1) A scene from the Adhyatma Ramayana (in malayalam) is oft quoted in support of the Quixotian “repetition of Itihasa“ (I dont know how you‘d call it otherwise). When Rama͵ about to depart to the forest͵ initially refuses to take Sita with him͵ she offers various arguments in favour of her going along with her husband. One such argument is “Have you ever heard of a Ramayana in which Rama leaves for the forest͵ without Sita?“ Sita makes a strong argument that͵to conform to the “expectations of Ramayana formed by tradition“͵ Rama must take her with him.
I was reading the Anusasana Parvan in the Mahabharata, and found an interesting line reminding me of the above. In response to a query from Yudhishtira on exertion vs destiny͵ Bhishma retells an “ancient conversation“ between Rsi Vasishta and Brahma. In this conversation, Brahma gives several examples in support of his contention and at the end states “The Pandavas too regained their kingdom from the powerful sons of Dhritarashtra͵ not through the intercession of fate͵ but through their own valour“.
I think͵ this line can be interpreted in two ways:
a) Vyasa Rshi͵ the final redactor of the text͵ thought in his wisdom to mention this additional point in support of the argument͵ for our benefit.
b) The story of the Pandavas and Kauravas had been occurring many times in history͵ with Brahma quoting an ancient past occurrence of this event.
2) The wholesale destruction found in the Mausala parvan is usually attributed to battle scarred Satyaki & Kritavarman carrying forward their grudges against each other which erupts in a drunken orgy on the 36th year. But in Santi Parvan Bhishma relates about the bitter quarrel between Ahuka & Akrura and how the great strategist Sri Krishna himself feeling helpless in resolving the matter and seeking advice from Narada (“those cruel speeches burn my heart every day“ and “my heart is ground by my kinsmen through their cruel speeches“) and (“I am like the mother of two brothers quarrelling against each other; afflicted by both“). In the Gita He had declared “Mayi sarvamidam proktam sootre maniganaa iva“ - which might have a deeper meaning - Sri Krishna as the thread on whom depended the unity amongst disparate yadava clans.
a) Vyasa Rshi͵ the final redactor of the text͵ thought in his wisdom to mention this additional point in support of the argument͵ for our benefit.
b) The story of the Pandavas and Kauravas had been occurring many times in history͵ with Brahma quoting an ancient past occurrence of this event.
2) The wholesale destruction found in the Mausala parvan is usually attributed to battle scarred Satyaki & Kritavarman carrying forward their grudges against each other which erupts in a drunken orgy on the 36th year. But in Santi Parvan Bhishma relates about the bitter quarrel between Ahuka & Akrura and how the great strategist Sri Krishna himself feeling helpless in resolving the matter and seeking advice from Narada (“those cruel speeches burn my heart every day“ and “my heart is ground by my kinsmen through their cruel speeches“) and (“I am like the mother of two brothers quarrelling against each other; afflicted by both“). In the Gita He had declared “Mayi sarvamidam proktam sootre maniganaa iva“ - which might have a deeper meaning - Sri Krishna as the thread on whom depended the unity amongst disparate yadava clans.
