3

Namaskaram. I have a humble doubt regarding the relationship between Karna and Yuddhistra and Kunti and Surya and Yama. Surya and Yama are father and son respectively. So their sons through Kunti would be uncle and nephew respectively.

The core question is whether Kunti was right when she begotten Yuddhistra through Dharmaraja when she already had a son through Surya. Wouldn't it be like a woman having a relationship with both the father and son?

strugglingseeker
  • 202
  • 7
  • 1
  • these relationships are not the sexual union that you think of between men and women. they are divine avataras that are born without sex. read the original sanskrit verse for proof. so no concept of impurity here. 2. devas/apsaras relationship are not like manushya relations. for e.g. varuna deva (water) - we use for drinking, but also for cleaning bathroom. won't varuna feel offended? we burn agarbatti but also garbage - won't agni deva feel offended? Devas are bound by mantras, that's it. Even if a guy or bird or ant chanted that mantra, devas might have to give them a son..
    • – ram Aug 19 '20 at 08:57
  • Mahabharata occurred long back, say around 3102 BC (according to a research), but was composed in Classical Sanskrit around 600 BC. So there was a time gap between occurrence of incidents to narration of incidents . What actually happened might not have been transmitted from one generation to the other. According to my understanding, it might be a case of advanced genetic experiment, may be a test tube baby concept. Hence, physical sex might not have occurred – Srimannarayana K V Aug 20 '20 at 07:35
  • https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/q/23413/12304 – YDS Aug 20 '20 at 14:57
  • 1
    @SrimannarayanaKV's claim that Mahabharat was written in 600 B.C has no scriptural evidence. Modern historians & scientists like to interject their theories now and then to gain prominence. There is scriptural verses proof that there was no physical union. Neither us nor the scientists were alive (or we don't remember it) during Mahabharat time. All we have are the words of scriptures and our acharyas. If they say it happened like this, we can either believe it or disbelieve it. But choosing to believe part of it based on faith, and disbelieve part of it based on intellect is unscientific – ram Aug 21 '20 at 06:04
  • My idea of composition of Mahabharata, but not occurrence of the same, as in around 600 BC is based on the dates available for the evolving of Classical sanskrit. I had never stated that there was physical union in the instant case. What I said was it might be a case of advanced genetic experiment, may be a test tube baby concept. Please check again my comment. @ram – Srimannarayana K V Aug 21 '20 at 06:35
  • 1
    @SrimannarayanaKV, btw, I don't think it's written anywhere that the babies were born 'instantly'. I remember hearing in upanyasa that they were pregnant just like usual women are. but they get pregnant without physical union. if 'instant' was the case, there is no need for Kunti to wait for one year between each pandava's birth, and it is well known that there is a gap of 1 year between each of the pandavas. – ram Aug 21 '20 at 19:48
  • 1
    @SrimannarayanaKV, and who exactly dated mahabharat to 600 BC, one richard gombrich? so you're ok with accepting a random westerner stranger's opinion, but if someone else does the same (accepting what's written by our own acharyas in scriptures), that is not ok ? Mahabharat was composed by Ved Vyasa at the end of Dwapar Yug, around the same time when the war happened. Rig Veda consists of Veda mantras. There is no need for the chandas/meter/grammar used in Vedas (poetry) to be same as that used in regular speech. That doesn't mean sanskrit 'developed' later. – ram Aug 21 '20 at 21:18