Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

[member_22872]

While listening to Sri Chaganti Koteswara Rao garu's MahaBharatam, I came to know the following as the reasons for Dronacharya to ask Ekalavya his thumb as guru dakshina:
1. When Ekalavya shoots arrows into the mouth of a barking dog for no reason other than to show his skill, but ends up committing an adharmic act of hurting the dog.
Dronacharya seeing this didn't want adharmic disciple to hurt people/beings with his skill, hence to stop Ekalavya from causing further harm, he demands his thumb as guru dakshina.
2. Secondly, Ekalavya joins Kauravas camp during Mahabharata war. Goes to prove that Ekalavya's intentions were adharmic.

To show Dronacharya was neither casteist nor was partial to Arjuna, he points to the fact that many students even from outside Bharata were his disciples, including Drishtadyumna, who later kills him. Dronacharya knowing fully well that Drishtadyumna was born to kill him, still, imparts dhanur vidhya to him. The only reason he favours Arjuna was that Arjuna was through and through a dharmic disciple ofcourse he was very skillful.

Many who heard Sri Koteswara Rao garu already might have come to know, but wanted to share with those who didn't already know.

[ramana]

venug, Am still not clear on all details of Eakalvya. He was with Rukmi when the latter tried to attack the eloping couple of Krishna and Rukmini and was defeated by Krishna. I dont know the timing of his seeking Drona? Was it after the defeat? He also had full knowledge of other arts. its not a innocent boy seeking knowledge. And the biggest reason was he was working for Jarasandha who was an enemy king to Hastinapur.

[member_22872]

ramana garu, I don't know the time line, I think you are more knowledgeable than I am. But Dronacharya/Ekalavya encounter was much earlier wasn't it? but again, I just relearning much forgotten epics from others who know more than me.

[ramana]

Andhra Bhartiyam in English translated from the Kavi Triam work in Telugu:

http://mahabharatinenglish.blogspot.com ... rtain.html

[sudarshan]

The Drona-Eklavya encounter happened when the Pandavas were still boys, learning from Drona. What age were they - early to late teens? Or earlier?

Krishna was younger to Yudhishtra, so would most likely have been a minor at the time. So his coming of marriageable age to elope with Rukmini should, arguably, have been much later than the time of the Drona-Eklavya encounter.

Just educated guesses. I could be way off.

[member_22872]

Discourses of Sri Koteswara Rao garu are very nice, I came to know many unknown facts/perspectives. He has very strong opinions about Dharma, he says that epics again and again stress one and only thing, that is to be dharmic.

But being ignorant as I am, some questions come to my mind about the very definition of dharma. Hindus call what Vedas propound as dharma, while Bhuddists say that what Tathagata propounded is dharma or that one can know Dharma though one's own effort. Even though both dharmic ways have so many common features, yet they are not the same. For, Buddhists reject Vedas altogether. But for Hindus, unless you take Vedas as pramanaa, and adhere to what was propounded as dharma in the vedas, there is no moksha for you. This view I find to be very uncomfortable and is very unsettling for me personally. This view that only what vedas propound is the only dharma, is very similar to that the position of Christians/Islamists, who say that, unless you take refuge in the Christ/Allah, you will burn in hell. But on the other hand there are some of the finest Buddhist teachers whom Buddhists consider them to have attained nirvana.

I always thought that Dharma is righteousness at samajic level and personal level. I can understand the differences between Dharmic faiths of India and those of the others. But definition of Dharma to mean that which is given in the Vedas alone is fine for me as Hindu, but it somehow doesnt feel right. I find it very narrow. There are some of the greatest Bhuddist teachers too like Upagupta, Bodhidharma, Nagarjuna, what of them? can one simply say they never attained moksha?

[RamaY]

^ to understand why it is so you may want to explore

1. What is Moksha? How is it different from birth/death and is it self-realization or God-realization?
2. What is Veda Pramana? Is it adherence to the book or something beyond it?
3. What is the difference between dharma and moksha? Why are they different purusharthas?

I can give some answers but I think it would be a fun and purposeful search for the individual.

[member_22872]

RamaY garu, are there any resources where I can begin? but I think you raised some good questions:

Is attaining moksha equivalent to attaining Nirvana?
Is self realization the same as Knowing paramatma?
Even the concept of rebirth is not the same either, given that there is no atma for Buddhists.

[RamaY]

I strongly recommend two pravachanams which are available on surasa.net

1. Adi Samkara's Viveka Chudamani (talks about how the seeker should prepare himself a.k.a purushartha nischayam and find the right guru)
2. Kathopanishad (talks about different definition of Moksha and how they differ from Veda Pramana)

Both commentaries are by Swamy Sundarachaitanyananda.

Between those two that will be the best 30-40 hours of your life.

[member_22872]

Thank you very much. Greatly appreciate it.

[Manish_Sharma]

1. What is Moksha? How is it different from birth/death and is it self-realization or God-realization?

RamaY ji, have you written before about the difference between 'self-realization & God-realization'? Please point to me. I thought all were same Samadhi, Nirvaan, Kaivlya-gyan, self-realization, moksha or god-realization.

[niran]

venug, Am still not clear on all details of Eakalvya. He was with Rukmi when the latter tried to attack the eloping couple of Krishna and Rukmini and was defeated by Krishna. I dont know the timing of his seeking Drona? Was it after the defeat? He also had full knowledge of other arts. its not a innocent boy seeking knowledge. And the biggest reason was he was working for Jarasandha who was an enemy king to Hastinapur.

Eakalvya was a Bheel chieftain when the Drona encounter happened Eakalvya was a chieftain son but an adult
when Eakalvya became the chieftian he began working for Jarasandh, took part in the last two attacks on Mathura by Jarasandh
Jarasandh later appointed Eakalvya has his communication chief still an all important post, Eakalavya was the one who took the letter to Shishupal from Jarasandh inviting Shishupal for the marriage to Rukmani, later on when Shri Krishna appointed Jarasandh's son as the King Eakalvya was told to earn some dharmic browny points but he kept sulking and looking for a great big war with Arjun, sadly(from Eakalvya POV) this did not happen, AFAIR it was Ghatochkach or some other Rathi who killed Eakalvya during MB

[member_20317]

^ to understand why it is so you may want to explore

1. What is Moksha? How is it different from birth/death and is it self-realization or God-realization?
2. What is Veda Pramana? Is it adherence to the book or something beyond it?
3. What is the difference between dharma and moksha? Why are they different purusharthas?

I can give some answers but I think it would be a fun and purposeful search for the individual.

ok let me take a stab at #1 in the light of other queries raised by venug et al. And I may be wrong. Don't understand it particularly well. Dharma is so much more easier.


Moksha, Nirvana and Kaivalya are all concepts that possibly pre-existed the Dharmic variegation of Indic life. Hence in one way or the other all concepts would be used by all but in canonical terms there could be a difference.

Moksha (cognate mukta) is freedom (not independence). Not being bound to a particular aspect of 'self' that is bound by the karmic cycle. No karma no dharma at this point of no return. Accepting the existence of everything, whether cognitively speaking, conceivable and not conceivable, all at once. This is more particularly a folk as well as darshanic Hindu concept within the Dharmic fold because Hindus accept the existence of whole which is a pretty absolute position. Mukti is big with Hindus. We can see that right here on BRF, whenever some of us mention Dharma.

Nirvana (Nir = Nothing & vana=wala). So technically it would be defined as the carrying of nothingness. Buddhist concept as they are particularly big on nothingness. Again a pretty absolute position in its own paradoxical manner because otherwise we know that a Buddhist by his training would not be intent on absolute positions. But this could be only a halfway house. Like making you an arhant or boddhisatva. The final destination being Bodh or buddhahood. Since no God is accepted so the question of God realisation does not arise.

Kaivalya (cognate would be kewal ie. only). Primarily (canonically speaking) a Jaina concept. Jainas did accept Infinity and its different observable aspects. Again a pretty absolute position in a paradoxical manner. This word may actually be found pretty often in the hindu darshan. Also found as a whole pada/chapter in Yoga. However it may not mean the same as Jaina concept in strict translations of Yogasutra. In yoga this is the state that one slips into at some point during the practice of the final stage of Nirvikalp samadhi.

Self realisation - new expression or at least new translation with attendant difficulties in a field that is already very difficult to figure out, of probably the dhyana stage in Yoga as it spillsover into Savikalpa Samadhi. The sense of 'I' remains.

God realisation - same problem but this could refer to the final thing. The bingo.

These words have been used interchangeably by virtually every school to help the initiates understand the process and progress.


Or I may just be wrong.

Added later : Atri ji has a beautiful but tantalizingly small write up on Samadhi in this very thread. Work for you RamaY ji. Two can play this game.

[RamaY]

^ there is nothing "at play" Ravi_G garu.

If Nirvana, Kaivalya and Moksha etc are all same then Buddha and Jaina did not have to find a new "truth" but at best a new path to "the truth". If you observe the lives of Buddha and Jaina they followed Hindu paths but claimed to have (by them or followers) a NEW "truth".

That was the point I was making. The Kathopanishad reference I gave clears that confusion. If can understand telugu, you too can try that.

More than 2000 years have passed since Buddh and Jaina and their followers still have this confusion, so I think 'there is' some difference in perspective.

[prahaar]

The small house in which Tikkana wrote Mahabharatham is still in Nellore - at the river bank of Pennar - Pinakini. At least when I last saw it. The Ashvaddha parvatham - where Ashvaddama said to be still living is 14 km from there. Tikkana said to have seen him during writing of Ashvaddha parva of Yudda panchakam and Ashvaddama said to have praised him for his clear writing and manner of his potrail of various great people of bharatha.

I am planing to go there next month and will post photos of the house if it is still there. At least the place - If it is not illegally occupied by criminals/politicos of Nellore.

Narayana Rao ji,
The incidents and reports about having darshan of Ashwathama is also quite prevalent in current day Narmada region. Many people doing Narmada Parikrama have reported seeing him in the jungles surrounding the river (ex. Garudeshwar near Sardar Sarovar Dam). Also I am aware of people who have seen him near MH-KA-AP border areas. The sightings seem to have a pretty vast region, separated by approx 1500 KM.

[RamaY]

Another assessment of karna from MB thread

Continuing ...

Kunti: Well, he has always allowed Duryodhana to do whatever he wants.

Vidur: He has not allowed open aggression against Pandavs. They want to take secret actions that cannot be traced back to them. They don't want the responsibility of open atyachaar. You should not forget that Dhritrashtra is a coward. He does not want open war. However, it is possible that Duryodhana disregards his father's advice; it is also possible that he attacks Pandavs without informing his father.

Kunti: What would happen?

Vidur: His friend Karna is capable of convincing Duryodhana that he does not need to follow his father's advice in all cases. His level of adharma is remarkable. ...It appears that Karna is completely convinced that he has been treated unfairly by this society. Therefore he gets great happiness when others suffer. By making Duryodhana his friend, he has been able to make Pandavs suffer; and that has made him and Duryodhana happy.

Kunti: But I have heard that he is a dharmic person. He worships Surya, and distributes wealth among the poor and needy.

Vidur: Yes, he does that. He worships dev-sarita Ganga (sarita = river) as a mother and Surya as his father. He offers daan too. But then he returns to your home with even more ahankaar (ego). dharma cannot reside where there is ahankaar. The person who suggests that a woman should be stripped naked, the person who gets pleasure from making a woman suffer, can that Karna be near dharma and God? A human being should peel his skin and give it to a woman to cover herself. I don't think he is dharmic at all. He is not even a human being. He is greedy, selfish and evil. He has mental problems.

Kunti: I have heard that he respects women. He was unhappy with Panchali because she insulted him in her swyambar.

[Nilesh Oak]

All Gurujan here...

(1) Where do we find earliest-earlier-early references to the word 'Samvatsar'?

(2) What is the origin - root/sandhi etc. of the word Samvatsar?

TIA

[Manish_Sharma]

^ to understand why it is so you may want to explore

1. What is Moksha? How is it different from birth/death and is it self-realization or God-realization?
2. What is Veda Pramana? Is it adherence to the book or something beyond it?
3. What is the difference between dharma and moksha? Why are they different purusharthas?

I can give some answers but I think it would be a fun and purposeful search for the individual.

ok let me take a stab............


Added later : Atri ji has a beautiful but tantalizingly small write up on Samadhi in this very thread. Work for you RamaY ji. Two can play this game.

Jiddu Krishnamurti coined a new term for Samadhi or Nirvana that was "Observer is the Observed".

Here is Osho's take on these different expressions:

BELOVED OSHO,
THERE IS A STATEMENT BY J. KRISHNAMURTI THAT ”THE OBSERVER IS THE OBSERVED.”
WILL YOU PLEASE KINDLY ELABORATE AND EXPLAIN WHAT IT MEANS?

The statement that ”the observer is the observed” is one of the most significant things ever said by any man on the earth. The statement is as extraordinary as J. Krishnamurti was.

It is difficult to understand it only intellectually, because the way of the intellect is dialectical, dualistic. On the path of intellect the subject can never be the object, the seer can never be the seen. The
observer cannot be the observed. As far as intellect is concerned, it is an absurd statement, meaningless – not only meaningless, but insane.

The intellectual approach towards reality is that of division: the knower and the known have to be separate. Only then is there a possibility of knowledge between the two. The scientist cannot become science, the scientist has to remain separate from what he is doing. The experimenter is
not allowed to become the experiment itself. As far as intellect is concerned, logic is concerned, it looks absolutely valid.

But there is a knowledge that passeth understanding, there is a knowing that goes beyond science.

Only because that kind of knowing which goes beyond science is possible, is mysticism possible, is religiousness possible.

Let us move from a different direction. Science divides the whole of human experience and existence into two parts: the known and the unknown. That which is known today was unknown yesterday, that which is unknown today may become known tomorrow, so the distance is not impossible,
unbridgeable.

The distance is only because man’s knowledge is growing, and as his knowledge grows the area of his ignorance diminishes. In other words, as he knows more, the area of the unknown becomes less and the area of the known becomes bigger.

If we follow this logic, the ultimate result will be that one day there will be nothing left as unknown. Slowly slowly, the unknown will change into the known, and the moment will come when there is nothing left as unknown. That is the goal of science, to destroy ignorance – but to destroy ignorance
means to destroy all possibilities of exploration, all possibilities of the unknown challenging you to move forward.

The destruction of ignorance means the death of all intelligence, because there will be no need for intelligence anymore. It will be simply something which was useful in the past – you can put it in a museum – but it is of no use anymore. This is not a very exciting picture. Mysticism does not agree with science, it goes beyond it.

According to mysticism, existence and experience is divided into three parts: the known, the unknown, and the unknowable. The known was unknown one day, the unknown will become known one day, but the unknowable will remain unknowable; it will remain mysterious.

Whatever you do, the mystery will always surround existence. The mystery will always be there around life, around love, around meditation.

The mystery cannot be destroyed.

Ignorance can be destroyed, but by destroying ignorance you cannot destroy the miraculous, the mysterious.

J. Krishnamurti’s statement belongs to the unknowable.

I have been telling you that as you meditate... and by meditation I simply mean as you become more and more aware of your mind process. If the mind process is one hundred percent, taking your whole energy, you will be fast asleep inside – there will be no alertness.

One morning Gautam Buddha is talking to his disciples. The king, Prasenjita, has also come to listen to him; he is sitting just in front of Buddha. He is not accustomed to sitting on the floor – he is a king – so he is feeling uncomfortable, fidgety, changing sides, somehow trying not to disturb and not to be noticed by Buddha because he is not sitting silently, peacefully. He is continuously moving the big toe of his foot, for no reason, just to be busy without business. There are people who cannot be without business; they will still be busy.

Gautam Buddha stopped talking and asked Prasenjita, ”Can you tell me, why are you moving your big toe?” In fact, Prasenjita himself was not aware of it.

You are doing a thousand and one things you are not aware of. Unless somebody points at them, you may not take any note of it.

The moment Buddha asked him, the toe stopped moving. Buddha said, ”Why have you stopped moving the toe?”

He said, ”You are putting me in an embarrassing situation. I don’t know why that toe was moving.

This much I know: that as you asked the question it stopped. I have not done anything – neither was I moving it, nor have I stopped it.”

Buddha said to his disciples, ”Do you see the point? The toe belongs to the man. It moves, but he is not aware of its movement. And the moment he becomes aware – because I asked the question – the very awareness immediately stops the toe. He does not stop it. The very awareness, that ‘It is stupid, why are you moving it?’ – just the awareness is enough to stop it.”

Your mind is a constant traffic of thoughts, and it is always rush hour, day in, day out.

Meditation means to watch the movement of thoughts in the mind.

Just be an observer, as if you are standing by the side of the road watching the traffic – no judgment, no evaluation, no condemnation, no appreciation – just pure observation.

As you become more and more accustomed to observation, a strange phenomenon starts happening. If you are ten percent aware, that much energy has moved from the mind process to the observer; now the mind has only ninety percent energy available. A moment comes... you
have fifty percent of energy. And your energy goes on growing as mind goes on losing its energy.

The traffic becomes less and less and less, and you become more and more and more.

Your witnessing self goes on increasing in integrity, expanding; it becomes stronger and stronger. And the mind goes on becoming weaker and weaker: ninety percent observer and ten percent mind, ninety-nine percent observer and only one percent mind.

One hundred percent observer and the mind disappears, the road is empty; the screen of the mind becomes completely empty, nothing moves. There is only the observer.

This is the state J. Krishnamurti’s statement is pointing at. When there is nothing to observe, when there is only the observer left, then the observer itself becomes the observed – because there is nothing else to observe, what else to do? The knower simply knows itself. The seer sees himself.
The energy that was going towards objects, thoughts... there are no thoughts, no objects.

The energy has no way to go anywhere; it simply becomes a light unto itself. There is nothing that it lights, it lights only itself – a flame surrounded by silence, surrounded by nothingness.

That is Krishnamurti’s way of saying it, that the observer becomes the observed. You can call it enlightenment, it is the same thing: the light simply lights itself, there is nothing else to fall upon. You have dissolved the mind. You are alone, fully alert and aware.

Krishnamurti is using a phrase of his own. He was a little fussy about it... not to use anybody else’s phrase, anybody else’s word – not to use anything that has been used by other masters. So his whole life, he was coining his own phrases.

But you can change only the expression, you cannot change the experience. The experience is eternal. It makes no difference whether somebody calls it enlightenment, somebody calls it nirvana,
somebody calls it samadhi, somebody calls it something else. You can give it your own name but remember, the experience should not be changed by your words.

And it is not changed by J. Krishnamurti’s words. They are perfectly applicable, although they are not so glamorous as nirvana, Gautam Buddha’s word, or samadhi, Patanjali’s word, or il’aham,
Mohammed’s word. ”The observer is the observed” looks too mundane. It certainly points to the reality, but the words in themselves are not very poetic, are very ordinary. And the extraordinary should not be indicated by the ordinary; that is sacrilegious.

So there are many people around the world who have been listening to J. Krishnamurti. They will listen to these words, ”The observer becomes the observed,” and they will not have even a far-off notion of nirvana or enlightenment or samadhi.

I don’t like this fussiness. I don’t want to say anything against that old man because he is dead. If he were alive I would say something against him, certainly. His whole effort – and he lived long, ninety years – was somehow to prove that he was original in everything, even in expressions.

I don’t feel the necessity. If you are original, you are original. There is no need to shout from the housetops that ”I am original,” that ”I am fortunate that I have not read any sacred scriptures.” And this is not true, because even to avoid samadhi, nirvana, enlightenment, you have to know those
words; otherwise, how can you avoid them? He may not have read them himself; somebody else may have read them, and he must have heard it.

And that’s what actually had happened: from his childhood he was being taught to become a world teacher, so others were telling him.... He was just nine years old, so he was not telling a lie by saying that he had not read the sacred scriptures; but the sacred scriptures were read to him.

This reminds me of a milkman. I was a student in the university and he used to come to the hostel with his small son to give milk to the students. And everybody was suspicious that his milk was at least fifty percent water. Already the purest milk is eighty percent water; then fifty percent more....
So it is just the name milk, otherwise it is all water. So everybody was telling him, ”You are mixing in too much water.”

And he was a very religious man, worshipping for hours in the temple. And he would say, ”I am a religious man. I cannot do this. I can take an oath. This is my son” – and he would put his hand on his son’s head – ”Under oath I am saying that if I lie, my son should die. I have never mixed water
into milk.”

I listened many times. One day I called him inside my room and closed the door. He said, ”What are you doing?”

I said, ”You need not be worried, I am also a religious man. Just a little dialogue....”

He said, ”But why are you closing the door?”

I said, ”It has to be very private; otherwise, you will be in difficulty.”

He said, ”Strange... why should I be in difficulty?”

I said, ”Now just tell me exactly. I have seen you mixing water with my own eyes.... I had to miss one morning walk just to hide near your place to see it. Just this morning I have seen it. And if you don’t listen to me... I don’t have a son, but I can use your son, under oath.”

He said, ”Wait! Don’t do that. You are a dangerous man. You can do it to your son but not to my son.”

I said, ”What is the harm? Your son is not going to be harmed; truth is truth.”

He said, ”That means I will have to tell you the truth.”

I said, ”You will have to tell me the truth.”

He said, ”The truth is that I never mix water into milk, I always mix milk into water – and that makes all the difference. My oath is absolutely correct. But please don’t say it to anybody, otherwise they
will start asking me to take the oath the other way, and that I cannot do. I mix them, but I always mix milk into the water. I am making the water also milky. I am not destroying milk, I am just changing the quality of the water!”

I said, ”You are really a religious man.” Now what he is saying is simply the same.

For thousands of years, anybody who has reached to the point of no-mind and only awareness has given names which are far more meaningful than J. Krishnamurti’s words. For example, Patanjali’s word is the most important and the most ancient: samadhi. In Sanskrit, sickness is called vyadhi,
and to go beyond all sickness is called samadhi. It has a beauty – going beyond all sickness; attaining wholeness, perfection. It has a beauty and a meaning.

Gautam Buddha used the word nirvana... because he was trying to make an effort twenty-five centuries after Patanjali. In these twenty-five centuries Patanjali had been misused. The people who were trying to reach samadhi made it some kind of ego trip. The word ‘samadhi’ is very positive
– beyond all illness, wholeness. There is a loophole in it: it can give you an idea that ”I will become perfect, beyond all limitations, all sicknesses. I will become whole.” But the danger is that this ”I” may
be your ego – most probably it will be, because your mind is still there.

The samadhi is true when the mind is gone. Then you can say, ”I have gone beyond sickness” because the ego was also a sickness – in fact, the greatest sickness that man suffers from. Now your ”I” does not mean ego. It simply means your individuality, not your personality. It simply
means the universal in you, just the dewdrop which contains the ocean. The emphasis has changed completely. It is not the dewdrop that is claiming; it is the ocean that is proclaiming.

But because many people became egoistic... and you can see those people even today. Your saints, sages, mahatmas, are so full of ego that one is surprised – even ordinary people are not so full of ego. But their egos are very subtle, very refined.

Gautam Buddha had to find a new word, and the word had to be negative so that ego could not make a trick for itself. ‘Nirvana’ is a negative word; it simply means ”blowing out the candle”... a very beautiful word. Blowing out the candle, what happens? – just pure darkness remains.

Buddha is saying that when your ego has disappeared like the flame of the candle, what remains – that silence, that peace, that eternal bliss – is nirvana.

And certainly he was successful: nobody has been able to make nirvana an ego-trip. How can you make nirvana an ego-trip? The ego has to die. It is implied in the word itself, that you will have to disappear in smoke. What will be left behind is your true reality, is your pure existence, is your truth,
is your being – and to find it is to find all.

But Buddha had a reason to change the word ‘samadhi’ into ‘nirvana’. J. Krishnamurti had no reason at all, except that he was obsessed with being original. What he says describes the fact: the observer is the observed – but it has no poetry. It is true, but it has no music.

But that is true about J. Krishnamurti’s whole philosophy: it has no music, it has no poetry. It is purely a rational, logical, intellectual approach. He was trying hard somehow to express the mystic
experience in rational and logical terms, and he has been successful in many ways, but he has destroyed the beauty.

He has brought the mystic experience closer to rational philosophizing; but the mystic experience is not philosophy, it is always poetry. It is closer to painting, closer to singing, closer to dancing, but not closer to logic – and that’s what he was doing. And my opposition to him is based on this
ground.

My effort is to bring mysticism to your dance, to your song, to your love, to your poetry, to your painting – not to your logic.

Logic is good for business, it is good for mathematics. It is absolutely useless as far as higher values are concerned.
-Osho

[RamaY]

I was researching on Jalayajnam projects in Andhra Pradesh and stumbled on this detail

Bhainsa, Adilabad district

Mahishmati Temple...( Mysamma Mandir). JAI SHRI RAM THIS IS THE PLACE WHERE GODDESSE DURGAA MAA KILLED MAHISHAASURA...HERE WE CAN FIND ROCK FOSSILS OF MAHISHAASURA RAKSHASA....... THATS WHY OUR TOWN NAMED AS MAHISHAA IS KNOWN AS BHAINSA.......

And there is another Mahishmati/Maheswar city in Madhya Pradesh which was capital of Haihaya king, Kartavirya Arjuna.

[ramana]

Andhra Pradesh has many places with Puranic linkages.

For instance all the places named after Narasimha Avatara are all in current AP.

Mangalagiri, Simhachalam, Yadgiri gutta, etc.

Srikurmam is Kurma avatara linked place.

Mysamma is another name of Durga.

[Aditya_V]

Andhra Pradesh has many places with Puranic linkages.

For instance all the places named after Narasimha Avatara are all in current AP.

Mangalagiri, Simhachalam, Yadgiri gutta, etc.

Srikurmam is Kurma avatara linked place.

Mysamma is another name of Durga.

Ahobilam, the Place where Narimsha Avatar took place and off course Tirupati.

Does Yadagiri Gutta have a puranic linkage??

[Nilesh Oak]

Andhra Pradesh has many places with Puranic linkages.

For instance all the places named after Narasimha Avatara are all in current AP.

Mangalagiri, Simhachalam, Yadgiri gutta, etc.

Srikurmam is Kurma avatara linked place.

Mysamma is another name of Durga.

Is there a place in Andhrapradesh that is also associated with Hiranyakashipu, who was killed by Narasimha?

Multan (now in Pakistan) is associated with Hiranyakashipu (and Pralhad) and still remnants exists (in spite of it being part of Pakistan for 60+ years).

[ramana]

Nilesh,
Its Ahobilam, Kurnool District.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahobilam

....According to the legend, this is where Lord Narasimha blessed Prahlada and killed the demon Hiranyakashipu....

[SaiK]

lord shiva is angry all over the planet.. may be the ganga on his head is shaking everywhere.. I am sure these just are some signs on warming warnings.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 624754.cms

The sandbanks of the Periyar river in Aluva, where thousands of religious people are to converge to perform the Balitharpanam ritual tomorrow on the day of Karkidaka vavu, is flooded and the Shiva temple there almost submerged.

[ramana]

JohneeG, The essentials of non-violence or ahimsa, vegetarianism are laid out very clearly in Anushasana Parva by Bhisma to Yuddhistir. So really these aspects in Jaininsm and Buddhism are really strands which owe their origins in Mahabharata discourse.

Please take a look at Aunshasana Parva.
And Bhisma says "ahimsa parmo dhrama" is there in the Rig Veda. At same time Ahimsa is not napunsak giving up willingness to fight in face of an attack. It is not subjecting 'life'/jiva to himsa or atyachar.


Aside, many of the Bhagavatam Purana tales are narrated by Bhisma to Yuddhistir in short versions.

And the duality of Shiva and Vishnu are very clearly stated as there being no difference.

It then begs the question why so many centuries were lost in Shaivate-Vaishanvaite duels!

We should have the MB pravachanams made more popular in all of India and not just in Andhra Pradesh.

[johneeG]

Good points JohneeG garu.

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

Saar,
I think Sthala-puranas need to be taken with a barrel of salt. They cannot be considered authoritative or authentic in most cases, in my humble opinion.

Andhra Pradesh has many places with Puranic linkages.

For instance all the places named after Narasimha Avatara are all in current AP.

Mangalagiri, Simhachalam, Yadgiri gutta, etc.

Srikurmam is Kurma avatara linked place.

Mysamma is another name of Durga.

Ahobilam, the Place where Narimsha Avatar took place and off course Tirupati.

Does Yadagiri Gutta have a puranic linkage??

As far as I know, Yadagiri is the corruption of Vedha-giri.

All Gurujan here...

(1) Where do we find earliest-earlier-early references to the word 'Samvatsar'?

(2) What is the origin - root/sandhi etc. of the word Samvatsar?

TIA

I think there would be no better source than MB(remember, Vyasa's claim that it contains everything!).

Discourses of Sri Koteswara Rao garu are very nice, I came to know many unknown facts/perspectives. He has very strong opinions about Dharma, he says that epics again and again stress one and only thing, that is to be dharmic.

But being ignorant as I am, some questions come to my mind about the very definition of dharma. Hindus call what Vedas propound as dharma, while Bhuddists say that what Tathagata propounded is dharma or that one can know Dharma though one's own effort. Even though both dharmic ways have so many common features, yet they are not the same. For, Buddhists reject Vedas altogether. But for Hindus, unless you take Vedas as pramanaa, and adhere to what was propounded as dharma in the vedas, there is no moksha for you. This view I find to be very uncomfortable and is very unsettling for me personally. This view that only what vedas propound is the only dharma, is very similar to that the position of Christians/Islamists, who say that, unless you take refuge in the Christ/Allah, you will burn in hell. But on the other hand there are some of the finest Buddhist teachers whom Buddhists consider them to have attained nirvana.

I always thought that Dharma is righteousness at samajic level and personal level. I can understand the differences between Dharmic faiths of India and those of the others. But definition of Dharma to mean that which is given in the Vedas alone is fine for me as Hindu, but it somehow doesnt feel right. I find it very narrow. There are some of the greatest Bhuddist teachers too like Upagupta, Bodhidharma, Nagarjuna, what of them? can one simply say they never attained moksha?

I think Chaganti garu is a very good pravachan-kartha. But, he is a bit elementary. And generally, he is a bit biased towards the heroes of epics. It is good and bad. He is able to bring out the stark differences very well. But, that also means that he does not concede any bad/weakness to supposed heroes(including the ones like Bhishma or Dhrona).

Coming to the next issue:
VenuG saar,
I think you are confusing between Dharma and Moksha. They are different.
Dharma means acting according to the teachings of Vedha - Hindu definition.
Dharma means acting according to the teachings of Buddha - Buddhist definition.

Then, each school or sect will differ on what exactly are those teachings.

Moksha is wholly different concept.

lord shiva is angry all over the planet.. may be the ganga on his head is shaking everywhere.. I am sure these just are some signs on warming warnings.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 624754.cms

The sandbanks of the Periyar river in Aluva, where thousands of religious people are to converge to perform the Balitharpanam ritual tomorrow on the day of Karkidaka vavu, is flooded and the Shiva temple there almost submerged.

So many floods and earthquakes/land-slides in recent past...

JohneeG, The essentials of non-violence or ahimsa, vegetarianism are laid out very clearly in Anushasana Parva by Bhisma to Yuddhistir. So really these aspects in Jaininsm and Buddhism are really strands which owe their origins in Mahabharata discourse.

Please take a look at Aunshasana Parva.
And Bhisma says "ahimsa parmo dhrama" is there in the Rig Veda. At same time Ahimsa is not napunsak giving up willingness to fight in face of an attack. It is not subjecting 'life'/jiva to himsa or atyachar.


Aside, many of the Bhagavatam Purana tales are narrated by Bhisma to Yuddhistir in short versions.

And the duality of Shiva and Vishnu are very clearly stated as there being no difference.

It then begs the question why so many centuries were lost in Shaivate-Vaishanvaite duels!

We should have the MB pravachanams made more popular in all of India and not just in Andhra Pradesh.

I'll check, Ramana garu. In a bit of hurry, right now...

[member_22872]

JohneeG garu,

Thank you, I never heard a pravachanam before(Before listening to Sri. Koteswara Rao garu), the last one was from my grand mother when I was growing up . But kindly pl do suggest other eminent people who are good at expounding the texts if you could.

Certainly Dharma is not moksha/Nirvana. But Dharma is a vehicle for attaining moksha as per Sanatana Dharma. Similarly for Buddhists as per their own Dharma siddhanta. I apologize if my wording of my sentences was misleading. But since holding onto Dharma for Santana Dharmics alone leads to Moksha and since this Dharma must be as laid out in Vedas, that means:
Moksha is impossible for Buddhists even if they adhere to their own concept of Dharma. Because Vedas alone are the pramaana(is the basis or standard to put it in crude terms). Yes I do understand Vedas are not mere texts but they are the timeless and authorless. But Since Buddhists don't take that to be true, moksha is closed to them.

Nirvana is open to them, so now the question is: are the concepts of Nirvana and Moksha one and the same? Both lead to liberation from the rebirth cycle.

[ramana]

venug, These following gurus are good:

Malladi Chandrasekhara Sastry aka MCS he is higher plane
Samavedam Shanmukha Sarma (S^3) is next level lower
Chaganta Koteswara Rao is next level lower.

Some people in Undrajavarm got together and had pravachansm on Ramayana, Mahabharata and the Bhagavatam as yagan for 66 days. They gave opportunity to other leading lights on the subject: V. Padmakar et al. Its on youtube and also at the pravachanam.com site. Currently am listening to them on my commute. I didn't know the later parvas are so full of important details which are still valid. I am at Aswvhameda parva as of today.

LINK

But one has to understand all of them bring thirst in the listener to approach Vyasa Bharatam aka moolam.
Unfortunately I have to take rebirth as I need to learn Sanskrit for that.

For example Yuddhistir is real BRF type personality. Even despite Bhisma on the death-bed and close to the end, he asks some L&M question and gets enlightened!

One thing is how to put all this gnan into practice?

If we follow one character and get the googles of our eyes I would say follow Yuddhistir and see how he acts for we dont know how he thinks and get his strategy for it is as good as what Chanakya lays out for a vijesu.


venuG, lets cut to the chase and want you to listen to the Shanti parvam, Anushasana parvam on the Undrajavaram discourse. Your questions are similar to Yudhistir's questions to Bhisma. He clearly lays out moksha is the most desired goal.

[RamaY]

Certainly Dharma is not moksha/Nirvana. But Dharma is a vehicle for attaining moksha as per Sanatana Dharma. Similarly for Buddhists as per their own Dharma siddhanta. I apologize if my wording of my sentences was misleading. But since holding onto Dharma for Santana Dharmics alone leads to Moksha and since this Dharma must be as laid out in Vedas, that means:
Moksha is impossible for Buddhists even if they adhere to their own concept of Dharma. Because Vedas alone are the pramaana(is the basis or standard to put it in crude terms). Yes I do understand Vedas are not mere texts but they are the timeless and authorless. But Since Buddhists don't take that to be true, moksha is closed to them.

Nirvana is open to them, so now the question is: are the concepts of Nirvana and Moksha one and the same? Both lead to liberation from the rebirth cycle.

JMHT so add salt to your taste

When it comes to Moksha (the Hindu or non-Hindu, if it exists) it is Nriguna, Avyakta and at Karana (cause) level, so there is no Guna related stuff there.

Dharma is the niyati/order/law of Sadguna=Vyakta=visible Universe. That is why Dharma is the niyati/order/law of all lives that one goes thru till one achieves Moksha. Dharma is the linking aspect of multiple lives/janmas/births.

Artha and Kama are specific to a given life/birth/janma mostly. They are the medium Dharma comes home to roost across lives based on your actions/karma and vasanas/desires.

Purusha Suktam is the poetic rendering of the Yajna/Process of how this Vyakta/Visible-universe comes to existence from Avyakta/Param (pre big-bang consciousness, for example). The Viraat Purusha of purusha suktam starts with Avyakta (sa bhūmi’ṃ viśvato’ vṛtvā | atya’tiṣṭhaddaśāṅguḷam) and thru yajna comes to Vyakta (taṃ yaṅñaṃ barhiṣi praukṣan’ | puru’ṣaṃ jātama’grataḥ |).

Like our Bji says,

Since 'Tat Tvam Asi (You are that Param)' whose Karana/Cause comes to existence/vyaktam in human form (conscious life form), then in physical form you are that Purusha whose head is Brahmana/jnanashakti, shoulders to waist is Kshatriya+Vaisya/Ichashakti, and thighs to feet is Sudra/Kriyasakti (brāhmaṇo”‌உsya mukha’māsīt | bāhū rā’janya’ḥ kṛtaḥ |ūrū tada’sya yadvaiśya’ḥ | padbhyāgṃ śūdro a’jāyataḥ|)

[brihaspati]

I have a long standing suspicion that the place names were fixed and locations chosen with a particular astronomical symbolism : more particularly, as a reflection of positions of constellations and apparent sky-view reproduced on earth. This has come about because of my early life wanderings in gv and centre. It would be good to have an interactive map of our holy spots, teerthas, as well as the journey that is specifically recommended. My suspicion is that it encodes a history based on astronomical observations and linked geo-anthro experience over a very large period of time.

Even the MB, I suspect - at one level is trying to encode symbolically astronomical observations. It picks up stories and highlights them - from what would not be that surprising in the audience, for example earlier experience of Vedic pumschalis - but emphasizes the Draupadi connection to Pancha-Pandava - as a representation of possibly a constellation of 5 +that apparently rotates around another astral body.

[RamaY]

^ Bji,

Possible. That is why I posted some of Smt. Satya postings from ancient Indians blogpost.

We need to analyze the texts from different perspectives and then get a clear picture of time/location etc. for example part of the story can indicate an astronomical aspect, while another location on earth, another a period of geological importance, another human history and yet another the spiritual/symbolic connection etc.,

More and more I listen to different commentaries of Hindu texts, I can see different layers of messaging. One need to patiently study/listen to all Puranas and then try to understand the connections.

The other day I was watching two TED talks and it hit me..

One was a neuro scientists talk on left and right brains and her experience thru a brain hemorrhage and she explains how she 'realized' the different aspects of pure consciousness and the feeling of I/ego. The second one was a "news from future" video on how in future the scientists created "virtual jails" where the convicts go thru their sentences from their own homes ... Just mix these two videos and extend this across multiple lives and we have the concept of Karma

[member_22872]

Ramana garu, thank you very much, I finished 70% of MahaBharatam pravachanam of Sri Koteswara Rao garu, I will surely listen to others you listed. Sri K garu didn't cover shanti parvam, even for that reason I may have to Sri Malladi Chandrasekhara Sastry garu or Sri Shanmukha Sarma garu. But from what you said, Shanti parvam seems to be very important, I will listen to it from the gurus you mentioned.

RamaY garu,

Thank you. I started listening to the discourses of Sri Sundarachaitanyananda ji's Kathopanishad. He has a different sense of humour, I wish he were a bit more serious, but I am overlooking his humour to understand the message.

[member_20317]

JohneeG, The essentials of non-violence or ahimsa, vegetarianism are laid out very clearly in Anushasana Parva by Bhisma to Yuddhistir. So really these aspects in Jaininsm and Buddhism are really strands which owe their origins in Mahabharata discourse.

Please take a look at Aunshasana Parva.
And Bhisma says "ahimsa parmo dhrama" is there in the Rig Veda. At same time Ahimsa is not napunsak giving up willingness to fight in face of an attack. It is not subjecting 'life'/jiva to himsa or atyachar.


Aside, many of the Bhagavatam Purana tales are narrated by Bhisma to Yuddhistir in short versions.

And the duality of Shiva and Vishnu are very clearly stated as there being no difference.

It then begs the question why so many centuries were lost in Shaivate-Vaishanvaite duels!

We should have the MB pravachanams made more popular in all of India and not just in Andhra Pradesh.

ramana ji, the ahimsa conundrum you mentioned led this mongrel to the following meandering in the meadows.

ramana ji, the person who effectively made me an observant Hindu was himself a Muslims, of a broken home, a communist, a love jihadi, somebody who had migrated to Pakistan in 47 and came back to India (Bollywood) for the livelihood even though me may have made other noises. This guy is Sahir Ludhianvi and his two lyrics 'Mein har ek pal ka shayar hun' and 'Mein pal do pal ka shayar hun'.

Sri Krishna also said the same thing in a round about way w.r.t. karma – ‘He who sees inaction in action and action in inaction, is wise among men as a yogi who has completed all actions’

Lately I have started some random reading of Puranas and at your advice, also the Shantiparva. And at two places we similar ideas being stated in as succinct a manner.

In shantiparv a Brahman says to Raja Senajit in the context of ridding one from the grip of grief that 'I do not regard even my own self to be mine. On the other hand, I regard the whole world to be mine.’

Similarly king Janak of Videha says in the context of relation between wealth, destiny and desires:
'Unlimited is my wealth. At the same time I have nothing, if the whole of (my kingdom) Mithila be consumed in a conflagration, I shall incur no loss.'

Now notice how this is actually what Rahul Baba said recently w.r.t poverty being a state of mind. But he got brickbats . What was relevant in the context of Moksh and Shanti is highly objectionable in the context of Dharm. Even though Sri Krishna, Raja Janak, Brahman, Sahir Ludhianvi and Rahul Gandhy are all uttering the same line of thought.

[ramana]

In fairness Sri Koteswara Rao garu gives full justice ot Virata parvam which is a microcosm of the Aranya Parvam:Compressed time to one year and greater danger of being found out and the atrocity on Draupadi is repeated but with fatal consequences to the offender.
In Virata Pravam Sudeshna comes out as a transactional person but she has her moments of fairness when she admonishes her brother Kichaka which is usually skipped over to a couple of scenes.

As RamaY said earlier the understanding of MB in Telugu is distorted by : Kavi Triyam version even though its the closest of all the MBs and is referred to by the BORI version, Tirupati Venkata Kavulu who took poetic licence and Telugu cinema(NTR) versions. And there is the underlaying burra katha/hari katha versions in the non-scholar community!

My approach is listen to all the versions you can and if you are capable read the Sanskrit version.

BTW, I have :Iravati Karve's Yuganta, C Rajagopalachari's Mahabharata, Chitra Divakaruni's palace of Illusions, Kamala Subramanyam's Mahabharata, Subodh Ghosh's Bharata Prem Katha, Van Buitnen's incomplete 3 Volume version, Buck's Mahabharata.
However what I realised is all these are incomplete as the writers due to their limitations see the MB as a stand alone text while it is a part of a two other works:Bhagavatam and the Puranas(especially Hari and Padma) all composed by Veda Vyasa.

Here is Pratap Chandra Roy's 12 volume translation in English which also i have:

http://www.holybooks.com/mahabharata-al ... pdf-files/

[ramana]

ravi_g, I am even more nalayak then you. Seriously are there good discources in Hindi on the Mahabharata and the epics like they have in Telugu?

I know some of the Telugu gurus go annually to Varanasi and give pravachanams there.


BTW the thing common to the puranic folsk and Rahul baba is they already have everything and can afford to be other worldly and sanguine about mind etc.

One lesson is that one has to have already achieved the three :Dharma, Artha, Kama and then be sanguine. For you are on path to mokhsa!

Nehru said that to Homi Bhabha about NPT etc. Show me you can make the bomb and then talk about renunciation. Till then we have to be ambiguous.

[member_20317]

ramana ji,

the need in the Hindi belt is largely filled up by the Astha channel, Sanskaar Channel with their huge roster of gurus and by the navaratra nites. Hindi belt audience has and needs a bigger variety but the yoga of rationale building is weaker here. Baba Ramadev introduced the necessary physical education, health component and consumption component to the overall package which before him carried only the considerably whittled down pravachans on only the moral aspects.

I however feel that for a vast number of professional class in the urban areas there is a real need for some yoga of social relationships. This need is not getting met. Say for example a reasonable Hindu here is fed the daily diet of 'Doormat Hinduism' so he/she will try to act secular. Then one fine day when the EMIs have been arranged for the kids are doing all right he/she suddenly realizes the current set up is meant only for production and consumption but does nothing for life as such. Then he begins to wonder what is the right way forward for dealing with P-Secs and what kind of relationship to build with minorities and on what basis. This single smooth rationale that can be implemented realistically, is particularly weak. You must have observed yourself at times Baba Ramdev gets trumped on this count and cannot really articulate on why and how to build healthy social relationships. It in this gap that the ghettos get build up by the Islamists.

So many times I have seen Hindus feel clueless when a concept like possessions of the right hand or the chicom administration, is kept before them to evaluate using their existing set of tools. Its as if they do not know why would somebody choose this kind of basis for forming a samaaj. We have Samaaj-shastris and Samaajwadis but we do not have SamaajYogis. The fact that for most dharma==religion makes matters worse. How is Ramayan or Mahabharat relevant, for example for dealing with minorities or non-practicing Hindus or at the office place where you have to decide on how to fire a junior or how to understand bribery or how to dribble a personal goal from the competing guys? There is one Deepak Bhai Desai in Umrikha land who conducts discourse on such matters and is reasonably good but being a Jain, even he can at times leave a wrong impression with a de-emphasised purusharth, an over-emphasised tyaga. Though I would say for day to day matters he is good. The really great thing about old time Hindu granths was that they did not fear dealing in the extreme forms because of which these remained relevant for a Hindu facing difficult times at a personal level. Today the difficult/stupendous is actively sought to be stigmatized thus taking away the Purusharth in the discourse/meditation.

Personally I try to shift the focus on to reading to meet the intermittent needs of grihastashram. Pravachans will probably come at some point in future.

[panduranghari]

Please delete or move if inappropriate.

Some people claim its inauspicious to keep a copy of Mahabharata home as it creates a lot of rifts within family. Where did this idea originate? How true is it?

[Aditya_V]

I think it is blind superstition, rather than learn from Mahabharata on the ills of gambling, family feuds and people religious people like me , how surrender onto God is important. People want to stay away from it.

[fanne]

Gurus, pranam in advance...
Here is my query. I have been struggling with fate vs karma question for long. Recently I attended a lecture by a learned guy (who also happens to be a politician), where among many other thing, he mentioned an episode from Mahabharat (and the Sanskrit lines to go with that) -- When Krishna has completed Bhagvat Gita, Arjuna is convinced to fight, he poses this question to Krishna - Lord, since anyway everyone has to die (or already dead), and Dharma is on my side, why not the very next moment, kill these people and make Pandvas the king (as this is the outcome anyways). The Lord then says, giving phala without the associated Karma is not in his control or power or something like that..
Does anyone know about the source and the real Sanskrit words for it? It is not in Gita, maybe some other text?
Any help is highly appreciated.

[sudarshan]

I don't know the Sanskrit words or the Gita text. However, FWIW, here is how I rationalized this point for myself. This is based on the axioms that were discussed in other threads and posts.

Axiom 1: God is all-powerful, but disinterested in karma-phala

Axiom 2: We individual beings *are* interested in our karma-phala, and this desire for material enjoyment is what brings us to this material world, for which we temporarily (and voluntarily) choose to forget God and immerse ourselves in maya

Axiom 3: While the all-powerful God is willing to humor our desire for material enjoyment, He makes it conditional on our karma - i.e., he only lets us enjoy as much as our karma-phala permits

So the karmic credit is the currency with which we pay for our enjoyment of material pleasures. Why does God do this? So that all the beings in this universe - from the lowest germs through the reptiles and mammals and humans, and on to Devas, Asuras, Gandharvas, Maruts, what-have-you - all have a fair and impartial chance to enjoy themselves, based on a well-defined principle - karma-phala.

So why did God not kill the Kauravas and make the Pandavas kings outright? Because the Pandavas' enjoyment of ruling status was conditional upon their karma-phala, their earned credit. If the Pandavas refused to perform the requisite action to enjoy this credit, God would still have an infinity of other ways to bring the consequences of the Kauravas' actions to them - but, the Pandavas would not enjoy ruling status, because they hadn't paid for it.

Another point: Jayadratha performed penance to Shiva to ask for the boon of killing all the Pandavas (after his humiliation at their hands, for harassing Draupadi in the forest). Shiva appears and says - I cannot grant you this boon. All I can grant you, is that you can hold off four of the Pandavas in battle as a one-time event. Why would Shiva make such a judgment as to what He can grant Jayadratha for his penance?

It's like a shop-keeper making his judgment as to what he can sell a customer, based on how much money the customer has. The customer might claim - "but I put in so much effort to earn money - I slaved on the docks, did manual labor, performed services...." Well, friend, your efforts are commendable, but the Rs. 2000 that you earned does not permit you to buy the product you desire. You'll have to be content with this smaller product. Likewise Shiva to Jayadratha - if you want the boon of being able to kill all the Pandavas, you will need to do much greater penance. For the penance you have performed, this is all the credit I can give you.

Make sense?