Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

[member_20317]

abhishek_sharma ji, I am wondering aloud and request an understanding from everybody.

The kind of samvaad that you have highlighted suggests that both (bheema and Hidimba) decided to part ways but this parting of ways was an integral part of the first understanding to which the period of staying together was subject. Ergo temporary.

But as they say half empty == half filled

All marriages have a few maryada that need to be taken care of. This one had a few extra. Marriages happen because two individuals have decided to take on the bundle of responsibilities that come their respective ways. This marriage had a bigger bundle then normal. What if we posit that the responsibility for observing the condition of separation arose only because this bundle of responsibilities was taken up in the first place and was in continuance of without being in derogation of the earlier vows.

To my mind if the marriage is decided by two individuals then an annulment of it being decided without the concurrance of the individuals may not be a done deal.

Again if we accept this marriage as temporary on account of separation then how do we understand the separation of Raja Ram and Maa Sita. After all Raja Ram is said to have used the method of Sthapana of gold murti of the Maa in her absense due to a separation that was part of the overall bundle of responsilities taken on by both.

Again birth of son was not an assured fact. What if the child would have been a girl child. Clearly the marriage was intended to last for its full term except that there was to be a separation upon the contingency of the birth of a son. I think it was a wise decision to have so encumbered the marriage since the attitude of Duryodhan was clear and did present a need for contingency planing.

I am veering round to the view that the marriage in the instant case was permanent with a special clause of a predetermined and contingent clause of birth of the son and this condition was no different from other conditions which allow for an option of annulment of marriage. In other cases the option is a right excercisable for annulment so it was in this case, a right excercisable for separation.

Still I would suggest you guys do your own evaluation. I am known for twisting things which I admit I enjoy doing.

[Aditya_V]

The marriage was not temporary. The marriage was permanent. Hidimba/Hidimbi remained wife of Bhima. They were estranged, but the marriage was not temporary.

Can you explain what the following means? This is from Mahabharat cited above by me:

----
Yudhistira: Hidimbe, tumhara kahna theek hai, satya ka kabhi ulanghan mat karna, pratidin suryasta ke poorva tuk tum Bheem ki sewa me rah sakti ho. Bheemsen din bhar tumhare saath rahenge, sandhya hote hi tum inhe mere paas pahucha dena.

Rakshasi ke swikar kar lene par Bheemsen ne kaha: "Meri ek pratigya hai. jab tuk putra nahi hoga, tabhi tuk mai tummhare saath jaaya karunga. putra ho jaane par nahi".

Hidimba ne yah bhi swikaar kar liya.

After the birth of Ghatotkach, it is mentioned:

"Ghatotkach pandavo ke prati badi hi shraddha aur prem rakhta aur we bhi uske prati bada sneh rakhte. Hidimba ne socha ki ab Bheemsen ki pratigya ka samay poora ho gaya. isi-liye woh waha se chali gayi."

----

What is the meaning of bolded sentences?

These are not Sankrit verses so they are Hindi translations which will have inputs of the Translators interpretations

[abhishek_sharma]

^^ I don't expect translators to have an agenda. In other words, I believe that the translations are accurate.

Added later: As I mentioned before, my Mahabharat was published by Gita Press, Gorakhpur. They publish all kinds of religious books in this part of country. I am not aware of any bias/prejudice in their works.

[Aditya_V]

Sure, I don't suspect agenda, but is the translation of every verse Verbatim, that would make the books very voluminous or have they summarized the books to make it easy to read?. There 200,000 verses is a lot and may still not include details like did Bhima meet Hidumbi after ghatothkagaja birth and what was thier relationship like after the Pandavas left the forest. Sure, the condition was while they were in their Vanvas that he would protect his brothers and mother at night and he might have said he wants no more than 1 child. May be they knew before hand that any child born from such a Marriage would have magical powers and having too many of such tyoes is not good?

there was definitely contact between Ghatothgaja and Pandavas after he was born, infact he was intrumental in stopping the forced marriage to Duryodhana's son to a girl who later became Abhimanyu's wife. SUrely 200,000 verses may not be enough to cover aspects like what was Hidambi and Bhima's relationship like. Due to the to type of child born they might have had a relationship but no Hex.

Even today there are marriages which survive where people don't have Hex or have lots of contraceptives after 1 child is born?

The translations could have happened even say 50 years back when contraceptives and IVF techniques were unknown. Surely having Kauravas born in 100 jars and developed outside the womb would have been much more weirder then today where we have a better understanding that it can happen.

[johneeG]

abhishek_sharma ji,
the simple point is: physical separation/distance is not equal to annulment of marriage.

There are many marriages in scriptures that continue despite physical separation/distance of the couple. Bhima-Hidimbi, Arjuna-Ulupi, Arjuna-Chitrangadha,...etc.

EDIT: In fact, during the 12 years of Vanvaas(forest exile) and 1 year of Agyatvaas(incognito), only Draupadi accompanied the Pandavas. Rest of the wives of Pandavas were separated from them for that period, correct me if I am wrong.

Even Sri Rama and Sita Amma were separated for a long time. Similarly, Nala-Damayanti were estranged for a long time. But, in all these cases, the marriage was not dissolved. The couple continued to be husband and wife.

Bhima-Hidimba marriage seems to be devoid of rites. It is, perhaps, a gandharva vivaha.

---
The story of telugu movie 'Mayabazar' is not supported by Vyasa MB, AFAIK. It is 'fictional'. Balarama's daughter was not wedded to Abhimanyu in Vyasa MB. I am doubtful whether Balrama has any daughter at all.

Abhimanyu is married to Uttara, the daughter of Virata King. Parikshit is their son. Janmejaya is the son of Parikshit.

The cult status of that telugu movie created a new folklore.

Wiki:

Daughter's marriage to Abhimanyu

According to a story that is not found in the Mahabharata or the Puranas but is popular in folk narrative, especially in Andhra Pradesh (where it was portrayed by the film Mayabazaar), Revati and Balarama also had a daughter, Vatsala (or Shashirekha).

Upon reaching a marriageable age, Vatsala was promised to her cousin Abhimanyu, son of the Pandava Arjuna and his wife Subhadra, who was also Vatsala's aunt. However, this arrangement was broken off when the Pandavas were forced into exile, and Vatsala was instead re-arranged to be married to Laxman Kumara, son of the Pandava's arch-rival, Duryodhana, the eldest of the Kaurava brothers. But the Pandava Bhima's son Ghatotkacha learnt of this from his distressed cousin Abhimanyu and aunt Subhadra and resolved to correct this injustice. Through magic, he stealthily transported Vatsala safely away and instead assumed her form and appearance for the marriage ceremony to Laxman, during which he disrupted the ceremony, assumed frightful forms and scared Laxnan away, thereby enabling Abhimanyu to eventually marry Vatsala to their great joy.[4]

[abhishek_sharma]

>> or have they summarized the books to make it easy to read?.

Yes, they have summarized. I believe that the summarization process was unbiased.

>> there was definitely contact between Ghatothgaja and Pandavas after he was born,

Yes, only Hidimba left. The contact with Ghatotkacha continued. It is mentioned:

"Ghatotkacha ne mata Kunti aur Pandavon ko namaskar kar ke kaha: "aap log humare pujniya hain. aap ni-sankoch bataiye ki mai aapki kya sewa karun?" Kunti ne kaha: "beta, tu Kuru vansh me utpanna hua hai, aur swayan Bheemsen ke barabar hai. in panchon ke putron me sabse bara hai. isi-liye samay par inki sahayata karna." Kunti ke is-prakar kahne par Ghatotkacha ne kaha, "mai Ravan aur Indrjit ke saman parakrami aur vishalkay hoon. jab aap logon ko koi aawasyakta ho to mera smaran karen. mai aa jaoonga. " yah kah kar usne uttar ki or prasthan kiya." Janamjeya, devraj Indra ne Karna ki shakti ka aaghat ko sahan karne ke liye Ghatotkacha ko utpanna kiya tha."

Translation: Ghatotkacha offered his pranams to Kunti and Pandavas and said: "You are worthy of worship. Tell me without any hesitation how I can serve you." Kunti said: "Son, you have been born in Kuru vansh, and you are equal to Bheemsen. You are eldest among their sons. Therefore you should help them when the need arises." Ghatotkacha said: "I am as powerful and huge as Ravan and Indrajit. Remember me when you need me. I will be there." Then Ghatotkacha proceeded towards the north. Janamjeya, devraj Indra ensured Ghatotkacha's birth so that Karna's shakti could be used on him.

[abhishek_sharma]

abhishek_sharma ji,
the simple point is: physical separation/distance is not equal to annulment of marriage.

There are many marriages in scriptures that continue despite physical separation/distance of the couple. Bhima-Hidimbi, Arjuna-Ulupi, Arjuna-Chitrangadha,...etc.

EDIT: In fact, during the 12 years of Vanvaas(forest exile) and 1 year of Agyatvaas(incognito), only Draupadi accompanied the Pandavas. Rest of the wives of Pandavas were separated from them for that period, correct me if I am wrong.

Even Sri Rama and Sita Amma were separated for a long time. Similarly, Nala-Damayanti were estranged for a long time. But, in all these cases, the marriage was not dissolved. The couple continued to be husband and wife.

Bhima-Hidimba marriage seems to be devoid of rites. It is, perhaps, a gandharva vivaha.

Are you claiming that Bheem did not make his pratigya (as claimed in my post)? If so, please provide evidence.

Let us assume that Bheem did promise that he would not go out with Hidimba after the birth of his son. Then your other examples are not relevant. Were Lord Rama or Pandavs bound my similar promises? jee nahi. Therefore their physical separation was not voluntary. It is fairly clear that a marriage does not end when husband and wife have to live apart due to difficult conditions or circumstances beyond their control.

The real question is: What kind of marriage involves a promise of separation before the start of married life? Why should I assume that the marriage continues after pre-determined voluntary separation? Did they meet later? I don't know.

By the way, why do you talk about estrangement? How is it relevant for understanding the dynamics between Bheem and Hidimba? Were they estranged?

[johneeG]

Are you claiming that Bheem did not make his pratigya (as claimed in my post)? If so, please provide evidence.

I am not claiming anything of that sort. That pratigya(whether it was made or not) is irrelevant to the question of marriage. On what conditions a couple chooses to marry each other is upto them and their families(as long as, they are not contrary to the Dharma).

As long as, both sides are fine with it, it is not pertinent at all.

Let us assume that Bheem did promise that he would not go out with Hidimba after the birth of his son. Then your other examples are not relevant. Were Lord Rama or Pandavs bound my similar promises? jee nahi. Therefore their physical separation was not voluntary. It is fairly clear that a marriage does not end when husband and wife have to live apart due to circumstances beyond their control.

They may not be bound by promises, but they made choices, so it was voluntary.

Lets take the examples in MB: Arjun-Ulupi and Arjuna-Chitrangadha. In both cases, Arjuna left his wives after a short while. And only met them after a long time. The later meeting is also brief. But, that meeting shows that Ulupi and Chitrangadha are still wives of Arjuna. The same model applies to Bhima-Hidimba. In the above three cases, the separation was voluntary and agreed by both sides.

At the time of Vanvaas and Agyatvaas, other wives of Pandavas could also have accompanied them. They did not do so. It was a voluntary decision of Pandavas(and/or their wives). So, the separation was voluntary.

Anyway, the point being if a couple chooses(voluntary or involuntary) to live apart that does NOT mean they stop being husband and wife.

Not living together does not equal dissolving of marriage. People may see physical separation as valid grounds for dissolving marriage. But, merely living apart(voluntary or involuntary) is not equal to dissolving marriage. And in this case, no one talked about dissolving marriage. They only talk about staying together or living apart.

The real question is: What kind of marriage involves a promise of separation before the start of married life?

A marriage between a Rakshasi and a Human...

She was married only when she agreed to that condition. She mentions that she has chosen Bhima as her husband and wants Bhima to reciprocate. She requests Bhima's mother and elder brother. Bhima's elder brother agrees to it and Bhima complies with it. But, makes it clear that he will not be living with her forever. She accepts it.

This seems to be a gandharva marriage.

Why should I assume that the marriage continues after pre-determined voluntary separation? Did they meet later? I don't know.

Because the marriage was not annulled. Why do you assume that the marriage has ended? Whether they meet or not, is irrelevant. Unless it is explicitly mentioned that the marriage has ended or annulled, one must presume that they continue to remain married to each other.

By the way, why do you talk about estrangement? How is it relevant for understanding the dynamics between Bheem and Hidimba? Were they estranged?

I used the term 'estranged' in the sense that they were physically separated that means they were not living with each other.

[abhishek_sharma]

>> At the time of Vanvaas and Agyatvaas, other wives of Pandavas could also have accompanied them. They did not do so. It was a voluntary decision of Pandavas(and/or their wives). So, the separation was voluntary.

Surely living in a forest would create difficulties for them. Those physical difficulties caused them to stay back. Note that their separation was not permanent. Once those adverse circumstances (i.e, vanvaas) ended, the husband and wife lived together. Any thoughts on why Bheem and Hidimba did not get back together?

It is difficult to imagine a marriage in which husband and wife live apart permanently without any reason whatsoever. Once again: your examples are not analogous to the case being discussed here.

>> Why do you assume that the marriage has ended?

You were expecting a formal divorce proceedings? I thought the promise was clear enough.

[abhishek_sharma]

By the way, what kind of formal marriage ceremony initiated their marriage?

[johneeG]

>> At the time of Vanvaas and Agyatvaas, other wives of Pandavas could also have accompanied them. They did not do so. It was a voluntary decision of Pandavas(and/or their wives). So, the separation was voluntary.

Surely living in a forest would create difficulties for them. Those physical difficulties caused them to stay back.

Surely living with a Rakshasi could create difficulties for Bhima or his family. Those physical difficulties caused them to stay apart...

Note that their separation was not permanent. Once those adverse circumstances (i.e, vanvaas) ended, the husband and wife lived together. Any thoughts on why Bheem and Hidimba did not get back together?

It is upto Bhima and Hidimba to stay together or apart, why should I have any thoughts on it?

It is difficult to imagine a marriage in which husband and wife live apart permanently without any reason whatsoever.

If both sides have agreed to it and it is not opposed to Dharma, then whats the objection? They stayed together or stay apart, so what? It is their choice. If one of them complains, then it becomes an issue. If none of them complain, it is not at all issue. If one of them has a problem with that arrangement, then one can look into whether this arrangement is valid ground for dissolving the marriage. But, when no one has expressed any complaint, then why do you assume that the marriage has ended?

My essential point is that physical separation is not even an issue(leave alone the duration of separation i.e. permanent or temporary), unless one of the sides wants to use physical separation as grounds for dissolution of marriage. The dissolution of marriage based on physical separation is the next step that can be contemplated only if either of the sides pushes for it. Merely staying apart is not equal to dissolution of marriage in itself, especially if neither side as expressed the desire to break the marriage(which is different from staying apart).

One can stay together and yet, break the marriage. Similarly, one can stay apart and yet remain married.

Once again: your examples are not analogous to the case being discussed here.

No two scenarios can be same in all details. But, broadly speaking, Arjuna-Ulupi's case is similar to the case of Bhima-Hidimba. Ulupi and Arjuna also remained permanently separated(except one brief meeting). So, the same rules apply. In both cases, they remained married, but do not live together because they belong to different races.

>> Why do you assume that the marriage has ended?

You were expecting a formal divorce proceedings? I thought the promise was clear enough.

He is only saying that he will not live with her after the birth of a son. There is nothing about marriage being dissolved. He did not say that they will stop being husband and wife.

FYI, I checked the sanskrit version, but could not find the 'Bhima's promise' there. The translated versions seem to have this quote. K M Ganguly's english translation also has this Bhima promise, but it is not found in the sanskrit versions that I saw. Of course, it may be present in another sanskrit version.

18 अहःसु विहरानेन यथाकामं मनॊजवा
अयं तव आनयितव्यस ते भीमसेनः सदा निशि
19 [वै]
तथेति तत परतिज्ञाय हिडिम्बा राक्षसी तदा
भीमसेनम उपादाय ऊर्ध्वम आचक्रमे ततः

Link

अहःसु विहरानेन यथाकामं मनॊजवा
अयं तव आनयितव्यस ते भीमसेनः सदा निशि

Yudhishthira said. 'It is even so, O Hidimva, as thou sayest. There is no doubt of it. But, O thou of slender waist, thou must act even as thou hast said. Bhima will, after he hath washed himself and said his prayers and performed the usual propitiatory rites, pay his attentions to
thee till the sun sets. Sport thou with him as thou likest during the day, O thou that art endued with the speed of the mind! But thou must bring back Bhimasena hither every day at nightfall.'

[वै]
तथेति तत परतिज्ञाय हिडिम्बा राक्षसी तदा
भीमसेनम उपादाय ऊर्ध्वम आचक्रमे ततः

Vaisampayana continued,
Then Hidimva, saying, 'So be it,' took Bhima upon her body and sped through the sides.

Translations are from K M Ganguly. His version includes Bhima's 'promise'. He uses the word 'engagement'.

Vaisampayana continued, 'Then Bhima, expressing his assent to all that Yudhishthira said, addressed Hidimva, saying, 'Listen to me, O Rakshasa woman! Truly do I make this engagement with thee that I will stay with thee, O thou of slender waist, until thou obtainest a son.'

Link

---
It seems to be Gandharva marriage. Gandharva marriage need not have any associated ceremony. The consent of bride and groom is enough. The consent of the family is optional. Gandharva marriage is allowed for Kshatriyas.

[RajeshA]

One possibility may be that the Bheema and Hidimbi married to bring two clans together politically, and once through the birth and initial nurturing of Ghatotkacha, Hidimbi's work was finished, she could go back and live with her own people, even though officially she would remain Bheema's wife. I am not sure, but marriages could not be dissolved.

JMHO

[member_20317]

Bhai log thoda shanti ke saath. At least to me this is important to understand the idea of marriages.

However I would suggest that we not continue with it if it is not germane to the line of thought being investigated.

The real question is: What kind of marriage involves a promise of separation before the start of married life?

A marriage between a Rakshasi and a Human...

In fact all marriages are involve an implied promise of separation if a bigger dharm needs to be taken care of. Most may choose to ignore the promise or equivocate about it but that would be an issue of compliance not of substantive marriage maryada itself. Eg. all Indian couples (considering all are now bound by the full Kashtriya dharm on account of same value votes) are under an implied promise to separate and put up a resistence, if say the chinese come over and try to turn India into another Tibet. This separation could be temporary or permanent. I would say for a Kashtriya who has any sense of discharging his responsibility his duty towards his situ comes first.

BTW during the kaal we are talking about was the rivalry, between the Rakshashas and non-rakshashas, still in existence. If not, then what was the extent of relationship. How is it presented in the kathas?


Clarification - There are implied promises and then there are express promises. Both are equal in any kind of understanding. Only the disclosure requirements enunciated in law are different. I would consider this a very valid marriage.

Another very pertinent question would be : What would the status of marriage be if Bhima decided to return to Hidimba with no vow holding him back or he being released from his vow by the person or circumstances that occassioned the vow.

[SaiK]

Triveni sangam is the confluence of ganga and yamuna. Now can some one tell about the invisible saraswati link here? tia.

[abhishek_sharma]

johneeG: All right. To put it mildly, I cannot understand your argument. Let us end this discussion here. Thanks.

[member_20317]

Request help with 'विचलित'

What is the real meaning of विचलित ?

Context is the following from Gita Adhyay 3 Shlok 29

english link - http://www.gitapress.org/BOOKS/GITA/455 ... _Roman.pdf
Hindi link - http://www.gitapress.org/BOOKS/GITA/18/18_Gita.pdf

The links from Gita Press are provided for reference. The english translation was different at some places though in the ball park.

I am hoping for help from members conversant with Sanskrit.

TIA

Added later : url was a dead. so tried the Gita press itself.
Ok now it works.

[Misra]

ravi_g: Vichalit is probably closer to "perturb" or "disturb" here. "vichalit na kare" could be "shouldn't perturb (their current level of comprehension)". Understanding the nature of the Supreme needs individual practice and pace. See the following verses (esp. 37 onward) for Krishna's prescription for Arjun in this context.

[Yagnasri]

As per Dharma of the time it is not proper to refuse a women who ask for marriage or even sex. So Bhima had to marry the Hidimba who in fact helped them by informing them about her brother who was killed by Bhimasena. The Marriage with Chitrangada by Arjun made under condition that the son shall be left to rule the kingdom and Uluchi (naga lady) son fought in Kurushethra was and died. The dharma of though days is diff than what we understand these days. In MB we find many kinds of marriages and relations which we may find difficult today. We are more in line with Lord Rama ( at least we claim to be) than Arjun or Sri Krishna (we secretly wish though)

[member_20317]

Thanks Misra ji,

As I understand it (but I need confirmation) 'Vi' as used in Vikarm, Vikrit, Vighatith, Visangati, Vikhand (probably even Vakri and Vishraam) does not necessarily implies an absolute opposite and as such Vi-chal-it should also be taken as 'Perturbation of the current way'. Wish I knew Sanskrit better and could be confident about it.

Anyhow my confusion was because Gita is mostly concentrating on Dharmyudh and Adharmic Yudh is treated merely as a part of the situ/normal life, for which a different set of kartavya is mandated. So it is reasonable to treat this case in the way you have.

Now a new confusion. Is a person dutybound to create situations that force eventually a Dharmyudh. At an individual level it is so. What about group situations. Groups situations probably need to be treated like any other day. Or do they. I am confused because I mostly work and live in individual situations.

[brihaspati]

Vi - special/extra/more/extraordinary. Vi-chal - would mean extra/specially/extraordinarily "moved".

[Nilesh Oak]

To second what Bji has said.. Vi should be seen as 'Vishesh', of unique, speicial, extraordinary, subtle etc. e.g. Vi-karma is different than ku-karma (bad karma) or a-karma (non action), sat-karma (good action). Vi-karma is seen as subtle action (or more action at the level of mind.. rather than physical). Same can be seen to be true of Vi-chalit, perturbation/movement etc. of a subtle nature (of mind). etc.

ravi-G, not sure the original context in which you are trying to figure all this out.. but hope this helps.

[RamaY]

In the context of 3:29, vichalita means disturbed; the realized must not disturb the idiots who are running behind sensual pleasures

[Nilesh Oak]

Triveni sangam is the confluence of ganga and yamuna. Now can some one tell about the invisible saraswati link here? tia.

My 2 cents..

After disappearance of Saraswati, and after sufficient lapse of time, when people could not locate Saraswati, they rationalized it by assuming it as disappearing in Prayag at the confluence of Ganga and Yamuna.

Not unlike people designating "original Dwarka" (Mul Dwarka on coast of Gujrath.. south of Somanath) at a place that was not under the sea but directionally closer to 'original Dwarka.

[Nilesh Oak]

In the context of 3:29, vichalita means disturbed; the realized must not disturb the idiots who are running behind sensual pleasures

correct.. and the sense is that 'the realized' should not disturb (the minds of ajnani).

3:33 follows with similar intent.. na buddhi bhedam janayed ajnanam karma sanginam

[ramana]

Ravings of a half baked individual

http://tehelka.com/is-our-misogyny-root ... nglepage=1

Is our misogyny rooted in the Mahabharata?
Imposing 21st-century values on another age leads only to shallow misunderstandings and says more about us than it does about our epic literature

Bibek Debroy
January 17, 2013, Issue 4 Volume 10

Illustrations: Anand Naorem

THERE IS a difference between the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. There are many Ramayanas, of which Valmiki Ramayana is one. There is, however, only one Mahabharata, believed to have been composed by Krishna Dvaipayana Vedavyasa. Yes, there are regional versions of Mahabharata and they only vary in how they render popular accounts; sometimes one version contains a story that another doesn’t. Still, there is now a Critical Edition, courtesy of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute (Pune), a massive scholarly exercise that spanned 50 years between 1916 and 1966. My references to the Mahabharata are based on this version. This doesn’t mean our views on the Mahabharata and its characters are based on the Critical Edition. They are usually based on regional versions. And more often than not, they are based on popular and abridged retellings that simplify and miss nuances in the original text. Who has the patience to read 1,00,000 shlokas (the number in the Critical Edition is 75,000), roughly 2 million words? Let me give examples.

First, there is Shvetaketu’s story, recounted by Pandu to Kunti in Adi Parva, when Pandu requests Kunti to invoke the gods, so that they can have children. Pandu says, “From the time they (women) became maidens, they were not faithful to their husbands. This was not regarded as against dharma, because that was the dharma of those times… Shvetaketu, the rishi’s son, did not accept this dharma. He established the present rule for men and women on earth… Those who are learned in dharma say that at the time of her season, a wife who is strict in her vows must seek her husband. This is dharma. However, at other times, the woman is free to choose… This is especially the case if one is hungry for sons, but is unable to procreate on one’s own.” The Mahabharata continues to be popular because it is replete with human sentiments, relationships and dilemmas that are universal, ones we can identify with even today. However, this identification doesn’t mean we should apply today’s social norms and value judgments to that age. As this quote shows, chastity and faithfulness, in their modern sense, were alien concepts. Women were free to choose, despite Shvetaketu, Uddalaka’s son, attempting to clamp down. For the sake of sons (there was a clear preference), chastity was recommended at the time of season. But even then, one’s son (putra) didn’t mean a man’s biological son. That was a matter of maternity, not paternity. Though not in the Mahabharata, there is the Satyakama/Jabala story from the Upanishads. Satyakama was Jabala’s son and wanted to study under the sage Gautama. Gautama wanted to know Satyakama’s varna (caste) and his father’s name. Satyakama went and asked his mother, Jabala. Jabala said she didn’t know, because she had been with many men. When Satyakama truthfully recounted this to Gautama, he was readily accepted as a disciple.

In passing, I wonder how many people have read two great speeches in the Mahabharata. One is in Udyoga Parva, when Krishna came and asked Kunti what message he should convey to the Pandavas, now that war was certain. Kunti recounted the story of Vidula (alternatively Vidura), who exhorted her son (Sanjaya) to fight for his rights, Sanjaya having been deprived of his kingdom by his enemies. This is one of the most inspirational speeches delivered by a mother to a son. The second one is from the famous Shakuntala/Duhshanta story in Adi Parva. When Duhshanta refused to recognise Shakuntala, her spirited speech rivaled anything that the more famous Draupadi ever said. And several people (Bhishma as Gangeya, Karna as Radheya, the Pandavas as Parthas) were named after their mothers.

Second, let’s turn to Amba-Ambika-Ambalika. The background is eight kinds of marriage that were known, though all were not equally approved of — brahma, daivya, arsha, prajapatya, asura, gandharva, rakshasa and pishacha. A brahma form of marriage occurs when the father of the bride bestows a maiden on a groom who is of good conduct. A daivya is similar, though the groom is then the officiating priest at a sacrifice. In an arsha marriage, a brideprice in the form of cattle is received from the prospective bridegroom. Prajapatya is more like marriages today, where the bride is given away by the father, with a view that man and wife should practice dharma together. In an asura marriage, the bride-price is more than cattle. When a bride and a bridegroom are in love and voluntarily marry, that is gandharva. Forcible abduction is rakshasa marriage, while forcible imposition is pishacha. The difference between rakshasa and pishacha is the following. In rakshasa, there is a conquest of the bride’s family, while pishacha is more like what we would call rape today. There are Sanskrit words for rape. But there isn’t a single instance where any of these words are used in the Mahabharata text. In rakshasa, the bride isn’t necessarily unwilling, while in pishacha, she clearly is. Even though the Mahabharata mentions all eight forms of marriage, the common ones were brahma, prajapatya and gandharva. Add to that svayamvara and viryashulka. The words svayamvara and viryashulka are used synonymously, but the connotations are different. Svayamvara is when the maiden chooses a groom from assembled suitors. Damayanti choosing to marry Nala was clearly svayamvara. However, viryashulka has the nuance of the bride being won over through some act of valour. Draupadi’s marriage was more viryashulka than svayamvara, as was Arjuna marrying Subhadra. Bhishma’s abduction of Amba, Ambika and Ambalika, daughters of the king of Kashi, for Vichitravirya was no different. Bhishma said, “However, those who know dharma have said that the bride who is taken away by force is the best.” When Amba wished to be released because she and Shalva were in love with each other, Bhishma promptly released her. Amba eventually became Shikhandi, but that’s a different story. This leaves Ambika and Ambalika, who bore sons through Vedavyasa. As was mentioned earlier, the niyoga system of bearing a child through someone other than the husband was common. The Mahabharata does not suggest Ambika and Ambalika were reluctantly imposed upon. Having persuaded Vedavyasa, “The queen (Kunti) then went and met her daughters-in-law in private and told them what was in accordance with dharma and artha and for the sake of welfare… Having heard her mother-in-law’s words, the beautiful one (it was Ambika first) lay on the bed in her bedroom and began to think that it would be Bhishma or one of the other chiefs of the Kuru lineage… On seeing Krishna’s dark visage, matted hair that was the colour of copper, fiery eyes and tawny-brown beard, the queen closed her eyes.” Krishna means Krishna Dvaipayana Vedavyasa, not Vasudeva Krishna. In other words, Ambika had nothing against niyoga. She was frightened on seeing Vedavyasa and closed her eyes, the result being that Dhritarashtra was born blind. In a similar way, Ambalika turned pale and Pandu was born pale. However, whether it was Satyavati giving birth to Vedavyasa or Kunti giving birth to Karna, there was clearly some premium on virginity before marriage.

Third, let’s turn to the infamous episode of gambling with the dice and Draupadi’s disrobing, described in Sabha Parva. This has been told and retold several times and there are pictorial depictions of Draupadi’s sari being pulled away by Duhshasana. Indeed, this was the public oppression of a woman. However, on reading the original Mahabharata, it seems to me that some of the inferences, especially those that are sexual in nature, are absent in the original. Take the instance of Duryodhana baring his thigh at Draupadi, usually interpreted as an obscene gesture. The text states, “He (Duryodhana) looked invitingly at Panchali and grasped his garment. Smiling at Radheya (Karna) and tormenting Bhima, he exposed his left thigh to Draupadi, who was looking at him.” The left thigh is significant. The left thigh was the wife’s seat, the right seat was the seat for daughters and daughters-in-law. Duryodhana invited Draupadi to come and sit on his left thigh, that is, invited her to accept him as a husband, since her husbands had now become slaves. That was an invitation also articulated by Karna. “You have no lord and are the property of slaves… Choose another one for your husband, one who will not make you a slave through gambling.” Thus, reading obscenity into this gesture, as we often do, is unwarranted. In that day and age, Draupadi could hardly have worn a sari. Both men and women were clad uniformly, in an upper garment and a separate lower one, with the qualification that slaves and servants were only entitled to a lower garment. This is what Duryodhana said. “O Duhshasana!… Strip away the garments from the Pandavas and Draupadi.” The text then adds, “On hearing these words, the Pandavas took off their upper garments and sat down in the sabha.” I am yet to come across a popular retelling or a painting that portrays the disrobing of the Pandavas. As everyone knows, Duhshasana wasn’t successful in disrobing Draupadi. As her garment was tugged away, another garment miraculously appeared. The Critical Edition doesn’t mention Draupadi’s prayer to Krishna and leaves the miracle dangling. But most versions have the Krishna story. Actually, the text is slightly unclear on the state of Draupadi’s attire. “She was weeping and clad in a single garment tied below the navel, she went to the sabha and stood before her father-in-law.” But we are later told, “Vrikodara watched her being dragged, while she was in her menses and with her upper garments dishevelled.” If the former statement is correct, there shouldn’t have been an upper garment. If paintings of Draupadi’s attempted disrobing don’t dare to depict this, that’s our problem, not a problem with the original text. Nor is it very obvious whether Gandhari was present in that assembly-hall or not. She is never explicitly mentioned, so she probably wasn’t and Draupadi was alone in a crowd of men. But there is a sentence that says, “On hearing those terrible omens, Gandhari and the learned Vidura told the king (Dhritarashtra).” This places Gandhari right in the middle of that assembly hall.


REGARDLESS OF the belief about the Mahabharata being authored by a single composer, Vedavyasa, it was clearly put together at different points in time, until it accumulated its present corpus of 1,00,000 shlokas. Therefore, there is a lack of consistency, in even something as simple as the names of Duryodhana’s brothers. That’s perfectly understandable. Therefore, something like the status of women in the Mahabharata is a bit of a non-starter, as an issue. There are plenty of powerful women characters, not just Draupadi. Amba, Devayani-Sharmishtha (in the story about Kacha), Gandhari, Ganga (in her relationship with Shantanu), Hidimba (she went against her brother and aided and supported Bhima), Kunti, Satyavati, Subhadra, Shakuntala, Ulupi (she was driven by desire for Arjuna and voiced it), Urvashi (in her relationship with Pururava) and Vidula, all stand out in their own ways. In such a large epic, there are layers upon layers that extend much beyond the core story of a conflict between the Kauravas and the Pandavas. But few of us have the time and the inclination to read the Mahabharata in its entirety. We prefer distilled versions that simplify and stick to the core essentials, rendering everything in black and white. We, therefore, think of Draupadi’s disrobing as an image of the oppression of women and jump to the conclusion that women must have been maltreated. There is no doubt that it was a male-dominated society. Despite this and despite Draupadi’s disrobing (and her attempted abduction by Jayadratha), there are plenty of instances to show that women were independent, probably much more so than they are now. Among the names listed, if one sticks to the core story, think of Draupadi, Gandhari, Kunti and Satyavati. That’s the reason a debate about the status of women in the epic is pointless and sterile. It may generate books and theses, but it doesn’t help any discourse. There are negative statements about women, but there are positive ones too. In the former category, the Bhagavad Gita is part of Bhishma Parva of the Mahabharata and shloka 9.32 states, “Even those who are of evil birth, women, vaishyas and shudras, having sought refuge in me, they will certainly attain supreme liberation.” But from 1.68.40 of the Mahabharata, from the Shakuntala-Duhshanta episode, we have “A wife is half of a man. A wife is the best of friends. A wife is the source of the three objectives (dharma, artha, kama). A wife is a companion in times of difficulty.”

The Mahabharata is what it is. It depicts norms and values of a certain age and we shouldn’t apply judgement using 21st century lenses. I don’t think it can be said to influence our attitudes. Otherwise, we might have been a different kind of society. What does influence our attitudes is what we take the Mahabharata to be. Stated differently, we pick and choose and read selectively. We depict what we want. We use metaphors as we want. That doesn’t tell us much about the Mahabharata. It tells us more about who and what we are, as individuals and as a collective society. That doesn’t do justice to the Mahabharata, or to Krishna Dvaipayana Vedavyasa. We would all be better off if we read the Mahabharata before invoking references to it.

Dear moron, Modern misogyny is result of the purdha system brought by the Muslim invaders and the Victorian morals of the British East India Company.

[member_20317]

Dhanyavaad gurujan,

Nilesh ji welcome back. I used to rely on the english translations till sometime back, which carried the translation 'disturb the mind', which even though a reasonable translation for a prudent man, left me unsatisfied as it leaves a lot of lacunae.

Also I want to be able to list out more such quirks. I tried with Shrudha. This one was another. Got inspired by the work done by Shri. Rajiv Malhotra. Hope to be doing more on this thread.

[Atri]

Since we are on the topic, there is method of reading Puranas. They range back to much earlier days. They show the continuity of human progress from the days speech was invented. So, expecting Victorian morality in 20,000 BCE is utter stupidity.

Brief history of Hindu Marriage - 1 - Evolution of Human Pair Bonding as seen from Puranas and Vedas

Brief History of Hindu Marriage - 2 - Significance and Story of Core Marriage Ritual

Brief history of Hindu Marriage - 3 - The flux of Yugas

Brief History of Hindu Marriage - 4 - Atithi Devo Bhava

[member_20317]

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 60#p688092

I was going through the above post by ramana ji.
ramana ji has provided the following link in this post

http://www.sriyantraresearch.com/

Found these two further links

The multimedia showing the 3D facet of Sri-Yantra titled 'Optimal 3D Sri-yantra build with cones'.
http://www.sriyantraresearch.com/
Saw if for a few minutes. ~5-6 repetitions on real player. Don't remember the count. Don't even want to. Downloaded it to show it to my wife and kids.

The saw the Figure 1 on Page two of the following pdf.
http://www.sriyantraresearch.com/References/Rao.pdf

Concentrated without any kind of real effort merely trying to figure out the number of primary triangles used in both the directions. Don't know what the hell is happening but its a kind of active but controlled anxiety+an elation+I am about to laugh but have to control it for work+able to concentrate on what others are saying but not in the same manner, takes less effort and feel like laughing like crazy even at a simple query from my collegue (splchk). Its been almost 20 minutes but while I am gradually feeling lighter emotionally but really would not mind even if hit hard at this moment.

Boss I realise this is an image based meditative technique. And those yogics were crazy people they needed the absolute kind of accuracy and stupendous numbers for this. The yantra can drive anybody crazy with exceedingly subtle errors in it. This is about perfection.

I wrote all this to log the experience here so others do not go through it without understanding what are the possible side effects. DO NOT TRY THIS WITHOUT GETTING YOURSELF READY FOR IT. you can take a hit in the belly and it would be not even a fraction of this condition.

First hit me for about 2-3 minutes tops and I am still feeling the after effects about 20-25 minutes later.

Ok now I think I can describe it as a cross between the light confidence enjoyed after a one or two pegs but without any kind of desire to speak aloud. Almost like a non-physical tickling feeling.

Seems like a good thing. Enjoy but be careful.

[johneeG]

In writing the following I am not interested in parsing the meaning of ‘faith’. It is ‘Shruddha’ that I am interested in.

Somewhere else somebody said something to the effect that faith is inescapable even if you turn atheist.

Somebody else just did away with the term itself basically saying ‘no faith vaith, all bakwaas’

Part of the problem is easily discernible. The non-translatables of Indic origin. So away I went looking for faith in the Indic context in Gita. Picked up a few random shlok 39, 40 of Chapter 5. Both use the word ‘Shruddha’ and both were translated as ‘faith’ in an English translation. I looked around further and following is the list of how ‘people of Indic origin’ / ‘people trained about Indic systems’ described ‘Shruddha’:

1. Faith, Trust
2. Confidence, Loyalty
3. Desire (picked from wikiationary)
4. Buddhist case - “Trust & Conviction….It most commonly refers to the conviction that develops from one's own direct experience and practice.”
5. Veneration.
6. Anything done with sincerity and faith.

Following are the words that were used in the shloks to create the context (basically circumstantial evidence useful to construe the meaning) source being the the Gita Press,
(http://www.gitapress.org/BOOKS/GITA/18/18_Gita.pdf):
1. Vivekheen
2. Sanshay-yukt
3. Jitendriya
4. Gyan tatpar
5. Saadhan paraayan

The word Shruddha is often times qualified as follows to convey an absence of the state of Shruddha or a process that is contrary to the process necessary to arrive at the state of Shruddha.
1. Shruddha viheen
2. Andh-Shruddha


Proposition 1 – Shruddha has nothing to do with experience.
Proposition 2 – Shruddha can only develop with experience.
Proposition 3 – Shruddha and experience share a dynamic mutually-supportive relationship but are not coextensive/coterminus.
Proposition 4 – Shruddha can only develop in an Indic mind because only a confused mind can think of a concept so contrived/artificial as to become non-translatable.

Saar,
Shraddha was defined by Adi Shankara in VivekChudamani as:

Shastrasya Guru Vakyasya Satyabudhya avadharanam
Sa Shraddha Kathita Sadbhiryaya Vastupalabhyate

VivekCudamani-25

"Conviction that Shastra's and Guru's words to be true is known as Shraddha. This Shraddha leads to Sat(Eternal Truth)."

What is meant by Shastra?
Shastra, principally, refers to Vedas. As a corollary, any work of Rishis that is in sync with Vedas is also knowns as Shastra. But, primarily, Shastra means Vedas.

Who is a Guru?
Adi Shankara says that Guru must have following qualifications:
a) Shotriyam - well-versed in scriptures and follows the teachings and traditions.
b) Brahma Nishta - focused on Brahman/Atma.
c) Compassion for disciples

Someone who does not have the above qualifications, is not fit for being a Guru. It is difficult to know perfectly whether the potential Guru has all the above qualifications, so one can only come to an approximate understanding and base one's conclusion on this understanding about choosing a Guru.

Having a Guru, itself, is absolutely essential. Of course, one cannot really force the issue. If one is not satisfied with many potential candidates, then one must wait till the right candidate presents itself.

One has to choose the Guru carefully. And once the Guru is chosen, one must treat him as:
Guru Brahma, Guru Vishnu, Guru devo Maheshvarah,
Guru Sakshat Parabrahma, tasmai sri Gurave Namah.

What if one realizes that the Guru's teachings are in complete contradiction to Shastras? In such a case, that Guru must be renounced.

How should one approach a proper Guru?

tad viddhi pranipatena
pariprasnena sevaya
upadeksyanti te jnanam
jnaninas tattva-darsinah( BGverse 34, chapter iv )

"Those who know Brahman must be approached with reverence/salutations. One must ask pertinent questions and do service to them. They(knowers of Brahman) will teach the knowledge."

Generally, one must be willing to repose 'blind' faith in Guru and Shastra. In fact, the word faith itself implies 'blind' faith. If you know, then you know(you don't need faith). You need faith, one when you don't know. When you don't know and need to still have faith, then it means 'blind' faith.

Then, what is the difference between Shraddha of Hinduism and 'blind' faith of Abrahamic religions?

As far as I see, there is no difference in procedure. The procedure is same.
Hinduism > all other ideologies.
If one reposes faith/trust in other ideologies(which are not supported by Shastra), then one is ruined. If one reposes faith/trust in shastra, then one is in right direction.

Shastra is like a map. Guru is like a guide. One needs both map and guide to navigate. One needs correct map and proper guru. And once such a map and guru are found, one need to repose faith in them for proper navigation. If one reposes faith in incorrect map or improper guru, then one cannot navigate to the goal. Of course, the problem is that every map and every guide claims themselves to be correct and the other to be false. So, one needs to use one's viveka(discrimination) to arrive at the decision.

Having said that, at some point, one has to be ready to abandon the doubt and make up one's mind and commit oneself. If one remains doubtful forever about all maps and all guides, then one will never reach any goal.

Thats why it has been said in BG by Bhagavan that

ajnas casraddadhanas ca
samsayatma vinasyati
nayam loko 'sti na paro
na sukham samsayatmanah ( BGverse 40, chapter iv )

"The ignorant, the faithless, the doubting goes to destruction;
there is neither this world, nor the other, nor happiness for the
doubter."

ajna means ignorant and can be taken as one lacking in discrimination(or common sense) or ability to distinguish between 'right' and 'wrong'.
Ashraddha means the one lacking in trust in Guru and/or Shastra
samsayatma means the one who is doubtful(about all things).

Lord Sri Krishna warns that such people have no happiness in this life or the after-life. The point being, one must choose a course and commit oneself to it.

Lord Sri Krishna also mentions the proper path:

sraddhavan labhate jnanam
tat-parah samyatendriyah
jnanam labdhva param santim
acirenadhigacchati ( BG chapter iv -verse 39)

The man who has shraddha, keen about Brahman(Mumukshutvam), and who has subdued the senses, obtains the 'Knowledge'. Having obtained 'Knowledge, before long, he goes to the Supreme Peace.

As Lord clearly states, one can obtain complete peace only after obtaining knowledge. Until then, doubts are bound to be there, it is the nature of the things. But, if one allows the doubts as an excuse to abandon the Shraddha, then one will be lost.

It also depends on the temperament of the individuals(disciple and guru).

Ultimate state is to realize that

Ishvaro gurur atmeti murthi bheda vibhagine
vyomavat vyapta dehaya dakshinamurthiye namah

"Ishvara(God), Guru(Teacher) and Atma(Self) are differentiated by frame/form only. My salutations to the dakshinamurthi who is in all three like space fills different objects!"

---
PS: These are not my views, but my understanding of Hinduism. I mean I have stated the Hindu position to the best of my understanding, I have not invented these views.

[member_20317]

Thanks guru ji, aap gurujano se mujh moodh agyani ka bhala ho raha hai.

So while one starts with Shradha under the guidance of a Guru when one is stationed in Mrityu/Agyan,
along the way if the Guru wavers, then one must take leave of the Guru with a sa-aadar thanks,
the Map/Shastras are to be re-consulted going back to the point where one went astray (no point abandoning the map, only retrace the steps backwards till one reaches the point of diversion),
along the way the Shradha has been rewarded with progress towards Amrit/Gyan,
This Gyan/Knowledge building up will be the final deal before one reaches the destination.

Clear acknowledgement of the start, process and end point. Completing the process 'mrityorma amritam gamaya'

Alternatively the seeker can off course question the map itself but then that would be the problem of the seeker alone, the Shaastraas being meant as an SOP to guide people who want to be guided with the benefit of those who went on the path before the instant seeker. Seekers should not perturb the current way of other seekers.


All this is for seekers (IR/RF/INS/ARH/PRH) and not for jammers. The jammers can expect an anti-radiation missile among other deployable Counter Counter Measures. For such consequences the jammer is going to face the music so ideally the jammer should take up responsibility for its own safety unless the jammer wants to put its faith in the law.

[johneeG]

Thanks guru ji, aap gurujano se mujh moodh agyani ka bhala ho raha hai.

kyun sharminda(embarrass) karte ho, ravi ji?!

So while one starts with Shradha under the guidance of a Guru when one is stationed in Mrityu/Agyan,
along the way if the Guru wavers, then one must take leave of the Guru with a sa-aadar thanks,
the Map/Shastras are to be re-consulted going back to the point where one went astray (no point abandoning the map, only retrace the steps backwards till one reaches the point of diversion),
along the way the Shradha has been rewarded with progress towards Amrit/Gyan,
This Gyan/Knowledge building up will be the final deal before one reaches the destination.

Clear acknowledgement of the start, process and end point. Completing the process 'mrityorma amritam gamaya'

The goal is clear. The problem is finding our present location and the way to the goal. Broadly, there are three highways:
a) Karma marga - rituals
b) Bhakti marga - devotion
c) Gyana marga - knowledge/discrimination

But, one can get lost in the by-lanes or pathways and keep circling the same place without realizing. So, one needs a knowledgeable guide to show the way out of the maze.

Mrityu and Amritam:
Mrityu is only for body. Atma is immortal. One is mortal when one associates oneself with body. One is immortal when one associates oneself with Atma. The knowledge/realization that one is not body, but Atma is gyana/vigyana.

Alternatively the seeker can off course question the map itself but then that would be the problem of the seeker alone, the Shaastraas being meant as an SOP to guide people who want to be guided with the benefit of those who went on the path before the instant seeker. Seekers should not perturb the current way of other seekers.

[/quote]

True. A certain seeker may feel that instead of following the path followed by previous fellows, he will invent a new path. Indeed, theoretically, there may be chance of success. But, practically speaking, the chances of a seeker finding his own way disregarding the maps and guides is miniscule.

And imagine that the seeker suffers from short-term memory loss. Can such a seeker ever find a path to the goal without the help of maps and guides?

People suffer from short-term memory loss from one birth to another. That means, a person does not remember what he did in previous lives(assuming of course, that multiple lives exist). So, everytime, he has to start from scratch if he ignores the maps and guides.

Now, the question: so how did the previous fellows or present day guides know the proper path? How were the maps prepared? Who guided the first seeker?
The first seeker can have no other guide but God/Goddess Himself/Herself/Itself. This is called revelation.

The first seeker came to know about the knowledge revealed by God/Goddess. And God/Goddess would have to reveal the knowledge in the beginning itself, otherwise it would be unfair for the first seekers(or lost people). God/Goddess cannot suddenly wake up after 2000/10,000 years and reveal a new knowledge. That would be unfair to the earlier seekers.

An analogy: as soon as a game is created, one has to also create winning conditions for the game. One cannot change rules in the middle of the game.

The revelations of God are supposed to be the maps(Shastras/Vedas). Since, God/Goddess must have revealed things as soon as He/She created the system, the maps must be as old as the system itself. The newer maps are derived from the old maps. Some of the maps may get corrupted.

Hinduism is Sanatana Dharma or ancient mapping system. It is reliable because it is ancient(without any human originator). Hinduism has many guides, but has no human originator.

[brihaspati]

Becoming aware of your past life could literally make you insane. Its a good safety mechanism for most people not to "remember". Also gaining of "ultimate knowledge" does not automatically rule out end of seeking, as well as not ruling out rebirth. The very process of rebirth could be intricately linked to continued super-consciousness - since continuous gaining of newer experiences for the "soul" through lives - would be an essential part of self-verification that awareness/consciousness is alive.

People should be very careful of seeking to know or recollect their past lives. There could be extreme traumatic events and experiences that could come up to haunt you. I have gone into many stuff not reco'd for home experiments, and even with that background, I ams till shaken by aspects of what I think happened in the past for me. The impact is shattering in terms of implications.

Another danger is that - if the soul is more evolved - it gets to recollect a greater portion of the overall repository, so you might recall also lives of other significant births, and not just yours. Its like looking through their eyes or hearing through their ears.

[RamaY]

Becoming aware of your past life could literally make you insane. Its a good safety mechanism for most people not to "remember".

Imagine what can happen if one has clarity on both past and future lives....

[brihaspati]

future is determined by what you want to be - not just about what yu have done, and someone sitting in judgment somewhere deciding your jail sentence. It does help if you have a very strong wish to be something in the next life. I did move away from certain things I probably did a lot "before". But having said that, I think the struggle inside that results from contradictions of your "inherited/soul" tendencies and conscious choice to keep certain aspects shut up - can take their toll.

[SaiK]

I would be happy to know my past and the future.

[johneeG]

Becoming aware of your past life could literally make you insane. Its a good safety mechanism for most people not to "remember". Also gaining of "ultimate knowledge" does not automatically rule out end of seeking, as well as not ruling out rebirth. The very process of rebirth could be intricately linked to continued super-consciousness - since continuous gaining of newer experiences for the "soul" through lives - would be an essential part of self-verification that awareness/consciousness is alive.

People should be very careful of seeking to know or recollect their past lives. There could be extreme traumatic events and experiences that could come up to haunt you. I have gone into many stuff not reco'd for home experiments, and even with that background, I ams till shaken by aspects of what I think happened in the past for me. The impact is shattering in terms of implications.

Another danger is that - if the soul is more evolved - it gets to recollect a greater portion of the overall repository, so you might recall also lives of other significant births, and not just yours. Its like looking through their eyes or hearing through their ears.

Bji,
if one identifies oneself with universal consciousness(or soul or Brahman or Atma), then the distinctions of 'me' and 'you' lose meaning. There is no 'birth' and 're-birth' in the general sense.

tvayi mayi cha eko vishnuh
the same vishnu resides in me and you.

When one identifies oneself with that vishnu, then one is immortal, whether living in a body or not. In fact, the body is only maya/avidya. In a sense, the world is perceived only when one 'comes down' from the universal consciousness. In universal consciousness, there is nothing but that.

Also, it seems to me that verification of universal consciousness can be done only in that state.

I remember a similar conversation between us. Link

Its an interesting point you raise,"how does a consciousness realize its existence unless it compares it with something(changing states of consciousness or changing external world)" I had never come across this line of thinking before. Very subtle point raised. So, I am thinking that a consciousness is in the state of 'universal consciousness'(Brahma Anandam), then it realizes nothing but bliss. It exists but does not focus on its existence. When it a conscious becomes aware of its own existence, this is the time it becomes open to the 'world'. This awareness of existence is 'Ahamkara'. God's(Shiva's) ahamkara is Goddess(Maya). And with the arrival of Maya, the world is born. When this Maya merges into Shiva, that means when the consciousness is only in the state of Brahma Anandam, then there is no world.

Becoming aware of your past life could literally make you insane. Its a good safety mechanism for most people not to "remember".

Imagine what can happen if one has clarity on both past and future lives....

I would be happy to know my past and the future.

How much into past and how much into future?

Time is infinite(or maybe circular). So, there is no start and end point. Past is infinite and future is also infinite.

I imagine knowing past lives would be like watching memento movie...

[RamaY]

future is determined by what you want to be - not just about what yu have done, and someone sitting in judgment somewhere deciding your jail sentence. It does help if you have a very strong wish to be something in the next life. I did move away from certain things I probably did a lot "before". But having said that, I think the struggle inside that results from contradictions of your "inherited/soul" tendencies and conscious choice to keep certain aspects shut up - can take their toll.

Ofcourse, a strong (what is the strongest aspect in a being) wish to be something, is the kaarana I am referring to. Sometimes, this strongest desire can be inhuman too right?

My current being is the culmination of my strongest wishes/desires of my past being. Some call this karma, some Kaarana (causal).

[RamaY]

I would be happy to know my past and the future.

Search the forum. Bji gave a saadhana for that

[member_20317]

Namaskaar gurujan,

I wanted to avoid ‘Dharm’ till the last because there is a whole lot of re-statement of the narrative that is required before trying to reclaim Dharm. But since elsewhere on the forum, some of my Gurujan have started a fight so the student has to join in. Again in this I am working to reestablish my own definitions as bequeathed to me by my ancestors and lineage. I am not going to work on the other guys project. Also the following is only indicative and not supposed to be my complete effort most of which I hope to work on at the very last.

Still on Gita –

1.01 – “dharmakṣetre” – Dharmksetre is often translated as 'sacred land' or 'holy land'. You are a better judge on what you understand and meditate on when you read it.
1.40 – “kula-dharmāḥ sanātanāḥ” – Dharm of/by/towards Jaati and Kula are recognized as, Sanaatan.
1.41 – “adharmābhibhavātkṛṣṇa praduṣyanti kulastriyaḥ” – 'Absence of dharm' is the ‘a priori’ ideation based on which the whole shlok is to be read. Not paap (Indic praakrit), not vice (another praakrit, not even Indic and with definite Abrahmic underpinnings and dealing with mainly sensibilities instead of sense).
1.43 – “jātidharmāḥ kuladharmāśca śāśvatāḥ” – Dharm of/by/towards Jaati and Kula are recognized as Saasvat
1.44 – “utsannakuladharmāṇāṃ” – dissipation of kula dharma is what forms the premise for the whole shlok.
2.07 – “dharma-saṃmūḍha-cetāḥ” – A spell of achetana on the subject of Dharm is what is being highlighted by Arjun who himself is better aware of Dharm then most. Krishn ji bhains kea aage to been bajaenyge nahi. Hein ji.

2.31, 2.33, 2.40, 3.35 also carry references to Dharm and the pragmatic application of Dharm.

Now the problem is that in most cases the translated versions will avoid the correct statements pertaining to Dharm and its contextualization. Mostly one will find the mention of Dharm for the first time only around 4.07 (after ignoring 10 references). Coincidently in this shlok Dharm finds mention in a substantive manner with no outside reference so there is no way to equivocate and one just has to accept Dharm as such. In the wonderland of translations (and you can try whatever translation you have) the Shabd is sought to be avoided or hidden or just plain culled so nobody can retrace steps to reach the point where one was first waylaid. And all this leads to a situation where the Brahm, which has a primordial and original relationship with Shabd, gets hidden away. Personally I am driven to question if that was originally the objective.

Anusaasan of the shabd has to be established and then and with long and ever improving usage based on meditation on the Shabd one finds finally the logic and anusaasan of arth one needs to communicate. So the link remains meditation and personal yogic powers.

regards

----------------
PS:
BTW how many times does Sir Edwin Arnold mention ‘Dharm’ in his translation linked below and what are his translations for Dharm. What exactly does one meditate on when one reads Sir Edwin Arnold.
http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/2388/pg2388.html

[VikramS]

http://www.youtube.com/user/upanishadga ... ture=watch
http://www.upanishadganga.com/
DD is running a serial called Upanishad Ganga.

Thoughts...