Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

[Vayutuvan]

Thanks. Now I recall.

[johneeG]

Nilesh, could you please translate the word "Yava"? It tickles my mind as if I should know the word.

यव means barley. Java is named after that, by the way.

In thelugu, a recipe prepared with barley is called 'java'. It seems Java island is called so because it looks like a barley seed. So, its name is based on Sanskruth. I read this in one of the P.N. Oak's works.

Is it possible that the word यावन is related to word यव? Maybe yavana are those people who eat barley? Why assume that yavana means greeks? Maybe its a generic word for barley eaters...(i.e. people who can't afford to eat wheat or rice). It may be used in a demeaning way because barley eaters may be considered poorer than wheat or rice eaters. I would assume that those whose staple is barley may be those who are generally poorer and 'wilder'(or 'hilly' or 'tribal') compared to those whose staple is wheat or rice.

[Shanmukh]

In thelugu, a recipe prepared with barley is called 'java'. It seems Java island is called so because it looks like a barley seed. So, its name is based on Sanskruth. I read this in one of the P.N. Oak's works.

Is it possible that the word यावन is related to word यव? Maybe yavana are those people who eat barley? Why assume that yavana means greeks? Maybe its a generic word for barley eaters...(i.e. people who can't afford to eat wheat or rice). It may be used in a demeaning way because barley eaters may be considered poorer than wheat or rice eaters. I would assume that those whose staple is barley eaters be generally poorer and 'wilder'(or 'hilly' or 'tribal').

I think the word यवन comes from the Ionians (who were probably the first Greeks to make contact with the Indians). The indians called all the Greeks यवन. But what you say is quite possible (in fact, it is very hard to trace the etymology of most Sanskrit nouns).

[TKiran]

I have a question that my daughter asked, "how come a rishi who is a Brahmin eat Vatapi, who was digested, could even think of eating non-veg. As I did not know the story, I could not answer her. Could some guru tell the story of Vatapi, and how non-veg was eaten by a brahmin, and the justification please

[sudarshan]

The story is that the demons Vatapi and Ilvala tried to kill the sage Agastya. So Vatapi assumed the form of a mango, and Ilvala offered the mango to Agastya. Agastya knew what was going on. He ate the mango anyway. When Vatapi tried to resume his original form inside Agastya's stomach (so he could tear Agastya apart from within), Agastya overcame Vatapi's magic and digested him. Ilvala ran away in fear (IIRC).

You mess with a sage, you will get your comeuppance. No point accusing the sage of "eating meat" and "losing brahmin purity" later.

Here are a few more points to consider.

* There is a story of a shishya who one day observed his guru eating meat. The shishya was at first flabbergasted, but then decided - if my guru can eat forbidden food, then so can I. So the shishya ate some meat also. A few days later, the guru called the shishya over and showed him a vat of molten iron. The guru then calmly took a ladleful of molten iron and swallowed it. He then offered a ladleful to the shishya, who drew back, saying "I can't drink that." "Why not?" the guru says. "You just saw me drinking some." "But you have the capability to digest it, gurudev. I don't." "Oh. But when you saw me eating meat, you decided that it was okay for you to eat meat also. Why was that?" The shishya then begged pardon. He understood that eating meat could not hurt his guru, but would hinder his (the shishya's) spiritual development.

* This favorite canard of Shiva having bhang, so it's okay for humans to do it also. Shiva also swallowed poison to save the world. Any humans want to try that feat?

* This unhealthy obsession with "vegetarian purity" to begin with. The idea is to not hurt any animals. But I know some brahmin friends who won't even eat in any non-veg restaurant, to avoid fear of "contamination." Or they see some cook using the same spatula to flip dosas and some meaty stuff, so they freak out. Ever hear of the food cycle? Dead animal bodies will be recycled by plants and could be back on your dinner plate as mangoes or tomatoes within a few years. The carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen atoms that make up animal bodies are the same atoms which are found in plants and vegetables. It's not that meat is "evil" in some sense and that veggies are "good." Like I said - the idea is to not perform himsa on animals, rather than to obsess over ritualistic purity.

[Nilesh Oak]

^
Good post Sudarshan ji.

Rituals are meant to remind us of these basic/background principles. The rituals are made strict for a reason too (good reasons). Unfortunate part is when principle is not understood but one dogmatically sticks to the ritual, i.e. without understanding the bigger/broader message.

[sudarshan]

May I add - that obsessing over any kind of "purity" is very much counterproductive to the original intent behind the notion of purity. Like the fundamentalist Xtians who are straitjacketed for the first eighteen years of their lives, and who eventually rebel and go to the other extreme - drink, drugs, wanton sex, the works. I know an Amish girl who rebelled like that. And a Buddhist monk. Go figure.

This Iyer friend of mine keeps telling this story of how some of his friends lured him (in college) into eating some mutton cutlet. After he ate it, and declared that it was delicious, they told him what he'd eaten. He was initially devastated, then he thought - "but hey, that tasted so good - why should it be a sin to eat that?" So he started eating all kinds of meat, drinking & smoking, etc. He's still that way (though toned down a bit).

I myself have eaten meat by accident on multiple occasions. This Iyer friend keeps asking me - how come you didn't go my way? The answer is simple. I never regarded eating meat as some kind of "sin," and I never came to look down on myself for accidentally eating meat. So there was no "fall from grace" (to borrow an Xtian concept). I just laughed at myself and moved on, and was smarter about identifying meat in the future.

Obsession over purity is also a form of egotism. And ego will eventually lead to a fall. We would do well to not infuse a sense of horror in our children with regards to anything - non-vegetarianism, drink, drugs, or other religious paths. Just calmly explain the facts about why it is undesirable to do certain things, and what the consequences will be. And trust your children to make the right decision based on those facts.

Edit: Thanks, Nilesh ji. That's just what I meant to say.

[Nilesh Oak]

^ Om, Amen, Amin to everything you said Sudarshan.

The very 'obsession' is driven by ignorance. Egoism is only external manifestation of ignorance.

Bhagavad Gita is such a great example of non-obessionist, open, critical, rational attitude. It talks of ahimsa and have no problem with killing for right reasons (even it declares that such a killer is not even touched by sin - free from sin). Many instances, Krishna refers to wisdom of past sages and then goes on to tell Arjuna, "Now, here what my opinion is....etc." and still leaves Arjuna with a choice to decide what Arjuna should do.

[Vamsi.R]

I have a question that my daughter asked, "how come a rishi who is a Brahmin eat Vatapi, who was digested, could even think of eating non-veg. As I did not know the story, I could not answer her. Could some guru tell the story of Vatapi, and how non-veg was eaten by a brahmin, and the justification please

During one of sri chaganti's pravachanams,he came across this point.the only reason he gave was that,tretha yuga and dwapara yuga customs allowed brahmins to eat meat.however he said that customs followed in Kali yuga doesn't allow it

[sudarshan]

Vamsi saar, with all due respect, you are reinforcing the perception that there are absolute rules in this regard which are not to be broken under any circumstance. IOW, Agastya had no leeway to make a decision or judgment - he was only allowed to do what he did, because he lived in the tretha or dwapara yuga. IOW, if he'd done what he'd done in the kali yuga, he'd be a sinner beyond redemption.

Do you know the story of how the Islamics slaughtered cows and dumped their bodies upstream of the Rajput positions? The brahmins refused to cook in that water, so the entire Rajput army had to fight on an empty stomach, and thus lost the battle? Should such absolute rules on vegetarianism or anti-cow-slaughter be followed religiously in such a circumstance, when the nation's survival is at stake?

Also, Agastya was offered a mango. If he hadn't known the subterfuge at hand, he'd have thought that he was eating a mango, not "non-veg." In that case, is he still a sinner? Or is he only a sinner in the kali yuga, not in the tretha or dwapara?

[member_20317]

sudarshan ji,

in my community meat and sacrifice are both a community as well as a religious significance. I too had turned vegetarian for about 3 years during the time i was newly into marriage. At the time did not know that mayonnaise is also non-veg and occasionally had Mayonnaise Sandwiches. I was only after I decided to turn an omnivore again that I was told how i had failed in my personal vrat. But never did I feel like I failed. In fact quite to the contrary it gave me a new appreciation for palak bruzi (popeye wali sabzi) which I used to avoid till then and lesser taste dependency on meat products. With your write ups I feel like i was right .

This strong anti-meat stand is quite intriguing. Sometimes and places it may be a requirement, other times it may be desirable, still other times it may be undesirable then of course it can be downright hedonism too and a large number of places it may be well chalta hai.

[SaiK]

somebody needs to tell toilet services to stop putting cock&bull stories under "spirituality". they should put it under religious fictions perhaps.

http://timesofindia.speakingtree.in/spi ... dura/78298

[Nilesh Oak]

Gurujan and Jnanis,

Looking for references (Puranas preferred. I already have references from Ramayana and Mahabharata) for Agastya.

INTERESTED IN STORY OF AGASTYA MIGRATION TO SOUTH-VINDHYA-NAMING OF THE STAR CANOPUS AS AGASTYA. NEED SPECIFIC REFERENCES VERSE, CHAPTER, NAME OF PURANA, ETC. BRIEF STORYLINE (Not looking for anything that does not have specific reference to the story. I have too many of such circular references).

TIA

For now, NOT INTERESTED in VATAPI-AGASTYA story.

[SwamyG]

http://www.thehindu.com/books/books-rev ... 534780.ece

Seems to be an interesting take on Bhima and Mahabhartam. A Malayalam book written in 1984, is now translated into English.

First published in 1984, M.T’s out-of-the-box Mahabharata employs Bhima, the oft-over-looked and under-valued Pandava, to probe and question the Kshatriya universe and its obviously skewed values. Despite being a mighty and skilful warrior, Bhima is largely dismissed by his family. Yudhishtira who, ironically enough, is responsible for the hardships of the Pandavas, routinely addresses him as “blockhead”, secure in the knowledge that, as the eldest, he is undisputedly the king. Draupadi and Kunti are fonder of Arjuna than they are of Bhima and they make this clear. Bhima sees through it all. He is no fool, despite what the others think of him. In fact, it is he alone who has a bird’s-eye-view of everything and everybody. And yet, he remains unswervingly loyal to his family, watching over their sleeping forms at night, fighting their enemies single-handedly, ensuring that they come to no harm. If he fails Draupadi at times, it is because his hands are tied. As the younger brother of Yudhishtira who conveniently invokes “dharma” to suit his ends, Bhima must tow the line and therein lies much of the dramatic tension. Even the decision to “share” Draupadi is forced on the other Pandavas by Yudhishtira.

[SwamyG]

Nilesh ji: Agastayar (as tamilians would call him) is a renowned Siddhar as per tamil traditions. So you might want to look for references of him from that angle. As you might already know, in Indian traditions, one name could actually refer to several individuals spanning different time frame. So I am not sure which Agastaya the tamilians consider as one of the prominent Siddhars.

I have this book The Yoga of the 18 Siddhas an Anthology. If you cannot get this book, then I can provide a gist about Agastaya from this book.

I assume you already googled the google books: https://www.google.com/search?q=CANOPUS ... ve&tbm=bks

[JwalaMukhi]

Regarding eating meat by Agastya muni.

Agastya is considered to be epitome of jitendriya or one who is not a slave to his indriyas(senses). He has absolute discretion to discriminate between his physical body and atma. Hence, the mode of nourishment for people who were steeped in not identifying with their physical bodies was not a big deal. Hence eating meat by Agastya is not a big deal, except for the later day narratives who substitute actually the goat dish that was served to be turned into mango dish .

Having said that, for people who are very far from not identifying their physical bodies as themselves, the very real possibility of being a slave to the indriyas necessitated forbidding meat etc.

Even Kashyapa Maharishi indulges in tango with asuric damsel, and fathers surapadma et. al. But such digression are temporary abberations (although with a reason) for accomplished rishis/munis. The point is: such digressions are emphasized to highlight that even such accomplished souls fall prey to indriyas, hence abundance of caution for the 'aam admi' to be very careful before embarking on things that are enticing.

Edited: Intially had Markandeya mahrishi which is wrong, it is Kashyapa Maharishi

[sudarshan]

Hence eating meat by Agastya is not a big deal, except for the later day narratives who substitute actually the goat dish that was served to be turned into mango dish .

Ha! Did not know that. I heard the story as "mango." I agree, it's not a big deal in any case.

[SwamyG]

I for one believe brahmins did eat meat in those days. And it is no big deal if they ate and stopped eating. Eating meat is not something abominable.
Sudarshan saar, in defense of some brahmins who do not eat in non-veg places, it is just not "sin" or "contamination" but a sense of revulsion of eating flesh - that which they are not used to. It takes some amount of compromise to eat stir-fry where they use the same tava/spatula to make the food.

[Nilesh Oak]

Nilesh ji: Agastayar (as tamilians would call him) is a renowned Siddhar as per tamil traditions. So you might want to look for references of him from that angle. As you might already know, in Indian traditions, one name could actually refer to several individuals spanning different time frame. So I am not sure which Agastaya the tamilians consider as one of the prominent Siddhars.

I have this book The Yoga of the 18 Siddhas an Anthology. If you cannot get this book, then I can provide a gist about Agastaya from this book.

I assume you already googled the google books: https://www.google.com/search?q=CANOPUS ... ve&tbm=bks

Thanks SwamyG.

Yes, one name (same name) indeed refers to several individuals separated by thousands of years, and still with same -apparent-identification (e.g. sage Agastya, sage Vasistha, Parashurama, )

If you can provide the gist about Agastya (specifically if he is mentioned in the context of other historically known personalities.. Rama, Krishna and others).

TIA

[Nilesh Oak]

http://www.thehindu.com/books/books-rev ... 534780.ece

Seems to be an interesting take on Bhima and Mahabhartam. A Malayalam book written in 1984, is now translated into English.

First published in 1984, M.T’s out-of-the-box Mahabharata employs Bhima, the oft-over-looked and under-valued Pandava, to probe and question the Kshatriya universe and its obviously skewed values. Despite being a mighty and skilful warrior, Bhima is largely dismissed by his family. Yudhishtira who, ironically enough, is responsible for the hardships of the Pandavas, routinely addresses him as “blockhead”, secure in the knowledge that, as the eldest, he is undisputedly the king. Draupadi and Kunti are fonder of Arjuna than they are of Bhima and they make this clear. Bhima sees through it all. He is no fool, despite what the others think of him. In fact, it is he alone who has a bird’s-eye-view of everything and everybody. And yet, he remains unswervingly loyal to his family, watching over their sleeping forms at night, fighting their enemies single-handedly, ensuring that they come to no harm. If he fails Draupadi at times, it is because his hands are tied. As the younger brother of Yudhishtira who conveniently invokes “dharma” to suit his ends, Bhima must tow the line and therein lies much of the dramatic tension. Even the decision to “share” Draupadi is forced on the other Pandavas by Yudhishtira.

I would say then this author has done a job of bringing out the 'true' take of Mahabharata to the public.

for most part, what he is describing is indeed the take of Mahabharata. It is the folklore tradition and semi-intellectual writings about Mahabharata characters who have unnecessarily (and my guess..based on their writings.. without reading Mahabharata) twisted the characters.

I will check it out.
-----

Do consider Dr. Vartak's 'Swayambhu' (now also translated in English), published as early as 1971. He makes the same point, with detailed references from Mahabharata.

Of course, Vyasa has done a balanced job on each personality of Mahabharata, and thus if one chooses to be selective, one can always find specific verses 'praising' or 'denigrating' individual personality and thus show these personalities in whatever light one choose to show.

However, multiple readings of Mahabharata does lead one to view Bhima as its hero.

Vartak, has shown, how Bhima anticipated Krishna's strategy in multiple instances. Of course, when Bhima said it, invariably, he was ridiculed, when Krishna says it six months down the road, he is praised (by Yudhishthir and Arjuna) for his (Krishna's) wisdom.

[ramana]

Nilesh its the 80% rule and the fact that Bhima is the implementer.

Hence things come to him before others.

[Anand K]

Clicky to download Prem Panicker's translation of Randamoozham
A lot is lost in translation and the language doesn't have the spirit of M T Vasudevan Nair..... but still it's a decent effort.
I lost count of the times I read the original book - one of my all time favorites.

[Murugan]

Nilesh Oak, in William Buck's Ramayana, on page 138, there is a dialogue between Ram and Sita mata when they crossed vindhya. Ram tells her about how loooooong ago Agastya muni lowered the vindhya, killed two demons and settled down. I don't know in which kanda this conversation takes place.

The story further told is Vindhya was 'jealous' of himalaya and grew bigger than himalaya and became impassable. Agastya muni asks vindhya to lower down, and dont rise till he comes back. vindhya obeys, but Agastya muni settle downs in south and still to go back.

[Murugan]

I believe Agastya is a metaphor and not a person. It is further mentioned by Ram that he keeps earth in balance and does not allow earth to tip. need a very thorough study of Agastya 'Muni'

[member_20317]

http://www.thehindu.com/books/books-rev ... 534780.ece

Seems to be an interesting take on Bhima and Mahabhartam. A Malayalam book written in 1984, is now translated into English.

First published in 1984, M.T’s out-of-the-box Mahabharata employs Bhima, the oft-over-looked and under-valued Pandava, to probe and question the Kshatriya universe and its obviously skewed values. Despite being a mighty and skilful warrior, Bhima is largely dismissed by his family. Yudhishtira who, ironically enough, is responsible for the hardships of the Pandavas, routinely addresses him as “blockhead”, secure in the knowledge that, as the eldest, he is undisputedly the king. Draupadi and Kunti are fonder of Arjuna than they are of Bhima and they make this clear. Bhima sees through it all. He is no fool, despite what the others think of him. In fact, it is he alone who has a bird’s-eye-view of everything and everybody. And yet, he remains unswervingly loyal to his family, watching over their sleeping forms at night, fighting their enemies single-handedly, ensuring that they come to no harm. If he fails Draupadi at times, it is because his hands are tied. As the younger brother of Yudhishtira who conveniently invokes “dharma” to suit his ends, Bhima must tow the line and therein lies much of the dramatic tension. Even the decision to “share” Draupadi is forced on the other Pandavas by Yudhishtira.

I think it was the late YamaR who also mentioned that Bhima looked like the real hero of MBH.

So you guys want to say that because Bhima actually followed through whatever he learnt he begins to look like the real hero of MBH.

[Murugan]

This confuses

http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Downloa ... 2176_0.pdf

[Nilesh Oak]

I think it was the late YamaR who also mentioned that Bhima looked like the real hero of MBH.

So you guys want to say that because Bhima actually followed through whatever he learnt he begins to look like the real hero of MBH.

ravi-G,

YamaR - help me, who you are referring to (author of the book being discussed?)
----------

If you define characteristics of what constitutes a 'Hero', I feel reasonably confident that I will able to quote specific instances (with relevant references from MBH text) to show that Bhima qualified as such on those counts!

Implementation/execution is one of the many aspects of one being a Hero.

I can think of a long or a short list of attributes. Still, I would prefer that it comes from you (to avoid someone claiming bias on my part in selection of those attributes).

[Anand K]

....Even the decision to “share” Draupadi is forced on the other Pandavas by Yudhishtira....

Huh?
Actually in the book it is Kunti's strategy to keep the Pandavas united using one woman as their common anchor. Like, in ways only a wife can.

BTW, here Bhima understands everything - the manipulations of Kunti who wants to ensure security and a kingdom for her children, Draupadi who loves the notion of being Empress but at the same time truly loves Arjuna only, Krishna using the strength of the Pandavas to pick off the threats to his (weak) clan and kingdom, the freeloaders at the court who have vested interests in playing the families against each other, Drona's greed and vengeance, Dhritharashta's fake "Yeh Kya Ho Raha Hai?", ityadi... and how his own skills and strength factor in these games.
Still, he plows on chiefly due to his fidelity to his family. Tragic character at the end of it... the way he resigns to how the future generations will view him is one of my favorite bits.

[Nilesh Oak]

This confuses

http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Downloa ... 2176_0.pdf

I completed a note on 'Agastya migration' -limiting myself to so called legend of Agastya migrating to south and naming the star (Canopus) right away - Agastya...and its discussion and have shown that, whether we look at this legend or not, proposals of Abhyankar are way off by 1000s years.

Soon Y'all will see why.
-----
Peter ji (when I could/would see his posts) had posted this article and claimed it as 'elegant' explanation.

Abhyankar's thesis is valid (only if one still clings to his background assumptions of MBH war 1200 +/- 100 BCE, or 2300 BCE and Ramayana around 4000-5000 BCE) and a good exploration.

With our growth of knowledge, we can still consider this as worthy effort - still 'elegant' and 'in-correct'.

In addition, if the legend of naming of Canopus is removed and crossing of Vindhya by Agastya, then Abhyankar did/does not have any basis to put lower bound on migration of Agastya to south. That is not the case with my thesis. We know that Agastya was in the south long before Rama came to south and thus timing of Ramayana does place a lower bound on when Agastya moved to the south. I have only added a 2-3 page note in appendix on this one, because I came across this article of Abhyankar some time ago.

Coming soon....

[ramana]

ravi_g,

There is nayaka or principal character and then there is veer or hero.

Yuddhistir fits the former role while Bhima the latter.

Arjuna is in between.

[member_20317]

I think it was the late YamaR who also mentioned that Bhima looked like the real hero of MBH.

So you guys want to say that because Bhima actually followed through whatever he learnt he begins to look like the real hero of MBH.

ravi-G,

YamaR - help me, who you are referring to (author of the book being discussed?)
----------

If you define characteristics of what constitutes a 'Hero', I feel reasonably confident that I will able to quote specific instances (with relevant references from MBH text) to show that Bhima qualified as such on those counts!

Implementation/execution is one of the many aspects of one being a Hero.

I can think of a long or a short list of attributes. Still, I would prefer that it comes from you (to avoid someone claiming bias on my part in selection of those attributes).

Nilesh ji, YamaR is the moniker for RamaY, a member now banned, you must have seen. Named as such by people on BRF because he would not let anybody unchallenged on things close to his heart.

The Hero bit was a somewhat lose comment. I put up all kinds of comment but the Guru jan take me up on this. I am sorry to say but I admit I cannot drink molten lead.

But yes a man who is steadfast in trying to achieve his dharmic goals would be a hero for me. Probably because I know I cannot do that .

You have mentioned how Bhima is characterized as the blockhead. The strange thing I notice myself is that a lot of people normally classifiable as blockheads easily respond in a positive manner to the dharm-gaathas and puranic kathas while most polished sophisticated people end up hopelessly cross-purposed. Though that observation would be OT i guess.

[johneeG]

....Even the decision to “share” Draupadi is forced on the other Pandavas by Yudhishtira....

Huh?
Actually in the book it is Kunti's strategy to keep the Pandavas united using one woman as their common anchor. Like, in ways only a wife can.

BTW, here Bhima understands everything - the manipulations of Kunti who wants to ensure security and a kingdom for her children, Draupadi who loves the notion of being Empress but at the same time truly loves Arjuna only, Krishna using the strength of the Pandavas to pick off the threats to his (weak) clan and kingdom, the freeloaders at the court who have vested interests in playing the families against each other, Drona's greed and vengeance, Dhritharashta's fake "Yeh Kya Ho Raha Hai?", ityadi... and how his own skills and strength factor in these games.
Still, he plows on chiefly due to his fidelity to his family. Tragic character at the end of it... the way he resigns to how the future generations will view him is one of my favorite bits.

Saar,
no offence meant, this seems like a vakra bhaashya i.e. crooked commentary.

Firstly, it was not Dhraupadhi's decision to marry or not marry the Paandavas. She does not say anything and no one asked her opinion. Of course, one could say that by not saying anything she conveyed her affirmation. Because she had previously very categorically denied Karna when he tried to participate in Swayamwaram. So, one could say that she passively accepted the proposal. But then, at that time, no one knew who the Paandavas were. They were in a disguise. And yet Dhraupadhi simply accepted whatever they said. Even if she knew that they were Paandavas, they were in exile. So, she was not going to be a queen leave alone being an empress. So, Dhraupadhi marrying the five brothers due to her greed of being empress is really a wild imagination and is not supported by the situation.

Next, Kunthi's motivation. If Kunthi wanted to keep her sons together by marrying them to same women, I think she would be the biggest fool in the world. Nothing creates jealousies among people like a shared lover/spouse. Having a common wife/husband does not unite people, it divides people. Brothers or even sisters fight among themselves when they love the same person. So, this would be the worst strategy in the world. The only explanation to what happened was that Kunthi did not really know that Paandavas had actually participated in Swayamwara. Most probably, they had gone with an intention merely watch it. When all the kings and princes had failed, only then Arjuna in Brahmin's disguise tried. Even here, if Karna was allowed to take a shot, he would have definitely succeeded and married Dhraupadhi. So, in no way is it possible that Paandavas could have planned to get married to Dhraupadhi. And Kunthi would not be able to anticipate it. How many princesses would want to marry exiled prince? How many kings would want to marry their daughters to exiles prince? So, from Kunthi's perspective, it is quite reasonable to imagine that Paandavas would not participate in swayamwara. Most probably she imagined that Dhrupadha would give great gifts to all Brahmins and therefore Paandavas who were in Brahmins' disguise would come home with lots of expensive gifts. So, when they called her, she naturally imagined that they came back with great gifts and told them to share it equally and not fight... just as any normal parent would say.

Now, seizing on this word, was it necessary to marry Dhraupadhi to all the Paandavas? I think it was the decision of Yuddhishtira. Yuddhishtira was attracted to Dhraupadhi even after she was won over in Swayamwara by Arjuna. He decided that he being a righteous man, his heart would never provoke him to do what would be a wrong deed. And he took the words of his mother as a sign and seized on it. Other Paandavas were also attracted to Dhraupadhi. (Dhraupadhi seems to be a very attractive woman. BTW, she was dark, so she was called Krushna).

Obviously, Dhrupadha and his family did not like this idea and was opposed to it. Yuddhishtira did give some ancient and divine examples of polyandry in extra-ordinary circumstances. But, Dhurpadha, rightly, did not agree as he considered these examples to be exceptions in special situations. Then, Vyasa came and actually showed him a special vision along with telling him about their previous lives. It was out of respect for Vyasa and due to the vision that Dhrupadha agreed. Dhraupadhi was not asked her opinion. At that time, there was no guarantee that Paandavas would become Kings leaves alone Emperors.

Later Naaradha anticipates that having a common wife can lead to fights among brothers. So, he advises them to create some plan of sharing her. They come up with a plan that each brother would live with Dhraupadhi for a certain time period and during this time other brothers would not disturb the couple. And when Arjuna violates this plan, he goes on an exile for 12 years during which time he marries Chithrangadha, Ulupi and Subhadhra.

And Dhraupadhi remained loyally with her husbands through thick and think regardless of their fortunes. She was married to them when they were in exile and begging for their livelihood. She was with them when they became Kings. She was with them when they became Emperors. She was with them when they lost everything and were exiled. She was with them in forests. She was with them when they became servants in disguise. She was with them when they regained power. She was with them when they left everything and left to himalayas. She followed her husbands most loyally. So, this allegation that she married only due to greed of becoming and empress in unfounded. Paandavas had many other wives, but no wife is with their husbands throughout.

Dhruthrashtra feels that he should have been the king rightfully and his natural handicap ruined it. And he seems to think that Paandu took advantage of it. So, he is jealous and unhappy with the situation. His son, Dhuryodhana, inherits the same feelings. He feels that he should become the king because unlike his father, he is not blind. Obviously, this is not accepted by the others, particularly Bheeshma and Vidhura(and rest of the populace). Mainly because, Yuddhishtira's charm. So, Yuddhishtira is seen as the best successor. If Yuddhishtira was the son of Dhruthrashtra and Dhuryodhana was the son of Paandu, then the same people would have still supported Yuddhishtira because they saw him as the right guy to succeed on the throne. Dhrutharashtra was always seen as seat warmer just like MMS. And like MMS, he claimed to be personally clean even though all sorts of shady businesses were going on in his cabinet. Dhuryodhana is very similar to pappu... a vain useless idiot.

To be fair to Dhrona and others, they gave good enough advices when they were asked. So, to blame them for the mistakes of Dhrutharashtra and Dhuryodhana is really wrong. Even Shakuni, who was an advisor of Dhuryodhana, gave the advises that he was asked for. If Shakuni had become Yuddhishtira's advisor, he would have given advises that were acceptable to Yuddhishtira. I think the only person who really wanted to manipulate the fissures with in the family was Karna. Karna never allowed any reconciliation talk and attacked Bheeshma or Dhrona whenever they tried to reconcile. So, it was only Karna who had a separate agenda(which was to proclaim himself as the best archer in the world by defeating Arjuna. He was not even interested in killing or defeating other Paandavas. He was only jealous of Arjuna.)

About Bheema, he loved Dhraupadhi. And Dhraupadhi was expert in stoking his ego or anger. This is seen in two instances. One is when he kills the Keechaka and the other when he goes for the flower and meets Hanumaan. Bheema has his good qualities, but he is also reckless and would have gone wrong if it was not for the guidance of Yuddhishtira.

Coming to Shri Krushna, if He was such a cunning manipulator, then why not bump off the Paandavas also in the war and become an Emperor Himself. Remember, it was Him who saved the Paandavas. Of course, He made sure that it was His nephew who became the successor to the throne. But, why even go till there? Why not just allow the Paandavas also to die in the war and occupy the throne Himself? Unless, He sincerely believed that Yuddhishtira was the guy who should be on the throne. If Shri Krushna had just excused Himself from participating in any role in the war, then Paandavas would have died anyway. Most probably, everyone would have died in the war or even the winning side would have been severely weakened. Then, He could easily win over this weakened section and take over the throne.

Anyway, Krushna was the one who eliminated all the major threats. He had actually faced Jarasandha when he was at the height of his power... not once or twice, but several times. He managed to kill large armies which were amassed by the Jarasandha. He managed to marry Rukmini even when that was opposed by Rukmi and Shishupala. He killed Kamsa, the son-in-law of Jarasandha. Paandavas only aided Him in killing Jarasandha. And for that, Krushna made them the Emperors. Krushna was the one who killed Ekalavya. Krushna was the one who killed Shishupala. And Krushna could have easily killed Dhuryodhana and co. He didn't. He allowed that glory to go to Arjuna and Bheema. And He allowed Yuddhishtira to become the emperor. If He really wanted, He could easily become the Emperor and many people would have supported Him gladly. Paandavas themselves would have supported Him.

[Nilesh Oak]

You have mentioned how Bhima is characterized as the blockhead. The strange thing I notice myself is that a lot of people normally classifiable as blockheads easily respond in a positive manner to the dharm-gaathas and puranic kathas while most polished sophisticated people end up hopelessly cross-purposed. Though that observation would be OT i guess.

The mention of 'Blockhead' comes from original post of SwamyG (and SwamyG is not saying it either.. just copy/paste ..portion of book review).

I do not recall Yudhishthir calling Bhima 'Blockhead (stupid person). Yudhishthir has called him 'Santapi (enraged)', short tempered etc..

In any case, I can not think of instances where Bhima's behavior can be considered 'blockhead'. I don't need to defend Bhima. Mahabharata text had done a fine and balanced job of describing Bhima.
---------
Do recognize that Duryodhan, Dusshasan, et al may have called Bhima with all sorts of names. Again, I don't need to provide explanation for their behavior.
-----------
All kinds of things go in the name of scholarship and unwary lap it with uncritical and enthusiastic attitude..

e.g.

Many books (not all) written in last ~200 years, many have described Bhima as 'pot bellied'. One can easily surmise that these writers neither opened pages of Mahabharata nor knew Sanskrit.

Bhima is described as 'Vrika-udar' (Jackal bellied.. belly squeezed in!) and not 'Vakra-udar' (round bellied).
--------
Brave, deep philosopher, strategy Guru, executioner, strength, softness of heart, dependable, General of the Army (yes Dristhdyumna was the General of Pandava army..but do read first chapter of Bhagavad Gita to see what Duryodhan has to say) and many other adjectives is how Mahabharata has decorated Bhima.

He was all-rounder, including in war skills. He was not only good with club (gada), but also with Swords and a bowman of highest order. Duryodhan described him along with Arjuna as top bowmen of Pandava side, and Bhima's actual acts defeating essentially every Dick and Harry of Kaurva side.. no exceptions....prove Duryodhana's words.
--------
Ramana Garu,

Slight change in role of Bhima vis a vis Duryodhana could be due to the fact that Bhima was #2 (in seniority) on Pandava side, while Duryodhana was #1 on Kaurva side.

Bhima has vocally made it known few times in MBH, where he expresses his frustration that he was junior to Yudhishthir and thus havd to remain content, in spite of his frustration at many decisions of Yudhishthir.

What I meant to say was Nayak (Yudhishthira) and Khala-Nayak (Duryodhan) might have occurred due to they being #1 in seniority from each side.

as opposed to, Bhima (Nayak) and Duryodhan (Khala-Nayak)

[brihaspati]

I also dont see how even the popular serials misinterpret "vrika-(u)dar". Some interpret vrika as wolf and some as jackal. Neither are famous in the wild for large bellies. He was a connoisseur of food/cooking and which is perfectly consistent with such patterns even in modern societies. This has perhaps added to the misconception that a food lover cooking enthusiast must also be large-bellied.

[brihaspati]

Krsna might have been aware of the potential long term difficulties of getting an "Yadava" dynasty accepted on a populace which had effectively long identified with the Kuru. He himself in his lifetime might have wielded power, but what about his successors? Samba types engaged in transvestite fun while growing up and getting leprosy like diseases?

I think Krsna might be better assessed as attempting a reorganizing of the primary military regime and power in the north-central plains as an Indian regime acting as the bulwark against invasion and predation from the north and north west represented by Sakunian forces from the "Gandhar/Afghan" hordes.

His battles, contests, regime changes appear to be undertaken with the full conscious strategy of building up an triangular arrow formation, where his own extreme west point Gujarat zone is a basal point, his manipulated and overthrown Magadha+Pragjyotish an eastern basal point of this triangle, and the Kuru zone the third tip of the triangle.

He was establishing a state based more on principles and rules, with some attempted fixing of mutual duties and commitments between the state and its populations - something that would be more robust as an entity than mere dynastic succession. Pandavas were ideal for him to use because of their relative isolation within the Kuru spectrum, but still having a thin claim of legitimacy [even at a time when niyoga/kshetraja seems to have become less legitimate or subject to aspersions] from within the Kuru at a period when bloodline was the strongest claim. Such a group, with also a bloodline connection to himself/his own clan - would open up to him more than other Kuru factions. Because they would have tenuous acceptance from Kuru core, they would form a close internal bond between brothers and be grateful to Krsna and more open to his political mentoring.

Krsna's own perception of the zone's politics might have been shaped by his early experience of Mathura and the ensuing emigration that was needed which showed him his limitations in redrawing the political map there without bloodline acceptance.

[Atri]

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 02#p911202

Geopolitical scenario of Indian subcontinent prior to the initiation of Dikvijaya by Pandavas prior to Raajsooya sacrifice.

The key players of "western India" then were Yadavas, Panchals and Kurus from Modern Haryana, Punjab, Western UP, Northern Rajasthan, Northern MP region. The players in eastern India were primarily Jarasandha of Magadh.

While everybody is familiar with gross picture of how Pandavas arrived at conclusion of going for Raajsooya, there were many other parallel threads which were shaping the polity of India ruled by Arya people.

Geography of India in MBH times


1. Rivalry between Magadha and Yadavas of Mathura (this is key interaction which played critical role in forthcoming events)
2. Internecine rivalry amongst house of Kurus (Kuravas and Pandavas)
3. Rivalry between Kurus and Panchalas (the episode of Drupad's defeat by disciples of Dronacharya {Drona's Guru-Dakshina} as settlement of personal score against Drupad). Although this is tertiary and rather indirect and ineffective factor to shape the destiny of India's geopolilty significantly on its own. It played a supportive role, however. Lets see the polity of India just before appearance of Krishna on the political scene of India.

1. Magadha-Mathura Rivalry: The process of Saraswati's dessication was ongoing. Population migration towards Gangetic valley (towards Magadha) happening slowly. The King of Mathura (Ugrasena and later Kamsa) smartly established marital relations with Jarasandha of Magadh. Magadh, the true powerhouse of India called shots over entire Gangetic valley. Jarasandha's daughters were married off to Kamsa of Mathura by his father. The other Yadava clans (notably of Chedi - modern Bundelkhand) too were close allies of Magadh. Magadh was building close relations with power-centres of Central India (Vidarbha King Bheem and later his elder son Rukmi) and Deccan plateau (Shrugaal, king of Karveer {modern Kolhapur in MH}). Overall, there is seen quite a lot of bonhomie seen in Magadh and central India, although according to MBH, that pax-magadha was enforced by Strength than amicably.

2. Disarray in house of Kuru: Kurus were in bad books of kings from NWFP and Gaandhar (marriage of gandhari to blind dhritarashtra perceived as blatant treachery by Shakuni, the crown prince of Gandhaar (modern Kandahar). Kurus were in bad books of Kings from Central UP (Especially Kashi after abduction of three princesses by Bhishma). The flow of Saraswati decreasing Bulk of western Kuru falls in upper Saraswati Basin. The River Yamuna was tributary of Saraswati, so was Sutlaj. With freely flowing Saraswati, Kuru clan occupied the "prime real estate of India". The land with three major river systems - Ganga in east, Saraswati in centre and Sindhu in west. However, this is a polity which is "marked by time" for eventual decline. This is further complicated by internal squabbles of Kurus which everybody knows about. However, the liquid power and inertia of Kurus is very high (which aptly and poetically described by Vyasa maharshi), which keeps them going.

3. The Confused Panchala: Panchala was the "swing-state" in contemporary geopolity, IMHO. It would have gone with any of the two powers, IMO. While it was close to Panchalas (Panchalas and Kurus were related clans few generations before). However, it was sitting on the downstream of Ganges which was growing powerful, while Monsoon was declining. The significant presence of "Magadh Lobby" in Draupadi's Swayamvara hints at shifting geopolitics. Although the swayamvara rules were different those days, hence I state this idea with extreme caution. The attack of Kuru army (under Duryodhana) on Panchala as settlement of Drona's Gurudakshina pissed Drupad furthermore. The "understanding of Dharma" by Yudhishthira is seen for the first-time here. Kuru army led by Duryodhana is badly defeated by Panchal army. When it is Pandava's turn to settle the Dakshina, there is a beautiful passage of Yudhishthira where he justifies his decision of "Not fighting under Kuru Banner". I was impressed at the acumen of Politics and Justice by this young Prince. Pandavas manage to defeat Panchal's army just after it has won over Kuru army. This is another tactical brilliance on the part of Yudhishthira to instigate Duryodhana and allow him to take a first shot. Pandavas invade Panchala almost immediately after Duryodhana's defeat, and score an easy victory over Drupad, while arresting him and presenting him in front of their teacher. This invasion (under banner of Kurus by Duryodhan) perpetually pushes Panchala in Anti-Kuru stance. The obvious choice for the leadership of this "anti-Kuru" lobby is Magadh.

However,

Two young Vrishni brothers Sankarshana Balraam and Krishna, who happen to be nephews of Kamsa (Mathura's king) led a coup and assassinated the reigning king of Mathura. He sends the two wives of Kamsa (who happened to be daughters of Jarasandha of Magadh) back to Girivraja (modern Rajgir) and this created a vacuum in North-Central India. The proxy king Ugrasena who was established by Vrishni yadava brothers took a neutral stance (rather less pro-magadh stance) as opposed to the "satellite state of Magadh" which Mathura was under Kamsa. This gave an opportunity to Magadh to intercede in the politics of Saraswati basin and directly enter into competition with Kurus. Magadh was aware of the fall-out in Panchal-Kuru tango. According to Srimad Bhagvat, Jarasandha raided Mathura 17 times. Vrishni brothers and other Yadavas managed to fend off these raids. However, on 18th occassion, Magadh enticed a Mlechha king from west to invade Mathura from west, while Magadh invaded from east to finish off Yadava-Influence from Mathura. Mostly this was some Persian king who was "probably" in this game to earn a quick buck. I don't think it was realistic on part of Kaal-Yavan to think that he would be able to establish a stable polity in India with Kuru and Magadh around in neighbourhood.

The Vrishni brothers managed to trick Kaal-yavan and slyly assassinated him. Krishna is described to be the chief architect of this assassination for which he is popularly castigated as "Ranchhod das" (one who flees from raging battle). Vrishni brothers travel southwards while Magadh army pursues them. They travel through the realms of their Yadava Brethren which were spread all over Central India and Upper Deccan plateau. The Vrishni brothers manage to defeat and kill Jarasandha's ally "Shrugaal" of Kolhapur and enter the province of Gomantaka (Modern Goa and Konkan). While hiding in forests and hills of Sahyadri mountain ranges, Magadh army manages to trace them and lays siege to the hill-fort they are hiding. However, since they lack any siege weapons, Magadh army started advance towards citadel of hill-fort in order to capture OR kill the Vrishni brothers. The brothers managed to escape the siege somehow and started a forest fire, which engulfed the besieging Magadhan army and broke their formations. Jarasandha returns to Magadh after this fiasco. The Vrishni brothers meet Parashurama in Dakshinapatha forests and according to Harivamsha, it is here where Krishna receives "Sudarshan Chakra". All this part is missing in MBH, but present in Bhagvatam and Harivamsha.

Meanwhile, Magadh's strategy did not prove futile. While Jarasandha could not finish off the Vrishni brothers in his Deccan escapade, he managed to dislodge Yadavas from Mathura and forced them to migrate to the extreme periphery of India - Saurashtra and Dwarika situated at the mouth of Saraswati River basin. While otherwise, this would have been a prime location just like Sindh, but living at the mouth of a drying river isn't very wise thing, in long run. The clan of Vrishnis settle in Saurashtra in artificially created city of Dwarika, while maintaining a nominal presence in Mathura. The Shoorsena Yadavas of mathura thereafter dwindled both in numbers and significance. Perhaps, Jarasandha decided to let Shoorsena Yadavas die naturally instead of asking for curses from mango abduls living there and who were pissed off by constant raiding and warfare by Magadh. Yadavas seem to be spread across Central Indian region and Deccan plateau and western Ghats. I can't help comparing the expanse of Yadavas with expanse of Marathas. Various houses of Yadavas (like marathas) ruled western Maharashtra, Vidarbha and Madhya-Pradesh (and later Gujarat). While Magadh was friendly with all them, he was bitter enemy of Vrishni Yadavas of Mathura. After dislodging Vrishnis from Mathura, he let Shoorsena Yadavas be. I think Magadh did not want the powers of South-Central India to enter as participants in power-struggle of Indo-Gangetic plains. The Vrishnis of Mathura were precisely trying to do that.

One thing that we need to keep in mind, is that, in Indian system of polity, the aren't any "inviolable boundaries" of "nation-states". Although all these Mahajanapadas were individual and sovereign political units who were recognized by intellectuals, traders and other peers, there weren't anything like modern "Nation-states". Hence many times conquests in form of "ashwamedha Yagna" and "Raajsooya-Yagna" did not involve the practice of finishing off the defeated dynasty and annexation of the province which was won. This system was unknown to India until advent of Nanda-Dynasty of Magadh. Thereafter, this became a common practice. The system of polity seems to be governed by "DharmaShastras" and "Arthashastras" which are ubiquitous all over India, including in the non-aryan clans like Asuras and Nagas. The people talk to each other about "dharma" as if there was some common code of conduct and polity which was accepted by all the sovereigns of India. What that common code was, is not specified, and is not personally known to me. The so called "conquests" or "Dikvijayas" undertaken by various politicians of contemporary India was either for "recognition" and/or ally hunt and/or money and not usually for land. The defeated king swore allegiance to the victorious king and promised to arrive with his resources in the victor's hour of need.

Thus, we have rapidly changing environmental and geopolitical equations on the eve of Rajsooya yagna.


Partition of Kuru clan - The barren region which formed rapidly dessicating Yamuna-Saraswati basin was given to Pandavas, while Ganga basin was kept for Duryodhana. This is where Vrishnis enter the politics of North India, IMO. Krishna establishes very cordial relations with Pandavas, who just like him were thrown out of their secure power-base and were forced to establish a new power-centre in apparently resourceless land which offered dwindling prospects in long term. Furthermore, bulk of this land was forest land inhabited by Naga people.While decreasing rains were making bushfire increasingly frequent in the region, the monsoon rains used to arrive timely and prevent the fires from spreading. For bushfire to occur, the grassland must be sufficiently dessicated and high temperatures and wind-velocity. All this is seen Punjab (the salt-range of Khushab) and also in northern Rajasthan. However, just when conditions reached optimum, rains arrived, thereby making the bushfire impossible.

The Forest burns and so do people
Vrishni-Pandava alliance decided to take advantage of this phenomenon and clear off the forest of Khandava in order to create arable land and space for living and building cities. They "somehow" managed to divert the rains from that region and started a gigantic forest fire while encircling the forest region and killing off every Naga and Asura people dwelling in that forest. After a week of battle, the region was "cleansed" of Naga people and forest and was made fit for "civilization" and "urbanization". Few survivors managed to escape this carnage, under leadership of their king "Takshaka" who escaped to Upper Sindhu valley and founded the city of Takshshila (modern Islamabad). The Naga and Asura architects who surrendered helped Pandavas in their project of "Indraprastha (modern Delhi) construction". This shows higher skills of Nagas and Asuras in civil engineering. These contacts were also used by Vrishnis to develop their own city of Dwarika (the defenses of which were designed by Mayasura who was captured as PoW from Khandavaprastha).

The great game of competing political interests for supremacy of Sapta-Sindhu region

The axis of power from Dwarika to Indraprastha was forming as an "Anti-Kuru" lobby and alternative to Magadh Lobby. The "confused" Panchalas had by then decisively shifted in camp of Dwarika-Indraprastha axis permanently owing to marital relations between Pandavas and Draupadi. While Pandavas did not have any animosity towards Magadh, it was crucial for Vrishnis to settle the "problem of Magadh" once and for all. Magadh's sphere of influence had already reached Avanti (Ujjain) where the Yadava kings (Vinda and Anuvinda) were staunch allies of Jarasandha. Jarasandha was stealthily encircling Kurus, while they were busy infighting and partitioning their land. This ring of encirclement had potential of breaking off Dwarika from rest of India. Hence the urgency to finish off Magadha's influence was pressing as far as priorities of Vrishnis are concerned. Krishna had managed to establish marital relations with several yadava kings which were under Jarasandha's influence. He started with Rukmini (the princes of Vidarbha). He also married princess of Ujjain and few others. He also took wives from Vrishni clan as well to cement his position in clan and garner support from his clan members. Yet, the noose of Magadh was tightening around Kuru, Indraprastha and Dwarika.

While Pandavas were still part of Kuru dynasty, Duryodhana had given kingdom of Anga (northern Bengal) to Karna. While Pandavas were in their first exile (after Varnavat-Laakshagriha episode), there was one very important event which is usually downplayed. In Kalinga (Orissa), Karna defeated Jarasandha in duel. This had increased the prestige and influence as well as power-projection ability of Kurus in eastern India. Karna's devotion to Kurus is legendary. Karna's influence in Bengal and over Magadh directly corresponded to Kuru influence in Eastern India.

Thus, while Kurus were rather strong and playing their own moves to encircle Magadh, there was no such strategy in think-tank of Dwarika-Indraprastha axis (DI axis) which could tackle with these two great games. It is from here, that character of Krishna starts raising above rest of people, just like Michael Corleone in Godfather-1 (sorry for this metaphor, but Michael Corleone is the closest comparison of the master game that Krishna played). The scale and intricacy of Krishna's game is million times more than the one played by Michael in Godfather Saga. But it comes very close in principle. I would urge gentle readers to remember the strategy of Michael Corleone to kill off the heads of 5 mafia families in NY in one fell swoop and then subsequent moves to consolidate the space in the power-vacuum.

The Turning point

Krishna used his personal influence over Pandavas to make them understand that the interests of Dwarika and Indraprastha coincide. That, it was equally important for them to tackle the tightening noose of Magadh and that they had no option but to strike at place where Magadh expected least. Magadh was traditionally a autocratic polity. Absolute power was consolidated in the hands of Jarasandha, and his son was not as strong-willed as his father. Elimination of Jarasandha from political scene of India was "the key" for all the problems which DI-axis was facing OR was going to face, in absence of any leverage in "backyard" of Magadh like Kurus had in form of Karna.

The action of Krishna-Arjuna-Bheema trio is similar to escapade of Shivaji while his raid of "Lal Mahal" in Pune in the bedroom of Shaistekhan in dark night when he was least expecting. The act was more psychological operation than a military one. The gamble of challenging Jarasandha in duel paid off. Whilst Jarasandha was an extremely accomplished warrior, Bheema was younger and more agile. Furthermore, Karna had defeated him in duel few years ago. While Karna pardoned Jarasandha, Krishna had no intention of doing so. He proposed duel-until-death, which was accepted by Jarasandha and by stroke of luck in favour of DI-Axis, the result of this duel came in favour of DI-axis and in one stroke, the entire strategy of Magadha fell to shambles. Immediately after this victory, Krishna raided regions as distant as Kaamroopa (Assam) and defeated Narakasura, established his son Bhagadatta on throne. Defeated king of Pundra (central Bengal) Paundrak Vaasudeva and killed him in battle. Jarasandha's son Sahadeva was established on throne of Magadh and his sister was married off to one of the Pandavas (I think Nakula).

Aftermaths - Spoils of victory

While Harivamsha says that Eastern conquest of Krishna was while Jarasandha was alive, I think this does not make sense given the entire political setup which I have described above. As far as my understanding of Krishna as a politician goes, he would't have ventured there while Jarasandha was still alive. It was simply too risky. But, these are my views, hence take them for what they are worth.

Coming back, Krishna coaxed Pandavas to go for similar "Dikvijaya" and perform Raajsooya Yagna. There is something about Raajsooya Yagna that even Sri-Raam dared not to do it. Raam preferred Ashwamedha instead. What made Yudhishthira so confident to perform this Yagna is mystery. Four Pandavas ventured in four directions and came back victorious and wealthy. The Indraprastha, Dwarika and the DI axis was recognized by India as the legitimate power-centres and defacto leaders of "anti-Kuru" lobby. DI-axis won many friends (those kings imprisoned by Jarasandha were released by Krishna and they instantly became allies of DI-axis. The Eastern India was secured by raids of Krishna and Bhima. Except solitary "Anga", rest of the east of consolidated and befriended by and large.

In Raajsooya sacrifice, the last remaining commander of Jarasandha, Shishupaal, was finished off by Krishna, thus completing the victory of DI-Axis. Now, DI-Axis had completely encircled the Kuru dynasty. Had consolidated vast stretch of India, which Kurus and Magadh were vying for. Won friends in most unlikely of places. The victory of DI-Axis was complete.

All stories should end here. Since the story did not end here, that separates Mahabharat from rest of tales.

There are plenty of things to learn from this "Itihaasa" of India. Those with sufficient political acumen will understand the modern relevance of this story.

Shubham astu...

[SwamyG]

The editor T.S.Ganapathy traces the life sketch as follows:
1. Describes the birth of Agastya and Vasista - from the Mitra and Varuna. Gives the reason Agastya is called Kudamuni (in tamil) and Kumbamuni (in sanskrit) and some of his other names.

2. Ganapathy points out that Agastya figures as the adviser and guide of Rama; and as the head of the hermits who had settled down in the south.

3. A story about Indra asking Agastya's help fighting demons is mentioned. Agastya drinks the sea, leaving the demons dry - who are hiding in the sea by the way. Indra finishes them off, and Agastya lets the sea back out. A star is named after Agastya that can dry up the seas.

4. Then the Siva-Parvati marriage is discusssed; then the arrogance of the Vindhya mountain. Later Vatabi and Vilvala brothers. On the way to south, Agastya marries Lopamudra daughter of the king of Vidharbha. Agastaya has a son through another woman Itmavahu.

5. The story of Kaveri as the Ganges of the south is briefly mentioned.

6. As per the work Agastiyar Varalaru (History of Agastiya) by A. Chidambaranar, there are 37 different people with the same name of Agastiya in tamil literature. A tamil grammar work called Agattiyam is attributed to him - during the times when sea levels rose and vast lands of tamils submerged.

So the only connection you probably are interested is the role of him being an adviser to Rama and the head of hermits in the south.

[SwamyG]

So Karna is the most evil guy in MB. Hilarious

[Anand K]

Saar,
no offence meant, this seems like a vakra bhaashya i.e. crooked commentary....

IIRC M.T. Vasudevan Nair also faced a lot of flak for his quite agnostic take on the whole ithihaas thing and his not-so-adulating take on Krishna. He has said that it is an interpretation, a personal one and beside his personal faith (he is a bhakt and a regular pilgrim to Guruvayoor), and he tries to take off the idolizing myth and legends and panegyrics that very well could have been built over something more mundane.

He is also known for his clever re-interpretation of one of the greatest traitors in Kerala folklore. So I guess it was a part of his zeitgeist at that time. There's also a vernacular Mahabharata from Ekalavya's perspective and it is quite unflattering, a Draupadi version.... and then there is the Bheel Mahabharata. Hey, I've heard there's a Shakuni version also.

And IMHO many truths and lies and embellishments make the Holy Cow Big Truth.

[Anand K]

He was all-rounder, including in war skills. He was not only good with club (gada), but also with Swords and a bowman of highest order. Duryodhan described him along with Arjuna as top bowmen of Pandava side, and Bhima's actual acts defeating essentially every Dick and Harry of Kaurva side.. no exceptions....prove Duryodhana's words.

Intrestingly, MTV's Bhima resents the "Expectations" and "roles" conferred on him by others, even loved ones such as Bheeshma. Nobody expects the hulking and food-loving "brute" to have a brain and feelings. [Something like the sentiments of "The Breakfast Club"]. In the Kuru-Pandava proving session right after education he is asked to just show off some moves with the mace and just shoot some arrows in the general direction of the target (after all, Arjuna is the designated Great Archer). He goes on to show how good a bowman he is.... but yet everyone seems blind to those skills and just expects the Brute to break someones skull with his mace.
Then there is the Draupadi Swayamvar where he understands just by looking at the Bow that the it is not divine but just cleverly crafted so that the C.G. is not where it is supposed to be. So if you won't be able to string the bow and shoot in the usual fashion. He also understands Arjuna sees it to, resigns to Arjuna winning Draupadi..... and notices with alarm that Karna also understood the deal with the bow. But he was stopped from shooting the arrow because of being a Sutaputra and all that....