Post 3/?
As regards MBh being another case of the Deva-Asura battle being mirrored on Bhooloka, found the following relevant snippet, which seems to underline it all the more:
hinduonline.co/Scriptures/Puranas/[color="#0000FF"]MarkandeyaPurana.html[/color]
So Indran's essence is in all the Pandavas it seems, as per the Markandeya Purana itself, and Shachee Amman's essence in Draupadi. Ontzettend lief. Draupadi was always supposed to be an Amman, but didn't know which one exactly.
And makes sense. MBh is a variant of the Vedam, a variation on it. In the Vedam too, Indran and other Gods take on the Asuras to maintain Ritam, and are the undeniable heroes. Indran emerges ever victorious, ever unscathed (by definition) and is the embodiment of dharma (vrishabha) coursing through the Vedam.
[As an aside: the above find also fits with how, despite Draupadi loving all her 5 husbands, she couldn't help loving Arjuna more, since he was more fully Indran than even the other 4. I guess this reduces all of Arjuna's other wives to Shachee too, and reduces all of the wives of the other Pandavas to Either the wives of the relevant Gods - like Bhagavaan Yama et al - Or again to Shachee. Or maybe combinations of essences...]
But that seals it then. Indran manifests on Bhoo to fight for Dharma and the cosmic law against the Asuras' trying to make Bhoo into another prong in their attack. Clearly the Pandavas' sena then is the Devasena's parallel manifestation on Bhoo, even as in the Beyond the devasena is led by Indran to take on the Asuras there too. And that explains why the Asuras were from their world trying to favour the Kauravas in the Kurukshetra war.
That the Pandavas - when taken all together - turn out to fold back into Indran himself also adds to an existing pattern. The earthly-mirroring of the Deva-Asura conflict in the beyond is not the only common feature between the Ramayanam/MBh (and Trivikrama account etc): all these feature the brothers Indran and Vishnu working as a divine duo to defeat the Asuras. In the Ramayanam, Vishnu as Rama (and Lakshmana) helps Indran's tight battle against the Asuras by fighting the raakShasas on earth - a running parallel is drawn between the two events. In the MBh, Vishnu as Krishna helps the Pandavas, which 5 brothers - as per the Markandeya Purana's summary excerpt seen above - are all similarly reducible to Indran. (Even the ending of the Bhagavad Gitaa - "Wherever Yogeshwara Krishna and the Indradhanus-wielding I mean Gandiva-wielding Arjuna are there is victory" or something - speaks of this auspicious combination ever guaranteeing dharmic victory.) And Upendra Vishnu had manifested as Vaamana-Trivikrama, again to help his literal brother Indran defeat the Asuras who for a while seemed to be gaining the upperhand again in the war against the Devas. Und so weiter. Whenever Vishnu manifests on earth to defeat raakShasas or adharma on bhooloka, I suspect that it's stated to be happening in concert with Indran and his devasenaa defeating the Asuras at least in the beyond. But then, the Hindoo Gods are ever united/one in purpose.
Anyway. To reiterate: for anyone to say that Karna is "the real hero" (and not Arjuna et al) makes even less sense than were they to declare that Karna's a better warrior than Arjuna et al. The latter statement is like saying Surya is > or < Indra, which is an inane comparison. But the former - to say that Karna is "the real" hero of the MBh - is to say that adharma is the "real lesson" the MBh is trying to teach...
But as Karna is on the wrong side, technically and logically he *cannot* be the "real hero" of MBh, even had he been more like Bheeshma (disagreeing all the way yet tagging along nevertheless) rather than part of the instigation team.
On this from the Markandeya Purana excerpt:
A Hindu narrative I heard narrated once, not sure of the source, mentioned that despite asuras being deceitful as a Rule - compared to how "deceit" is used relatively rarely and as a necessity in the case of the Devas - yet, the Devas get criticised disproportionately for their occasionally stooping to the level their enemies deserve (starting with Indran, who always gets all the flak for his grandiose "crime" of doing as much as it will take to ensure the victory of dharma/devas over adharma and asuras), whereas the Asuras as a whole get praised for one-off good characteristics or good individuals. People expect perfection from those who are good - and will readily boo at the same for any minor failings and remember only these minor flaws - yet will be moved to doting on villains by even a glimmer of goodness in these.
The same seems to happen with Krishna who gets criticised by unHindus for "cheating" too, and the Pandavas - and Arjuna in particular - getting singled out as "not so wonderful heroes after all" for the rare flaw (and which flaws are usually just a plot device, such as to drive Karna to the Kaurava side, or which have a necessary function, such as Krishna advising the Pandavas to cheat on occasion since dharma's victory couldn't have been attained in those instances otherwise). In contrast, villains are always lauded to the skies for their far fewer good characteristics and conveniently remembered only for their good points*: "but he was a good guy when you get down to it" (Brian De Bois Gilbert anyone? A tormented villain given a mid-novel makeover as 2nd romantic lead doomed to unrequited love) - and their flaws get smoothed over: "Well, admittedly he shouldn't have pulled Draupadi's saree, but at least he was a good friend". <- See, that kind of argumentation may not seem so problematic when people are merely pontificating about contexts far removed from themselves like ancient Hindoo epics, but fortunately - in actual life - people are less likely to morally side with persons who have colluded in harrassing a woman just because those persons also have "good sides"...
* In both cases where the generally-noble are dumped for relatively minor errors while the villainous side is championed for their occasional flashes of nobility, that phrase about not seeing the wood for the trees applies. E.g. Duryodhana is utterly ungenerous to his cousins for no fault of theirs, and for no reason that he can even think of, other than a sentiment of unreasonable petty rivalry and jealousy (festering since childhood) pushing him onward. Yet people fall all over themselves to give Duryodhana a Good Character certificate for instances like being generous to an unknown (Karna) and for elevating Karna to a King, though not not for entirely altruistic purposes: doing so conveniently served Duryodhana's own ends very well, just as he must have known Karna would: he recognises that Karna can antagonise the Pandavas ably, so Karna clearly came in very handy. I'm not at all saying that Duryodhana is a total villain either - and Hindus recognise, remember and value his good points too - but his good points can't be allowed to overshadow the larger darker sides to his character (which sides did threaten to overshadow his entire person at times). Anything else sounds like people are merely smitten. (They do say nothing makes one so blind as to a person's true character as infatuation.)
Further, the few flashes of ignoble behaviour by a few MBh heroes - such as Arjuna snubbing Karna - are so obviously contrived (for the divine drama) and not in-character that it points to being a device to further the divine play in its intended direction.
Finally, people don't mention Ghatothkacha as often as he deserves to be remembered. But he is another great and exemplary hero of the MBh that many Hindoos like to identify themselves with. There are temples to this Divine Hero, one is apparently even situated near to a temple to his Mother Hidimbaa, the beloved Wife of Bheema: appropriately called the "Hidimbaa Devi Temple". (Amman appeared as a RaakShasI, just like Amman also appeared in Manusha form, e.g. Draupadi.)
As regards MBh being another case of the Deva-Asura battle being mirrored on Bhooloka, found the following relevant snippet, which seems to underline it all the more:
hinduonline.co/Scriptures/Puranas/[color="#0000FF"]MarkandeyaPurana.html[/color]
Quote:The birds say- 'Frightened by the severe penance of Trishira, Indra killed him to protect his authority and power. But the sin of killing a Brahmin took away Indra's radiance. Trishira was the son of Twashta. Twashta became furious at his son's death. He plucked one strand of hair from his hair-lock and offered it in the sacrificial fire. This resulted into the creation of a formidable and strong demon named Vritrasur. This demon was created with the objective of killing Indra.
Learning about the birth of Vritrasur, Indra sent Saptarishis as emissaries to work out a pact with the demon. The Saptarishis effected a friendship between Indra and Vritrasur. But Indra had other ideas. He took Vritrasur by surprise and killed him. This deceitful action of Indra further enraged the clans of the demons. [color="#0000FF"]Soon the atrocities of the demons increased to unbearable limits. Even Prithvi felt unable to bear the burden of their atrocities. She approached the deities and requested them to get her rid of the burden.
Thus, to relieve Prithvi of her burden, the deities began to take incarnation on earth. Dharma and Vayu implanted Indra's radiance in the womb of Kunti. This resulted in the birth of Yudhishthir and Bheema. Then Indra himself produced Arjuna from Kunti. Nakul and Sahadev were born because of Indra's radiance implanted by Ashwini kumars in the womb of Madri. Thus all the five Pandavas originated from the same source even though they appeared as distinct entities, whereas Draupadi was none other than Shuchi, the wife of Indra, produced from the altar in Drupad's palace. In human incarnation, Draupadi got five Pandavas as her husband.[/color]
So Indran's essence is in all the Pandavas it seems, as per the Markandeya Purana itself, and Shachee Amman's essence in Draupadi. Ontzettend lief. Draupadi was always supposed to be an Amman, but didn't know which one exactly.
And makes sense. MBh is a variant of the Vedam, a variation on it. In the Vedam too, Indran and other Gods take on the Asuras to maintain Ritam, and are the undeniable heroes. Indran emerges ever victorious, ever unscathed (by definition) and is the embodiment of dharma (vrishabha) coursing through the Vedam.
[As an aside: the above find also fits with how, despite Draupadi loving all her 5 husbands, she couldn't help loving Arjuna more, since he was more fully Indran than even the other 4. I guess this reduces all of Arjuna's other wives to Shachee too, and reduces all of the wives of the other Pandavas to Either the wives of the relevant Gods - like Bhagavaan Yama et al - Or again to Shachee. Or maybe combinations of essences...]
But that seals it then. Indran manifests on Bhoo to fight for Dharma and the cosmic law against the Asuras' trying to make Bhoo into another prong in their attack. Clearly the Pandavas' sena then is the Devasena's parallel manifestation on Bhoo, even as in the Beyond the devasena is led by Indran to take on the Asuras there too. And that explains why the Asuras were from their world trying to favour the Kauravas in the Kurukshetra war.
That the Pandavas - when taken all together - turn out to fold back into Indran himself also adds to an existing pattern. The earthly-mirroring of the Deva-Asura conflict in the beyond is not the only common feature between the Ramayanam/MBh (and Trivikrama account etc): all these feature the brothers Indran and Vishnu working as a divine duo to defeat the Asuras. In the Ramayanam, Vishnu as Rama (and Lakshmana) helps Indran's tight battle against the Asuras by fighting the raakShasas on earth - a running parallel is drawn between the two events. In the MBh, Vishnu as Krishna helps the Pandavas, which 5 brothers - as per the Markandeya Purana's summary excerpt seen above - are all similarly reducible to Indran. (Even the ending of the Bhagavad Gitaa - "Wherever Yogeshwara Krishna and the Indradhanus-wielding I mean Gandiva-wielding Arjuna are there is victory" or something - speaks of this auspicious combination ever guaranteeing dharmic victory.) And Upendra Vishnu had manifested as Vaamana-Trivikrama, again to help his literal brother Indran defeat the Asuras who for a while seemed to be gaining the upperhand again in the war against the Devas. Und so weiter. Whenever Vishnu manifests on earth to defeat raakShasas or adharma on bhooloka, I suspect that it's stated to be happening in concert with Indran and his devasenaa defeating the Asuras at least in the beyond. But then, the Hindoo Gods are ever united/one in purpose.
Anyway. To reiterate: for anyone to say that Karna is "the real hero" (and not Arjuna et al) makes even less sense than were they to declare that Karna's a better warrior than Arjuna et al. The latter statement is like saying Surya is > or < Indra, which is an inane comparison. But the former - to say that Karna is "the real" hero of the MBh - is to say that adharma is the "real lesson" the MBh is trying to teach...
But as Karna is on the wrong side, technically and logically he *cannot* be the "real hero" of MBh, even had he been more like Bheeshma (disagreeing all the way yet tagging along nevertheless) rather than part of the instigation team.
On this from the Markandeya Purana excerpt:
Quote:Learning about the birth of Vritrasur, Indra sent Saptarishis as emissaries to work out a pact with the demon. The Saptarishis effected a friendship between Indra and Vritrasur. But Indra had other ideas. He took Vritrasur by surprise and killed him. This deceitful action of Indra further enraged the clans of the demons.
A Hindu narrative I heard narrated once, not sure of the source, mentioned that despite asuras being deceitful as a Rule - compared to how "deceit" is used relatively rarely and as a necessity in the case of the Devas - yet, the Devas get criticised disproportionately for their occasionally stooping to the level their enemies deserve (starting with Indran, who always gets all the flak for his grandiose "crime" of doing as much as it will take to ensure the victory of dharma/devas over adharma and asuras), whereas the Asuras as a whole get praised for one-off good characteristics or good individuals. People expect perfection from those who are good - and will readily boo at the same for any minor failings and remember only these minor flaws - yet will be moved to doting on villains by even a glimmer of goodness in these.
The same seems to happen with Krishna who gets criticised by unHindus for "cheating" too, and the Pandavas - and Arjuna in particular - getting singled out as "not so wonderful heroes after all" for the rare flaw (and which flaws are usually just a plot device, such as to drive Karna to the Kaurava side, or which have a necessary function, such as Krishna advising the Pandavas to cheat on occasion since dharma's victory couldn't have been attained in those instances otherwise). In contrast, villains are always lauded to the skies for their far fewer good characteristics and conveniently remembered only for their good points*: "but he was a good guy when you get down to it" (Brian De Bois Gilbert anyone? A tormented villain given a mid-novel makeover as 2nd romantic lead doomed to unrequited love) - and their flaws get smoothed over: "Well, admittedly he shouldn't have pulled Draupadi's saree, but at least he was a good friend". <- See, that kind of argumentation may not seem so problematic when people are merely pontificating about contexts far removed from themselves like ancient Hindoo epics, but fortunately - in actual life - people are less likely to morally side with persons who have colluded in harrassing a woman just because those persons also have "good sides"...
* In both cases where the generally-noble are dumped for relatively minor errors while the villainous side is championed for their occasional flashes of nobility, that phrase about not seeing the wood for the trees applies. E.g. Duryodhana is utterly ungenerous to his cousins for no fault of theirs, and for no reason that he can even think of, other than a sentiment of unreasonable petty rivalry and jealousy (festering since childhood) pushing him onward. Yet people fall all over themselves to give Duryodhana a Good Character certificate for instances like being generous to an unknown (Karna) and for elevating Karna to a King, though not not for entirely altruistic purposes: doing so conveniently served Duryodhana's own ends very well, just as he must have known Karna would: he recognises that Karna can antagonise the Pandavas ably, so Karna clearly came in very handy. I'm not at all saying that Duryodhana is a total villain either - and Hindus recognise, remember and value his good points too - but his good points can't be allowed to overshadow the larger darker sides to his character (which sides did threaten to overshadow his entire person at times). Anything else sounds like people are merely smitten. (They do say nothing makes one so blind as to a person's true character as infatuation.)
Further, the few flashes of ignoble behaviour by a few MBh heroes - such as Arjuna snubbing Karna - are so obviously contrived (for the divine drama) and not in-character that it points to being a device to further the divine play in its intended direction.
Finally, people don't mention Ghatothkacha as often as he deserves to be remembered. But he is another great and exemplary hero of the MBh that many Hindoos like to identify themselves with. There are temples to this Divine Hero, one is apparently even situated near to a temple to his Mother Hidimbaa, the beloved Wife of Bheema: appropriately called the "Hidimbaa Devi Temple". (Amman appeared as a RaakShasI, just like Amman also appeared in Manusha form, e.g. Draupadi.)
Death to traitors.