very true. But after loosing the dice game the agreement is that after 14 years the land will be returned to the pandavas. Did that happen?
For the amount of bloodshed and the gory war - I happened to talk with Mr.TKS Rajan once on this. Thanks to SPS, he introduced me to Mr.Rajan and got a chance to meet him a couple of times, and once in SPS's office I had a very interesting discussion with Mr.Rajan on Krishna, Mahabaratha etc. Mr Rajan has done detailed research on Krishna and Mahabaratha and his knowledge is amazing. He is closely linked with Media and I think he is with Makkal tv now.
He said - basically it can be viewed as a population control method. The population at that time was enormous. if we calculate the count of the akshouni (correcta?) sena that participated in the war, the count is mind boggling. The soldiers alone might outwit the current population of india.
And moreover, every stalwarts, had their destructive weapons- Karna with Brhamasthiram, Sakthi etc. Arjuna had Pasupathasthram the most destructive etc. etc. Today we evens deduce that those could be nukes. So think of a world with everyone having their own nuke and grumbling for vengeance? Krishna did try hard to avoid the war but it was Dhuryodhana who insisted on war.
Hi Satish, yes the land was not returned, but again does that warranty such a bloody war? Yes the count is mind boggling but are we looking at same numbers as our present numeric system? The Ramayana for example says Dasaratha ruled 16,000 years, is it humanly possible? And there is little/no evidence that there was population explosion. In fact both Yudhistir and Duryodhana supposedly ruled over very prosperous kingdoms.
There is another way of looking at this whole thing - from Duryodhana's perspective. My grandmother said there used to be several street plays and folk narratives of the Mahabharat from various perspective that disappeard over time. One of them is like this - Duryodhana was not legally obligated to share any part of his kingdom with the pandavas, since they were not his bi were partial to the pandavas since Pandu died young and the five children were very accomplished. That instigated anger in Duryodhana who in turn grew up to be a vengeful, resentful prince and refuses to see the Pandavas as his equals.
As far as Krishna not wanting the war, Krishna was the chess player in the whole game who moved the dice at will, not a blind follower of what each person did ? That is exactly what Gandhari asks him before cursing him and his tribe. You could have stopped it if you willed so. Why did he not will so? Perhaps we will never know the answers.
I have attended numerous discourses and talks on the Mahabharat. The late Pulavar Keeran was just amazing. I love the story very much so, am also aware of its pitfalls, [particularly with an increasingly aware generation of youngsters. (My 11 year old niece asked me a question - if Kamsa did not want his sister to have the 8th child why did he not put her and her husband in separate jails. :)). In our time and age kids did not think that way at all.)
I narrate the Mahabharat as a collection of short stories. It makes huge sense that way. Not as one long story with pandavas as heroes and kauravas as villians. It does not add up to that and it probably was a lot of differnt stories collected over time. And the puranas have little/no connection with vedic ways of living or clear cut definitions of karma.
Sundar, why would Yudhistir be punished for killing Drona? Yudhistir was a very truthful man who refuses to lie that Ashwattama died, even at Krishna's instigation. So Bhima kills an elephant named Aswattama and asks Yudhistir to announce 'Ashwattama hatha kunjaraha' - Krishna resourcefully sounds his conch at the word 'hatha' (elephant) so poor Drona hears 'Aswattama Kunjaraha' , thinks it is his son who died and renounces his arms . It is deceit at its diplomatic best. If anyone has to be punished it is Bhima perhaps not Yudhisthir.
Ashwattama is furious that his father was killed in this fashion and plots the tent fire. Yes it is an eye for an eye, what else does war instigate?
Hi Malalthi Yudhishtra was punished because he was knowingly part that plot.When Drona's hears about Aswathamma's death, he wanted that to confirm only with Yudishtra becuase he would not go against Dharma. Having anticipated this, Krishna plooted this way and Yudhistra when saying 'hatha' lowered his voice and the sound of the conch drowned it. Yudhishtra's chariot which always remain an inch or so above the ground, becuase of his virtues, touched the ground on that moment of deceit.
Sundar, I had forgotten that part about the chariot touching the ground!! Thanks really for refreshing. I don't agree with the punishment in principle, one of the other pandavas would have done it if Yudhistir refused, in general the person who instigates a crime is more at fault than one who commits it (I can understand Sri Krishna genuinely testing someone if or not he is a liar but that wasn't the case here so it does not make sense that is all).
Malathi The point is Drona didnt believe when Bhima and others celebrates the killing of 'Ashwattama' as he knows that his son is a Chiranjeevi. Drona doesnt confim this with even Krishna for whom has high regards. The confirmation has to come from a person of highest integrity and none was there except Yudhistira. Even though Krishna was the soothradhari, Yudhistra cannot escape his responsibility for being part of the plot with full conscience.
Before I write some thing about this episode, can I humbly request all of you to come out with your thoughts and expectations of how you visualise your God to be. I mean the character (GuNas) and not whether He needs to sport, Sanku, Chakram, Mazhu, vAL, Golden Kreetam, etc.
After your answers I will write more.
Caveat: I am definitely not an authority on the subject. But would just like to know the feelings first hand, before I write anything.
Very valid questions. Just my two cents worth regarding the reason, why Mahabali, inspite of being flawlessly virtuous, was pushed underground by Vishnu. This is a slightly confusing concept. We need to see this carefully.
Caveat: The reasoning that I am giving is based on the philosophy of Thenkalai Sriaishnavites. I am not imposing my answer on others. Just an explanation based on one of the various perspectives of the same happening.
According to the Thenkalai Srivaishnavites, it is considered that all the actions are done by God Himself. Well, placing our beliefs on Karma theory, it will be difficult for many of us to accept this. I was thinking in the same vein, until, I found a logic in it. (In fact I had asked that question to all as to how do you expect your God to be is with this logic in mind. So details of the logic, later)
Nammazhwar says, 1. OtthAr mikkArai ilayAya mA mAyan. 2. eedum eduppum il Isan
and many more such verses confirming that there is none equal to or above Him. Now who can question someone for an action. Only if that person is either equal or superior to the person being questioned. Isnt it? In this case as it is clear that there is none above Him, then who can question his acts? This aspect is called the "Parathvam" (meaning : being Supreme to everything and everyone).
> Before I write some thing about this episode, can I humbly request > all of you to come out with your thoughts and expectations of how > you visualise your God to be. I mean the character (GuNas) and not > whether He needs to sport, Sanku, Chakram, Mazhu, vAL, Golden > Kreetam, etc.
Once, when I was conversing with my sister regarding a topic similar to this, she made this statement, "Visualizing God in Human form is the highest form of Human arrogance". It really made sense to me.
regrds, siva.
> > After your answers I will write more. > > Caveat: I am definitely not an authority on the subject. But would > just like to know the feelings first hand, before I write anything. > > Regards, > Venkatesh > > --- In ponniyinselvan@yahoogroups.com, Malathi Mahadevan
So what would that mean? I mean, what is the better way of visualising God according to your sister? Answer to this would make the discussion more interesting.
In my view that (Visualizing GOD in the form I want to) is the greatness of Hindu religion. I am not against any religion but for me visualising GOD as FATHER / SON / HOLY GHOST is not possible. But I can see him / visualize him in what ever form I want. Be it Macha / Koorma / Narasimha / Vamana / Rama / Balarama / Kali / Durga. That kind of flexibility you don't have in any religion except Hindu religion.
, "Visualizing God in Human form is > the highest form of Human arrogance". It really made sense to me. > > regrds, > siva. >
hi siva
it would have been if she had said.....
"Visualizing God in Human form is > the highest form of Human ignorance".
see dieties, temples are all there to help the uninitiated to focus and concentrate their energies ....its not easy to understand omni present.....adhi andam concept...so its only a tool....like a nada vandi for a baby...helps u learn to walk....and once u do that you go on to realise the larger concepts...( run)...sadly we are still left with the crutches or as toddlers
Excellent, V Venkatesh, it's good to have an expert explaining the concept in such a lucid way. If only I may add a couple of points here (I know this thread has moved far away from where it started, but I couldn't resist the temptation):
Mahabali was the grandson of the great Prahlada. In His Nrisimha Avatar, the Lord blesses not only the Emperor-among-Bhakthas, viz Prahlada, but his successors for seven generations, and promises not to kill any of them.
In fact, there is an interesting event during the Vaamana-Trivikrama avatar: Mahabali's son Namuchi confronts the Lord, asking him how He could deceive Mahabali, taking the form of a small, short kid while seeking three steps of land, and growing to occupy the three worlds (and more) while measuring what was offered. Trivikrama simply throws Namuchi into the sky; and he is considered to be revolving around the universe even today! Periazhwar, praises the Lord thus:
Excellent, V Venkatesh, it's good to have an expert explaining the concept in such a lucid way. If only I may add a couple of points here (I know this thread has moved far away from where it started, but I couldn't resist the temptation):
Mahabali was the grandson of the great Prahlada. In His Nrisimha Avatar, the Lord blesses not only the Emperor-among-Bhakthas, viz Prahlada, but his successors for seven generations, and promises not to kill any of them.
In fact, there is an interesting event during the Vaamana-Trivikrama avatar: Mahabali's son Namuchi confronts the Lord, asking him how He could deceive Mahabali, taking the form of a small, short kid while seeking three steps of land, and growing to occupy the three worlds (and more) while measuring what was offered. Trivikrama simply throws Namuchi into the sky; and he is considered to be revolving around the universe even today! Periazhwar, praises the Lord thus:
I apologize if I had offended someone with the statement.
My sister's point was, thinking human form as the highest form of evolution, when describing the supreme being, humans made god a look alike of human form.
> > In fact, there is an interesting event during the Vaamana- Trivikrama avatar: Mahabali's son Namuchi confronts the Lord, asking him how He could deceive Mahabali, taking the form of a small, short kid while seeking three steps of land, and growing to occupy the three worlds (and more) while measuring what was offered. Trivikrama simply throws Namuchi into the sky; and he is considered to be revolving around the universe even today!
hi ravi
thats a very interesting story- have u seen the trivikrama sculptures in mallai, badami...they show a young boy kneeling at the feel of the lord ( in mallai its to the lord's right feet)...i have been searching for who it is....there is also someone shown as falling from the sky ( ok, brahma is shown as worshipping the ulifted feet)...just below it you can see someone falling upside down....some say its trisangu...the lord lifting his feet to the heavens and trisangu is midway...you can actually see the sun and moon also depicted half way.....mallai tour members ensure you see this....
incidentally in the mahinshasuramardhini panel - also there is someone shown falling half way ( just under devi's lion)
there is also a very fit women warrior fighting along with the devi ( she has 8 bootha ganas apart from that assisting here)...look at her six pack abdomen...man what cuts...anyone can help to identify these players...
Possibly Sivaraman's sister is a true-advaitin - "Neeyum brahmam, naanum brahmam. God (that is Parabrahmam) has no form, no attributes, no shape, no colour, no traits, no qualities or qualifiables..... "
I am reminded of Azhwarkadiyan: "brahmathai brahmam thirucchAthu sAtthappOgirathu... ennai nAnE thadi koNdu thAkkappOgirEn!"
> photos are under the album mallai doubts. in the trivikrama panel u > can also see a boar beating the drum just to the right of brahma ( > who is left of the raised leg)...Jambavaan??
It must be Jambavan. After the Trivikrama avatar, Jambavan is said to have circled the world many times, singing the praise of the Lord..... Expert opinion, please....
I think the sloka went like this: Aswattama Bali Vyasa Hanumanasya Vibhishinaha; Kripa Parsasurama Satyo Chiranjivinaha. I am not sure 'satyaha' means verily or another peron.
Please do not be apologetic. If you thought I got offended, I am definitely not. I respect others views very much. The reason I asked you the below question is different. Well, without making you wait let me say what I wanted to say.
There is absolutely nothing wrong in visualising the god in any form that one wishes. This is clearly stated by Poigai Azhwar. Am sure there would be enough references with Nayanmars too.
The pAsuram goes like this (I had already quoted this some time back)
Needless to explain this simple Thamizh, but for those who may not know Thamizh, Azhwar says that, In whatever form one visualises Him, He presents Himself in that form. In whatever name one calls Him, He accepts that name. Whichever form, the devotee gets attracted into, He takes that form.
So with that, there is absolutely nothing wrong in visualising Him as a human.
But Vijay added wonderfully to it. Visualising as a Human is just one thing. Only that, in the process, do not forget that He is the Supreme Being and hence do not expect Him behave like some (sorry to say this, but) stupid human.
Yes He is so simple for those who are devoted to Him. And this "paRRu" is not just devotion. Some thing more than that. It is called "maha visvAsam". Yes surrendering to Him, with maha visvAsam is the meaning for this "paRRu".
So.... what I intended to say was that there is absolutely nothing wrong in visualising Him in any form.
Forget human form. We do have stories of where either Thukkaram or Bhadrachalam Ramadass, saw Rama in the form of a Dog and ran behind it, because it took away the Chappathi without taking the side dish.
Is this not the height of devotion? "uNNum sORu, thinnum veRRilai, parugum nEEr, ellAm kaNNan" as said by Nammazhwar. And when one says that the God pervades everything in the Universe is there anything inferior for Him. May be, being humans, we can have differences by way of inferior and superior. Definitely not for God, who has created everything. There is nothing inferior or superior for Him.
But Markandeya is definitely considered a Chiranjeevi.
So... looks like only my count is wrong, considering the sloka indicated by you. As for "sathyaha" as it could not be Markandeya, it should only mean "Verily".
> > > > > > krishna's preaching of the githa was heard directly by 2 others > > ( other than arjuna) who? > > > > > > venketesh
hi venketesh
good one...one is hanuman on the top flag and the second via satellite link...sanjaya ( every verse of the gita starts .....kim ...dridhrastra questioning sanjaya and sanjaya uvacha...sanjaya says....)