Doubts and Clarifications

[pannvalan]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Philosophically speaking, Pandavas are equated with 5 senses and Draupadi to Mind.

 

[DURGADASAN]

Thanks Pannvalan ji

 

[v.lalithakumar]

NAMO NAMAHA.dears i had red probably in "SRIMADH DEVI BHAGAVADHAM" that DRAUPADI in her previous janma had requested the boon of" SATH PATHI DEHI ".(without her knowledge five times requested in succession above boon).that is also one of the reason for her five husband.further she is supposed to be the incarnation of 'MAYA".with namaskars.v.lalithakumar."LET KNOWBLE THOUGHTS COME FROM ALL SIDES/DIMENSIONS.(VISWATHAHA)"

 

[v.lalithakumar]

dears"NAMO NAMAHA."in KUNTHI&MATRI case MATRI was one who had the unison with PANDU (of course on compulsion by sri pandu though she resisted)though they know that by such act sri pandu had to die(due to some curse).secondly the sentiment is some thing different from mathematics and percentage extras . an husband is an husband.though other four husbands would had been there but all the five might not be there.thus she may not be a sumangali.with namaskars. v.lalithakumar."LET KNOWBLE THOUGHTS COME FROM ALL SIDES/DIMENSIONS(VISWATHAHA)"

 

[pbkhema]

eace:Sati was never advocated by the Sutras.
They said that the widow should be dressed in such a manner that others are not attracted to themThe same Sutras give her a share in the property ( and not as propounded by the English Judges since in England in the 19th Century women were mere chattel)
A deeper reading of the Sutras will give a clue as to why the dress prohibition comes.
During those days the husband should at the time of marraige be thrice the age of the bride.That led to many young widows.To prevent them fromgoing wayward the dress code came
In the 21st Century we must move with times

 

[kanva123]

A question is raised by a seeker (of truth). The answers or responses should come only from those members who have a firm understand of the underlying tradition or philosophy that proscribed eating onions, garlic or non- vegetarian food.

Despite so many responses generated by the seeker, answer from a learnered scholar is yet to be posted. I am not a learned scholar

 

[SuryaKasyapa]

A question is raised by a seeker (of truth). The answers or responses should come only from those members who have a firm understand of the underlying tradition or philosophy that proscribed eating onions, garlic or non- vegetarian food.

Despite so many responses generated by the seeker, answer from a learnered scholar is yet to be posted. I am not a learned scholar

Sri kanva123,

This way you are deliberately blocking knowledge. Nobody is a real scholar,nobody is real perfect.

If one needs only specialists, this is not the place .This is a place for all.There may be experts and specialist in particular fields. but it is for them to come and respond.What if ,they think the questions are silly and elementary, for which they need not answer.

Also, by responding with one's knowledge(perceptions or simple logic), that person may get a chance to get himself corrected.He may have chance to see an entirely different interpretation. Misatkea and misconceptions are first steps , by interaction and exposure, they will get changed.

By your own declaration that "I am not a learned scholar" do you feel right in responding if your own standard is applied.


Feel free, come with ideas. however absurd it may. At least it will provoke someone to come with the apt answer.

(Praveen is still kind to many of us by allowing our ignorance to come in print)



Greetings

 

[pbkhema]

A question is raised by a seeker (of truth). The answers or responses should come only from those members who have a firm understand of the underlying tradition or philosophy that proscribed eating onions, garlic or non- vegetarian food.

Despite so many responses generated by the seeker, answer from a learnered scholar is yet to be posted. I am not a learned scholar

Please the thread has several subthreads and gone far from where it started,Now can you please specify the specific question regarding which the seker wants an answer.But our Hindu system with several grihya sutras and several sub traditions from them it will be difficult to give aspecific answer to any particular question applicable to all Hindus (even restricting ot to all Brahmins.
Even in Tamilnadu there a few people following the Shukla Yajurveda.The rules (any way according to the Frihya Sutras) are entirely different.But for the most part they simply follow the tradition of the majority.

 

[kunjuppu]

A question is raised by a seeker (of truth). The answers or responses should come only from those members who have a firm understand of the underlying tradition or philosophy that proscribed eating onions, garlic or non- vegetarian food.

Despite so many responses generated by the seeker, answer from a learnered scholar is yet to be posted. I am not a learned scholar

thank you kava, for confirming what has been in my mind for a while ie that the seeker (of truth) must have been frustrated with the drivel that is being supplied here by the overwhelmingly ignorant crowd.

perhaps. are you a friend that seeker too? in which case, it must be doubly agonizing to you ie once for your sake, and once for his.

sad to say that some of the noble ones have left this forum, perhaps out of similar anger.

i am just sticking around, for i happen to believe, that 'what is here is elsewhere, what is not here, is nowhere'. but as you have pointed out, i may be deluding myself into further not-knowledge.

i have to sit for a while and ponder the consequences of such a situation. for if i keep my hopes high, i too, will fall into the predicament of your friend, the seeker (of truth).

in the meanwhile, let the wise cracking rats of banter appear to be having a field day. if you cannot beat them, why not join them?

best wishes.

ps - i personally think that garlic and onions are harmless plants, but sometimes i wonder about the harmful potency of some of those folks who advocate against the consumption of the same. just a random thought. that is all. thank you.

 

[renuka]

The case of draupadi is exceptional I think. Because, even in mahabharata krishna convinced kundi like that only. Everyone, including king durupatha, drushtadhyumna, pandavas and why not kundi asked this very same question how a woman can be married to five guys? Both krishna and vyasa both convinced them all. Draupadi should not see just as a woman, she did not born by the unification of a father and mother. She came out of the divine yagagni. She is the sign of revenge, anger, love and so on. Pancha pandavas are considered to be a panchendriyas, whereas the draupadi is considered as the mind. Might be I think, for the women protestors like you who are now in this new society shouting against polygamy by men, draupadi married 5 guys in that day itself, showed equality in this deed. Draupadi was considered as superior ad worshipful woman among the five. The other four are "Agalya, seetha, thara and mandodari". If so, how her chastity can be a questionable and shared by five???


Similarly Matri died an kundi lived even after that, is that mean kundi does not have any love over pandu??? Certianly not like that. You should also be clear Kundi is the first legal (Pattamahishi) wife of pandu and she has the prime rights to do SATI for pandu. But, she didn't. Is it not clear from this itself that SATI is not a forced act those days??? We cannot say that kundi and matri are laymen orelse they are uncivilized na???

In that same mahabharata itself, to console kundi, krishna takes her to heaven and showed karna to her, where he even does not recognised kundhi. So, it is clear that they would not be as same husband or wife like that bonding. They did this just as they did not want to live in this earth after the demise of their beloved husband.

Iam not for for this SATI. Anyhow, am standing in the strategy that SATI initially came out of love only. Then it turned as forceful act.

For your just curious query, that thing can never happen. She married 5 guys not because of the lust, not because of love, it is because of her fate certainly. According to mythology, these wives are the heroines. Like nalayini, savitri they will fight for the life of their husband. What else, draupadi should have to fight lot to save five lives.. Thats all. You cannot show any such cases like draupadi, so an exception is always an exception I think.

Pranams

Dear durgaJi,
this post somehow missed my attention.
you really got me wrong.
I am no women liberation supporter.
i have nothing againts polygamy provided polyandry is also allowed.

I never even once doubted Draupadi becos i truly understand as explained by Swami Yogananda that the Pancha Pandavas respresent the Pancha Pranas and needed to be wedded to the uniting Kundalini Shakthi who is represented by Draupadi.For me chastity is a state of mind and not a physical state.
i understand her pure nature that even Lord Krishna carried her footwear when Krishna and her had gone to see Bheesma at the Kaurava camp.

Draupadi was not the only polyandry case in the puranas.

the 10 Pracetas who were the sons of King Pracinabarhi were married to one woman, the daughter of Pralomca apsara.

regards
renu

 

[DURGADASAN]

Yeah Mam, you are absolutely correct. But once again, we cannot confuse the apsara sthrees with normal ladies, as they dont have any hard-and-fast rules. You can see connections with menaka and urvasi with many sages. Even the same urvasi marries Pururavas. So, they are not proper examples I think. Anyhow, thanks for clarifying your stand...

Pranams

 

[BHUVANACHANDER]

The food we take are directly responsible for our thoughts whether rajo guna,thamas or sath guna.
Garlic and onion do create rajo and thamasa guna.
On srardha day and amavasya day we must have sathva guna.that is why we have to avoid.
Further on a lighter side an apple a day keeps the doctor away: A garlic a day keeps everybody away.