original mahabharata

[Guest guest]

does anyone know of any links to text of the original form of the mahabhrata, called the Jaya?

 

does anyone know if this text is even in existance? does ANYONE know any verses from it? or do they only know of its existance at some point prior to the formulation of the text Bharata, which itself was prior to the finalized text which we today call Mahabharata?

[Guest guest]

{does anyone know of any links to text of the original form of the mahabhrata, called the Jaya?}

 

It would be interesting to see what was added over time to become the Mahabharata. Jaya was the original written by sage Vyasa and others added to it which made it into the Mahabharata.

 

From what I've heard Jaya is just the stories of the 2 families ending in the war at kurukshetra. Krishna's childhood is absent from Jaya as well as Arjuna's travels and marriage with the serpent princess. Mahabharata had alot of puranic influences added to it.

 

The following text below has been taken from this link.

 

http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/articledesc.asp?cid=86564

 

The central part of the epic, the Jaya, has generally been accepted as its oldest part, much older than the other parts. Sri Aurobindo3 remarked on the grace, austerity and grandeur of its language, pointing to an extraordinary author, and a considerably earlier date of composition than the rest of the epic. It was perhaps composed within a century of the war by Krishnadwaipayana Vyasa, who is traditionally credited with not only authoring the epic, but also with the compilation of the original Purana, and the Vedas. The war was an extraordinary event that captured popular imagination; in India such events have always led to the creation of elegiac poems that were preserved by bardic tradition. The Jaya might have been preserved by bardic tradition for several generations before being written down (the famous sloka in which Vyasa says he remembered 8800 verses (of the Jaya), his son Suka another 8800 and Sanjaya, a similar number, may be a pointer to this). Much of the remaining epic, including the Bhadavad Gita, clearly dates to the late BC and early AD centuries.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

isnt this proof that the mahabharat and gita aren't real or legitimate if one sage wrote some and then others added to it?

[Guest guest]

A lot of events could happen now, and we might record them. A few years later, a talented person could give a poetic twist to what we've recorded. But it doesn't make the events false.

[Guest guest]

but it could mean that nothing really special happened during the time of the Mahabharata. A simple conflict between two families is exaggerated into a war of dharma where God himself took a part.

 

Who cares if the basic aspect was true, when the more grandiose aspects are false? Kind of leads to a huge disappointment, as of course, life is hardly anything so fantastic as what has been portrayed in the Mahabharata. Let alone, the idea that God would take part in a war to guide the destinies of man.

 

 

[Guest guest]

a simple dispute between two families wouldnt have been recorded. it must have been at least of major impact to the people living then, even if it seems uneventuful to us today. like the trojan war would be a war that killed many people, but one couldnt compare it to something like WWII. just because the numbers of the size of importance to today's society doesnt match up doesnt mean that it wasnt important.

 

secondly, disppointment only comes from a false notion of glorification. one shouldnt glorify things purposely. that will lead to disappointment. that is why sages say not to be attached to such things. in the long run, there is bound to be pain if you attach youself with too much pleasure.

 

as for god taking part in a war, god doesnt need to take place in anything to giude the destinies of man. man guides his own destiny. his karma will come back around to affect his destiny also. god has no emotional atachment. he doenst help one over the other. god only loves dharma. it is up to man to maintain that dharma.

[Guest guest]

{isnt this proof that the mahabharat and gita aren't real or legitimate if one sage wrote some and then others added to it?}

 

The whole point is that Jaya is the original text and the interpolations and additions were by other authors. Mahabharata is not a shruti, it is a smriti so it is less important. As the Mahabharata has been influenced by the Puranas, some content is mythological. The Mahabharata is not a record of events it is a written in a peoetic style which has similies, metaphors and allegories, so it can't always be taken literally and need to be interpreted by a true guru.

 

The Gita is legitimate in many different ways. For example through spiritual practice people have seen the benefit of following the Gita. Some have experienced God through it. The Gita contains teaching from the Upanishads which are shruti and itself can be considered an Upanishad.

[Guest guest]

"a simple dispute between two families wouldnt have been recorded. it must have been at least of major impact to the people living then, even if it seems uneventuful to us today. like the trojan war would be a war that killed many people, but one couldnt compare it to something like WWII. just because the numbers of the size of importance to today's society doesnt match up doesnt mean that it wasnt important.

 

secondly, disppointment only comes from a false notion of glorification. one shouldnt glorify things purposely. that will lead to disappointment. that is why sages say not to be attached to such things. in the long run, there is bound to be pain if you attach youself with too much pleasure.

 

as for god taking part in a war, god doesnt need to take place in anything to giude the destinies of man. man guides his own destiny. his karma will come back around to affect his destiny also. god has no emotional atachment. he doenst help one over the other. god only loves dharma. it is up to man to maintain that dharma. "

 

Disappointment comes from the idea that maybe there is no such thing as God. And that all that there is to life is in plain sight. Nothing more.

 

THAT'S disappointment.

 

And it seems to me, you don't actually believe in Krishna, and merely look at the Mahabharata as wholly allegorical.

 

I'm sorry, but I believe in miracles and God helping man achieve his destiny. Man is not always in control of his karma or destiny. If you're destined to do something, you'll do it no matter what you may want. If you're not destined to do something, no matter how hard you try, you're not likely to succeed. Man is only partially in control of his karma and destiny. the rest is in God's hands.

 

 

[Guest guest]

your view of God is completely one devoid of Love, and impersonal to the fullest extent.

 

Why would we care about such a God?

 

What difference does it make if such a God exists or doesn't?

 

And that implies God never interferes and helps guide man in his destiny or alleviates some of his bad karma. And I'm sorry, but I don't believe this at all.

[Guest guest]

to the first post -

------------------------------

 

disappointment comes from within oneself. one when places judgement on anything, from a type of food, to different people, to a house or car, or to god or love, or anything, there is a certain degree of expectation that one has. when this expectation is not met, there is disappointment. there are different degrees of disappointment, in which an idea of the non-existance of god perceived by one who haws expected his existance would be of a great degree. that specific disappointment you speak of is one type of disapopintment created from the same process as described above.

 

secondly, i do believe in krishna and i think the war and its participants probably did take place, but i dont believe in it word for word exactly literally. it is truth mixed with some interpolations, exagerations, and poetic concent over the thousands of years that have shaped the story. the additions are meant as moral lessons for the listener to get out of it. the problem is seperating fact from fiction. but essnetially, i do believe there was a major war between two northern indian kingdoms, it could have been thousands of years ago, but i persoanlly believe it was more likely to have occured somewhere between 3000-1000 BC with the second half of that being more likely. i believe krishna was a man that lived on earth like you and me, but was very influential in his society. being within a society that places awe upon great men, he was one who was revered above all. from there, viashnavite tradition has placed him in a category of gods, called avatars. persoanlly i believe this to be true, considering my belief that we are all god-capable. some acheieve, most dont. just because most dont, doesnt mean its impossible however. but my respect for krishna doesnt change my thirst for truth. to cloud one's judgement with emotional attachment detracts from one's ability to judge objectively. im not saying, everyone should think this however, i am just saying this is how I perceive things and search for.

 

as for karma and destiny, i believe they are the same thing. destiny is the end location, karma is how you get there. it is one's karma that guides one's destiny. but one is constantly building karma, so one should always act in a good manner. these good actions of the present is what god bases his rewards and graces of one on. it is through sattvic actions that one's karma is bettered.

 

god is nmot consiously tinkering with us. god has given us life and the ability to make the most of it. some are in better positions than others, due to their karma. but again, its up to us to make life what we want. dharma requires that we do it in a righetous way. this will bring good karma, bringing good boons from god.

-----------

 

To the second post -

 

Some believe in saguna brahman, others in nirguna brahman. some in the existance of both. some even in none.

 

for me, logic is the key to understanding existance. in that sense i guess im leaning more towards the side of the gnana yogi or nyaya philosopphy. to me, it is contradictory to believe that god experiences love for us in the same sense that we experience love in others. humans experience love as a result of desire and a fear of losing that. that creates the love that we hold for each person. its our attachment and attachment is storng due to fear of not having or experiencing this attachment. but god cannot have these qualities since he has no fear of losing us. he can do as he pleases. attachment is not a quality that god would have.

 

but that doesnt mean god doesnt care about us. i believe god nurtures us knowing that we have an infinte time to spend with god, giving us multiple lives to experience life and live in a good manner. based on our actions, god gives us the grace of experincing our karma in an appropriate fasion. it is human emotional attachment to god that makes one want to justify a recipricol feeling.

 

this is again not to say that people shouldnt love god. definatly, love god if you choose to. if one chooses not to have an emotional attachment to god, then one should at least have a revered respect for god.

 

its a good debate though. its interesting to think in terms of 'can we use interpersonal love to define the same feelings of love we experience towards god/religious love?'

[jayan008]

How can you categorise a ruling family to be a simple family and their dispute a simple family dispute.

 

They were the rulers of the whole Bharatvarsha, and the war that happened was to restore true dharma in the whole of Bharatvarsha. It would then affect each and every one and so was termed as a big event.

 

Ratheesh is correct in his statements.

 

Bharatvarsha was considered to be holy land since ancient times, and hence the involvement of Gods to restore its glory under true dharma.

 

You should first consider the situation and the context and then comment on it. You are trying to compare the present and the past. The present India and the glorious land of Dharma - Bharatvarsha, is hardly comparable.

 

Life for you in the present age may seem dull, boring and tedious, but that doesn't mean that life was not fantastic as potrayed in Mahabharata. The situation has changed drastically, and hence you cannot imagine it, bcoz you have never seen it happen in your own lifetime. For you seeing is believing, and hence this suspicion.

[Guest guest]

Disappointment comes from the idea that maybe there is no such thing as God. And that all that there is to life is in plain sight. Nothing more.

 

THAT'S disappointment.

 

 

 

chant hare krishna everyday following the proper techniques, you will see god..go to any real guru(not a fake one)...do as he says you will see god....practice kundalini yoga, bhakti yoga you will eventually see god.

what more proof do you need??

by chanting hare krishna if you can realize god then doesnt it mean the bhagvat gita holds true???

you cannot realize god through your brain or study of scriptures they are just guides the only way to attain god is through your soul..chanting, meditation..etc not study of scriptures they are just a stepping stone..

 

[Guest guest]

your view of diappointment is only in regards to a question of god's existance. it is only in relation to THIS PARTICULAR topic. It is not a general broad definition of the concept of disappointment. One cannot use a Toyota to explain what a car is. It is an example that can be used, but its generality as a car can only be used to describe toyotas, not ALL cars. In that same sense, your descriptiuon of disappointment being an understanding that god doesnt exist is only disappointing to someone searching for god's existance.

 

what about someone who wanted to win an iPod in a raffle and instead got a bookbag. surely that person would be disappointed. Whether they dispaly their disappointment, or how much of a degree of disappointment they feel or how long it takes for them to get over it, is all points for diferent discussions. Yet that is still disapoointment.

 

What does that have to do with understanding that there is no god? isnt that still disappointment?

[Bhagwat]

Our ancient sages were very precise about naming things. Mahabhart and Ramayan are classified as Itihas - ie histories. They are not scriptures or mythologies or philosophical treaties - but itihas.

We have elevated them to scriptural level - that's our issue - not theirs.

 

Jaya is the core of this itihas. It deals with the warring families and is held up as a mirror to ALL families to remind them what can happens if a family dispute gets out of hand. It is up to the elders, leaders, thinkers, intellectuals to rein in the greedy members of society and make sure there is justice and fairness for all. If the guardians of society abdicate their responsibilities, if the people meekly submit to tyranny, Mahabharta is inevitable.

 

Over time, other stories, mythologies, histories were interwoven with the original Jaya and the tale transformed into Bharata and than MahaBharata. You can tell where the insertions occur. Look out for change of tempo, language, "thoughts going off at a tangent" or any such deviation from the original and you can see where the additions happened.

 

As such, we Hindus / Indians have not understood this transition / transformation and hence refused to learn from our own ancestors. I believe we continue to badly misunderstand its messages and as a result pay a heavy price for it.