Friday, 4 November 2016

The Myth of Krishna's Vishwa Roop!

One of the most important characters in Mahabharatha that most people would agree to is Krishna. He was cousin and advisor to the pandavas, and on top of that, a brilliant political strategist, and even ruthless at times... For example, after Karna used the Shakti Astra he obtained from Arjuna's biological father Indra (king of Uttara Kuru - modern day Russia) to kill Bhima's son Gatotkacha, Krishna was celebrating by uttering leonine roars and slapping his armpits. By planning the course of events so that Karna uses his Shakti Astra on Gatotkacha, Krishna killed 3 birds with the same stone...

First, he had ensured that his best friend Arjuna would not be "forced" to use highly powerful weapons (like the Vajra, Pashupatastra, Vaishnavastra,...) on Karna to counter the Shakti Astra. Arjuna was reluctant to use these powerful weapons in the war as they would cause much harm to life in the vicinity. Secondly, by doing what he did, Krishna had ensured that Gatotkacha, being a Rakshasa and therefore an enemy of Vedic Dharma would be eliminated. Lastly, Krishna knew that if Gatotkacha survives the war, he would be the new king after Yuddhistira as he was the eldest of the pandavas, and also because Yuddhistira was very fond of him. So, eliminating Gatotkacha paved way for Parikshit, a descendent of his own lineage to be future king of Hastinapura, thus increasing his political influence. Krishna had said that if Karna didn't kill Gatotkacha, then he himself would have killed Gatotkacha!

This ruthless aspect of Krishna is often forgotten by many, and over the past few centuries, he has been transformed into the Supreme Lord by some and incarnation of Vishnu by others. It is logically impossible for a single human to be the Lord of the entire universe. However, this myth continues to exist due to the study of Bhagavad Gita (a text where Krishna proclaims his divinity) in isolation, out of the context of the rest of the Mahabharatha. Although there are many contradictions within the Bhagavad Gita itself, this post will not focus on them. Instead, this post will link the Bhagavad Gita with the rest of the Mahabharatha to show that Krishna did not show his Vishwa Roop to Arjuna prior to the onset of the Kurukshetra war. That will be the main focus of this post as the main obstruction in rejecting the claim that Krishna was the Supreme Lord or incarnation of Vishnu would be either this Vishwa Roop shown prior to the start of the the Kurukshetra War, or the Virara Roop shown to the members of the Kuru assembly, in Hastinapura, when Krishna came as a peace.

The claim that Krishna showed his Virata Roop in the Hastinapura assembly, when he came for peace, is a later interpolation in the epic Mahabharatha, and will be addressed in a later post. This post will only address Krishna's Vishwa Roop, though...

All textual evidence provided in this post is from the mahabharatha, translated into English, by Kisari Mohan Ganguly. This 18-parva long epic can be accessed by the link below:

This is how the popular belief goes... Right before the start of the first day of the Kurukshetra War, Arjuna sees both armies and asks Krishna to take the chariot in between both armies. Krishna takes the chariot there, and then in that position, Arjuna realizes that he will have to kill his grandfather Bhisma, his teachers Drona and Kripa, and even his own relatives on the kaurava side, in order to win the war. Being the emotional person he is, he refuses to kill these people who are very dear to him, and conveys this opinion to Krishna. Then, standing in between both armies, Krishna conveys his Bhagavad Gita to Arjuna. To remove all of Arjuna's doubts, he proclaims himself as God and then goes on to show his Vishwa Roop to Arjuna, to dispel all of Arjuna's doubts and so that Arjuna can fight the war with full prowess. After seeing the Vishwa Roop, all of Arjuna's doubts are cleared, and no dilemma remains in Arjuna's mind regarding the slaughter of his relatives. He is now totally ready to kill his relatives and win the war.

Lets take a look at what Arjuna says in the final chapter of the Bhagavad Gita after he sees Krishna's Vishwa Roop:

"Arjuna said, 'My delusion hath been destroyed, and the recollection (of what I am) hath been gained by me, O Undeteriorating one, through thy favour. I am now firm. My doubts have been dispelled. I will do thy bidding.'"
This speech by Arjuna indicates that he is now fully convinced and would be fighting with full force in the war against his relatives. He would not hesitate at all in killing his relatives. However, that statement is not in sync with Arjuna's behavior later on in the Kurukshetra War. During the Kurukshetra War, Arjuna really hesitated in killing his relatives.
For example, after Arjuna finds out that his son Iravan had been killed, he clearly expresses that he was not willing to fight the war:
Sanjaya said, "Hearing that his son Iravat had been slain, Dhananjaya was filled with great grief and sighed like a snake. And addressing Vasava in the midst of battle, he said these words, 'Without doubt, the high-souled Vidura of great wisdom had before seen (with his mind's eye) this awful destruction of the Kurus and the Pandavas. It was for this that he forbade king Dhritarashtra. In this battle, O slayer of Madhu, many other heroes have been slain by the Kaurava and many amongst the Kauravas have similarly been slain by ourselves. O best of men, for the sake of wealth vile acts are being done. Fie upon that wealth for the sake of which such slaughter of kinsmen is being perpetrated. For him that hath no wealth, even death would be better than the acquisition of wealth by the slaughter of kinsmen. What, O Krishna, shall we gain by slaying our assembled kinsmen? Alas, for Duryodhana's, fault, and also of Sakuni the son of Suvala, as also through the evil counsels of Karna, the Kshatriya race is being exterminated, O slayer of Madhu, I now understand, O mighty-armed one, that the king acted wisely by begging of Suyodhana2 only half the kingdom, or, instead, only five villages. Alas, even that was not granted by that wicked-souled wight. Beholding so many brave Kshatriyas lying (dead) on the field of battle, I censure myself, (saying) fie upon the profession of a Kshatriya. The Kshatriyas will regard me powerless in battle. For this alone, I am battling. Else, O slayer of Madhu, this battle with kinsmen is distasteful to me.
So arjuna was not fighting with full prowess in the war. He only wanted to fight the war because if he did not do so, then the remaining pandava warriors would get dejected, seeing their best warrior refuse to fight, and then they themselves would drop all weapons and surrender. This reason for fighting the war was the influence of Krishna's words of karma yoga from the Bhagavad Gita. If Krishna had really showed the Vishwa Roop to Arjuna, then Arjuna would not have faced this dilemma (regarding the reason for fighting the war) after his son Iravan was killed. Just as he remembered the karma yoga ideas from the Bhagavad Gita after Iravan's death, he would have also remembered Krishna's words of him being God and his Vishwa Roop. The fact that Arjuna does not give recall Krishna's divinity or his Vishwa Roop hints that Krishna never showed his Vishwa Roop to Arjuna, nor did he proclaim that he was God.
Also, even on the 1st day of the war, Arjuna was described as being indifferent in the war. He did not fight with full prowess against Bhisma and that was why Bhisma managed to kill Sweta, the brother of Uttara. If Krishna really showed his Vishwa Roop and Arjuna was convinced to kill his relatives, he should have fought with full prowess for at least the first day of the war, right? But that didn't happen...
Yuddhistira clearly mentions at the end of the first day that Bhima tried to resist Bhisma, but Arjuna was a mere spectator, and indifferent in the war:
The mighty Bhishma incessantly stays, with his celestial weapon, many thousands of my car-warriors who are foremost of smiters. Tell me, O Madhava, without delay, what should be done that might do me good. As regards Arjuna, I see that he is an indifferent spectator in this battle. Endued with great might, this Bhima alone, remembering Kshatriya duties, fighteth putting forth the prowess of his arms and to the utmost of his power.
If Arjuna was as convinced as it seems from the last chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, he should have at least exerted prowess on the first day of the war. But that didn't happen, suggesting that Krishna did not show a Vishwa Roop to Arjuna, and that Arjuna continued to have doubts even after Krishna's advice prior to the war.
Also, on the third day of the war, Arjuna (initially) only fought mildly against Bhisma:
And with those keen shafts of his, the enraged Bhishma caused him of Vrishni's race to shiver. And laughing loudly he also made Krishna to wonder. Then the mighty-armed Krishna, beholding the prowess of Bhishma in battle as also the mildness with which Arjuna fought, and seeing that Bhishma was creating incessant showers of arrows in that conflict and looked like the all-consuming Sun himself in the midst of the two armies, and marking besides, that that hero was slaying the foremost of combatants in Yudhishthira's host and causing a havoc in that army as if the hour of dissolution had come,--the adorable Kesava, that slayer of hosts, endued with immeasurable soul--unable to bear what he saw, thought that Yudhishthira's army could not survive that slaughter.
And that foremost warrior of Sini's race cheerfully said unto Yudhishthira's host all the combatants of which had been frightened by Bhishma and whose elephants, steeds, cars, and numberless standards had been mangled and broken into pieces, and which was flying away from the field, these words, 'Ye Kshatriyas, where do ye go? This is not the duty of the righteous as hath been declared by the ancients. Ye foremost of heroes, do not violate your pledges. Observe your own duties as heroes'. Beholding that those foremost of kings were flying together from the field of battle, and marking the mildness with which Partha fought, and beholding also that Bhishma was exerting himself very powerfully in battle, and that the Kurus were rushing from all sides, the younger brother of Vasava, the high-souled protector of all the Dasarhas, unable to bear it all, addressed the renowned grandson of Sini, and applauding him, said,--'O hero of Sini's race, they that are retreating, are, indeed, retreating.
Arjuna again fought mildly against Bhisma on the 9th day of the war:
Mangled with the arrows of Bhishma, those two tigers among men looked beautiful like two angry bulls marked with scratches of horns. Then that slayer of hostile heroes, viz., the mighty-armed Vasudeva of Madhu's race beholding that Partha was fighting mildly and that Bhishma was incessantly scattering his arrowy showers in battle, and that stationed between the two hosts, he latter was scorching everything like the Sun himself, smiting down the foremost of Yudhishthira's combatants, and, in fact, achieving feat on Yudhishthira's army like unto what happeneth at the end of the Yuga, could not any longer bear it.
On the night of the 9th day, after finding Arjuna reluctant to fight Bhisma, Krishna himself offers to fight Bhisma if Arjuna did not want to fight him:
If, with my brothers, O Kesava, I am worthy of thy favour, tell me, O Krishna, what is for my benefit, without contravening the duties of my order. Hearing these words of his, and (describing the situation) in detail, Krishna, from compassion, said these words in reply for comforting Yudhishthira, 'O son of Dharma, O thou that art firm in truth, do thou not indulge in sorrow, thou that hast these invincible heroes, these slayers of foes, for thy brothers. Arjuna and Bhimasena are each endued with the energy of the Wind and the Fire. The twin sons of Madri also are each as valiant as the Chief of the celestials
p. 269
himself. From the good understanding that exists between us, do thou set me also to this task. Even I, O son of Pandu, will fight with Bhishma. Directed by thee, O great king, what is there that I may not do in great battle. Challenging that bull among men, viz., Bhishma, I will slay him in battle, in the very sight of the Dhartarashtras, if Phalguni doth not wish to slay him.
These instances all show how Arjuna was reluctant to fight his grandfather Bhisma in the war. If Krishna had convinced Arjuna to fight with full prowess against Bhisma by using his Vishwa Roop, then why the reluctance at all these points in the war.

Similarly, Arjuna was also reluctant to kill Drona on the 15th day of the war: 

Beholding the slaughter of the Panchalas in that battle by the illustrious Drona, and seeing his, weapons overwhelm all sides, fear entered the hearts of the Pandavas. Beholding that dreadful carnage of steeds and human beings in that battle, the Pandavas, O monarch, became hopeless of victory. (They began to say unto each other) 'Is it not evident that Drona, that warrior conversant with the mightiest of weapons, will consume us all like a raging conflagration consuming a heap of straw in the season of spring? There is none competent to even look at him in battle. Conversant with the ways of morality, Arjuna (who alone is a match for him) will not fight with him.'

These instances are enough to show that Arjuna was unwilling to fight with his dear ones in the war. If Krishna showed his Vishwa Roop, and Arjuna was convinced to kill his dear ones (as shown in the last chapter of Bhagavad Gita), then Arjuna should not have hesitated at multiple points later on in the Kurukshetra War. The fact that he hesitated many times in fighting with his dear ones shows that he was never convinced that he should be fighting the war.

The reason given in the Bhagavad Gita for Arjuna being fully convinced to fight the war was the Vishwa Roop. Now that it has been established that Arjuna was not fully convinced to fight the war, it logically follows that the Vishwa Roop (the reason why Bhagavad Gita says Arjuna is ready to fight the war) is a later addition to the epic.

Hence, Krishna did not show his Vishwa Roop to Arjuna before the Kurukshetra War!

Image result for krishna arjuna image


  1. Very well written blog backed by facts but you are making a very simple mistake here.

    It is a well known fact that mahabharata is a hugely interpolated book filled with contradiction. So this blog further proves that mahabharata contradicts gita and not vice versa. We dont have any reasons to trust mahabharata over gita.

    1. Thank you for your comment.

      You have to first realize that Gita is a part of mahabharatha, and not separate from it. So it is also prone to the interpolations present in mahabharatha. The basis of rejecting text as interpolation is based on flaws in the flow of the text, or contradictions in the text, not on whether the text comes from Gita or from the rest of the Mahabharatha.

      Gita has its own share of interpolations. Krishna goes on to talk about the varna system and things like what foods you can offer him... That is completely irrelevant to convincing Arjuna to fight the Kurukshetra war (the main reason of narrating the Gita).

      So I will conclude by saying that Gita is a part of Mahabharatha and has its interpolations and therefore should not be considered as the absolute truth!

    2. Krishna said that he accept even a leaf if offered with devotion. This was to say that only devotion is required in bhakti yoga and nothing else. It doesn't count as interpolation. Mahabharata is highly contradictive, on the other hand , gita isn't.

    3. Hey Star Plantinum's The World,

      Look at Krishna's character throughout the epic and compare it to his character in Bhagavad Geeta. There is a huge difference. Krishna behaves more like a human in Mahabharatha, and more of a god in Bhagavad Geeta. So there is a clear contradiction.

      Where in mahabharatha (leave out Bhagavad Geeta) does Krishna say he accepts a leaf offered with devotion. The story of Krishna eating one grain of rice and Durvasa being full and not approaching the Pandavas for food (during exile) is an interpolation in the epic, and has been removed by the BORI Critical Edition version.

      Mahabharatha no doubt has contradictions. But we hear time and time again of how Arjuna was reluctant to kill his loved ones in the Kurukshetra war. There are many instances of this (as I have shown in this post itself). If Krishna had shown Vishwa Roop to Arjuna, Arjuna should not have been hesitant to kill his elders.

      Also, what makes you think that there are no contradictions in Bhagavad Geeta? There are contradictions. For example, at times, when Krishna returns in the 2 armed form, he is described as being in the 4 armed form. There are clear contradiction. I can make a new post on that in the future.

      But the important thing to realize is that Bhagavad Geeta is NOT separate from Mahabharatha. It is a part of Mahabharatha, and is as prone (if not more prone) than the rest of the epic to interpolations.

      For example, what is the need of Krishna to tell Arjuna about what he can/cannot eat, and how the Varna system was created? His point of revealing the Bhagavad Geeta is to convince Arjuna for war, and talking about food and Varna system is completely irrelevant to the discussion...

      I will end by posting a few BG Verses where Krishna contradicts himself (he implies that he is not the Supreme Lord):

      BG Chapter 18 Verses 61-62:

      The Supreme Lord is situated in everyone's heart, O Arjuna, and is directing the wanderings of all living entities, who are seated as on a machine, made of the material energy. O scion of Bharata, surrender unto Him utterly. By His grace you will attain transcendental peace and the supreme and eternal abode.

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. ईश्वर: सर्वभूतानां हृद्देशेऽर्जुन तिष्ठति |
    भ्रामयन्सर्वभूतानि यन्त्रारूढानि मायया || 61||

    īśhvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānāṁ hṛid-deśhe ‘rjuna tiṣhṭhati
    bhrāmayan sarva-bhūtāni yantrārūḍhāni māyayā

    īśhvaraḥ—the Supreme Lord; sarva-bhūtānām—in all living being; hṛit-deśhe—in the hearts; arjuna—Arjun; tiṣhṭhati—dwells; bhrāmayan—causing to wander; sarva-bhūtāni—all living beings; yantra ārūḍhani—seated on a machine; māyayā—made of the material energy
    BG 18.61: The Supreme Lord dwells in the hearts of all living beings, O Arjun. According to their karmas, he directs the wanderings of the souls, who are seated on a machine made of the material energy.

    Emphasizing the dependence of the soul upon God, Shree Krishna says, “Arjun, whether you choose to obey me or not, your position will always remain under my dominion. The body in which you reside is a machine made from my material energy. Based upon your past karmas, I have given you the kind of body you deserved. I too am seated in it, and am noting all your thoughts, words, and deeds. So, I will also judge whatever you do in the present, to decide your future. Do not think you are independent of me in any condition. Hence Arjun, it is in your self-interest to surrender to me.”
    By H.H Swami Mukundanand
    ------------------------By the Grace Of 5th Orginal Jagadguru Kripalu mahaprabhu.

    1. Thank you for your comment. But that is just a commentary (not an actual verse), and it seems like the imagination of Swami Mukundanand. Do we have any verse in the bhagavad gita or outside of it, in mahabharatha, where Krishna says:

      “Arjun, whether you choose to obey me or not, your position will always remain under my dominion. The body in which you reside is a machine made from my material energy. Based upon your past karmas, I have given you the kind of body you deserved. I too am seated in it, and am noting all your thoughts, words, and deeds. So, I will also judge whatever you do in the present, to decide your future. Do not think you are independent of me in any condition. Hence Arjun, it is in your self-interest to surrender to me.”

      Focus on the actual shlokas, not commentaries by some Krishna Bhaktas...

  4. hi Milin,

    Have you heard of " Anu gita "?

    Reference :-

    Krishna couldn't re-collect bhagavad-gita.

    1. Au Chaitu,

      Yes, I have heard of it!

    2. Could this mean Arjun was speaking to vishvaroop of Krishna and vice-versa?(not Krishna)
      Because Krishna couldn't re-collect the Bhagavad-Gita.
      Since you've posted vishvaroop as an interpolation,it can be inferred that Krishna taught Bhagavad-Gita to Arjun.
      How can Krishna forget his own teachings?

    3. In my opinion the Anu Gita is a later addition to the epic. Krishna's teachnings in the Bhagavad Geeta were nothing new or divine. They were advaita concepts that were common at the time. Krishna was a very spiritual person and had a good knowledge of dharma like Yuddhstira, so he likely learned these advaita concepts quickly and shared them to Arjuna prior to the kurukshetra war.

  5. Is this removed as an interpolation from BORI?

    1. Because, I couldn't find it in critical edition.

    2. No, Anu Gita is still present in the Critical Edition.

    3. Don't know, but I couldn't find it.can you tell the chapter number ?

      If you could remember we had a conversation on quora, you sent me 10 pdfs on fb.

      What about the posts you made on Islam you made?

      Do you use another blog or something?

    4. Oh ok. Now I remember you. Anu Gita is in Volume 10, Ashvamedhika Parva.

      No, this is the only blog I had. I was banned from my other quora account, so I stopped making posts on Islam.

    5. Krishna must have something otherwise what could be the reason of so much interpolation's in epic scripture?

    6. Is it not a habit to turn heroes that accomplished much during their lifetime into gods and worship them? Same happened with Krishna. Bhagavad Gita was an ideal text to convert, from a friend-friend to a devotee-god conversation, to make Krishna a divine figure. The first few chapters of the bhagavad gita are the original. The rest are later additions...

      A similar thing happened to Rama. The major piece of evidence that Rama is a god is from the agnipariksha sequence where all the demigods come to Rama and tell him that he is god and that he should not let his wife, Seetha, burn. However, that is also a later addition. The next post I am making will be on the agnipariksha and the events leading upto it. I will show there how Seetha didn't literally enter fire (her entering fire is symbolism for something more important), nor did the gods approach Rama and tell him he is god.

    7. In Karna Parva, Krishna gives five occasions on which one can lie. One of them, is when fooling a woman so that you can mate with her:

      There is nothing higher than truth. Behold, however, truth as practised is exceedingly difficult to be understood as regards its essential attributes. Truth may be unutterable, and even falsehood may be utterable where falsehood would become truth and truth would become falsehood. In a situation of peril to life and in marriage, falsehood becomes utterable. In a situation involving the loss of one's entire property, falsehood becomes utterable. On an occasion of marriage, or of enjoying a woman, or when life is in danger, or when one's entire property is about to be taken away, or for the sake of a Brahmana, falsehood may be uttered. These five kinds of falsehood have been declared to be sinless.

      This is drastically different than what we find in Bhagavad Geeta...

  6. What are you views on kalki avatar? Make one poat on iy

    1. Kalki avatara is a puranic creation, and I don't have a really high opinion of puranas. In my opinion, its just a myth. According to Mahabharatha and Ramayana, whenever a good king is ruling, the age of satayuga comes, and whenever a bad king comes on the throne, there is a reduction in overall prosperity of the subjects, and kali yuga comes... I am not a believer in the claims that kali yuga lasts for a fixed period of about 432 000 yrs...

  7. Yes, I've found anugita. But the concept of yugas was supported in BORI Mahabharath too..

    ‘Vyasa replied, “Earlier, in krita yuga, there was the lord Manu, the wielder of the staff. His son
    was the great archer, famous as Prajati." (Ashwamedhika parva)

    I couldn't find the theory of good ruler reign as satya Yuga and bad reign to be kaliyug.
    Do you have any reference from valmiki Ramayana or BORI Mahabharath?

    1. That quote you provided does not refute my claims regarding yugas. Anyways, read this passage by Kunti:

      The penal code properly applied by the ruler, maketh the four orders adhere to their respective duties, and leadeth to an acquisition (by the ruler himself) of virtue (profit, and salvation). When the king properly abideth by the penal code, without making any portion of it a dead letter, then that best of periods called the Krita Yuga setteth in. Let not this doubt be thine, viz., whether the era is the cause of the king, or the king the cause of the era, for (know this to be certain that) the king is the cause of the era. It is the king that createth the Krita, the Treta, or the Dwapara age. Indeed, it is the king that is the cause of also the fourth Yuga (viz., the Kali). That king who causeth the Krita age to set in, enjoyeth heaven exceedingly. That king who causeth the Treta age to set in, doth enjoy heaven but not exceedingly. For thus causing the Dwapara age to set in, a king enjoyeth heaven according to his due. The king, however, who causeth the Kali age to set in, earneth sin exceedingly. Thereupon, that king of wicked deeds resideth in hell for countless years. Indeed, the king's sins affect the world, and the world's sins affect him. Observe thou those kingly duties of thine that befit thy ancestry.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. Do we have any instances about yugas in Ramayana?

    4. Malyavan tells Ravana:

      असृजद् भगवान् पक्षौ द्वाव् एव हि पितामहः || ६-३५-१२
      सुराणाम् असुराणाम् च धर्म अधर्मौ तद् आश्रयौ |

      "Brahma, the lord of creation, created only two classes of beings, the celestials and the demons. Celestials take refuge in righteousness and demons in unrighteousness."

      धर्मो हि श्रूयते पक्षः सुराणाम् च महात्मनाम् || ६-३५-१३
      अधर्मो रक्षसाम् पक्षोह्य असुराणाम् च रावण |

      "O, Ravana! Righteous is said to be on the side of the high-souled celestials. Unrighteousness is indeed on the side of ogres and demons."

      धर्मो वै ग्रसते अधर्मम् ततः कृतम् अभूद् युगम् || ६-३५-१४
      अधर्मो ग्रसते धर्मम् ततस् तिष्यः प्रवर्तते |

      "When righteousness swallows unrighteousness, it becomes kR^ita Yuga, a golden age. When unrighteousness swallows righteousness, it incites Kali Yuga the fourth age."

      तत् त्वया चरता लोकान् धर्मो विनिहतो महान् || ६-३५-१५
      अधर्मः प्रगृहीतसः च तेन अस्मद् बलिनः परे |

      "Therefore, while you were wandering in the worlds, even the great righteousness was destroyed and unrighteousness favoured by you. So, the enemies are stronger than us."

      [So here it is said that it is kali yuga as Ravana followed adharma, and that the age of Krita Yuga will return now that Rama's side is getting stronger... No mention of Treta Yuga or the time related yugas. It is clearly the behavior of the kings (whether they are dharmic or adharmic) that decides the nature of the yuga, not vice versa...]

    5. 1)Very informative! Maybe you should make a post on it.

      2)I've heard that 10 heads of Ravan should not be taken literally and they represent 10 bad qualities. Is this true?

    6. I might make a post on yugas in the future. However, my next post will be a detailed analysis on Seetha's agnipariksha and what really happened. I will post that by this weekend.

      I believe that the 10 heads of Ravana refer to the 10 different qualities of Ravana, not his vices. Ravana actually didn't have many vices. What led to his fall was his passion for Seetha, along with his sense of pride/honor/ego...

      I wrote a quora answer on Ravana's heads, where I explained how it should not be taken literally. I also analyzed the appropriate section(s) in Yuddha Kanda to show how Rama cutting off Ravana's heads one by one, and them getting replaced by new ones whenever cut off, is a later addition to the epic to try to hide Rama's failure in the final fight against Ravana. However, my quora account was banned, and the answer collapsed. I might write a post on that as well in the future, on this blog.

  8. Oh.ok.. That's completely fine.

    So, you think these events (Ramayan and Mahabharat) really happened?

    1. Yes, in my opinion, mahabharatha and ramayana are history, with some exaggerations of course, as a poetic license...

  9. Just read some of your comments in this blog,So I say,

    We have to understand that neither vyasa nor valmiki witnessed the war to write things literally. So are these Epics older than Vedas?

    If you claim that there's one God ,then who are Agni, vayu,etc.... Mentioned in Vedas ,Ramayan and Mahabharath?

    You said it was static technology and it was disappeared? Just because brahmins refused to teach others.? What about other parts of the world? Only Indians had access to astras?

    We don't even have remains of the 1 billion warriors participated in Mahabharata that happened around 3000 B.C. At the same time we have fossils of dinosaurs all around the world that ruled 200 million years ago. Even time play important role to analyse the epics.

    1. It is the opinion of some people that Vyasa and Valmiki is just a title for the poets that wrote the epic. Some believe that there were many Vyasas and many Valmikis that wrote the epic. And yes, they were not there to witness all the events. But some information could be taken by people who were present during the incident. For example, Sanjaya was a warrior in the kurukshetra war that saw the war first hand. After Bhishma, Drona, Karna, and Duryodhana's death he returned to Hastinapura to report the events to Dhritarashtra (thus forming Bhishma Parva, Drona Parva, Karna Parva, and Shalya Parva)...

      The epics are not older than the vedas as we find references to the vedas in them.

      In Vedas, Agni, Vayu, etc... are are mythical beings. In Mahabharatha and Ramayana, they are used for symbolism, as I will show in the Seetha Agnipariksha post that I will soon post... However, sometimes, they also refer to physical beings living in heaven (which is just North of modern day India)...

      I have heard of such technology outside of India, in ancient times as well...

      We don't have remains of the dead warriors as they were cremated.

    2. BORI critical edition almost tried to bring Mahabharath to reality. But I think there are lot to interpret for the reader

      For I don’t know if discuses can return to the weilder like boomerangs of Australian aboriginals.

      Also, I don’t know if Shikhandin was a transgender man who exchanged his vagina with a Yaksha, or a cisgender woman who accompanied Arjuna because she was married to him.

      I don’t know if Draupadi was considered ‘fire born’ because she actually emerged from blazing fire like Frankenstine monster, or if she was an Agnivanshi Kshatriya woman. Also, was she actually married to five Pandavas, or to only Yudhishthira; or if Pandavas were so naive that they would literally share a common wife to ensure that their shrewed mother’s apparently ignorant words don’t get falsified.

      I don’t know if Bhishma was so dedicated to his father (whom he hardly knew) that he chose life-long celibacy to pave the path of an ambitious Satyavati, or if he was a secret paramour of his step-mother, who anyways couldn’t have been blissful with a perverted old man.

      I don’t know if sage Kimdama actually cursed Pandu, or was he a homosexual and his marriage with Kunti and Madri were marriages of convenience? For in real life, no one dies after having sex no matter whoever curse one.

      I don’t know if Kauravas were actually hundred and one biological children of Gandhari, or if they consisted only of Duryodhan, Dushasan, Vikarna, Dushala and maybe few of their brothers and half-brothers.

      I also have no idea if Dhritarashtra and Gandhari were literally blind, or if Dhritarashtra was a psychopath with no morality while Gandhari was a weak, husband-worshiping woman.

      I don’t know if the river Ganga herself took the form of a woman to bear eight sons with Shantanu, or his first wife was a free-spirited tribal woman from Himalayas, who left him because she came from a matriarchal tribe and wasn’t quite appreciative of the patriarchal ways of “mainstream” society.

      There are a lot of questions, and considering Ramayana and Mahabharata historical events is not an answer to them. But we may get close!

    3. Oh! Wait a second...
      Where did you heard of that technology outside of India?

    4. I saw some documentaries a long while back about such technology (such as Vimanas) in China. China is also mentioned in the Mahabharatha. Arjuna conquered tribes from that area in his digvijaya.

      You raised alot of interesting points in your other comment.

      1. I think discuses were similar to daggers in their use. One would throw it, and it would pierce the other person. Then the person would physically go and remove the discus from the dead person's body. In Sabha Parva, when Shishupala dies, there is no mention of the discus returning back to Krishna.

      2. Where is it mentioned that Shikhandin accompanied Arjuna? Even on day 10 of the war, they were on separate chariots, and Arjuna was protecting the wheel of Shikhandin's chariot so that Shikhandin could slay Bhishma. Shikhandin may have been a man converted into a transgender by later poets that wanted to show a link between Shikhandin and Amba. Even in Bhishma parva, there are mentions of Bhishma attacking Shikhandin.

      3. Draupadi was not literally fire born. BORI CE uses the word maithuna, meaning sex, to describe the yajna from which she was born. The brahmin yaja raped Draupada's wife and that resulted in the birth of Draupadi and Dhristadyumna. Read my post on that topic:

      4. The 5 Pandavas married Draupadi as they were all attracted to her and because she was also attracted to all 5 of them. The story of Kunti asking Pandavas to share Draupadi is clearly a later addition. First of all, Kunti knew that the Pandavas went to the Swayamvara for Draupadi and not for alms, so why would she even think for a second that they got alms? Also, Pandavas went in the evening everyday to collect alms, not in the afternoon (which is when the Swayamvara took place).

      For Draupadi's marriage, please check this post:

      5. I have also heard about a Bhishma-Satyavati relationship. But no solid evidence has been shown for that. Anyways, its an interesting angle to investigate. But we do know that Ambalika was attracted to Bhishma.

      6. In my opinion, Kindama is a fictional character. Check out the comments to this post:

      Over there, I show the possibility that Pandu was pressurized by Bhishma to marry Madri. But he did not as he was in love with Kunti, so Bhishma got pissed off, and exiled Pandu... So, in my opinion, Madri did not exist. Also, she barely has any conversations in the epic. When Pandu wants a child, he approached Kunti, and convinces her. Their conversation then lasts a few sections in Adi Parva. There is no such conversartion to persuade Madri for Niyoga...

      7. Dhritarashtra was a lusty man. It is entirely possible that Gandhari gave birth to the first 10 kauravas, and the rest were children of Dhritarashtra's servants. Dhritarashtra also had a child (Yuyutsu) from a vaishya woman.

      8. I dont think Dhritarashtra was blind, nor did Gandhari put on a cloth over her eyes. In Udyoga Parva, Dhritarashta expresses his fear of Bhima and says that Bhima never smiles. This is something a blind man would not know. Similarly, in Shalya Parva, Gandhari addresses Krishna as a handsome man, which again would not be possible if her eyes were covered...

      9. I like your interpretation of the Ganga-Shantanu angle. It seems quite possible that she may have been from a matriarchal tribe.

  10. 1) yes, the chakra didn't return to krishna.

    2)Bhishma attacked Shikkandin? I don't know... Maybe I've read the text faster.

    3) I've read the post.It can be correct

    4)5)I've read the posts.It can be correct
    6)kunti says"I have enemies" , I don't assume they killed killed pandu. This remains mystery.


    1. I think brahmins were limited to India.
      If Chinese too had static weaponary, the technology can't have disappeared just because brahmins refused to teach.

    2. Here is the text of Bhishma attacking Shikhandin:

      Then the king of the Panchalas the valiant Dhrishtaketu, Bhimasena the son of Pandu, Dhrishtadyumna of Prishata's race, the twins (Nakula and Sahadeva), Chekitana, and the five Kaikaya brothers, and the mighty-armed Satyaki and Subhadra's son, and Ghatotkacha, and the (five) sons of Draupadi, and Sikhandin, and the valiant Kuntibhoja, and Susarman, and Virata, these and many other powerful warriors of the Pandava army, afflicted by the shafts of Bhishma, seemed to sink in an ocean of grief, Phalguni, however, rescued them all.

      I don't think Kunti's in laws killed Pandu. I think he was exiled because he refused to marry Madri, and later died a natural death in the forest...

      China was one of the few areas outside of India that was not considered barbaric. It is quite possible that brahmins migrated out of India into China and vice versa...

  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

  12. What's your opinion on the"Suta parakritaman" who dragged draupadi to sabha?

    1. I believe that it was the Pratikamin, and not Dushasana that dragged Draupadi to the court. When I write my posts on what happened in the sabha, at the game of dice, I will talk about the Pratikamin.

      In my opinion, the Pratikamin was Karna.

    2. Hi Milin,
      I'm making these references from BORI critical edition ,look at them-

      1)Mangled by Krishna’s chakra and covered with fat and
      blood, the rakshasas then seemed to be like twilight clouds. O descendant of the Bharata
      lineage! Varshneya was like destiny, killing pishachas, birds, serpents and animals in their
      thousands. Released from the hand of Krishna, the slayer of enemies, the chakra repeatedly
      killed many beings and RETURNED TO HIS HAND. O descendant of the Bharata lineage!

      "‘Then Shakra, the great lord of the thirty gods,35 was angered. Riding a white elephant, he
      charged at them. Grasping lightning, he hurled his vajra weapon with great force and the
      slayer of demons announced to the gods that the two had been killed. On seeing that the king
      of the gods was about to hurl the great lightning, the gods grasped all their respective
      weapons—King Yama his kaladanda,36 the god of wealth his shibika,37 Varuna his pasha,38
      Shiva his vichakra,39 the two Ashvins luminiscent oshadhi,40 Dhata his dhanu,41 Jaya his
      musala,42 the immensely strong Tvashta a mountain, Amsha his shakti43"

      What's your opinion on the gods present in the above text?

      "‘Having consumed the forest with its animals and birds for five days and one, the fire was
      extremely satiated and ceased. He had eaten flesh and drunk fat and blood. O lord of the
      world! He was filled with extreme joy and spoke to them. “O warriors! O tigers among men!
      You have gratified me to the point of extreme bliss. You now have my leave to go where you
      want.” O bull among the Bharata lineage! Having been thus granted leave by the great-souled
      fire, the threesome of Arjuna, Vasudeva and the danava Maya wandered around for some
      time. They then seated themselves on the banks of the beautiful river.’
      This ends the Adi Parva of the Mahabharata"

      Did krishna really made deal with God of Fire?

    3. Reference:- Volume 2, section 19

    4. That was the Khandava Daha. I would take the war sequences with a grain of salt. The mentions of some of the gods are later interpolations. For example, mahabharatha was written in vedic period, where Shiva was not worshipped as a god by the Aryans. So all references to Shiva are later additions...

      And Krishna and Arjuna made a deal with a brahmin, who called himself Agni. It was not agni deva though because when the brahmin is introduced, he is not addressed as Agni deva.

  13. 1)Chakra reflecting to krishna could be an interpolation?

    2)regarding Mahabharath, Sanjaya being a participant in the war would be possible. However, in that case he could have included his own stories as well, that could be true only if he was a spectator and not a warrior.

    1. Yes, I think the chakra returning is an interpolation. Sanjaya would have been more of a spectator than a warrior. But he could fight whenever needed. And Sanjaya would also have his own bias when reporting, like any other reporter.

      By the way, I posted my agnipariksha article a short while back:

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  14. Regarding your Ramayana posts,

    Krishna was a sociopath. that's ok. Why defame Sita devi?

    1. In what way was Krishna a sociopath. He was away from being a sociopath. And where did I defame Seetha? Was it the Ravana-Seetha love angle I talked about in the post? It was needed to understand that prior to understanding Rama's mindset when he abandoned Seetha prior to the agnipariksha.

    2. 1)Burning a forest, Cursing ashwasena, celebrating the slain of ghatothkacha, cursing ashwathamma for 3000 years, killing sishupala. ....

      2)yes, about that love angle.

    3. Burning the forest was to eliminate the Nagas that would have never let the Pandavas settle in Indraprastha. It was war. Krishna was cruel to his enemies, hence cursed the fleeing Aswasena. That may make him cruel, but in no way a sociopath. Killing Gatotkacha, and Shishupala gave him political advantages so that just shows how great a politician he was. And cursing Ashwatthama is likely a later interpolation to the epic.

      When Krishna comes for peace, everyone stares at him and only him alone. Then he speaks in such a way that everyone agrees with him. That does not seem to be the qualities of a sociopath. The points you stated just show him to be a cruel politician... Thats all... Also, how does Krishna come into the picture when talking about the Seetha Agnipariksha post?

      I don't really think I was defaming Seetha when talking about the love angle. I was just talking about what likely happens over time. One's behavior towards another is never static. When Ravana was kidnapping Seetha, her behavior towards him was very very bitter. However, 10 months later, in Sundara Kanda, when Hanumana is sent to meet her, she softens up significantly in her behavior towards Ravana. Once the war is over, we see her lamenting over Ravana's death and blaming her kidnap on her past bad karma instead of on Ravana... Rama realized from this behavior that she loved Ravana, and hence decided to abandon her!

      Even after the Agnipariksha, when returning to Ayodhya, there are hints that she loved Ravana.

      When ascending the Pushpaka Vimana, Seetha was embarrassed when Rama placed her on his lap:

      अङ्केनादाय वैदेहीं लज्जमानां यशस्विनीम् |
      लक्ष्मणेन सह भ्रात्रा विक्रान्तेन धनुष्मता || ६-१२२-१२

      He mounted the aerial car along with Lakshmana, his valiant brother wielding a bow and taking the illustrious Seetha, who was feeling embarrassed, in his lap.

      Why would she be embarrassed when her husband, whom she is seeing after a long time becomes intimate with her?

      Furthermore, after Ravana describes all the places to Seetha, and specifically talks about Ravana's death, Seetha says:

      अथ दृष्ट्वा पुरीं सीता किष्किन्धां वालिपालिताम् || ६-१२३-२३
      अब्रवीत्प्रश्रितं वाक्यं रामं प्रणयसाध्वसा |

      Seeing the City of Kishkindha, which was earlier ruled by Vali, Seetha, who was feeling perturbed through love, then spoke the following courteous words to Rama.

      सुग्रीवप्रियभार्याभिस्ताराप्रमुखातो नृप || ६-१२३-२४
      अन्येषां वानरेन्द्राणां स्त्रीभिः परिवृता ह्यहम् |
      गन्तुमिच्छे सहायोध्यां राजधानीं त्वया सह || ६-१२३-२५

      "O king! I wish to reach the capital City of Ayodhya along with you, accompanied by the wives of other monkey-chiefs with Tara and other beloved wives of Sugreeva."

      As you can see, Rama was getting intimate with Seetha, and telling her about the death of Ravana. Hearing all this, she was perturbed due to her love (for Ravana) and she then asked the wives of the vanara chiefs to be taken along on the Pushpaka Vimana to Ayodhya (so that Rama would restrain his sensual desires in the presence of these females)...

    4. 1)Try mixing the attributes of Krishna from the begining (draupadi swayamvar) to see the complexity of Krishna.
      2) Remember when I said Kauravas were actually hundred and one biological children of Gandhari, or if they consisted only of Duryodhan, Dushasan, Vikarna, Dushala and maybe few of their brothers and half-brothers. (I can just interpret this based on my way of thinking and reading abilities, but there is no straight-forward material evidence to prove this.)

      The same is the case of love angle you're bringing up with, these can be your conclusions , not necessarily it would have happened.

    5. 1) In the draupadi swayamvara, krishna was a participant who failed. He never told Draupadi to reject Karna and according to BORI CE, she never rejected Karna.

      I provided you one quote that shows that Seetha became perturbed when Rama was getting intimate with her, due to love (for Ravana). I think thats a clear statement of her love. Furthermore, she doesnt show happiness that Rama had won the war. She also defends Ravana's actions by saying that they were the result of her previous bad karma...

    6. I've read that in BORI, there's no mention of krishna being failed. Dhristadyumna introduces the princes who participated​ in swayamvar (includes krishna). Krishna is quite a trickster and an intelligent one. In my opinion , He might had'nt took the risk of lifting the bow and getting failed.

      2) Time changes, Sita stayed in Lanka for a long time. Opinions change.

    7. 1) In BORI, the names of the kings that came to participate are given. Krishna is included. Then it just says that all the kings failed and then Arjuna arose. Since Krishna was listed among the kings that came to participate, it implies that he failed.

      2) Yeah, thats what I am saying. Her hatred for Ravana clearly diminished over time. Even when Hanumana goes to Lanka, he sees that she has already began abandoning aryan customs/traditions and has adopted Lankan ones (Sundara Kanda section 19).

    8. Disagreed on your angle.
      अङ्केनादाय वैदेहीं लज्जमानां यशस्विनीम् |
      लक्ष्मणेन सह भ्रात्रा विक्रान्तेन धनुष्मता || ६-१२२-१२

      He mounted the aerial car along with Lakshmana, his valiant brother wielding a bow and taking the illustrious Seetha, who was feeling embarrassed, in his lap.
      1)No one likes to have intimation just after they meet after a long time. Remember Sita might be in her middle-age.))

      Furthermore, after Ravana describes all the places to Seetha, and specifically talks about Ravana's death, Seetha says:

      अथ दृष्ट्वा पुरीं सीता किष्किन्धां वालिपालिताम् || ६-१२३-२३
      अब्रवीत्प्रश्रितं वाक्यं रामं प्रणयसाध्वसा |

      Seeing the City of Kishkindha, which was earlier ruled by Vali, Seetha, who was feeling perturbed through love, then spoke the following courteous words to Rama.

      सुग्रीवप्रियभार्याभिस्ताराप्रमुखातो नृप || ६-१२३-२४
      अन्येषां वानरेन्द्राणां स्त्रीभिः परिवृता ह्यहम् |
      गन्तुमिच्छे सहायोध्यां राजधानीं त्वया सह || ६-१२३-२५

      "O king! I wish to reach the capital City of Ayodhya along with you, accompanied by the wives of other monkey-chiefs with Tara and other beloved wives of Sugreeva."

      As you can see, Rama was getting intimate with Seetha, and telling her about the death of Ravana. Hearing all this, she was perturbed due to her love (for Ravana) and she then asked the wives of the vanara chiefs to be taken along on the Pushpaka Vimana to Ayodhya (so that Rama would restrain his sensual desires in the presence of these females)

      2) there's nothing wrong in sharing victory with comrades.

    9. Sita is more matured of the consequences in Lanka, she transformed. your way of interpretation can be wrong.

    10. Ravana was a rakshas, wasn't he?

    11. 1) Why not? Would a woman not embrace her husband after her husband had saved her from trouble? Why would she refuse her husbands' love if she had been deprived from it for so long? About her middle age... In Yuddha Kanda section 5, Rama laments that he is not able to mate with Seetha, thus implying that she mated with Rama prior to her kidnap. Was her middle age not a problem back then? If it was not a problem back then, then why a problem now?

      2) Sure there is nothing wrong in sharing victory with allies. But why would Seetha feel perturbed via love? Can you explain that? I don't see any reason for her to be perturbed at the moment due to love for Rama. She was clearly perturbed due to love for someone she was abandoning. Since Rama discussed in detail the death of Ravana and destruction of Lanka, it implies that the love talked about in the verse was her love for Ravana and Lanka...

      3) Yes she matured in Lanka. Don't people mature when in love?

      4) Yes, Ravana belonged to the rakshasa tribe.

    12. 1)she wasn't​ in middle-age prior to the kidnap.

      2)need not be for Ravan, but maybe for the Lanka, where she stayed for a long time.The distressed time in Lanka made seeta no longer interested in love and desire issues.

      3)Do granny's and old people mature in love? Yes, is it sexually?
      That's different maturity in love.

      4) Ravan was rakshasa. Why would a princess fall in love with cannibals and cruel people?

    13. 1) If you agree that she was in middle age after the kidnap, then she was also in middle age prior to the kidnap...

      2) This is just your extreme bias here, my friend. The text clearly says that she was perturbed because of love. Love for Lanka? Ok. But what brought about that great love in Lanka? It was obviously Ravana, who brought her to Lanka. I also find it silly on your part that you refrain from commenting on the many verses where she is in grief upon hearing of Ravana's death and how she attributes her kidnap not to Ravana's evilness but to her own bad karma...

      The distressed time in Lanka made her no longer interested in love? That is utter nonsense. Which person after being kidnapped does not pine for love from their own ones? Furthermore, there is no evidence that she was distressed. She groomed herself well and fed herself well in Lanka. Does a person under distress do that?

      3) When did I claim it was sexually? It could be emotionally... You just seem ashamed to admit any sexual relationship between Ravana and Seetha... But there is no denying that Ravana had copulated with Seetha on the way to Lanka. There is atleast 5-6 references for it.

      Also, was Seetha a granny? No. She was still quite youthful and attractive, just like Ravana. So a sexual relationship is quite possible, as occurs during love between young ones.

      4) Why did Bhima fall in love with Hidimbaa? Why does a brahmin fall in love with a sudra?

      Also, Rakshasas were not cruel, nor were they cannibals. Try to differentiate between facts and propaganda by victors... See the descriptions of rakshasas by the less bigoted Vyasa in Mahabharatha. True they did eat meat, but they never ate humans. Nor were they exceedingly cruel.

      Let me remind you that Ravana did not kill or even harm Seetha while she was in Lanka.

    14. Ha! Really?

      C'mon mate, I'll buy that I'm biased if you accept your hatred towards Sita devi.

      We both agree upon, I haven't found any single reference for such angle.

      Why should I be ashamed of something that NEVER happened?

    15. I have provided numerous verses that show the love angle from Most of the verses, you did not address in your comments... And the ones that you did, you ignored the word "love" in it and then gave your interpretation... If thats not being biased, then I wonder what is? It was this love for Ravana, detected by Rama, that was the basis of Rama abandoning Seetha. If you haven't read my entire agnipariksha post, I suggest you take time and read it.

      I dare you to find a single statement that shows hatred towards Seetha on my part. In fact, she is my favorite character in the epic.

    16. Those verses never show nor hint any angle.

      Thing is you've translated those Sanskrit verses, exploited some words like "aksatam",etc... to change meanings of those verses.Added your twisted commentary on them, to corrupt mind-set of the reader.

      You're biased in epics. You're exploiting Ramayan with unnecessary angles and just accepting the English text of Mahabharath as it is.

      Adding unnecessary angles show your hatred towards Sita.

    17. Many might have read valmiki Ramayana, why couldn't they find Atleast one angle that you say, is something wrong with everyone or do you have the ability to read the invisible text?

    18. Regarding the above post,
      Why can't we assume vishvaroopa was an illusion just like Meghanatha of Ramayana had power to make illusions.

    19. The verses clearly do show an angle. Why does a Seetha after the war defend Ravana kidnapping her? She claims that her kidnap was due to her bad karma. But if we compare that to her behvior during the actual kidnap, she puts the blame of the entire kidnap on Ravana. Why the drastic difference? Why the constant crying upon finding out Ravana is dead? Why the embarassment on Rama's lap in the Vimana? She was not a shy person. She hugged Rama in the open after he killed Khara and Dushana... Why does the poet write that she was perturbed due to love when Rama was getting intimate with her on the vimana? What does that mean?

      If some sanskrit translations have mistakes, should we not correct them? Akshatam refers to unbroken/undamaged virginity. Hence the translation by the translators is incorrect. So it is extremely foolish on your part to blindly accept the translators translations and call any way to fix these errors as "exploitation". If I was really interested in fooling the readers, I would not have pinpointed out the mistakes. I would have just fixed the translation errors and not provided an explanation... But I did not want to do that...

      And what commentary was twisted. If I see emotional attachment it is there. I don't find ways of manipulating the verses by saying that the reason Seetha was not attracted to Rama was due to her being middle aged (which she was not by the way)...etc... And the verses are in front of you. If I wanted to corrupt the minds of the readers, then I would not have provided the verses...

      I don't just accept the English translation of the Mahabharatha. When I look at BORI CE, I also consider the sanskrit... However, I don't have the sanskrit texts for KMG, so there is little I can do there... I just have to accept the verses then...

      Who are you or me to decide which verses in the epics are necessary and which are unnecessary? Its all a matter of opinion and interpretation.

      If you call my interpretation of the Ravana-Seetha angle as hatred for Seetha, then can I say that you hate Satyavati as you earlier talked about a Bhishma-Satyavati affair? Do you see how silly it is getting. Being critical of a character is not hatred...

      Most people who read Valmiki Ramayana are bhaktas. In bhakti one tends to forget uncomfortable facts... I can say this as I used to be a bhakta in the past... Also, I have found at least one person that agrees with me that Seetha did feel emotional feelings for Ravana upon his death...

      As for this post...

      Meganath was a rakshasa and was trained in illusions. Krishna had no such training, hence we cannot assume that the vishwaroopa was an illusion... Again the question arises that even if it was an illusion that only Arjuna could see, then why was he hesitant to fight on the first day of the war, itself?

    20. Couldn't it be like Krishna was possessed by super natural entity and thus he was capable of showing vishvaroopa?

      Many times in Gita krishna address as 'worship me' , 'leaf is enough, "surrender to me and I Will free from sin", etc... Something like that. Who was he referring to then?
      Himself or God or some other Multi-dimensional entity?

      BORI critical edition supported vishvaroopa.

      Refer vol-5, page-128

    21. And maybe​ after vishvaroopa, even arjun forgot that too

    22. Yes, those references to him saying "worship me" are later additions to the epic. I don't find it convincing that Arjuna would forget the vishwaroop on the day it was revealed. If he forgot it, he would have gone into the same earlier panic, right?

    23. if what u say is true then why hell wuld rama want to rescue sita and kill ravana . then waht is moral of story of ramayana love sex and dokha? milin patel
      you have the hots for you mom and enjoy peeping while she is showering doesnt mean rest of the world shares your deviancy. Leave others to to their "disgusting" non incest lifestyles and you continue with yours.

    24. Look at the text from the perspective of different characters...

      From Seetha's perspective, she wanted to provoke Ravana by attacking is ego/pride/manliness and challenging him to kidnap her so that she gets kidnapped by him. In Lanka she would enjoy riches and Ravana till Rama comes to "rescue" her from Ravana. Once Ravana is killed the plan would be to return to Ayodhya.

      From Ravana's perspective, he kidnapped Seetha to teach the arrogant lady a lesson that Rama is not the only brave man on the planet. He soon realized it was an impulsive decision and he regretted the decision.

      From Rama's perspective, someone kidnapped his devoted, faithful and chaste wife in a deceitful manner. He is pained on thinking how his weak wife would deal with the kidnapper. He knows nothing about his wife's "plan" to go to Lanka with Ravana... But due to his constant possessiveness and insecurity for Seetha, he is always wondering if Seetha would succumb to Ravana and marry her...

      I do not engage in incest, but there are communities that do and I respect their decision. Learn to be more open minded and tolerant of the life styles of others...

    25. mr milin patel first of all plz accept my apology as
      i shuld not have used that language.i didnt mean any of those words . anyways lets begin

      1 u said From Seetha's perspective, she wanted to provoke Ravana by attacking is ego /pride manliness and challenging him to kidnap her so that she gets kidnapped by him. DOES IT EVEN MAKE SENSE TO YOU ?

      why wuld sita delibratley want to provke Ravana and get kidnapped in process? was sita a psycho or may b a narcissist person ? what she gain frm this ?a sick plzure perhaps.

      2 From Ravana's perspective, he kidnapped Seetha to teach the arrogant lady a lesson that Rama is not the only brave man on the planet again this is possible if first scenario is true . so so according to u if any lady offends some guys ego she deserves to get kidnapped and raped as punishment .

      3 so so rama was insecure peson cuz He knows nothing about his narcissist wife's "plan" to go to Lanka with Ravana... what was he insecure about that Ravana was most handsome and manly than him that sita wuld succumb to manly charm ?

      if all above is true then what is the point of having great epic called Mahabharata Ramayana?

      valmaiki rishi and veda vysa culd have well written a sleazy script for reality show or daily soap where is moral here? why shuld any one waste time reading this great epic?

      this is why i used abusive language against u
      ur destroying this country's heritage by false interpretation which passed down so many generations

      only a sick mind can think of such interpretations

    26. btw i did not know that u are regular troll of ysv rao blog i thught he spammed / blocked you ?

    27. Halesingh,

      Is Volataa, your alternative id? If so, I did not feel bad by the language you used. It just reflects your frustration, which I can understand, considering the fact that I have introduced a different viewpoint...

      I will address your points one by one...

      1. She wanted to provoke Ravana to kidnap her because she wanted to go to Lanka for a short period... She wanted to escape her possessive husband Rama for a while. However, she could not ask him to marry her as she wanted to return to Ayodhya after Rama defeats and kills Ravana. So there is definitely a political reason for her wanting to be taken to Lanka. But there is also a more personal reason. It should be no surprise that Rama was unable to sexually satisfy Seetha.

      When Rama refused to take Seetha with her on exile, Seetha tried to convince her husband to take her. But upon noticing that Rama was not listening to her, she got really angry and vented out her true feelings about him in anger. She called him a female in the form of a man:

      किम् त्वा अमन्यत वैदेहः पिता मे मिथिला अधिपः |
      राम जामातरम् प्राप्य स्त्रियम् पुरुष विग्रहम् || २-३०-३

      "What my father, the king of Mithila belonging to the country of Videha, think of himself having got as son-in-law you, a woman having the form of a man?"

      Does this not show her frustration towards Rama as he was unable to satisfy her? Research shows that women with children tend to be more sexually satisfied with their partner than women that do not have children. Seetha was married 25 yrs to Rama and still did not have any children despite having a husband who was so "addicted" to her body! This would definitely lead to dissatisfaction.

      Furthermore, Hanumana describes Rama as having a small, undersized penis in Sundara Kanda section 35. Another possible reason for sexual dissatisfaction...

      Ravana was a much more handsome man than Rama, so Seetha saw Ravana as a man that could fulfill her sexual desires and satisfy her. When Ravana lifts Seetha up (when kidnapping her), Valmiki says that Seetha was filled with sexual excitement (matta).

      So the reason for her wanting to be kidnapped is both political and personal.

    28. 2. No that is not what I said. If a lady challenges a man to kidnap and rape her and then the man does, the blame for the act rests entirely on the woman as she invited the man to rape her. That is what Seetha did.

      Seetha indirectly challenges Ravana to rape her by saying that he can live after kidnapping and raping Sachi (wife of Indra) but he will not live after kidnapping and raping her even if he consumes the nectar that makes one immortal. By saying this, Seetha indirectly challenges Ravana to survive after kidnapping her:

      अपहृत्य शचीं भार्यां शक्यमिन्द्रस्य जीवितुम्।
      न च रामस्य भार्यां मामपनीयास्ति जीवितम्।।3.48.23।।

      It may be possible (for some one) to live after abducting Indra's wife, Sachi, but it is not possible for any one to live after kidnapping the wife of Rama.

      जीवेच्चिरं वज्रधरस्य हस्ताच्छचीं प्रधृष्याप्रतिरूपरूपाम्।
      न मादृशीं राक्षस दूशयित्वा पीतामृतस्यापि तवास्ति मोक्षः।।3.48.24।।

      O demon, you may live long after forcibly snatching the most beautiful Sachi, from the hands of Indra, the wielder of the thunderbolt, but after abusing a woman like me, you will not be released from death even if you drink nectar.

      You should actually read the kidnap sequence in the epic (Aranya Kanda sections 46-49) to see how Ravana politely proposes in marriage to Seetha and how Seetha lashes out at him in the most disgusting manner... In fact, Seetha was the first person to mention "kidnap" and "rape" in the conversation, not Ravana.

      3) Yes, Rama was insecure that Seetha would marry Ravana and abandon him. That insecurity is the basis of the agnipariksha. He only abandoned Seetha (after the war) after finding out that Seetha was emotionally attached to Ravana... Read my Agnipariksha post for more details:

      Mahabharatha and Ramayana are not texts on "morality". For example Rama's army burned down innocent civilians of Lanka in the war, and Krishna burned down the Khandava forest with its inhabitants... None of them are ideal, moral characters... Mahabharatha and Ramayana are political texts and we get to learn alot about politics from these texts...

      I am not a troll on ysv rao's blog. We had a discussion a few months ago on his blog and he got quite frustrated and decided to block me (but he never actually did as I can still post on his blog).

      I told him that if he does not want me to comment on his blog, then he should just not mention my name on his blog! As long as I am not mentioned on his blog, I will not comment on it.

    29. according to The Mystery of The Pandava ‘God-Fathers’ - 3 by Indrajit Bandyopadhyay

      rishi kindama was real father of bhima .Kindama was a Rishi who frequented their ashrama. They did not know that he was a pervert! Kunti chose Kindama by herself. Bhima was born.

    30. Ravana was said to be jaya and vijaya who were gatekeepers of vishnu if so then is it then justified the Rama was meirly lifting curse by killing Ravana how can u say taht rama killed ravana by decit ? after all he was not a mortal he was avatara of vishnu

    31. I read Indrajit Bandyopadhyay's article... I didn't find it too convincing. I only agree that Vidura was Yuddhistira's father. But there is no strong evidence of Kindama being Bhima's father. In fact, Kindama dies before Pandu and Kunti try for offspring.

      In my opinion, Kindama was a later insertion in the epic to hide the fact that Pandu was exiled by Bhishma for refusing to marry Madri. Take a look at the comments section of this post below for more info:

      The story of jaya and vijaya being gatekeepers of vishnu is simply a later puranic story to justify the aggressive acts of Rama and Krishna. It is not possible for one to find out whom they were in a previous birth. Also Puranas are not authentic for Ramayana events as they were written centuries after the Ramayana epic was written. They were written by non-contemporaries of Rama and Ravana.

      I will talk about the deceit used in Ravana's death in a later article. Both Mahabharatha and Ramayana tell that deceit was used to kill Ravana.

    32. Milin Patel don't lie. Hidimva clearly was about to kill Bhima's family members to make them food.

    33. Hidimb was going to make eat Bhima's family members, not Hidimba. As far as Hidimba is concerned, Bhima attempted to seduce her by flaunting his strength:

      "Bhima then said, 'O thou of fair hips, fear not anything. I am sure that as long as I am here, there is no Rakshasa capable of injuring any of these, O thou of slender waist. I will slay this (cannibal) before thy very eyes. This worst of Rakshasas, O timid one, is no worthy antagonist of mine, nor can all the Rakshasas together bear the strength of my arms. Behold these strong arms of mine, each like unto the trunk of an elephant. Behold also these thighs of mine like unto iron maces, and this broad and adamantine chest. O beautiful one, thou shall today behold my prowess like unto that of Indra. O thou of fair hips, hate me not, thinking that I am a man.'

  15. Krishna can be man, may be politician, etc...Krishna is also a man ....He has hunger, thirst, etc...Like all of us

    Suppose , God shows vishvaroopa to you or anyone​.why should they kill their relatives and loved ones?? How can they just forget everything they have done and kill them ruthlessly?? No one does.

    Post is stupidity. Everyone hesitates to kill their very dear ones. Attitude man. Bheem can kill people and drink blood. Arjun has a better character.donot make lol.

    1. Why not try reading the epic before making such statements? Arjuna was a very emotional fellow and could not just go and kill his relatives like that. Krishna revealed the Bhagavad Gita and all Arjunas doubts were dispelled. He then said that he had no qualms in killing his relatives. But later on, even in the first day of the war, he was shown to be an idle spectator when Sweta was killed by Bhishma. That implies that alot of what is in the bhagavad geeta is an interpolation to show that Arjuna was convinced to kill his relatives. In reality he was never completely convinced to kill his relatives...

      Now you said that just because god shows vishwaroopa, nobody would kill their relatives ruthlessly. True. But we have to look at Arjuna's behavior after Krishna's Vishwaroopa. He says:

      "Arjuna said, 'My delusion hath been destroyed, and the recollection (of what I am) hath been gained by me, O Undeteriorating one, through thy favour. I am now firm. My doubts have been dispelled. I will do thy bidding.'"

      It shows extreme confidence and willingness to slaughter his relatives. If you dont think such words are possible from a character like Arjuna, it implies that there are interpolations in the Bhagavad Gita...

      Bhima only drank the blood of one character. How does that make him bad?

    2. After watching very ADULT movie, seeing lot of intimate scenes, anyone will want to have sex with someone. But they will not do that practically.

      Same way...He was convinced to kill relatives, after seeing vishvaroopa, but as time goes...He can feel emotional.

      Krishna is incarnation of God. Always a step forward than humans. Because he showed vishvaroopa.

      Can U Bring any version of Mahabharata which tells that vishvaroopa is interpolation???

    3. After watching an adult movie, won't a man go and have sex with his wife? I honestly dont understand the connection between that and the vishwaroop.

      As time goes, he felt emotional. True. But he felt emotional on the first day itself. If vishwaroop was shown, it would have taken a couple of days to become emotional. He would not have become emotional on the first day itself.

      Also, read the verse I provided in my earlier comment. It shows Arjuna's full confidence and willingness to kill his relatives... I don't expect such a person to lose all this confidence in a couple hours...

  16. Do teenagers have wives? Does all cultures all over world encourage free sexual culture?
    "After watching very ADULT movie, seeing lot of intimate scenes, anyone will want to have sex with someone. But they will not do that practically."

    It means a person makes up the mind to have sex after watching the video. But coming back to senses, justs shuts up and sits.
    Same was arjun who told his delusion is gone, but still not able to fight on seeing them.

    Arjun is convinced to kill them when he saw god, but when he came to battlefield , arjun is again back to normal state from excited state.

    1. In that case, the teens either have sex with their girlfriend or masturbate. Its not like they suppress their sexual desire.

      Your explanation is not convincing. Obviously when he said he would kill his relatives (after vishwaroop) he would have thought of their death and the process. So, he was ready for the brutality involved. But his eagerness is absent in the actual fight, thus proving that the vishwaroop is an interpolation.

      Do you think that after seeing the vishwaroop, all of Arjuna's thoughts came to a halt? Of course not. He was constantly evaluating whether or not to fight.

      Furthermore, do we find any reference (in the actual war sequences) to the visharoop outside of the bhagavad gita sections? NO.

    2. "Arjuna said, 'My delusion hath been destroyed, and the recollection (of what I am) hath been gained by me, O Undeteriorating one, through thy favour. I am now firm. My doubts have been dispelled. I will do thy bidding."
      Why not Remove this as an interpolation if you are not liking it ??
      Why can't​ krishna show vishvaroopa??
      Krishna is incarnation of God.

    3. Exactly. That is the interpolation. It is intricately linked with the vishwaroop and hence that is an interpolation as well...

      It is your assumption that Krishna is an incarnation of god. Does an incarnation of god fail in Draupadi's swayamvara? Does he have to resort to cheap tactics to kill Shishupala? Does he flee from Jarasandha out of fear?

    4. Ok. For you. Gita will also be extrapolation.

      Rig Veda 1.164.31

      apasyam gopam anipadyamana ma ca para ca pathibhis carantam
      sa sadhricih sa visucir vasana avatirvati bhuvanesv antah

      “I saw a Gopala (Gopa). He never falls from his position; sometimes he is near, and sometimes far, wandering on various paths. He is a friend, decorated with a variety of clothes. He comes again and again to the material world.”

      //The above verse describe Krishna, the foremost of all the Gopas (cowherd men). It also describes Krishna as Avatari Purusha and ultimately as Supreme Lord.

      Narayana Upanishada:

      brahmanyo devki putra

      “The son of Devki i.e. Sri Krishna is Supreme Brahman.

      The name “Krishna” is mentioned in Rig Veda 1.116.23

      Jarasanda is LOL to krishna.
      Shisupala was slained by Chakra in public.

      Krishna never entered swamyava ra

    5. "He comes again and again to the material world.”

      This proves incarnation

    6. I will come again and again to Earth (via rebirths) to free it of its sin!

      -Milin Patel

      So now am I an incarnation of god? LOL.

      Your rig veda verse only mentions gopala, not Krishna. It also does not say foremost among gopalas.

      Since when are upanishads the final word on the subject? Also, if that verse is correct, then it means "The son of devaki is friendly to brahmins". Brahmanyo means "religious" or "friendly to brahmins". By the way, can you please quote the entire sanskrit word instead of just 3 words from the verse? Thanks.

    7. In Adi Parva, Dhristadyumna mentions that Krishna came for the hand of Draupadi in swayamvara. Then it mentions that all these warriors failed in the task, meaning that Krishna failed.

      In Sabha Parva, it is mentioned that Krishna fled from Jarasandha due to fear.

      In Sabha Parva, Krishna attacks Shishupala when he was off guard and unprepared for an assault. He did not fight him like a warrior... Its like this... There is a verbal debate between 2 people and one suddenly pulls out a gun and instantly shoots the other before the other can realize what is happening. That is not fair fight!

    8. There is no need of logics to kill sishupala. He insulted Krishna in sabha. Out of anger, he killed sishupala.

    9. Yes, he insulted Shishupala and Krishna killed him when he was off guard, because Krishna could not face him in war, as a warrior. If someone insults you do you just take a gun and shoot them without any prior warning or challenge to a fair fight?

  17. Chandogya Upanishada 3.17:

    Krishnaya Devakiputra

    “Sri Krishna, the divine son of Devki”.

    Rigveda 1.22.18:

    (Krishna is mentioned as) “Vishnorgopa” means Vishnu is Gopala (Sri Krishna).

    Chandogya Upanishada 8.13.1, The Name “Shyam” is mentioned.

    In Taittiriya Upanishad (2.7.1) it is said:

    raso vai sah

    “The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the reservoir of transcendental mellows.”

    //Lord Krishna’s one name is “Rasikashekhara” which has the same meaning.

    Gopala Tapani Upanishada of Atharva veda:

    om namah sac-cid-ananda-rupaya krishnayaklista-karine

    namo vedanta-vedyaya gurave buddhi-saksine

    “Om namah. I offer my respectful obeisances to Sri Krsna, whose form is eternal and full of knowledge and bliss, who is the rescuer from distress, who is understood by Vedanta, who is the supreme spiritual master, and who is the witness in everyone’s heart.”

    Lord Krishna’s abode in the Rig Veda 1.154.6

    ta vam vastuny usmasi gamadhyai
    yatra gavo bhuri-srnga ayasah
    atraha tad urugayasya krsnah
    paramam padam avabhati bhuri

    “We wish to go to Your [Radha’s and Krsna’s] beautiful houses, about which cows with large, excellent horns are wandering. Yet distinctly shining on this earth is that supreme abode of Yours that showers joy on all, O Urugaya [Krsna, who is much praised].”

    1. "O Supreme person ! Please show your vishvaroopa. Milin Patel please free us from sin. O lord!!"

      -bright lord to Milin Patel
      (-human to Supreme)

      If krishna wanted draupadi , he can easily plot and kill Arjun and kill him . Have draupadi. Just as you believe he killed sishupala very tricky.

    2. Arjuna was Krishna's best friend. Why kill him? And who says that he didnt have a romantic relationship after Arjuna's marriage? In Vana Parva Draupadi addresses Krishna as her Lord (i.e. husband).

      Your quotes you posted above dont prove that it is referring to Krishna. Gopa does not mean Krishna. Explain me how "Krishnaya Devakiputra" calls Krishna as divine. Look at what you posted before mindlessly copying and pasting from other sites...

      If you have not seen my vishwaroop, then you have not seen krishna's vishwaroop either.

    3. Why is not Krishna a god?

      *Krishna revived parikshit when ashwathamma uses Brahma missile.
      *Krishna lifted mountain
      *krishna married 16,000 gopis
      *Told special knowledge of Bhagavada gita to world.

      Yes, i have neither seen your vishvaroopa nor krishna vishvaroopa.

      But, Arjun saw krishna vishvaroopa.

    4. Even there are verses in Bhagavad-gita where Supreme personality tells gita to Arjun

    5. 1) Krishna reviving Parikshit is an interpolation. The story goes that after Ashwatthaman uses the missile on Uttaraa, nothing happens to her. The missile enters her womb and develops along with the baby. At the end of her pregnancy, when she gives birth, the child is born dead, and hence Krishna revives him... The story even mentions Krishna saying that Parikshit will revive if I (krishna) have not uttered a single lie in my life. It is evidently created by some krishna bhakta. I can point many instances where Krishna lies...

      Furthermore, in Udyoga Parva, Karna refers to grandsons of Pandavas, thus implying that even before the war, Parikshit (grandson of Pandavas) was born...

      2) Krishna lifting mountain is not in Mahabharatha.
      3) Again, not in the main text of Mahabharatha. It is just there in the interpolated sequences of Krishna's death... Also, having 16 000 wives does not make him god.
      4) Nothing special here. It was just a presentation of the advaita concepts that were being propagated at the time.

      Arjuna seeing Vishwaroopa is just mentioned in a book. Did you write the book? Or do you personally know the person who wrote the book? If no, then how can you claim the vishwaroopa in it is authentic.

  18. Hey.. lol..Why is that extrapolation!!
    Krishna is god, so he revived parikshit. Accept when it is present in Mahabharath. Don't make lol.

    Which sage or warrior or king had known these teachings of GITA

    Vishvaroopa is present in Mahabharath. For your info, it is written by Vyasa. I'm​ proving it's authentic as it is present in every version of Mahabharata. Be it KMG, BORI, ISKCON bharta, any version,etc.... Support vishvaroopa. It's not claim, it's FACT

    1. 1. I have just analyzed the Parikshit's revival sequence, and gave reasons why its an interpolation. Just because its present in the epic does not mean its true. The mahabharatha is a highly interpolated text...

      2. Anyone who read the vedas had the teachings of Geeta. Vedas talk about the brahmin (paramatma).

      3. Just because it is present in the epic does not make it a fact. I like to analyze the text, look at the context, cross reference the incident, etc... before coming to a conclusion. Not doing that leads to a half-baked conclusion...

      Where are our cross references for the Vishwaroopa? BORI scholars have said that in their next edition, interpolations like Draupadi's vastraharan and Krishna's vishwaroopa will be removed.

    2. 1) because U think krishna is human and i think krishna is god. Look this way, without involving in war itself, just as charioteer he played the game.

      2)Brahmins wrote Vedas, Vedas don't talk about Brahmins. Vedas praise God, have songs for god.. Those teachings are not in Vedas

      3) when they will make another edition. It was out in 1970 itself. Recently it was translated in 2014. Project completed.

    3. 1. Yes, he was a charioteer. But he was one of the main factors for the war, in the way he provoked the kurus when he came for "peace"...

      2. I meant to say "brahman". The brahman of the vedas is the paramatma krishna talked about. Agni, Indra, Vayu etc... are not gods.

      3. I heard that they are going to make another edition. When will it be out? I am not sure... But there are too many loopholes in the critical edition as well, so a further analysis is required...

    4. God of Vedas is Brahman. I don't think the god is krishna paramatma.

      So, what's the conclusion, will u agree that vishvaroopa is real.

      So, will they release BORI in English too

    5. The vedic god is the paramatma krishna describes... I already provided evidence that shows Arjuna's reaction to the vishwaroopa and the viswaroopa itself is an interpolation...

      BORI CE will release their edition in sanskrit. But a sanskrit scholar may translate it to English, like Bibek Debroy has done.

    6. The vedic god is the paramatma krishna describes......

      Is the line full or something missing?

    7. No, the line was full...

      Here is Krishna's description of the supreme lord (paramatma):

      Know that [the soul] to be immortal by which all this [universe] is pervaded.

      That is the same description as the brahman of the vedas.

    8. Ok.
      Krishna is God
      Vedas declare that.
      You say that.
      Even bori also not removed that.
      So it's not interpolation.

    9. LOL. Vedas never say that. Gopa means cowherd, not Krishna. Is Krishna the only cowherd? LOL. I never said that Krishna is god, and I dedicated this post to that. There are a lot of interpolations that BORI does not remove. For example there are verses that show Dushasana dragging Draupadi to the sabha. Other verses mention that the Pratikamin (who was the son of a suta) dragged her there. Whom are we to believe? One of them has to be an interpolation. So I suggest that you do not blindly trust BORI. All versions have flaws...

    10. LOL
      If everything is interpolation and want logic and shit.
      Remove Mahabharath as interpolation from history because there is no solid proof for that. And history flows smoothly.

      Yes, say Mahabharath never happened and you WIN

    11. Why are you getting frustrated? Interpolations need to be removed via a logical process. Otherwise you get an illogical text with loads of mindless bhakti... When did I say mahabharatha never happened? Why can bhaktas never seem to think outside the box?

    12. Proof that Mahabharath really happened???
      None witnessed these events , you think logically...How can anyone write the text as it happened. 
      Vyasa never saw the war. 
      It can be a story after all just like Trojan war,Iliad,...

      Noone knows

      Why cannot atheists come out with a better plan?


      You are defeated.

    14. The proof that it never happened has to be given by you. The proof that it happened can be found in the first few sections on the epic where it is described as the history of the Bharathas. Kautilya also talks about it...

      If you are referring to the war, then Sanjaya was there on the battlefield as an observer. On the 18th day, after Duryodhana fled, he was captured and about to be executed. But Vyasa came at the last moment and asked him to be spared...

      After Bhishma died, Sanjaya rushed back to Hastinapura and revealed the events till Bhishma's death. This is Bhishma parva. Then he returned to the battle field and came back to Hastinapura five days later, when Drona died, and reported the events. This description is called Drona Parva, etc...

    15. Lord Krishna is Supreme,

      śivaṃ kecit paṭhanti sma śaktirūpaṃ paṭhanti ca
      kecit sūryaṅkecidagniṃ vedagā agnihotriṇaḥ

      agnyādirūpo viṣṇurhi vedādau brahma gīyate

      “Some say brahman is lord shiva. While others say it is shakti. Yet others say it refers to the sun and still others say it refers to fire. While chanting brahma-gayatri, the brahmanas who perform Vedic fire sacrifices (Agni-hotras) worship various demigods. But it is Vishnu alone who being present in the forms(as paramatma) of Agni (fire) and other demigods, is praised by the Vedas as the Brahman(Supreme Absolute truth ,as mentioned in various upanishads)

      Padma Purana 5.97.27

      (pādme vaiśākha-māhātmye yama-brāhmaṇa-saṃvāde )

      vyāmohāya carācarasya jagatas te te purāṇāgamās

      tāṃ tām eva hi devatāṃ paramikāṃ jalpantu kalpāvadhi |

      siddhānte punar eka eva bhagavān viṣṇuḥ samastāgama-

      vyāpāreṣu vivecana-vyatikaraṃ nīteṣu niścīyate

      “ There are many types of Vedic literatures and supplementary Puranas. In each of them there are particular demigods who are spoken of as the chief demigods. This is just to create an illusion for moving and non-moving living entities. Let them perpetually engage in such imaginations. However, when one analytically studies all these Vedic literatures collectively, he comes to the conclusion that Lord Visnu is the one and only Supreme lord.”

      Brahma vaivarta purana 1.1.4

      vande krishnam gunatitam

      param brahma acyutam yatah

      avirbabhruvah prakriti brahma vishnu shivadayah

      “ I offer obeisances to Lord Krishna,who is beyond the three modes of material nature(sattva guna, rajo guna and tamo guna). Lord Achyuta is the supreme Brahman. From him, have appeared lord brahma ,lord vishnu ,lord shiva and the entire material world.”

      Brhad naradiya purana(Introductory shlokas)

      vande vrndavana asinam

      indira ananda vigraham

      upendram sandra karunyam

      parananda vibhum param

      "I offer my respectful obeisances to Lord Krishna, the son of Maharaja Nanda.He is the all powerful ,blissful,merciful personality of godhead.he remains in Vrndavana and delights the goddess of fortune.” (Brhad naradiya purana 1st shoka)

      brahma vishnu mahesa adya

      yasya amsa loka sadhakah

      tam adidevam cid rupam

      visuddham paramam bhaje

      “I worship him the supreme primeval Lord Krishna,whose form is transcendental,who is pure, and whose expands as Brahma ,Vishnu,Mahesha and the great demigods." (brihad naradiya purana, 2nd shloka)

      Varaha purana chapter 90.1-3

      Prthvi devi asks lord varaha as follows:

      dharni uvacha: paramatma shivah punya iti kechidravam viduh

      apare harim ishanam iti kechid chaturmukham

      “Earth asks: some say the auspicious lord shiva is paramatma, some others consider lord hari as the ishvara, some others consider lord brahma as supreme.”

      etesham katamo devah parah ko va atha va aparah

      etad deva mamacaksva param kautuhalam hi me

      “Amongst them ,who is the supreme, and who is not, this I desire to know out of my great curiosity.”

      srivaraha uvacha :paro narayano devastatsa tasma chaturmukhah

      tasmad rudro abhavad api sa ca sarvajnatam gatah "

      “Lord Varaha said : Lord Narayana is the supreme, from him was born lord Brahma. From him appeared lord Rudra and he became all knower.”

    16. If you want logics, there is no full proof of Mahabharata technology ,
      Don't just say Brahmins stopped teachings , technology disappeared, lol

      Accept the supreme krishna

    17. LOL Brightlord, puranas were written centuries after mahabharatha and are not considered authentic for mahabharatha-related events...

      For mahabharatha technology, it would help to first read the epic, and understand the type of technology in use. They were powered by mantra, which were conveyed from one person to another. After the massacre in the kurukshetra war, barely anyone survived, preventing the transmission of this knowledge any further...

      Why should I accept supreme Krishna when there is no evidence for that? If we go by the text, then the vishwaroopa and virataroopa have many interpolations and loopholes...

    18. Is Veda authentic, lol

      "O, man, the sun who is most attractive, takes round of the earth, on his golden chariot through the sky and removes the darkness of the earth" ~ (Yajur Ved 33/43)
      Sun doesn't move around earlier people may have thought it did so they wrote it down
      Oh Man ! He who made the trembling earth static is Indra. (Rig Ved 2/12/12)The God who made the earth stable (Yajur Ved 32/6)

      Next one is your epics like Mahabharath say Heaven and hell , just like Christians and Puranas.
      Krishna says he will give moksha to anyone who surrender to him.

    19. I dont get what the point of your comment is. You are just vomiting frustration that I dont accept Krishna as god... When did I claim Vedas was a science textbook? Just because mahabharatha talks about heaven and hell does not mean it really exists... Just because in Bhagavad Gita Krishna says he will give moksha does not mean that it is true...

    20. You said Purana are not authentic
      But epics are written by people of that time
      And Vedas are mouth-to-mouth transmitted,
      You said you follow Vedas and there is only one God.
      So I'm showing you these verses from Vedas. Even what you believe is false.
      Remember you said U follow advaita

    21. Then, what is TRUTH???

    22. I follow vedas, but not blindly. If a verse gets refuted by science, I don't believe it. Vedas are not the word of god. They were written by humans.

    23. You neither follow Vedas nor Puranas and hence u r not following advaita philosophy. No of hell and heaven mentioned in epics.
      You are not in a proper track and no point in talking with agnostic/atheists .
      Choose your side, come back

    24. Is there some rule that you must follow every word in a scripture? I select the concepts I find interesting... Now tell me... The ancient Indians believed the Earth to be flat. Do you believe that as well?

      "You are not in a proper track and no point in talking with agnostic/atheists"

      Was that intended as abuse towards my religious beliefs?

    25. Ancient Indians believed earth was round and they knew nine planets.

      2) there is two ways
      A)Scientism b) religion

      These are parallel lines, sorry they never meet.
      If you believe scientism , ask bhaktas to prove exsistence of dinosaurs.
      Only one way.
      U can't keep two legs in 2 boats.
      Only then you will reach your destination, if u follow both, there's no truth nor answer

    26. Ancient Indians did not believe Earth is round. In Ramayana, Rama tells Vali:

      तान् न हिंस्यात् न च आक्रोशेन् न आक्षिपेन् न अप्रियम् वदेत् |
      देवा मानुष रूपेण चरन्ति एते मही तले || ४-१८-४२

      "They the kings are not to be harmed, also not to be reproved, not disparaged and nothing displeasing is spoken to them, as they are the divinities conducting themselves in human form on the plane of earth. [4-18-42]

      It clearly mentions plane of the earth (मही तले), suggesting they thought the Earth is flat. तले refers to a flat surface...

      The advaita concept fits well with science and seems believable. The atoms in an individual are the actual aatman. The essence of the atoms does not change over time, and hence when Krishna says the aatman can never be destroyed, it fits in with science.

      But not everything else in Hinduism...

    27. 1)plane doesn't always mean flat, just a plane like astral plane, physical planes, etc..

      2) when someone dies, Atoms decompose and change their shape. But atma never dies.

      3)if u follow advaita, Are you sure that the you, me and jim-kong and terrorists have same soul and are they all pure?

    28. Plane does refer to a flat surface. From google, a plane is "a flat surface on which a straight line joining any two points on it would wholly lie". Furthermore, the sanskrit word तले refers to flat surface such as the roof of a house or stories of a building...

      Yes, the atoms are composed of protons and electrons that might rearrange. But their essence never changes. The energy in them never changes (law of conservation of energy). Thats what I mean. The aatman is similar, it never dies...

      Yes, we all have the same aatman. If the aatman cannot be destroyed or polluted, it cannot become impure. If it cannot be impure, how can it be pure. Its like calling energy pure or impure. Energy is energy. Aatman is aatman. But yes, terrorists have the same aatman as us.

  19. Why Dhaumya broke his ‘ascetic penances’ and joined the Pandavas!
    Why Vyasa (and Krishna) approved Dhaumya as Yudhishthira’s priest. Surely Angaraparna’s advice would not have been heeded to without Vyasa’s approval!

    Why Kunti accepted him in their company.

    Why Kunti could stay in Vidura’s house with ease leaving the Pandavas in Dhaumya’s hands for the entire period of the exile!

    Why the Pandavas could stay in Virata without being caught. T

    1. Haalesingh,

      Did Dhaumya actually "break" his ascetic penances when joining the pandavas? Is there any evidence for this?

      Yes, they may have consulted Vyasa prior to appointing Dhaumya, considering the fact that Vyasa was their well wisher...

      I don't see any reason for Kunti to refuse the company of a priest if the person is a learned and accomplished individual. Kunti and Pandu were also accompanied by many brahmins in their exile.

      By the pandavas' 13 yrs of exile, they were grown up. They were no longer children, hence there was no major worry by Kunti... Whether they then went with Dhaumya or some other priest would not matter much then as the pandavas were mature individuals then...

      The Pandavas could stay in Virata as Virata was not friendly to Hastinapura, ensuring that the Kurus would not come to Virata very often for a visit... This would limit the chances of being caught.

      But what is surprising is that Virata did not identify Arjuna even though he was also there in Draupadi's swayamvara, along with his sons Uttar and Sankha.

  20. You have made lol outta me and you Milin, U told that Shiva , Vishnu are puranic creation.

    One more thing about synchronization of science and Advaita, there's no soul for humans ,only concsiousness , it also fades after a person death.
    Read Ramayanam where there is legend of milk ocean. Read how Shiva tells Rama about Ayodhya in last sections of yuddha khanda.

    Read Mahabharatha where Shiva beats Arjuna in forest. Read how Shiva helped ashwathamma to kill remaining pandavas in last night of war.

    1. Even the beginning of Mahabharath starts with praising Vishnu,

      नारायणं नमस्कृत्य नरं चैव नरोत्तमम् |
      देवीं सरस्वतीं चैव ततो जयमुदीरयेत् ||०||

      लोमहर्षणपुत्र उग्रश्रवाः सूतः पौराणिको नैमिषारण्ये शौनकस्य कुलपतेर्द्वादशवार्षिके सत्रे | ००१ |

    2. Brightlord,

      I said Shiva and Vishnu are puranic creations because there is no mention of them as gods in the vedas. Hence they do not belong to the vedic age of ramayana and mahabharatha... Wait till my Seetha agnipariksha post is complete, I will show how all the gods approaching Rama at the end of the war (this includes Shiva) is a later interpolation. As far as the fight between Arjuna and Shiva (disguised as a hunter) is concerned, it is also a later interpolation to hide the fact that swarga is a physical place on Earth. Give me time and I will make a post on that...

      As far as the beginning of mahabharatha is concerned, it talks about nara and narayana (ancient rishis), not Vishnu.

    3. Brightlord, check out my latest post of Shiva being a pre-Vedic god and the Vishnu we worship today with all its incarnations being a post-Vedic god. I think you might find it interesting:

  21. Milin ignore my above comment, if you can't reply. But for this post I have something to prove that krishna is incarnation and supreme lord look,

    "And he, called Vasudeva, endued with great valour, was among men a portion of him called Narayana--the god of gods--eternal. And Valadeva of exceeding strength was a portion of the Naga, Sesha."
    This proves that krishna is Avatar of God.

    1. In the Amsavatarana Parva of Mahabharata, the various partial (amsa) incarnations of deities and asuras are detailed.

      Following is a snapsot of incarnations of some of the key characters in the Bharata.

      Partial Incarnation

      of ASURAS


      Viprachitti, a Danava




      Sahrādha, younger brother of Prahlada


      Anuhrādha, younger brother of Prahlada


      Shibi, younger brother of Prahlada


      Bāshkala, younger brother of Prahlada


      Ketumān, an Asura


      Swarbhānu, an Asura


      Avatar of one of the Krodhavasas

      Kamsa, son of Ugrasena

      Avatar of Kalanemi, a Danava

      of DEVAS




      Mahadeva, Yama, Kama and Krodha

      Sons of Ganga

      8 Vasus


      The tribe of Rudras


      Dwapara Yuga


      Part of the Maruts


      Part of the Maruts


      Part of the Maruts


      Part of the Maruts


      Hansa, son of Arishta


      Purity’s self


      God of Justice



      Duhasasana & Brothers

      sons of Pulastya (Rakshasas)


      Part of Dharma


      Part of Wind


      Part of Indra

      Nakula & Sahadeva

      Part of twin aswins


      Part of Varchas, son of Soma (Moon)


      Part of Agni


      Part of a Rakshasha

      5 sons of Draupadi

      Part of the Viswas


      Part of Surya


      Part of Naryana


      Part of Adisesha


      Part of Sanatkumara

      16,000 wives of Krishna



      Portion of Sri (Lakshmi)


      Part of Sachi (Indra’s wife)


      Portion of Siddhi


      Portion of Dhriti


      Portion of Mati

      (Source: Mbh 1.67)

    2. In Bhagavad Gita he has already declared Aham sarvasya prabhuh mattah partaram nanyat.....

      No one is greater than him he is Lord of everything .

    3. Brightlord, its nice that you found that passage from sambhava parva and the classification of asuras and dieties... But lets stop and think back for a moment. Don't you think Vyasa had his own reason to uphold the propaganda created by Krishna of him being god? Think in terms of the changes to society brought by Krishna, Vyasa, and the Mahabharatha war. The war brought about a decline in orthodox values and bigotry... Krishna was a major player in this change and continuing to portray him as god would help to uphold the more liberal values propagated by Krishna. This is what Vyasa wanted...

      So lets look at the epic and the verses from many perspectives...

  22. Yes, I was happy to find this available, and I'm hoping more of his works continue to turn up.
    gclub casino online

  23. You've mentionef in the passage"king of Uttara Kuru - modern day Russia"
    If so, then how did this majour changes undergone?

    1. I meant to say that Modern Day Southern Russia was a part of the Uttara Kuru kingdom, ruled by Indra.

  24. Really such a nice blog you have written.Your thoughtfulness will always be remembered.
    Check out the website: