Mahabharata/Jaya - Dhritarashtra, Pandu and Vidura

"Go now, as you are. I cannot wait". Thus spoke Satyavati to his son Rishi Vyasa who was born out of a wedlock. Patience is an important quality which no matter what the aim is should never be deserted. But Satyavati could not wait.

With Bhishma stuck to his vow, Satyavati called her illegitimate son who was born out of a wedlock. She requested him to make the two princesses pregnant. Rishi Vyasa agreed but sought a year so that he can groom and prepare himself as years of penance had made his skin hoarse and hair matter. But Satyavati could not wait and informed him to do it now.

Ambika was so disgusted by Vyasa'a looks that she shut her eyes when he touched her. The child conceived through her was Dhritarashtra, the blind one.
Ambalika grew pale when she saw Vyasa. The child conceived through her was Pandu, a pale (albino?) weakling and maybe, impotent.
Maybe, this in a way shows that the child might have to bear the fruits or thorns of the actions of the parent.

Satyavati was disappointed with the imperfect children and ordered Vyasa to got to Ambika again. Ambika sent her maid this time to Vyasa who made love to him without any inhibitions. Out of this communion was born Vidura. Vidura was perfect and fit to be a king, but he could not crowned as he was born of a maid.

It is claimed that Vidura is none other than Yama (Aka Dharma), god of death, living out a curse. Once it so happened that a group of thieves took refuge in the hermitage of Sage Mandavya who was lost at the time in meditation. When they were discovered, the kings guard accused Mandavya of aiding them. He was put into jail and tortured and impaled. When he came before Yama, he demanded an explanation for this suffering. Yama informed him that as a child, Mandavya had impaled tiny insects on a straw and hence, your suffering was a repayment for this karmic debt. Mandavya did not agree that an innocent acts committed as a child should be punished like this and cursed Yama/Dharma to an earthly life as a man who though fit to be a king will never be crowned inspite of all the perfect qualities.

Mahabharata/Jaya often speaks of boons and curses. It need not mean that the people who offered them were always powerful or so. It needs to be seen as a tool of implementing the Law of Karma. In the simplistic times of telling this story, it would have made sense to use curses and boons to explain the complicated laws of Karma. Vidura's life as well as Mandavya's life story here in a way explains the bigger picture or reason behind terrible things happening to seemingly good human beings. It also explains that every action, no matter consciously performed or not will result into a future set of event/events/actions. Mahabharata/Jaya in such is a treasure which implores the human mind to see beyond what appears. 

Mahabharata/Jaya - Amba, Ambika and Ambalika

"I have taken a vow and I will never break it". Thus spoke Bhishma in 2 instances. Once to princess Amba (which would eventually result into his downfall in the great war) and then to Satyavati (which is one of the many causes for the great war).

King Shantanu passes away after the birth of 2 sons through his wife Satyvati. Chitrangada, the eldest, was an arrogant one and dies in a battles with a Gandharva (rationally would be forest tribe involved in some sorcery). Chitrangada was unmarried at the time. The second child, Vichitraveerya (name denotes strange masculinity), was a only 16 and was a weakling. So Bhishma (who is ruling as a regent) goes and kidnaps the three princesses of Kashi - Amba, Ambika and Ambalika.

Princess Amba was already in love with Prince Shalva and was planning to select him during the swayamvar. She informs Bhisma that she has accepted Shalva as her husband in her heart. As per Righteousness, Bhishma sends her back to Shalva who refuses to take her back (as per the warrior code of him loosing to Bhishma while fighting to avoid the kidnapping). Amba goes back to Vichitraveerya who refuses her sighting that he cannot accept her as she already had another man in her heart. Dejected, Amba goes to Bhishma and requests him to marry her. Bhishma then reminds her of his vow because of which he cannot marry her. Bhishma again gives importance to his vow when a woman's life could be ruined. Angry, Amba leaves him in search of a person or power to kill Bhishma. Amba is no ordinary woman but her anger is very powerful. I will delve on this when we reach the chapter of the Great War.

Vichitraveerya over indulges in sexual life, ignoring his stately resposibilities and dies an untimely death without bearing any children. Vyasa has never explained this but in my research somewhere it mentions he dies of TB. Satyavati is eager to ensure that the family line moves on as well as being the mother of kings. As per the law of niyoga dharma, any child a woman bears belongs to the husband. Citing this, she requests Bhishma to make love to the 2 princes. Bhishma reminds her of the vow he has taken, ironically to satisfy her. This again shows Bhishma's blind adherence to the words of the law rather than the spirit. Now when there is a threat that the family line can be completely over, he still does not bulge from his vow. This is a vow which has lost all meaning and purposes but he still carries it on. That is why later Krishna in someways shows us later that the end is important more than the journey (if the end is for rightful dharma, then you might have to bend a few to achieve it). Bhishma in his rigid ways will never be able to do it. Hence, he is unable to handle or foresee Shakuni's treachery in the future. He is unable to find a way out. The old value system just like his vow is meaningless. 

Mahabharata/Jaya - Satyavati, Bhishma

"I shall never marry. I shall never be with a woman. I shall never father children". Thus declared Devavrata on Satyavati's condition (in some folklore it her father's) that only her children and her children's children should be the king if she has to marry King Shantanu. This is how Devavrata came to be known as Bhishma - the one who took the terrible vow.

King Shantanu had declared Devavrata as the crown prince. But then during a hunting expedition, he sets his eyes on Satyavati (a fisherwoman) and falls in love with her. He is sad and depressed to know that she will not marry unless he agrees that only her children will be the king. He does not agree to it and comes back sad. Seeing the condition of his father, Devavrata enquires about this with the king's charioteer. He then goes to Satyavati's house who places the same condition again. Out of his love for his father, Devavrata takes above mentioned vow.

Mahabharata shows us the power of desires. King Shantanu is old and it was his time to retire and renounce but a mere sight of Satyavati creates a desire to marry again. Should he have done that?

Devavrata was the crown prince of Hastinapur. He takes this terrible vow which looked noble and honorable at the time. But is that correct? Was Devavrata just a son? As a crown prince, he had other responsible role as well. Did he balance this act? Did he think about the result of his sacrifice? Do we have a right to make such oaths when we are not sure how this world works?

Satyavati's role here again shows the amount of power/respect that a woman carried in the society then. She was also politically strong to ensure that she and her children are never disrespected because of their lower class by placing those 2 conditions. Mahabharata has always had strong women portrayed in it's story.

Bhisma was to then have a very complicated life. Although well qualified to be a king, he cannot be the king. He has renounced the primary duties of the householder, yet he is not an ascetic. His oath then becomes his biggest attachment. The rigid values that he symbolises in this epic is noteworthy. It would have worked in the era of Ram or in Satya Yug. But now the society was not an ideal one and corruption was breaking in. Righteousness needed to be guarded in whichever way but the rigidity of the old system would not be able to do so.

Bhisma was a classic example of the old values which were no longer applicable to the current times. Civilisation, like a human, has their stages. Hence, we have the four yugas where spirituality or lack of it defines the essence. Bhisma does not adhere from his oath even when his entire clan might end. Bhisma, though well versed in the scriptures of Dharma, does not interfere with Kamsa or Jarasandh. It takes Krishna and his politics to end the tyrannical regime. Bhisma does not ensure that the law of Dharma is being followed in Bharatvarsha. Krishna ensures that by having Yuddhistir do the Rajasuya Yagna. Maybe, that is why Bhisma had to die for the new era to dawn. Strict adherence to the words of Dharma is not enough but it needed to be opened up and changed according to the needs of the time. That is what was lacking in Bhisma and we will see that as the story progresses. 

Mahabharata/Jaya - Shantanu, Ganga

"Yes, I promise I will never question you" . Thus spoke King Shantanu of Hastinapur to Ganga in response to her condition for her to marry him. At the time it looked like a romantic, innocent and maybe, a little naughty promise. Maybe, it shows that it was quite a matriarchal society or maybe at least in that part of the region. Ganga as a woman had a right to reject/accept a king as well as imply a condition. Women were maybe highly respected then. Time, though, has changed concepts now. But then, little did anyone know that it will be just one of the many factors which would almost end up King Shantanu's own clan. Maybe, the most important question is if a man can give more prominence to one role than the other in the efficient working of a society? Can a king make such a promise? Won't this lead to chaos?

Ganga beared King Shantanu 8 children (sons) in all. But every time right after the birth of a child, Ganga would go and drown the child in the river Ganga. King Shantanu stayed silent and lived up to his promise till the seventh child. But he could no longer hold himself back at the birth of the 8th child. He told Ganga to stop this and let him have at least one child.

Ganga, the wise one, informed that all these children were Vasus (facilitators of primary Gods) who were once cursed to 1 earthly life by Sage Vasistha for stealing their cow during their vacation on Earth. These Vasus had then begged Ganga to be their mother and then kill them as soon as they were born (thereby finishing their earthly existence soon). Maybe, that is how she too came around to get married to the king. But now since the king had broken his promise, Ganga did not kill the child but informed the king that the child will live a terrible life (as per the curse). Ganga took the child with her, taught her under the guidance of Sage Parshuram and returned him to King Shantanu when he was a teenager. This was Devavrata - who would later be called Bheeshma.

Every action has a cause behind it. Primarily, the individual atma would be solely responsible for them. Maybe, that is what was shown in this story of the Vasus birth and immediate death. Also, the action (of Ganga) on the outside might look cruel but it was much more noble. Likewise, King Shantanu's action to stop her looked noble but as we will see with the future developments that it was not. In all, it makes us reflect if we have enough knowledge of the world to jugde anyone else's action. How much do we know and think before we jump in and try to change something? As I have read that mythologies are stories to reflect upon. They will not shout out the truth but it depends upon the reader to reflect and understand and then derive the truth out of it. Should we read our life and all the life around us in the same manner before we  judge and condemn? It is for us alone to answer..

Mahabharata/Jaya Series - 1

Off late, I have been hooked onto the greatest Indian epic of Mahabharata originally known as Jaya. Reading Devdutt Pattnaik's "Jaya" (read it twice) provides you the understanding why this epic was not actually called Mahabharata by Sage Vyasa. After that, I have downloaded and watched twice Mahabharata - TV Series which was played in Indian television channels in 1988-99. It was well made and the Geeta Saar episodes too were pretty well laid. Of course, they do not tell the complete story. So Arjuna and Yuddhistir's quarrels, Shikandi becoming a proper man later and Kunti's polity at having stopped Madri from using the chants after the birth of twins are not shown. The biggest injustice was that the last test of Yuddhistir was excluded. The greatest lesson of the epic was taken off.

I then read C. Rajagopalachari's translation and some poorer works like "The palace of Illusions" (Epic through the eyes of Draupadi) and "Mahabharata through the Eyes of Bhimsen". I am looking forward to reading "Mrintyunjay" which is a retelling of the epic through the eyes of Karna, the biggest tragic hero in the Epic.

So what is Mahabharata/Jaya about? I have read that Mahabharata has all the situations/dilemmas a human life can come across. I cannot confirm that but yes, it does speak about eunuchs, impotency, truth above love, transvestites, man changing to a woman, slavery, etc. among many other spiritual and societal conflict.

The more you read or hear it, it reveals so much more. Of course, Bhagavad Gita was born out this epic.

There are so many spiritual lessons that we can learn from this epic if we take it metaphorically. Kurukshetra is the land where the great war for upholding Dharma (way of righteousness, way of Truth). This land can be implied as the mind/heart of you, an individual. You have all your five qualities (Pandavas) and if guided by the Intellect (Self - Krishna) you might be able to destory all the age old vasnas (tendencies/qualities inherited by you from previous births symbolised as Bhishma and Drona) and also the 100 different new desires/qualities (symbolised by the Kauravas). That is a "holy war" every person has to battle in one's life. Vyasa too have indicated through Geeta Saar that every one is alone in this war.

But then, just that victory is not enough. It is a continuous journey as evidenced with the victory of Yuddhistira. Righteousness (Yuddhistira), Physical strength (Bhima), Concentration - need to maintain balance(Arjuna), Vanity (Nakula) and Knowledge (Sahadeva) are important qualities of a human. But if you ever let any one other than righteousness guide you, you will not receive the ultimate moksha - liberation. In the last journey to heaven, all the Pandavas except Yuddhistira does not reach the abode of Self.

The above one's are just my own personal personal and very simple conclusions. Other than that, anyone who's read or heard a little about Mahabharata/Jaya knows that the Epic shows the position of a human in the design of the cosmos as well as the freedom of action/will and destiny. It also shows how no event is actually independent but just a result of an earlier event or events. No one person can be blamed for the great war as it was a result of so many decisions/actions undertaken by the characters.

So I have decided to start a series of posts on Mahabharata. I am not sure but I will try to post commentaries on the characters and the lessons their lives teach to the rest of humanity. it is not important to me if this ever happened. But a rational explanation would be that a similar event would have taken place, the then historians/ wise sages transformed it into a poet (with creative liberties) and ensured that humanity learns the lessons from this.

Sadly, the ironical thing about History is that it repeats itself and no one learns from it.

Sachin Tendulkar - Don't believe the hype

From April 2011, Sachin has missed scoring his Hundredth century in as many times he has come out to bat. If Martians were to come and listen to the hullabulloo, then they would be wondering he must have scored 50+ runs in almost all the innings. But then, even if he gets out at 38, media would make it out like he just missed it. At the same time, there is another player by name of Rahul Dravid (a cricketer with substance) who has scored about 5 centuries (4 in England). As has been the case always, Sachin still hordes the media while Dravid (and another special gentleman i.e. VVS) goes about doing the job of batting.

It was pretty amusing to see Sachin stating that his Hundredth 100 is just a number. Really, then why the hell did you farm the strike from VVS in Kotla? Please also tell us what the hell where you thinking by refusing a single of the leg bye when VVS was half way down the pitch. Thank God, there is justice somewhere and you got out in the same over. That innings was typical of the way this so called legend and gentleman has approached his game.

Sachin's first 70 runs are for the team and the rest, for himself. People have accused Gavaskar of being selfish, but will never say anything about this fake god.

Sachin has been playing cricket from 1989. Please remind me of any impossible situation where he has put his hand up and taken the team through with his batting. Ok, there was that Sharjah of 1998. Then what? I still remember the 1996 WC S/F where the whole nation was let down by him in the most important match so far (and others too let the country down but then they were never called the best). Coming to think of it, the only time Sachin has really carried the team through in ODI (while chasing) was against Australia in 2008. Hmm, once in the so called 22 year legendary and godlike career. Not so, is it?

Where was Sachin when India needed 316 runs in Dhaka or Karachi? It was Dada who made a century and then Robin Singh carried us through. Where was Sachin when India needed 326 in Lords 2001? Ohh, that's right... he got out trying to play an inside out shot to the left arm spinner. Yeah, he was never happy playing in the No 4 spot. He never has gotten to the idea of batting where the team needs him the most. But as always, he will open in ODI and #4 in Tests. Where was Sachin when the team relied on him to stop the charge of the Aussies in 2001 in test matches? Oh yeah, VVS and Dravid made history. The point I am trying to make is that Indian cricket witnessed great change only when the real big three - Dada, Dravid and VVS started cementing their places.

Sachin is just a choker, playing to delight the statisticians. And hence, historical innings are played by Dravid, Sehwag and VVS. Infact, Ishant too did play a great 4th innings in Mohali along with VVS to win against Australia. Thank god, it was ishant and not Sachin. I would take Ishant anyday to bat alongside VVS while chasing 40-50 runs. Sachin's so called 200 runs in ODI was a pain to watch once he reached 180. Dhoni had to score for India and Sachin scored for himseld. Hence, it took him about 7-8 overs to reach 200.

Sachin's selfishness and hypocrisy has been out in the open for all the 22 years but no one ever writes about it. His disappointment at having been stranded at 194 against Pak in Multan was such a clear sign. Any team management with spine would have punished the player for telling the media that the team could have waited for 2-3 overs before declaring so that he can make his 200. Really, I mean, after giving about 1 hour of post tea session and being clear about needing to up the ante, you still need time. Dravid and Dada did the right thing of declaring and reminding him that the team comes first. But that is something that Sachin just does not believe in.

How many times have we seen Sachin opening in the Test matches or batting at any other position than 4? Then check the same thing about Dravid and Laxman? You will see who the real team players are and why they often come up with historical innings. Dravid's 32 out of 36 centuries have been for a winning cause. Add to that the 78 he made while chasing 270+ runs (in partnership with Dada who made 98) in kandy, 1999. Compare that to Sachin and see the shallow side of the USELESS 52 centuries. Most of them have been for draws which clearly shows that he makes most of those runs when the pitch has been more docile and batting was easier for both the sides.

Dravid also has finished up matches in ODI's in the second half of his career. Sachin made 93 runs in WC 2003 against Pak but as usual it needed Dravid and Yuvraj to strike a handsome partnership and FINISH the match. Sachin's 175 against Australia while chasing 365 in an ODI has gone to show on that he still has no idea how to finish the match. The stroke he played to get out (Dilscoop) shows that he just cannot handle the real match pressure when it reaches it tipping point.

Here are a few questions you all might want to ask to verify if Sachin is really the greatest batsman (and if he is really the most important wicket) for India:
1.) Whom would you have batting at the crease with 40-50 runs to win - VVS, Dravid or Sachin
2.) What was Sachin's contributions to the 2 greatest turning points of Indian cricket - Natwest 2001 and Eden 2001?
3.) When was the last time you saw Sachin selfless and fearless? He has always refused to open in Test matches or come in at that critical #3 position. He always pulled his weight around to ensure that he opens in ODI's and score more centuries although the team would have used his experience at #4.  Two hoots to what the team needs.
4) Lara and Viv batted the same way through out their careers and so did Gilchrist. Can you say the same about this man? Heck, he is incapable of that in 1 innings. Let him reach 80 and then see the difference.
5.) How many times have your heart been broken when you clearly see that a special innings is needed and Sachin just gets out? You will see that all of his hundreds have come when the match situation is not critical (not the stipulation) and there is not even 1 wonder innings like Dravid or VVS he has played in his so called 22 year career.

Sachin's contributions to Indian cricket has been pretty much as expected from a gifted batsman - A few wins  here and there, consistent scores (may or may not help the cause of the team) and as it has spanned for about 22 years with no threat to his place, it is little wonder that he has made all this number of centuries. I mean, who cares when you have a Dravid or a VVS to sacrifice their spots and face the music  upfront as and when required while this so called legend will wait for his number to come in and bat. Please someone show me atleast 1 wonder innings.. something unbelievable, against the wall kind of innings. But the choker has none. He can only bat when all things are hunky and dory and there is a settled batsman at the opposite end.

Look back and you will see that the Indian team has been carrying Sachin for the last 11 years. Sachin was there before 2000 and after that as well. Yet, the real heroes who did change the face of Indian cricket are - Dravid, Dada, VVS and to lesser extent, Kumble and Sehwag. Indian cricket is wherever it is because of the sacrifices that the above mentioned gentlemen has done keeping in mind to feed the ego of a teammate who wants to be remembered as nothing but a statistician's delight.

The Guru - An answer to many lives spent in preparation

Reading some other blog regarding the search for the Guru inspired me to pen down this post.

Guru- translated very loosely as a Teacher in English. A Guru means much more than that. Guru means the wise one, the all knowing, a friend, a guide, a parent, a philosopher, a punisher... maybe much more. As we have come around to adopt one of the most limited languages in the world, we have also narrowed down and watered down age old concepts and methodologies. Still through all this, some way or the other the spiritual seeker yearns and maybe, even looks out for a Guru. However, it is now more difficult than ever as we have one godman after the other in every city, town or village.

The concept of a Guru is one which has sprang up in the East thousands of years back and has been held in the most highest and sacred of feelings. Yet, one rarely comes upon a true Guru nowadays.

The saying "The Master appears as soon as the Pupil is ready" is not a Zen philosophy but something that was always imbibed in Sanathana Dharma (Modernly known as Hinduism). People (like me) often forget this small yet very deep statement. Patience is one of the virtues that one has to cultivate in this seemingly short Human life. For this, we need to remember the concept of rebirth and the law of Dharma. A river which winds down and around a hill or near a village does not always look like it is trying to reach the sea, but it does. Like that, though it might not seem so at the moment, but we all are somewhere on our way to the Creator. There are about 60 to 70 students in a classroom and yet there is only 1 student who will top the class. The teacher, the lessons and the exams were the same but yet only 1 would top. It's because he was prepared the most. In this particular cosmic play (lila) of life, no one is a looser but just that everyone is at their own unique stages of life. Patience and an unwavering faith in the goodness of the Almighty Self is required. I feel the most important faith to remind oneself would be that all the beings, living and non-living, are sentient manifestations of the Absolute. Then hope that one day one is able to love boundlessly. Maybe then the Guru will arrive and if he does, we might not ignore him/her.

The other wrong impression is that we look for a personalised Guru i.e. a fellow human being. Scriptures and history is full of stories of siddhas and rishis and we long for someone like that to help us in this search for Truth. While doing so we do miss the other forms of the Guru out there. Sitting under a tree, next to a river and meditating is supposed to be very beneficial. Trees and the river is supposed to have great powers which our limited mind cannot fathom. The deity which has been initiated on the idol/rock too has powers not ordinarily seen.


Then there will be the Silent masters like the effulgent Arunachala Hill in Thiruvannamalai. It is supposed to be Shiva himself. It is supposed to be the most powerful spiritual center in Earth. It works in its own mysterious ways. It has attracted so many mentions in our ancient puranas. It has also attracted various siddhis, rishis and sages from lands afar. Sage Virupaksha, Sage Gautama, Ramana Maharshi, Seshadri Swamigal, etc. to name a few of the compassionate beings who have realised the Self here. Other than that, there are others like Paul Brunton, Major Chadwick, Arthur Osbourne, David Godman, Dwarkanath Reddy who have somehow wound up in this place. Thinking about the hill or just being there itself provides a certain stillness in the mind. I had to visit the place multiple times before it started working on my being. Someone has rightly said that being there is like sitting in Shiva's lap.

Of course, then there is one of the most important Guru... the Self which resides in all of us. Ramana Maharshi too has hinted that remembering this is the most important sadhana. The Sufis whirling too is dedicated to the external physical Guru as well the Self that resides within. Logically speaking, the first man who went about finding God had no access to a personal Guru but the one within and ones manifested out. I feel meditating on one Self will purify one's mind and then would pave the way to Truth. Perseverance, love, determination, faith and above all surrendering one to the Universe is the most required virtue.

Yet, somehow we are all adamant at finding a real live Guru. I have no idea how to test and find one. Ramana Maharshi, the Silent Sage (just like the holy hill), never initiated anyone or claimed anyone as a disciple. Yet, thousands of people used to go and have his darshan. Ramana Maharshi attained the Self at a young age of 17 without any Sadhana. Ramana Maharshi never left Thiruvannamalai for the rest of his life after he arrived soon after his Realisation. Maybe, His Soul was too ripe a fruit that it had to fall. I too am at times attracted to idea of meeting a live Guru. I would love to meet Shri M and hope that he can help play the role of a catalyst in dissolving me. But then, I think about Ramana Maharshi and Arunachala Hill and try to bestow my faith in Him. Let Him come to me, when I am ready.

As a seeker, I am bound to be wrong. But this post is written out of my experiences, readings and philosophisizings. As always, there is no definite way to the top as all the ways go to the top of the mountain. Wish and hope that I and all of you find a way :-).