Khandava-dahana and the death of Parikshit

11:20 AM

@sv. Do you know story behind Shukla and Krishna Yajurvedas?

1:35 PM

@TheDestroyer I think I've heard. BTW, did you know originally there were 4 different MB's but only one survived to this day?

The Destroyer

@sv. what are they?

@sv. Here is the story of Yajurvedas.

2

A: Stories Of Yagnavalkya Rishi (याज्ञवल्क्य ऋषि)

The story of Yagnavalkya giving back his knowledge is described in this chapter of the Vishnu Purana. As I discuss in this answer, after Vyasa compiled the mantras of the Vedas into the four books that we call the Vedic Samhitas, he taught the Vedas to various disciples, who each started their o...

sv.

5:06 PM

@TheDestroyer Yeah, I upvoted this answer.

Speaking of Vedas being sound, how can Yajnavalkya 'vomit' the Yajur Veda, and how can the Tittiris 'eat' it up? — Surya Aug 3 '16 at 11:21

Looks like @Surya is a critic just like me :D

@TheDestroyer I want to know more on that myself so will post a new question on that one. "Why do some people think there are 4 original MB's ..."

Surya

5:28 PM

@sv. Haha don't get your hopes up

@sv. I do tend to be critical at times but I am not a critic

Speaking of which, I believe Dasaratha lived for 60+ years not 60000. Which makes Rama's rule 10 to 11 years.

sv.

@Surya Oh, thx for clarifying :)

@Surya I don't consider myself a critic too but others might see me as one but I'm after finding the truth - I over analyze VR and MB for the same reason to find out the truth.

I personally do not like interpretations which go with the "Brahmins interpolated scripture to elevate their status" thing which seems to be a common feature in all writers today. It imposes the rigid caste system of the medieval period upon the flexible varnashrama dharma of the earlier ages; so any story involving rishis (so not ordinary brahmins) is over analysed and its meaning twisted to fit the author's outlook. — Surya 3 mins ago

@Surya ^^^ "Brahmins interpolated scripture to elevate their status" -- I on the other hand have no problem accepting that line of argument provided the argument is logical and based on what it says in scriptures themselves and not pure personal speculation.

Plus Karwe in her conclusion just states what happened. The curses IMO contribute to the story line and do not lengthen the story, just offer different POVs of the same incident. Also this unfortunately does not adress the main question of Parikshit's death in the two scriptures - saying that the episode was exaggerated by brahmans is not a reason. — Surya 5 mins ago

@Surya In your question you say "if anything it only advances the plot..." -- I'm not sure what you mean by that. Do you believe the story actually happened as it says in MB or SB?

Surya

5:45 PM

@sv. But then what I feel is the whole concept of Brahmanas as a community trying to dominate others is a British ideology. The brahmana according to Varnashrama dharma has only the ability of performing sacrifices, teaching and other related activities. They too depend on other varnas for their living.

sv.

@Surya Do you believe a snake can enter a fruit, walk on feet, become a worm and such literally?

Surya

@sv. I want to believe that it happened both ways like maybe AUs - though that is highly unlikely.

@sv. I do not think Takshaka was a snake. He was a Naga son of Kadru, not a Sarpa.

sv.

@Surya So you DO agree with Karve on that? BTW, Karve wrote the book in 1968-69.

Surya

@sv. I agree to the extent that he was not some ordinary snake. But I go to the other extreme that he was of extraterrestrial origin whereas she goes with the tribal thing.

sv.

@Surya Oh ok. Karve in her book has ripped apart all godly qualities from every character and explains things on a human level. The book is obviously not for everyone. Definitely not for bhakti-oriented people who may get easily offended as well.

Not sure if you saw, I posted a question based on her book.

3

Q: Irawati Karve says "Vidura is the biological father of Yudhiṣṭhira". Is she right? Which Upaniṣadic story is she referring to?

Irawati Karve in her book Yugānta, which is a commentary on the Mahābhārata, says: There are two more incidents which lend support to this contention [that Dharma is the son of Vidura]. After Dhritarashtra and Gandhari, Kunti and Vidura had gone to live in the forest, the Pandavas would occas...

Surya

5:53 PM

@sv. Yeah well I do not get offended easily. But I am bhakti oriented so I get tired when all these authors go through the same rigmarole of stripping characters of divinity. I mean you have to explain practically all the story if you do this and all these authors use the same repetitive ideas which do not impress after a point.

@sv. yes I saw that question but since Keshav had posted some answer along with detailed quotes I just went with it. He's the expert onot Upanishads and the such.

sv.

@Surya I did like some points she made in the book the real reason for Krishna killing Sishupala .. which is to save the Rajasuya yaga from going astray. What I don't like is for every event in MB or VR, there is a curse backstory or a promise made to someone etc. It get repetitive to the point that one has to question if curses did really work back then...

Surya

@sv. Hm, but curses did work. The key is you must have attained a level of austerity. Not all and sundry can curse at the drop of a hat. Plus I don't think all episodes have a back story.

sv.

@Surya If I start digging into MB to find Sishupala's 100 faults so he deserved to die at that exact moment in a sabha at Krishna's hands .. rest of the MB events don't support that. So ultimately it comes down to whether you believe a scripture word for word without a question or not.

@Surya If you do believe MB and SB word for word and when 2 scriptures disagree on one story, you accept both and move on, then you shouldn't post Q's such as this one. There cannot be logical explanation for such questions, IMO.

Plus Karwe in her conclusion just states what happened. The curses IMO contribute to the story line and do not lengthen the story, just offer different POVs of the same incident. Also this unfortunately does not adress the main question of Parikshit's death in the two scriptures - saying that the episode was exaggerated by brahmans is not a reason. — Surya 27 mins ago

"Also this unfortunately does not adress the main question of Parikshit's death" - he was killed by a Takshaka not the Takshaka by a poison dart.

I think that's what happened.

In my answer I wrote: "A Takshaka later killed Parikshita"

yesterday, by sv.

@Tezz Also, FYI, I don't really subscribe to this convoluted "kalpa bheda" theory -- I think it matters worse instead of clearing up the confusion.

Transcript for

Khandava-dahana and the death of Pari…