[Advaita-l] More about Janaka
Jaldhar H. Vyas via Advaita-l
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
Thu Jul 17 00:08:08 CDT 2014
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014, Srikrishna Ghadiyaram wrote:
> What is the derivation of Mithila, here?
math means to churn, strike or split. I think the third meaning is most
appropriate here. So mithilo mathanajjato (BhA. pu. 9.13.13) Mithila is
the one who was born by splitting. The Rshis were afraid of the anarchy
that would result if the land had no king so they split the body that Nimi
had lost due to the curse of Maharshi Vasishtha and a youth emerged
fully-formed. As well as Mithila, because he was "generated" he was
called Janaka and and because he is the son of the bodiless one (videha)
he is called Vaideha.
On Wed, 16 Jul 2014, Venkata sriram P via Advaita-l wrote:
> janaka vaMsha vrukSa:
> 1. nimi
> 2. mithi
> 3. janaka
An interesting thing is there is a discrepancy between the Bhagavata and
Ramayana here. In the Bhagavata Mithi or Mithila is a name of Janaka
himself (for the reason given above) not a separate person. I haven't
checked if other Puranas favor one approach or the other.
> Is it not Chandravamsha, and not Suryavamsha?
Gah! Yes. I always confuse the two. Also while I am making corrections,
I had written the name of Sita Ma's father as shiradhvaja following my
Gujarati copy of the Bhagavata but in Sanskrit it is correctly sIradhvaja.
On Wed, 16 Jul 2014, Srirudra via Advaita-l wrote:
> In a sloka attributed to Sri Anjaneya about Sri Rama and Sri
> Seetha,Sri Rama is praised as Surya vamsa samudhbhootham and Sri Seetha
> as Soma vamsa Samudhbhavam.Sri Seetha also is described as Niminam kula
> Dheepikam.Nimi may have been two different kings of both Surya and Soma
Perhaps but in this case it was simply an error on my part. The Surya and
Chandra and all the other Kshatriya vamsha's are descendents of Ikshvaku.
On Wed, 16 Jul 2014, H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l wrote:
> can you please give the janaka vamsa vriksha starting from brahma as for
Nimi was also a son of Ikshvaku so it is the same as what Venkatshriramji
gave for chandravamsha. i.e.:
To get back on the Vedantic track, the point of mentioning these ancient
Kshatriyas is that Arjuna contends that the war is immoral because it will
result in fratricide and the proper response is passivity and inertia.
Krishna Bhagavan shows him by these examples that karmayoga is not some
strange new deviation from Kuru norms but the "family business" that his
own ancestors would be proud to see him follow.
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list