Bhima And Hidimvi

The pages in the current category are some of the encouraging feed-backs I got about the AncientVoice Web site in the form of emails some running into lengthy dialogs. I spent considerable time receiving and answering them. But all the information generated in these emails are locked up inside them. I thought to make it useful for the general research community, so that the time I spent on it will be useful for more than just two people who are communicating (me and the other person). These contain a wealth of information, naturally emerged during the process of dialogs. It will help to answer similar questions somebody else may have. I can also avoid repeating what I told once. Being myself a researcher who unearth information from the ancient dialogs recorded in the epics and other ancient scriptures, I hope this will be useful for the general research community.

Created by Jijith Nadumuri at 17 Nov 2011 12:35 and updated at 17 Nov 2011 12:38

Amal Bhakta is a Vaishnava Devotee and also a researcher on Mahabharata who use his research to write books on the life of Krishna.

Bhima-Hidimvi-Pandavas-Forest

Email communication1

Amal Bhakta
10/29/10

to me
Dear Jijith,

Again, thank you for your quick response to my previous email. After I emailed you, I tried to calculate the mileage to and from the places I asked you about, and, from the scale of 50 km = 3/4 of an inch, I came very close to your approximate calculation.

In your essay under "Varanavata to Kampilya", I noted information in it that I did not find in Ganguli's Mahabharata and would like to know WHERE you found it. Or did you speculate this? Please find below the few paragraphs I am referring to.

" …During the one year Bhima spent with Hidimba, till the birth of Ghatotkacha, the Pandavas stayed in the center of Rakshasa territories, viz. Manali. Since Rakshasa territories were not frequented by people from the Vedic kingdoms like Kuru, it helped them to stay in anonymity. It also allowed them to mingle with Rakshasa tribes and Rakshasa warriors, who helped them in Kurukshetra War under the leadership of Bhima's son Ghatotkacha.
Ghatotkacha became a mighty bowman and took part in Kurukshetra War."

To me, It doesn't seem likely that the Pandavas would want to live among Rakshasa cannibals who, like Hidimva, might also want to eat them. Since there were many of them there, they might actually succeed, if not by direct confrontation then by magical or crafty means. And I doubt if Hidimvi would want to go there with the Pandavas in her created human form. The Rakshasas there, like her brother Hidimva, would probably be ashamed of her and consider her a disgrace to the Rakshasa race for changing her Rakshasa form into that of a human form just to satisfy her lusful desire to mate with a human being (Bhima). They would believe that she considered her own race lower than that of the human race, which would be a terrible insult to them, as Hidimva did. For this insult, they might even try to kill her, just as her brother attempted to do (but was stopped by Bhima). It would seem more reasonable for the Pandavas and Hidimvi to journey up to southeastern Trigarta than up to the risky Rakshasa territory. What is your respected opinion of this?

Also, since the Pandavas wanted to flee from the area in which they met Hidimvi they were fearful of being found and killed by Duryodhana or his spies there and since Hidimvi had on two occasions offered to fly them on her back to wherever they wanted to go to get out of danger, it is quite possible that she did fly them to the place where they settled for one year. After all, she flew Bhima on her back daily up to various mountain retreats for romantic adventures . Furthermore, it seems to me that much later the Rakshasas who assisted the Pandavas in the Kurukshetra War did so only because Ghatokacha, who was an extremely powerful Rakshasa leader he was capable of fighting even Karna had the power to convince or intimidate them into joining him fight in the Pandava army. It is difficult for me to believe that the Pandavas would live in a Rakshasa community, for the culture, ethics, and behavior of the Rakshasas were far lower than that of the Pandavas. I would appreciated your respected thoughts on this.

You also state in a subsequent paragraph that "Satyavati's father was a Matsya chief who ruled this territory in the western banks of Yamuna, close to Trigarta in the north-west." In the Ganguli text, he is portrayed as a chief of fishermen. There is not the slightest hint that he is a warrior. In fact, when he speaks to King Shantanu, and then to young Bhishma, his attitude appears to be that of a respectful inferior. Shantanu could have taken Satyavati by force and married her, but it was only due to his high sense of virtue and his deep respect for the father-daughter relationship that existed at that time, that he didn't.

You further state (CLVIII), "From there onwards, Vyasa accompanied them [the Pandavas] up to Ekachakra, leading them through the territories of Matsya, Kichaka and Panchala. The journey to Ekachakra would be faster since they are traveling along the plains. Assuming that they traveled 4 km in an hour and 10 hours every day, they could easily reach Ekachakra in half a month."

This idea seems doubtful to me because there is not the slightest indication in Ganguli's translation that Vyasa traveled with the Pandavas through the three territories you cite above. It simply mentions that the Pandavas, "in the course of their wanderings" met Vyasa. It doesn't say where they met him. The indication I get from the text is that Vyasa met the Pandavas very near Ekachakra, for in that one conversation they have with him in the forest he says, "Not far off before you is a delightful town where no danger can overtake you. Live ye there in disguise, waiting for my return." The words, "Not far off before you" suggests that Ekachakra is not as far away as you indicate ("half a month away by walking"), but very near, perhaps just outside the forest where they are presently camping. In this one conversation, Vyasa also says, "Knowing this [of your tragic situation], I have come to you." This is not what he would say if he had been traveling with the Pandavas through the above-said territories; it is the kind of statement he would make only if he had just arrived [outside of Ekachakra]. And right after this, he leads the Pandavas into Ekachakra. You further mentioned that the Pandavas stayed in Ekachakra for one year, but I could not find this fact in the text, and I would appreciate your showing me where you found it, and also your respected opinion of the material preceding this.

Thank you for considering my above points and I hope you will share your views with me, whether similar or dissimilar, as I know you have given much careful thougth to this subject.

Respectfully,

Amal Bhakta

www.amalbhakta.com

Email communication2

Jijith Nadumuri Ravi
10/30/10

to Amal
Dear Amal

I do not want to impose my view point upon you. But since you have asked my views on these, please see my replies inline:-

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Amal Bhakta wrote:
Dear Jijith,

Again, thank you for your quick response to my previous email. After I emailed you, I tried to calculate the mileage to and from the places I asked you about, and, from the scale of 50 km = 3/4 of an inch, I came very close to your approximate calculation.

In your essay under "Varanavata to Kampilya", I noted information in it that I did not find in Ganguli's Mahabharata and would like to know WHERE you found it. Or did you speculate this? Please find below the few paragraphs I am referring to.

" …During the one year Bhima spent with Hidimba, till the birth of Ghatotkacha, the Pandavas stayed in the center of Rakshasa territories, viz. Manali. Since Rakshasa territories were not frequented by people from the Vedic kingdoms like Kuru, it helped them to stay in anonymity. It also allowed them to mingle with Rakshasa tribes and Rakshasa warriors, who helped them in Kurukshetra War under the leadership of Bhima's son Ghatotkacha.
Ghatotkacha became a mighty bowman and took part in Kurukshetra War."

To me, It doesn't seem likely that the Pandavas would want to live among Rakshasa cannibals who, like Hidimva, might also want to eat them. Since there were many of them there, they might actually succeed, if not by direct confrontation then by magical or crafty means. And I doubt if Hidimvi would want to go there with the Pandavas in her created human form. The Rakshasas there, like her brother Hidimva, would probably be ashamed of her and consider her a disgrace to the Rakshasa race for changing her Rakshasa form into that of a human form just to satisfy her lusful desire to mate with a human being (Bhima). They would believe that she considered her own race lower than that of the human race, which would be a terrible insult to them, as Hidimva did. For this insult, they might even try to kill her, just as her brother attempted to do (but was stopped by Bhima). It would seem more reasonable for the Pandavas and Hidimvi to journey up to southeastern Trigarta than up to the risky Rakshasa territory. What is your respected opinion of this?

Mahabharata gives several hints indicating that the Pandavas left Hidimbaa (Hidimbi) till Bhima had a son upon her, which would translate to one year. Only after that they are mentioned as entering into Trigarta, a more familiar territory. Trigarta wasn't a friendly territory for the Pandavas. Trigarta kings, we later know, were allied to Duryodhana. I had done independent research on the Rakshasa strongholds. Manali is one of them. This is based on information from multiple texts including multiple versions of Mahabharata, other ancient texts and based on recent tribal population data. Rakshasa population was high in a belt consisting of Himachal-Pradesh, Uttaranchal, Nepal and southern Tibet. It was then called the Himavat Varsha, like the Bharata Varsha to its south. They were also found in small pockets in the plains (in Bharata Varsha), spread from their main territory. During the period of Ravana they had another stronghold in Lanka which had a central mountain range (Trikuta) with a cold climate similar to that found in Himalayas.

Also, since the Pandavas wanted to flee from the area in which they met Hidimvi they were fearful of being found and killed by Duryodhana or his spies there and since Hidimvi had on two occasions offered to fly them on her back to wherever they wanted to go to get out of danger, it is quite possible that she did fly them to the place where they settled for one year. After all, she flew Bhima on her back daily up to various mountain retreats for romantic adventures . Furthermore, it seems to me that much later the Rakshasas who assisted the Pandavas in the Kurukshetra War did so only because Ghatokacha, who was an extremely powerful Rakshasa leader he was capable of fighting even Karna had the power to convince or intimidate them into joining him fight in the Pandava army. It is difficult for me to believe that the Pandavas would live in a Rakshasa community, for the culture, ethics, and behavior of the Rakshasas were far lower than that of the Pandavas. I would appreciated your respected thoughts on this.

I guess you should read the article:-http://ancientvoice.wikidot.com/de-mystifying-myths, to understand my view point and the way i handle information in Mahabharata and other texts which has an element of strangeness and impossibility in it. After my analysis of Mahabharata and Ramayana I concluded that, Rakshasas as a tribe were not cannibals. There were a few individuals like Hidimba and Vaka (Baka) who practiced or supported cannibalism. Of the 18,000 plus verses in Ramayana, around 3000 verses describes the deeds of Rakshasa Ravana and not one of them describe Ravana as a cannibal. We also learn that Ravana ruled a sophisticated empire at Lanka having a highly advanced materialistic culture. In Mahabharata, Ghatotkacha and his mother Hidimbaa (or Hidimbi) too is described as civilized and human. Besides this there were many people who followed Vedic religion but defaulted in their practice or erred, and then got pronounced as 'Rakshasas' like Kalmashapada who was actually a Kshatriya king. So there were a Rakshasa tribe who were a genetically distinct group of people and others who were simple pronounced as a 'Rakshasa'. Besides this ,there are now tribes in Srilanka, Nepal and Tibet who trace their ancestry to Rakshasas and Yakshas. They are not cannibals, but ordinary humans.

The term Rakshasa never had a negative meaning in the beginning. By etymology, Rakshasa (Raksha = protection; Rakshas = protector; Rakshasa = related to protection or protector) means 'the one who offered protection'. They did a function similar to that of the Kshatriyas who protected a territory from external and internal threats. The difference is that the Rakshasas had no concept of giving supremacy to the scholars (Brahmana-function) over warriors (Kshatriya-function), while the Kshatriyas did so. They never accepted a four fold division of the society, which was good but at the same time Rakshasas also followed a materialistic culture which was not acceptable to the Vedic religion.

You also state in a subsequent paragraph that "Satyavati's father was a Matsya chief who ruled this territory in the western banks of Yamuna, close to Trigarta in the north-west." In the Ganguli text, he is portrayed as a chief of fishermen. There is not the slightest hint that he is a warrior. In fact, when he speaks to King Shantanu, and then to young Bhishma, his attitude appears to be that of a respectful inferior. Shantanu could have taken Satyavati by force and married her, but it was only due to his high sense of virtue and his deep respect for the father-daughter relationship that existed at that time, that he didn't.

This is also based on my independent research. Matsya was an ancient kingdom that had territories which later became part of the Kuru kingdom and Trigarta kingdom. There were Naga territories in the north and Matsya in the south and Kuru kingdom emerged in their midst displacing the Matsyas further into south and the Nagas further into the north. There were also a Gangeya tribe (tribe of Bhishma) which was absorbed by the Kurus. Mahabharata, since it was focusing more on the Kurus had shown them with a greater importance. Satyavati's father was not just a fisher man but a chief of his territory and he rightfully asked his grandsons born to Satyavati to be next kings as the land actually belonged to them. You are right that Satyavati's father was not a warrior. Vyasa belonged to this Matsya tribe by his mother's side. Some versions of Mahabharata indicate that even Parasara. Vyasa's father was a Matsya ruler, who fought against the Rakshasas in the north of Matsya territory, but who later turned into an ascetic. Yamuna close to Trigarta was the homeland of Satyavati and the birth place of Vyasa.

You further state (CLVIII), "From there onwards, Vyasa accompanied them [the Pandavas] up to Ekachakra, leading them through the territories of Matsya, Kichaka and Panchala. The journey to Ekachakra would be faster since they are traveling along the plains. Assuming that they traveled 4 km in an hour and 10 hours every day, they could easily reach Ekachakra in half a month."

This idea seems doubtful to me because there is not the slightest indication in Ganguli's translation that Vyasa traveled with the Pandavas through the three territories you cite above. It simply mentions that the Pandavas, "in the course of their wanderings" met Vyasa. It doesn't say where they met him. The indication I get from the text is that Vyasa met the Pandavas very near Ekachakra, for in that one conversation they have with him in the forest he says, "Not far off before you is a delightful town where no danger can overtake you. Live ye there in disguise, waiting for my return." The words, "Not far off before you" suggests that Ekachakra is not as far away as you indicate ("half a month away by walking"), but very near, perhaps just outside the forest where they are presently camping. In this one conversation, Vyasa also says, "Knowing this [of your tragic situation], I have come to you." This is not what he would say if he had been traveling with the Pandavas through the above-said territories; it is the kind of statement he would make only if he had just arrived [outside of Ekachakra]. And right after this, he leads the Pandavas into Ekachakra. You further mentioned that the Pandavas stayed in Ekachakra for one year, but I could not find this fact in the text, and I would appreciate your showing me where you found it, and also your respected opinion of the material preceding this.

Mahabharata did not mention where Vyasa joined the Pandavas. It is my view that they would need a guide to lead them always till they settle at a place. Hidimbi served as their guide till they entered Trigarta. Then they were guide-less for a short while ("in the course of their wanderings"). Yamuna region, being the homeland of Vyasa, i inferred that Vyasa joined them there. No other person is better to guide them through the Matsya territories. The words "Knowing this of your tragic situation I have come to you' I guess happened when Pandavas were guide-less at Trigarta-Matsya boundary, a hostile territory. Finally before reaching Ekachakra, Vyasa guided them till Ekachakra telling, 'Not far off before you is Ekachakra'.

Email communication3

Amal Bhakta
10/30/10

to me
Dear Jijith,

Thank you for your kind reply to my email. Suffice it to say that some of your research has proved to be very beneficial for my book, with especial reference to the routes and directions taken by the various Mahabharata characters, the amount of miles they consumed in doing so, and the accomanying maps. Although I do not agree with most of your speculations, I nontheless was glad to read and consider a them, for you obviously are a person who appreciates and respects the Mahabharata as much as, if not more than, I do. So I encourage you to continue in your efforts and thank you for the same.

Respectfully,

Amal Bhakta
Krishna Productions
www.amalbhakta.com

Email IDs, telephone numbers, passwords and other sensitive information are withdrawn. Some of these emails are short appreciations; some are lengthy dialogs on topics as wide as Astras (celestial weapons) and Apsaras (celestial dancers). Some participants stopped communications once they got all the relevant information and some others continue to encourage me, giving the energies to do my research works. Some participants gave me books authored by them, as gifts. Some others helped me in my career. I thank all of them for their appreciation and participation and their continued patronage of this web-site.

Share:- Facebook

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License