Guest guest Posted November 11, 2008 Report Share Posted November 11, 2008 Dear Mr.Sreenadh, When I clicked the links provided by you it says this file is not available in the server.So please send me the correct link or the mail me the the file written by you in the body of the mail. Cordially, B.C.VENKATAKRISHNAN. --- On Tue, 11/11/08, Souvik Dutta <explore_vulcan wrote: Souvik Dutta <explore_vulcan Re: Question on time period of Vyasa Tuesday, November 11, 2008, 12:06 PM Dear Sreenadh-ji, Thanks for the link. I am reading your article now. Btw, I did observe that most of your articles begin with the letter " A " , is this just by chance or are you obsessed with " A " like me. In my blog, Satyam Shivam Sundaram, all my postings begins with " A " . Tc Souvik ancient_indian_ astrology, " Sreenadh " <sreesog > wrote: > > > Dear Souvik ji, > My write-up on various parasaras was: > http://groups. / group/ancient_ indian_astrology Sreenadh% 20\ > OG/Adbhuta_Samhita_ and_the_Period_ of_Som_.pdf > <http://groups. / group/ancient_ indian_astrology Sreenadh% 2\ > 0OG/Adbhuta_ Samhita_and_ the_Period_ of_Som_.pdf > > Love and regards, > Sreenadh > > ancient_indian_ astrology, " Souvik Dutta " > <explore_vulcan@ > wrote: > > > > Bingo Sreenadh-ji, > > > > That's exactly what I was looking for. > > > > I perhaps missed your write-up on Parasaras. > > > > I shall be grateful if you forward the same to me. > > > > However, the Parasara who impregnated Satyavati maynot have been the > > grandson of the Ishkaku vamsa kulguru Vashistha. > > > > Regards, > > > > Souvik > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, " Sreenadh " > > sreesog@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear Souvik ji, > > > You may not reach anywhere with this methodology because - > > > * Vasishta was a tradition (There were numerous Vasistas, at > > different > > > periods of time) > > > * Parasara was a tradition (There were numerous Parasaras, at > > > different periods of time, as I have shown in one of my previous > > > write-ups) > > > * Vyasa was a tradition (There were numerous Vyasasa, at different > > > periods of time) > > > Further numerous modifications happened ot various Puranic and Epic > > > texts in various periods. > > > Love and regards, > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, " Souvik Dutta " > > > <explore_vulcan@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear esteemed members, > > > > > > > > Before I begin my question let me point out that I am a learner > and so > > > > please correct me for any incorrect information I am presenting > here. > > > > > > > > Vishwamitra and Vashistha were contemporary Rishis. I am assuming > the > > > > same era here. > > > > Vashistha's son Shakti. > > > > Shakti's son Parasara. > > > > Parasara's son Vyasa (with Satyavati before meeting Shantanu). > > > > > > > > Vishwamitra' s daughter Shakuntala > > > > Dushyanta married Shakuntala, the daughter of sage Vishvamitra and > the > > > > Apsara Menaka. Kalidasa wrote the epic > > > Abhijñ¦¡p;amp;#257;nash & #257;kuntala > > > > on the life > > > > of Dushyanta > > > > > > > > After this, the order of the offspring is as follows: > > > > - Bharata, son of Dushyanta and Shakuntala. India was named > " Bharata " > > > > after him. > > > > - Bhumanyu > > > > - Vrihatkshatra > > > > - Suhotra > > > > - Hasti > > > > - Ajmeedh > > > > - Riksha > > > > - Sanwaran > > > > - Kuru, founder of the city of Kurukshetra. > > > > > > > > After Kuru the order of succeeding kings is not in Vishnu Purana, > > > > Bramha Purana, Bhagwata and Mahabharata. They include > > > > > > > > 1. Abhishyantu > > > > 2. Parikshit > > > > 3. Janmejaya > > > > 4. Surath > > > > 5. Vidurath > > > > 6. Riksh II > > > > 7. Bhimsen > > > > 8. Prateep > > > > 9. Shantanu married firstly Ganga and secondly Satyavati. > According > > > > the condition of marriage of Satyavati, her son Vichitravirya > became > > > > the next king. > > > > > > > > Now Vyasa's engaged in niyog with late Vichitravirya' s wives to > give > > > > Kuru vamsa offspring. > > > > > > > > Whereas from Vashistha to Vyasa there are only 4 generations. > > > > Vishwamitra to Vichitravirya is 19 generations. > > > > > > > > I am surely missing something. Can someone please correct me? > > > > > > > > Student Always, > > > > > > > > Souvik > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 2008 Report Share Posted November 11, 2008 Dear Venkata Krishnan ji, Go to the file section of this group. There is a folder with the Name "Sreenadh OG". You will fid the said file with the name "Adbhuta_Samhita_and_the_Period_of_Som_.pdf " from there. Hope this helps.Love and regards,Sreenadh , venkata krishnan <bcvk71 wrote:>> Dear Mr.Sreenadh,> ?????????????????????????? When I clicked the links provided by you it says this file is not available in the server.So please send me the correct link or the mail me the the file written by you in the body of the mail.> Cordially,> B.C.VENKATAKRISHNAN.> > --- On Tue, 11/11/08, Souvik Dutta explore_vulcan wrote:> > Souvik Dutta explore_vulcan Re: Question on time period of Vyasa> > Tuesday, November 11, 2008, 12:06 PM> > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh-ji,> > Thanks for the link. I am reading your article now.> Btw, I did observe that most of your articles begin with the letter> "A", is this just by chance or are you obsessed with "A" like me. > In my blog, Satyam Shivam Sundaram, all my postings begins with "A".> > Tc> > Souvik> > ancient_indian_ astrology, "Sreenadh"> sreesog@ > wrote:> >> >> > Dear Souvik ji,> > My write-up on various parasaras was:> >> http://groups. / group/ancient_ indian_astrology Sreenadh% 20\> > OG/Adbhuta_Samhita_ and_the_Period_ of_Som_.pdf> >> <http://groups. / group/ancient_ indian_astrology Sreenadh% 2\> > 0OG/Adbhuta_ Samhita_and_ the_Period_ of_Som_.pdf >> > Love and regards,> > Sreenadh> >> > ancient_indian_ astrology, "Souvik Dutta"> > <explore_vulcan@ > wrote:> > >> > > Bingo Sreenadh-ji,> > >> > > That's exactly what I was looking for.> > >> > > I perhaps missed your write-up on Parasaras.> > >> > > I shall be grateful if you forward the same to me.> > >> > > However, the Parasara who impregnated Satyavati maynot have been the> > > grandson of the Ishkaku vamsa kulguru Vashistha.> > >> > > Regards,> > >> > > Souvik> > >> > >> > > ancient_indian_ astrology, "Sreenadh"> > > sreesog@ wrote:> > > >> > > >> > > > Dear Souvik ji,> > > > You may not reach anywhere with this methodology because -> > > > * Vasishta was a tradition (There were numerous Vasistas, at> > > different> > > > periods of time)> > > > * Parasara was a tradition (There were numerous Parasaras, at> > > > different periods of time, as I have shown in one of my previous> > > > write-ups)> > > > * Vyasa was a tradition (There were numerous Vyasasa, at different> > > > periods of time)> > > > Further numerous modifications happened ot various Puranic and Epic> > > > texts in various periods.> > > > Love and regards,> > > > Sreenadh> > > >> > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, "Souvik Dutta"> > > > <explore_vulcan@ > wrote:> > > > >> > > > > Dear esteemed members,> > > > >> > > > > Before I begin my question let me point out that I am a learner> > and so> > > > > please correct me for any incorrect information I am presenting> > here.> > > > >> > > > > Vishwamitra and Vashistha were contemporary Rishis. I am assuming> > the> > > > > same era here.> > > > > Vashistha's son Shakti.> > > > > Shakti's son Parasara.> > > > > Parasara's son Vyasa (with Satyavati before meeting Shantanu).> > > > >> > > > > Vishwamitra' s daughter Shakuntala> > > > > Dushyanta married Shakuntala, the daughter of sage Vishvamitra and> > the> > > > > Apsara Menaka. Kalidasa wrote the epic> > > > Abhijñ¦¡p;amp;#257;nash & #257;kuntala> > > > > on the life> > > > > of Dushyanta> > > > >> > > > > After this, the order of the offspring is as follows:> > > > > - Bharata, son of Dushyanta and Shakuntala. India was named> > "Bharata"> > > > > after him.> > > > > - Bhumanyu> > > > > - Vrihatkshatra> > > > > - Suhotra> > > > > - Hasti> > > > > - Ajmeedh> > > > > - Riksha> > > > > - Sanwaran> > > > > - Kuru, founder of the city of Kurukshetra.> > > > >> > > > > After Kuru the order of succeeding kings is not in Vishnu Purana,> > > > > Bramha Purana, Bhagwata and Mahabharata. They include> > > > >> > > > > 1. Abhishyantu> > > > > 2. Parikshit> > > > > 3. Janmejaya> > > > > 4. Surath> > > > > 5. Vidurath> > > > > 6. Riksh II> > > > > 7. Bhimsen> > > > > 8. Prateep> > > > > 9. Shantanu married firstly Ganga and secondly Satyavati.> > According> > > > > the condition of marriage of Satyavati, her son Vichitravirya> > became> > > > > the next king.> > > > >> > > > > Now Vyasa's engaged in niyog with late Vichitravirya' s wives to> > give> > > > > Kuru vamsa offspring.> > > > >> > > > > Whereas from Vashistha to Vyasa there are only 4 generations.> > > > > Vishwamitra to Vichitravirya is 19 generations.> > > > >> > > > > I am surely missing something. Can someone please correct me?> > > > >> > > > > Student Always,> > > > >> > > > > Souvik> > > > >> > > >> > >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 2008 Report Share Posted November 11, 2008 Dear Kishoreji, // Half knowledge as very dangerous// Agreed. Learned people like you are always here to enlighten us. As far as I know, it took several thousand years or many generations for King Koushika,(of kusha dynasty of vedic brahmins)to become Vishwamitra. The question here was the generation from Vishwamitra through shakuntala. Daughters do not carry father's lineage. All I meant to say was that Bharat was born through his daughter, hence the generation from Bharat onwards do not belong to Vishwamitra. The other story, I am familiar of Vishwamitra had 100 sons, he himself reduced 50 of them to chandalas, the remaining continued in various vedic brahmin lineage. Regards, bhagavathi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 2008 Report Share Posted November 11, 2008 Dear all, Without meaning to disturb the flow of discussions, would not it be good enough if aspersions are not cast on the lineage of the Great ones, who was born of whom ? who was father of whom, whose beeja was in whom, the kshetra carried beeja of whom, and all such unsavoury type of talks about our ancestors ? Why not talk about their achievements, their greatness, and accomplishments, in the context of the present day or of the golden eras ? sorry if the above is not in proper line. You may please ignore my mail, if so. Bhaskar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 2008 Report Share Posted November 11, 2008 Madam, That is very graceful of you. I did not mean to be rude. regards, Kishore patnaik On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 8:02 PM, bhagavathi_hariharan <bhagavathi_hariharan wrote: Dear Kishoreji, // Half knowledge as very dangerous// Agreed. Learned people like you are always here to enlighten us. As far as I know, it took several thousand years or many generations for King Koushika,(of kusha dynasty of vedic brahmins)to become Vishwamitra. The question here was the generation from Vishwamitra through shakuntala. Daughters do not carry father's lineage. All I meant to say was that Bharat was born through his daughter, hence the generation from Bharat onwards do not belong to Vishwamitra. The other story, I am familiar of Vishwamitra had 100 sons, he himself reduced 50 of them to chandalas, the remaining continued in various vedic brahmin lineage. Regards, bhagavathi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 2008 Report Share Posted November 11, 2008 So long we do it with out demeaning the great souls , it is alright I guess. Kishore patnaik On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 8:10 PM, Bhaskar <rajiventerprises wrote: Dear all, Without meaning to disturb the flow of discussions, would not it be good enough if aspersions are not cast on the lineage of the Great ones, who was born of whom ? who was father of whom, whose beeja was in whom, the kshetra carried beeja of whom, and all such unsavoury type of talks about our ancestors ? Why not talk about their achievements, their greatness, and accomplishments, in the context of the present day or of the golden eras ? sorry if the above is not in proper line. You may please ignore my mail, if so. Bhaskar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 2008 Report Share Posted November 11, 2008 Dear VENKATAKRISHNAN, Thank you for sharing. Regards, Souvik , venkata krishnan <bcvk71 wrote: > > Dear Souvik, > Veda Vyasa the original author of Mahaabharata never wrote that Vichitraveeriya died without issues.It was some other person later who made these interpolations. > Karna was born to Kunthi and Suryabhagavan before she got married.LORD KRISHNA was born to Devaki and Vasudeva in the Jail in Mathura and was broughtup by Yasoda and Nandagopa.As for as the Birth of Karna and Lord Krishna I have no alternative views.For they are facts.The original or real Mahaabharata by Veda Vyasa is not available anywhere at present. > Cordially, > B.C.VENKATAKRISHNAN. > > Souvik Dutta <explore_vulcan > Re: Question on time period of Vyasa > > Tuesday, November 11, 2008, 11:58 AM Dear VENKATAKRISHNAN, > I am not at all claiming that your views are incorrect. Everyone is > entitled to a view and it is also true that minority of such views may > be path-breaking. > However, in this regard, please let me know the motive behind Rishi > Vyasa or anyone for that matter mentioning the fact that Vichtrivirya > died without progeny. > Please do also let me know if you have alternative views about the > birth story of Karna and Krishna, just curious. > Also, please do point to me the place where I can read the " real " > Mahabharata, according to your views. > Regards, > Souvik > > ancient_indian_ astrology, venkata krishnan > <bcvk71@> wrote: > > > > Dear Souvik, > > Satyavati never asked Bheeshma to copulate with > Kashi Princesses for a heir to the throne.It is just another > interpolation in Mahaabhaarata as a thread of continuation > interpolation of writing that the 3 princeses Drtharashtra, Pandu and > Vidura were born to Veda Vyasa.There are many such interpolations in > Mahabharata, Ramaayana and Puranas which are glaring.By the by I am > not quoting from any of the now available Versons of Mahaabhaarata. I > say this with purse common sense and logic which is necessary to prove > to people.By the by there are many such secreats in Mahaabharata > whichare not klnown to people in Mahabharata which are to be explained > in order that common people understand. > > B.C.VENKATAKRISHNAN . > > website: www.vedascience. com > > > > > > > > Souvik Dutta <explore_vulcan@ ...> > > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Question on time period of Vyasa > > ancient_indian_ astrology > > Monday, November 10, 2008, 6:32 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear friend, > > Which version of mahabharata are you refering? Please do enlighten us. > > If Vichitravirya died with progeny, why would Satyavati ask Bhishma to > > copulate with the Kashi princess for a heir to the throne? > > Regards, > > Souvik > > ancient_indian_ astrology, venkata krishnan > > <bcvk71@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear All, > > > Viswamitra did have many sons.According to Vishnu > > Purana Book IV, Chapter VII, > > > Slokas 17 and 18, > > > Meaning: > > > The son of Viswamitra was Sunahsepahs, the descendant > > of Bhrgu, given by the gods, and thence named Devarata, Viswamitra > > hadother sons also, amongs whom the most celebrated were > > Madhuchhandas, Kritajaya, Devadeva, Ashtaka, Kachchapa, and Harita; > > these founded many families, all of whom were known by the name of > > Kausikas, and intermarried with the families of various Rshis. > > > > > > > > > Drtharaashtra , Pandu and Vidura were not the sons of > > KrishnadwipayanaVed a Vyasa.The were born to Vichitraveeriya when he > > was alive itself to his 2 wives Ambika, Ambaalika and his one of his > > maid Servant when Veda Vyasa came to his palace and they prostrated at > > the feet of Veda Vyasa and begot Dritaraashtra, Pandu and Vidura > > respectively by the blessing of Veda Vyasa.Only if Drtharaashtra, > > Paandu and Vidura were born to Vichitraveerya they are Bhaaratas and > > it is Bharatavamsa and the great war is MAHAABHAARATA. On the other > > hand if they were born of Veda Vyasa they were not Bhaaratas, > > Bharatavansis and the Great war was not MAHAABHAARATA but they were > > Paaraasaraas, Paraasaravamsis and the Great war was > > MAHAAPARAASARAM. This is not only logic but the fact though my > > extensive research.Hence its clear that saying Drtharaashtra, Pandu > > and Vidura were born to Veda > > > > > > bhagavathi_harihara n <bhagavathi_ hariharan@ ...> > > > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Question on time period > of Vyasa > > > ancient_indian_ astrology > > > Monday, November 10, 2008, 9:31 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Souvikji, > > > > > > Vishwamitra' s generation did not extend till 19. His generation > > > stopped with him itself becuase he had no son. Bharat was born > > > through his daughter. Bharat belonged to the " Puruvansh " . > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > bhagavathi > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, " Souvik Dutta " > > > <explore_vulcan@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear esteemed members, > > > > > > > > Before I begin my question let me point out that I am a learner and > > > so > > > > please correct me for any incorrect information I am presenting > > > here. > > > > > > > > Vishwamitra and Vashistha were contemporary Rishis. I am assuming > > > the > > > > same era here. > > > > Vashistha's son Shakti. > > > > Shakti's son Parasara. > > > > Parasara's son Vyasa (with Satyavati before meeting Shantanu). > > > > > > > > Vishwamitra' s daughter Shakuntala > > > > Dushyanta married Shakuntala, the daughter of sage Vishvamitra and > > > the > > > > Apsara Menaka. Kalidasa wrote the epic Abhijñ & #257;nash & > #257;kuntala > > > > on the life > > > > of Dushyanta > > > > > > > > After this, the order of the offspring is as follows: > > > > - Bharata, son of Dushyanta and Shakuntala. India was > > > named " Bharata " > > > > after him. > > > > - Bhumanyu > > > > - Vrihatkshatra > > > > - Suhotra > > > > - Hasti > > > > - Ajmeedh > > > > - Riksha > > > > - Sanwaran > > > > - Kuru, founder of the city of Kurukshetra. > > > > > > > > After Kuru the order of succeeding kings is not in Vishnu Purana, > > > > Bramha Purana, Bhagwata and Mahabharata. They include > > > > > > > > 1. Abhishyantu > > > > 2. Parikshit > > > > 3. Janmejaya > > > > 4. Surath > > > > 5. Vidurath > > > > 6. Riksh II > > > > 7. Bhimsen > > > > 8. Prateep > > > > 9. Shantanu married firstly Ganga and secondly Satyavati. According > > > > the condition of marriage of Satyavati, her son Vichitravirya became > > > > the next king. > > > > > > > > Now Vyasa's engaged in niyog with late Vichitravirya' s wives to > give > > > > Kuru vamsa offspring. > > > > > > > > Whereas from Vashistha to Vyasa there are only 4 generations. > > > > Vishwamitra to Vichitravirya is 19 generations. > > > > > > > > I am surely missing something. Can someone please correct me? > > > > > > > > Student Always, > > > > > > > > Souvik > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 2008 Report Share Posted November 11, 2008 Dear Bhaskar-ji, Your words are shirodharya! I shall end this discussion from my side. Regards, Souvik , " Bhaskar " <rajiventerprises wrote: > > Dear all, Without meaning to disturb the flow of discussions, would > not it be good enough if aspersions are not cast on the lineage of the > Great ones, who was born of whom ? who was father of whom, whose beeja > was in whom, the kshetra carried beeja of whom, and all such unsavoury > type of talks about our ancestors ? Why not talk about their > achievements, their greatness, and accomplishments, in the context of > the present day or of the golden eras ? sorry if the above is not in > proper line. You may please ignore my mail, if so. Bhaskar. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 14, 2008 Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 Dear Souvik, Veda Vyasa the original author of Mahaabharata never wrote that Vichtraveerya died without issues and it was an interpolation by someother scholar in the later period.His motive may be anything for example for distorting the real history for the sake of his monarch or for himself if it was before the advent of Alexander to India or if it was interpolated after the advent of Alaxender to India the motive was certainly to demene the Indian civilization and India by the europreans or even traitors of India to establish the European and Greek supremacy over India and its people and this is very much likely.Since there are even today Pseudo historians who maintain the myth of AIT perpetrated by Max Mueller even after there is ample evidence including archaeological, scientific and historical and other evidences to prove that AIT is a myth. As for as The birth of Karna he was born of Kunti and the grace of Lord Surya and Lord Krishna was born to Devaki and Vasudeva in the jail in Mathura and was broughtup by Yasoda and Nandagopa in Nandiggraama.There is no interpolation in these two cases of Birth of Karna and Lord Krishna and I have no difference of openion on these two.And there have been lots of interpolations in Mahabharata and other Hindu texts in the past which is being continued till date and it will be in the future for various reasons and the motives are many the chief of it being to Divide and rule the Indians whbich is being done till date and to consider themselves as inferior to Europeans which is world known fact and proved which youwill alsobe aware of. The original Mahaabharata by Veda Vyasa is not available anywhere now.One should analyse , have the brain to descern the facts from interpolation and separate them like a Swan which separates the milk from water and drinks the milk we should take the facts and discars the interpolations .And for all these one sahould have an open mind mind without any preconceived notions or ulterior motives which majority of the scholars including historians have including Indians. B.C.VENKATAKRISHNAN website: www.vedascience.com--- On Tue, 11/11/08, Souvik Dutta <explore_vulcan wrote: Souvik Dutta <explore_vulcan Re: Question on time period of Vyasa Date: Tuesday, November 11, 2008, 11:58 AM Dear VENKATAKRISHNAN,I am not at all claiming that your views are incorrect. Everyone isentitled to a view and it is also true that minority of such views maybe path-breaking.However, in this regard, please let me know the motive behind RishiVyasa or anyone for that matter mentioning the fact that Vichtriviryadied without progeny.Please do also let me know if you have alternative views about thebirth story of Karna and Krishna, just curious.Also, please do point to me the place where I can read the "real"Mahabharata, according to your views.Regards,Souvikancient_indian_ astrology, venkata krishnan<bcvk71 wrote:>> Dear Souvik,> Satyavati never asked Bheeshma to copulate withKashi Princesses for a heir to the throne.It is just anotherinterpolation in Mahaabhaarata as a thread of continuation interpolation of writing that the 3 princeses Drtharashtra, Pandu andVidura were born to Veda Vyasa.There are many such interpolations inMahabharata, Ramaayana and Puranas which are glaring.By the by I amnot quoting from any of the now available Versons of Mahaabhaarata. Isay this with purse common sense and logic which is necessary to proveto people.By the by there are many such secreats in Mahaabharatawhichare not klnown to people in Mahabharata which are to be explainedin order that common people understand.> B.C.VENKATAKRISHNAN .> website: www.vedascience. com> > > > Souvik Dutta <explore_vulcan@ ...>> [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Question on time period of Vyasa> ancient_indian_ astrology> Monday, November 10, 2008, 6:32 PM> > > > > > > Dear friend,> Which version of mahabharata are you refering? Please do enlighten us.> If Vichitravirya died with progeny, why would Satyavati ask Bhishma to> copulate with the Kashi princess for a heir to the throne?> Regards,> Souvik> ancient_indian_ astrology, venkata krishnan> <bcvk71@> wrote:> >> > Dear All,> > Viswamitra did have many sons.According to Vishnu> Purana Book IV, Chapter VII,> > Slokas 17 and 18,> > Meaning:> > The son of Viswamitra was Sunahsepahs, the descendant> of Bhrgu, given by the gods, and thence named Devarata, Viswamitra> hadother sons also, amongs whom the most celebrated were> Madhuchhandas, Kritajaya, Devadeva, Ashtaka, Kachchapa, and Harita;> these founded many families, all of whom were known by the name of> Kausikas, and intermarried with the families of various Rshis.> > > > > > Drtharaashtra , Pandu and Vidura were not the sons of> KrishnadwipayanaVed a Vyasa.The were born to Vichitraveeriya when he> was alive itself to his 2 wives Ambika, Ambaalika and his one of his> maid Servant when Veda Vyasa came to his palace and they prostrated at> the feet of Veda Vyasa and begot Dritaraashtra, Pandu and Vidura> respectively by the blessing of Veda Vyasa.Only if Drtharaashtra,> Paandu and Vidura were born to Vichitraveerya they are Bhaaratas and> it is Bharatavamsa and the great war is MAHAABHAARATA. On the other> hand if they were born of Veda Vyasa they were not Bhaaratas,> Bharatavansis and the Great war was not MAHAABHAARATA but they were> Paaraasaraas, Paraasaravamsis and the Great war was> MAHAAPARAASARAM. This is not only logic but the fact though my> extensive research.Hence its clear that saying Drtharaashtra, Pandu> and Vidura were born to Veda > > > > bhagavathi_harihara n <bhagavathi_ hariharan@ ...>> > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Question on time periodof Vyasa> > ancient_indian_ astrology> > Monday, November 10, 2008, 9:31 AM> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Souvikji,> > > > Vishwamitra' s generation did not extend till 19. His generation > > stopped with him itself becuase he had no son. Bharat was born > > through his daughter. Bharat belonged to the "Puruvansh". > > > > Regards,> > > > bhagavathi> > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, "Souvik Dutta" > > <explore_vulcan@ ...> wrote:> > >> > > Dear esteemed members,> > > > > > Before I begin my question let me point out that I am a learner and > > so> > > please correct me for any incorrect information I am presenting > > here.> > > > > > Vishwamitra and Vashistha were contemporary Rishis. I am assuming > > the> > > same era here.> > > Vashistha's son Shakti.> > > Shakti's son Parasara.> > > Parasara's son Vyasa (with Satyavati before meeting Shantanu).> > > > > > Vishwamitra' s daughter Shakuntala> > > Dushyanta married Shakuntala, the daughter of sage Vishvamitra and > > the> > > Apsara Menaka. Kalidasa wrote the epic Abhijñ & #257;nash & #257;kuntala> > > on the life> > > of Dushyanta> > > > > > After this, the order of the offspring is as follows:> > > - Bharata, son of Dushyanta and Shakuntala. India was > > named "Bharata"> > > after him.> > > - Bhumanyu> > > - Vrihatkshatra> > > - Suhotra> > > - Hasti> > > - Ajmeedh> > > - Riksha> > > - Sanwaran> > > - Kuru, founder of the city of Kurukshetra.> > > > > > After Kuru the order of succeeding kings is not in Vishnu Purana,> > > Bramha Purana, Bhagwata and Mahabharata. They include> > > > > > 1. Abhishyantu> > > 2. Parikshit> > > 3. Janmejaya> > > 4. Surath> > > 5. Vidurath> > > 6. Riksh II> > > 7. Bhimsen> > > 8. Prateep> > > 9. Shantanu married firstly Ganga and secondly Satyavati. According> > > the condition of marriage of Satyavati, her son Vichitravirya became> > > the next king.> > > > > > Now Vyasa's engaged in niyog with late Vichitravirya' s wives togive> > > Kuru vamsa offspring.> > > > > > Whereas from Vashistha to Vyasa there are only 4 generations.> > > Vishwamitra to Vichitravirya is 19 generations.> > > > > > I am surely missing something. Can someone please correct me?> > > > > > Student Always,> > > > > > Souvik> > >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 14, 2008 Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 Dear Kishore, Ok.I think Madhuchandas is the perceptor of King Harita, the grandson of King Harischandra. BCVK.--- On Tue, 11/11/08, kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 wrote: kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09Re: Re: Question on time period of Vyasa Date: Tuesday, November 11, 2008, 12:54 PM Dear BCVK, Your mail on sons of Viswamitra is quite informative. I have forwarded it to groups.. com if you have noticed it.btw, Madhuchandas was the preceptor of which king?Kishore patnaik On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:38 PM, venkata krishnan <bcvk71 > wrote: DeaDear Mr.Sreenadh, Yes, Bharata was the son of Rishabadeva who is the son of Emperor Naabhi who belongs to the Dynasty of Svayambhuva Manu.Rishabadeva was the Avathara of Parabrahman Lord Naaraayana and the first Theertankara and founder of Jainism mentioned in Vishnu Puraana. Cordially, B.C.VENKATAKRISHNAN .--- On Tue, 11/11/08, Sreenadh <sreesog > wrote: Sreenadh <sreesog >[ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Question on time period of Vyasa ancient_indian_ astrologyTuesday, November 11, 2008, 10:58 AM Dear Venkata Krishnan ji, It was assumed/told that Bharata varsha was named so after the name of the great King Bharata (the son of Rishabhadeva ?) and NOT after Sage Bharata. Love and regards,Sreenadhancient_indian_ astrology, venkata krishnan <bcvk71 wrote:>> Dear Mr.Sunil K Bhattacharya,> ???????????? ????????? ????????? ????????? ???? Yes but, the Bhaaratavarsha may have also got its name from Maharshi BHARATA who lived aeons before Vrshabadeva. The original name of Bhaaratavarsha was Brahmavarta, meaning the Land of Brahman.Later on it was named Ajanaabavarsha? after?Emperor Aja the son of Emperor Naabi.And furthur later on it was named?Bharatavarsha after Maharshi Bharata according to Puranas.> Cordially,> B.C.VENKATAKRISHNAN .> > > --- On Mon, 11/10/08, Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:> > Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya Re: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Question on time period of Vyasa> ancient_indian_ astrology> Monday, November 10, 2008, 8:36 PM> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Souvikji,> ?> According to Bhagavat purana Bharatvarsha was named not after Dushanta's son Bharata but after Rishabhdev's son Bharata.> ?> Regards,> ?> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya> ?> ?> > ?> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 14, 2008 Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 Ganga, the first wife of King Shantanu gives birth to Bhishma . Satyavati , 2nd wife of King Shantanu gave birth to Vyasa, Chitrangada and Vichitravirya. Chitrangada dies at early age with no issue. Vichitravirya has two wives, Ambika and Ambalika , and when Vichitravirya dies, then Vyasa sires through Ambika, the blind Dhritarashtra, and through Ambalika, Pandu. Dhritarashtra marries 2 wives, Gandhari and Vaishya. Through Gandhari he begets Duryodhana and his other 99 brothers. Through Vaishya he begets Yuyutsu ( who sides with the Pandavas in the Mahabharata war and spurns his broither Duryodhana) . Pandu marries 2 wives Kunti and Madri . Through Kunti, are born Yudhisthara ( Son of Dharma), Bhima ( Son of Pavana), and Arjuna ( Son of Indra) , while Madri gives birth to Nakula and Sahdeva. That sums up the official hieraachy. I hve not included Karna in this Group, though he is very much there behind the screen. The above is as known to me. I am not a historian so do not argue with me. But if anyone has the time for argument then ask them to change the constitution of India. Why cant we too marry 2 wives ? best wishes, Bhaskar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.