धरुवं जञात्वा ततॊ बीभत्सुर आगतः
6 सर्वे चैव महात्मानः सर्वे धर्मार्थकॊविदाः
येषां युधिष्ठिरॊ राजा कस्माद धर्मे ऽपराध्नुयुः
Link
ramana wrote:in other words if by that time the Pandavas had an excess of ~ Five months on their exile, then the humiliation of Draupadi by Kichaka was an unneeded event solely due to their caution to fulfill the exile period?
Kichaka was killed when there were about 15 more days to go for the time period to complete(as calculated by Paandavas). Then, the news reached Dhuryodhana's court and they decided to attack Mathsya. So far, Mathsya was not attacked because of the fame of Kichaka as a warrior.
Thrigartha was the neighbor of Mathsya. Thrigartha was the vassal of Hasthinapura(Dhruyodhana). So, a two front war was planned. First front was opened by the Thrigartha. The entire Mathsya army had left for the war against Thrigartha. Yuddhishtira, Bhima, Nakula, & Sahadheva also went to war.
Utthara(son of King of Mathsya i.e Viraata) remained in the palace to guard it. He was also inexperienced. After about 15 days, a second front was opened by Hasthinapura against Mathsya.
Utthara and Arjuna went to face this front from Mathsya side. 15 days back when the first front was opened(or when Kichaka was killed), the exile time was not over(according to Paandava calculation). The time was now over. Paandavas had spent 10 months in Viraata's kingdom.
Dhuryodhana and even Dhrona have some doubt whether the time period is completed or not. According to Dhuryodhana's calculations there is still about 5 months left. Bhishma says that the time is up and says that Yuddhishtira can never go wrong in calculations.
sudarshan wrote:On the auspicious occasion of Onam, moi had this kosthin onlee....
These three statements can't all be true, can they?
1) Kerala was created by Parasurama, who threw his axe into the sea to claim some land for himself
2) Mahabali ruled over Kerala
3) Vamana avatara occurred before Parasurama
?? What gives?
Parashu-Rama killed Kshathriyas long long ago. He killed them 21 times. He killed Karathavirya-Arjuna(of Hayahayas). Then, he gave the entire earth that he had won to Kashyapa. Kashyapa told him to get out of his land. So, Parashu-Rama claimed some land from sea.(actually, what is the source of this story that Parashu-Rama recovered some land from sea? MB?)
Perhaps, the Vamana avathara occurred after this event. Are you sure that Vamana avathara happened before Parashu-Rama?
Malaya mountains are mentioned in Ramayana and MB. Malaya mountains are supposed to be western Ghats. They are spread in northern Kerala. But, Malaya Peninsular is supposed to be near Indo-China area.
Malaya Peninsular - Wiki link
Malaya Mountains - Wiki link
Malaya & Malayali... seems to be connected.
Overall, this should be probed more.
BTW, what is the source of Bali ruled Kerala? What was the capital of Bali?
I thought Lanka was the capital of Bali...
RamaY wrote:
There is a possibility for this per our Puranas. In the cycles of Kalpas, Manvantaras and Mahayugas the avataras do not repeat for every Mahayuga. There are many manvantaras between Rama (one of the Treta yuga) and Krishna (who came in this Dwapara yuga). In some cases the difference goes into Kalpas; which means they must be a different Surya (Sun itself).
Please do this experiment -
1/ Research Puranas to see when these Avataras happen, which Kalpa, Manvantara and Yuga.
2/ Compare this with continental shift
3/ Add the effects of ice age and global warming
4/ See if there are different Saptarshis
5/ Look for references where they say someone is going to be next Indra/Brahma etc.,
We need to separate these layers and then re-apply them to get the right understanding.
JMHO.
RamaY saar,
Link to a post on this topic
couldn't find in 73rd Sarga of Balakanda. There is another time Rama and Sita visit Vashista-ashram when they go to aranya. Need to check there too.
Indraprastha secular circles in purvajanma.