Srila Vyasa dev has written many scriptures. Not all the scriptures serve same purpose or are meant for same audience. For example : There are 18 main Puranas - 6 are for people in mode of ignorance, 6 are for people in mode of passion and rest for those in goodness. The recommendations in the scriptures are according the what the followers are capable of following according to their level.
The events mentioned in Mahabharat and Srimad Bhagavatam are the same. Meaning it is the same King Parikshit , grandson of Pandavas that is referenced in both the scriptures, but the details, focus and the audience is different.
Mahabharat presents a history of events of a family. The story of Mahabharat is the feud between Kauravas and Pandavas. Sri Krsna is a special personality who is relative of pandavas and plays a very important role in the outcome of the battle of Kurukshetra. The lesson of Mahabharat is that Dharma is always victorious in the end. Any person who performs adharmic activities will face consequences. In-line with this theme - King Parikshit makes a minor mistake and it is shown that as a consequence to that mistake, he gets cursed and dies. The lesson being even if someone is a King they cannot commit mistakes without consequences.
Srimad Bhagavatam is scripture that is not based on Dharma, Artha, Kama and Moksha. Srimad Bhagavtam is not a scripture that narrates history. Srimad Bhagavatam can be seen as a compilation of love stories of Sri Krsna and His pure devotees. The focus of Srimad Bhagavatam are how the devotees take shelter of Krsna, how devotees serve Krsna and How Krsna reciprocates with His devotees. This is the theme throughout Bhagavatam - Devotees taking shelter of Krsna - Dhruva, Parikshit, Prithu, Prahlad, Ajamila, Ambarisa, Devahuti, etc In-line with this theme Birth of Parikshit is described when his mother - Uttara takes shelter of Krsna to save her child in the womb. Then when King Parikshit is cursed, he takes shelter of Krsna by performing Shravana yajna (BG 4.26) of hearing Bhagavatam from Shukadev Goswami. The lesson is even if you are the sole king of the world, you will face situations which are beyond your control. So Sri Krsna is the only infallible shelter for everyone. Hence people with intelligence(SB 11.5.32) take shelter of Krsna by being absorbed in His holy names and pastimes. As Srimad bhagavatam states
kaler doṣa-nidhe rājann asti hy eko mahān guṇaḥ kīrtanād eva kṛṣṇasya mukta-saṅgaḥ paraṁ vrajet
My dear King, although Kali-yuga is an ocean of faults, there is still one good quality about this age: Simply by chanting the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra, one can become free from material bondage and be promoted to the transcendental kingdom. ( SB 12.3.51) And Sri Caitanya Caritamrita describes how to perform Sri Krsna Sankirtanam.
There are no major contradiction in these scriptures. They describe same events from different perspectives with different focus and different lessons.
Thank you for elaborate and thoughtful answer to help others become more wise.
You have correctly said that Maharaj Parikshit sat on the banks of river Ganga to meditate on the lotus feet of Sri Krishna and fast till death..
The pious king after committing a grievous mistake (under influence of Kali), was under severe mental penance and welcomed the curse as befitting to his sin. He did not try to save himself, contemplated and went out leaving all things.
But, in "Mahabharat" the king was sorry to hear about the curse, consulted his council of ministers and took all measures to save himself without success.
Knowing about the pious king, the character portrayed in "Bhagbatam" is most befitting. But why the same has been said otherwise in "Mahabharat" by the same author?
Bharat > Jadab Ananda HazraApril 21, 2020 at 10:35pm
Hare Krsna
You mentioned The pious king after committing a grievous mistake (under influence of Kali), was under severe mental penance and welcomed the curse as befitting to his sin. He did not try to save himself, contemplated and went out leaving all things.
The bold portion above "grievous mistake (under influence of Kali)" is unlikely to be mentioned in Srimad Bhagavatam. If it is, kindly mention the verse number.
Much pleased to receive your query. You ask a question and make me wise. Thank you.
Regarding : Grievous mistake : Verses in 1/19/1,2,3 say about the pious king's self realisation of the gravity of the mistake committed by him.
Regarding : (under influence of Kali) : Either I read it somewhere or heard in some religious pravachan. Unfortunately don't remember where, but will share as soon as I recollect. The recollected story is like this- The king allowed Kali to stay in five places, including gold (verse 1/17/38,39). Thereafter, one day he opened a long locked store in his palace and found a beautiful golden crown. It was the crown of powerful Magadha king Jarasandha who had much enmity with Krishna and attacked Mathura several times. Ultimately Bheem, under Krishna's instructions killed Jarasndha and brought his crown to their palace in Hastinapur and kept in store. Parikshit was amazed to find the beautyful crown, put it on and went out for hunting. And did such an unimaginable deed unthinkable of a pious man like him. The crown was of gold (one of Kali's place) and was of a most notorious king. So, what else can be inferred other than that Parikshit was under the influence of "Kali"?
Bharat > Jadab Ananda HazraApril 22, 2020 at 5:47pm
Hare Krsna
SB 1.19/1,2,3 do not say about the grievous mistake. It says about the how King Parikshit felt about the mistake committed by him. These verses do not describe the the gravity of mistakes by him. They describe how repentful the great king was. This is the nature of saintly persons. They always consider themselves lowly and humble. Even minor mistakes by themselves they feel highly repentful. To label the act committed by King Parikshit as grievous mistake would be a grievous mistake because Srimad Bhagavataam does not support it.
The following shlokas clearly mention that the act performed was not grievous mistake but a minor mistake.
apāpeṣu sva-bhṛtyeṣu bālenāpakva-buddhinā pāpaṁ kṛtaṁ tad bhagavān sarvātmā kṣantum arhati
Then the ṛṣi prayed to the all-pervading Personality of Godhead to pardon his immature boy, who had no intelligence and who committed the great sin of cursing a person who was completely free from all sins, who was subordinate and who deserved to be protected. ( SB 1.8.47)
The above shloka clearly indicates that the curse by boy was a sinful act and not the act committed by King parikshit, hence it cannot be labelled grievous mistake.
Nowhere in Srimad bhagavatam is it mentioned that King parikshit was under the influence of kali.
Thanks for sharing an opinion, as perceived by you. May be you are right but the original question remains unanswered till now. I will try to answer the same, as per my duly considered perception, after some more opinions from others.
Bharat > Jadab Ananda HazraApril 23, 2020 at 1:38pm
Hare Krsna
It is not my personal opinion or perception that I have shared above. What is shared above is a shloka from Srimad Bhagavatam. There is not much scope for personal opinions or perceptions or mental concoctions involved while understading scriptures or the reality. We follow what is written in scriptures as described by vaishnava acaryas.
Also it doesn't make sense for the same person to ask question and answer it. It makes the whole point of the discussion questionable. If someone has something to say then they may just write a blog and share rather than asking a question and answering themselves. Just a suggestion.
every person has fear of death but Parikshit Maharaj has faced death already once, and was saved by Lord Sri Krishna Himself in the womb itself.
For such a great person. Death is not a great thing. Its just a change of body. Parikshit Maharaj was already virtuous. But just becoz of kali dancing on his head. He by mistake did a mistake for which he regretted immediately. And accepted the curse with grace. He was not afraid of death. Well., Janmejaya the son of Parikshit Maharaja was ofcourse worried for his father's death he wanted to take revenge from all the snakes. Maybe the ministers and sons planned somethings for saving the king. We cannot speculate.
Hare Krishna.
Note- I am not a learned one. no one is here learned we are all learning.
However, 1st & 2nd para of your reply is in conformity to "Bhagbatam". Thanks for your considered views.
As read in "Mahabharat", Janmejoy was minor when King Parikshit died of snakebite. After being coronated as king after few years, he performed "Sarpa Jagna" to kill all snakes.
But my original question, why different version in the two great books.
Shall be pleased if the following satisfies your curiosity.
King Parikshit once put a dead snake around the neck of a meditating sage "Shamik Muni" and was cursed (by Shringi Muni) to be bitten within 7 days by the great snake "Takshak".
In "Adi Parba" of "Mahabharat" it is found that the King became worried and tried to save himself by making a single pillar house surrounded by his ministers and snake specialists. But failed to save himself.
In 1st scanda 19 adhya of "Bhagbat Mahapuran" the King welcomed the curse as befitting to his sin and leaving all his material possessions, sat down on the bank of "Ganga river" with the wish to meditate till death.
Replies
Hare Krsna
Srila Vyasa dev has written many scriptures. Not all the scriptures serve same purpose or are meant for same audience. For example : There are 18 main Puranas - 6 are for people in mode of ignorance, 6 are for people in mode of passion and rest for those in goodness. The recommendations in the scriptures are according the what the followers are capable of following according to their level.
The events mentioned in Mahabharat and Srimad Bhagavatam are the same. Meaning it is the same King Parikshit , grandson of Pandavas that is referenced in both the scriptures, but the details, focus and the audience is different.
Mahabharat presents a history of events of a family. The story of Mahabharat is the feud between Kauravas and Pandavas. Sri Krsna is a special personality who is relative of pandavas and plays a very important role in the outcome of the battle of Kurukshetra. The lesson of Mahabharat is that Dharma is always victorious in the end. Any person who performs adharmic activities will face consequences. In-line with this theme - King Parikshit makes a minor mistake and it is shown that as a consequence to that mistake, he gets cursed and dies. The lesson being even if someone is a King they cannot commit mistakes without consequences.
Srimad Bhagavatam is scripture that is not based on Dharma, Artha, Kama and Moksha. Srimad Bhagavtam is not a scripture that narrates history. Srimad Bhagavatam can be seen as a compilation of love stories of Sri Krsna and His pure devotees. The focus of Srimad Bhagavatam are how the devotees take shelter of Krsna, how devotees serve Krsna and How Krsna reciprocates with His devotees. This is the theme throughout Bhagavatam - Devotees taking shelter of Krsna - Dhruva, Parikshit, Prithu, Prahlad, Ajamila, Ambarisa, Devahuti, etc In-line with this theme Birth of Parikshit is described when his mother - Uttara takes shelter of Krsna to save her child in the womb. Then when King Parikshit is cursed, he takes shelter of Krsna by performing Shravana yajna (BG 4.26) of hearing Bhagavatam from Shukadev Goswami. The lesson is even if you are the sole king of the world, you will face situations which are beyond your control. So Sri Krsna is the only infallible shelter for everyone. Hence people with intelligence(SB 11.5.32) take shelter of Krsna by being absorbed in His holy names and pastimes. As Srimad bhagavatam states
kaler doṣa-nidhe rājann
asti hy eko mahān guṇaḥ
kīrtanād eva kṛṣṇasya
mukta-saṅgaḥ paraṁ vrajet
My dear King, although Kali-yuga is an ocean of faults, there is still one good quality about this age: Simply by chanting the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra, one can become free from material bondage and be promoted to the transcendental kingdom. ( SB 12.3.51) And Sri Caitanya Caritamrita describes how to perform Sri Krsna Sankirtanam.
There are no major contradiction in these scriptures. They describe same events from different perspectives with different focus and different lessons.
Hare Krsna
Hare Krishna,
Thank you for elaborate and thoughtful answer to help others become more wise.
You have correctly said that Maharaj Parikshit sat on the banks of river Ganga to meditate on the lotus feet of Sri Krishna and fast till death..
The pious king after committing a grievous mistake (under influence of Kali), was under severe mental penance and welcomed the curse as befitting to his sin. He did not try to save himself, contemplated and went out leaving all things.
But, in "Mahabharat" the king was sorry to hear about the curse, consulted his council of ministers and took all measures to save himself without success.
Knowing about the pious king, the character portrayed in "Bhagbatam" is most befitting. But why the same has been said otherwise in "Mahabharat" by the same author?
Hari Om
Hare Krsna
You mentioned The pious king after committing a grievous mistake (under influence of Kali), was under severe mental penance and welcomed the curse as befitting to his sin. He did not try to save himself, contemplated and went out leaving all things.
The bold portion above "grievous mistake (under influence of Kali)" is unlikely to be mentioned in Srimad Bhagavatam. If it is, kindly mention the verse number.
Hare Krsna
Hare Krishna,
Much pleased to receive your query. You ask a question and make me wise. Thank you.
Regarding : Grievous mistake : Verses in 1/19/1,2,3 say about the pious king's self realisation of the gravity of the mistake committed by him.
Regarding : (under influence of Kali) : Either I read it somewhere or heard in some religious pravachan. Unfortunately don't remember where, but will share as soon as I recollect. The recollected story is like this- The king allowed Kali to stay in five places, including gold (verse 1/17/38,39). Thereafter, one day he opened a long locked store in his palace and found a beautiful golden crown. It was the crown of powerful Magadha king Jarasandha who had much enmity with Krishna and attacked Mathura several times. Ultimately Bheem, under Krishna's instructions killed Jarasndha and brought his crown to their palace in Hastinapur and kept in store. Parikshit was amazed to find the beautyful crown, put it on and went out for hunting. And did such an unimaginable deed unthinkable of a pious man like him. The crown was of gold (one of Kali's place) and was of a most notorious king. So, what else can be inferred other than that Parikshit was under the influence of "Kali"?
Hari Om
Hare Krsna
SB 1.19/1,2,3 do not say about the grievous mistake. It says about the how King Parikshit felt about the mistake committed by him. These verses do not describe the the gravity of mistakes by him. They describe how repentful the great king was. This is the nature of saintly persons. They always consider themselves lowly and humble. Even minor mistakes by themselves they feel highly repentful. To label the act committed by King Parikshit as grievous mistake would be a grievous mistake because Srimad Bhagavataam does not support it.
The following shlokas clearly mention that the act performed was not grievous mistake but a minor mistake.
apāpeṣu sva-bhṛtyeṣu
bālenāpakva-buddhinā
pāpaṁ kṛtaṁ tad bhagavān
sarvātmā kṣantum arhati
Then the ṛṣi prayed to the all-pervading Personality of Godhead to pardon his immature boy, who had no intelligence and who committed the great sin of cursing a person who was completely free from all sins, who was subordinate and who deserved to be protected. ( SB 1.8.47)
The above shloka clearly indicates that the curse by boy was a sinful act and not the act committed by King parikshit, hence it cannot be labelled grievous mistake.
Nowhere in Srimad bhagavatam is it mentioned that King parikshit was under the influence of kali.
Hare Krsna
Hare Krishna,
Thanks for sharing an opinion, as perceived by you. May be you are right but the original question remains unanswered till now. I will try to answer the same, as per my duly considered perception, after some more opinions from others.
Hari Om
Hare Krsna
It is not my personal opinion or perception that I have shared above. What is shared above is a shloka from Srimad Bhagavatam. There is not much scope for personal opinions or perceptions or mental concoctions involved while understading scriptures or the reality. We follow what is written in scriptures as described by vaishnava acaryas.
Also it doesn't make sense for the same person to ask question and answer it. It makes the whole point of the discussion questionable. If someone has something to say then they may just write a blog and share rather than asking a question and answering themselves. Just a suggestion.
Hare Krsna
Hare Krishna,
Read under this chapter of SB.
https://vedabase.io/en/library/sb/1/18/
every person has fear of death but Parikshit Maharaj has faced death already once, and was saved by Lord Sri Krishna Himself in the womb itself.
For such a great person. Death is not a great thing. Its just a change of body. Parikshit Maharaj was already virtuous. But just becoz of kali dancing on his head. He by mistake did a mistake for which he regretted immediately. And accepted the curse with grace. He was not afraid of death.
Well., Janmejaya the son of Parikshit Maharaja was ofcourse worried for his father's death he wanted to take revenge from all the snakes. Maybe the ministers and sons planned somethings for saving the king. We cannot speculate.
Hare Krishna.
Note- I am not a learned one. no one is here learned we are all learning.
Hare Krishna,
Replied, but has not come. Don't know why.
However, 1st & 2nd para of your reply is in conformity to "Bhagbatam". Thanks for your considered views.
As read in "Mahabharat", Janmejoy was minor when King Parikshit died of snakebite. After being coronated as king after few years, he performed "Sarpa Jagna" to kill all snakes.
But my original question, why different version in the two great books.
Hari Om
Jadab
Hare Krishna,
Shall be pleased if the following satisfies your curiosity.
King Parikshit once put a dead snake around the neck of a meditating sage "Shamik Muni" and was cursed (by Shringi Muni) to be bitten within 7 days by the great snake "Takshak".
In "Adi Parba" of "Mahabharat" it is found that the King became worried and tried to save himself by making a single pillar house surrounded by his ministers and snake specialists. But failed to save himself.
In 1st scanda 19 adhya of "Bhagbat Mahapuran" the King welcomed the curse as befitting to his sin and leaving all his material possessions, sat down on the bank of "Ganga river" with the wish to meditate till death.
Hari Om
Jadab
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next