16

The events of Shri Krishna’s life described the Harivamsa, take place before the Mahabharata war. The same can also be gauged from the chronology of events given in the tenth skandha of the Srimad Bhagavatam. Two such events are, the killing of Rukmi by Balarama (henceforth referred to as the Rukmi incident), and the killing of Narakasura.

It is clear from the Harivamsa, that the killing of Narakasura takes place after the Rukmi incident; when Janamejaya asks Vaishampayana:

On his return to Dvaraka, after the killing of Rukmi, what did the valiant Vishnu with great arms do? O great sage! Please tell me.-
Harivamsa Vishnu Parva 63.1

After which, Vaishampayana goes on to narrate the atrocities of Narakasura. Using the reference described here, it is also certain that the killing of Narakasura and obviously therefore, the Rukmi incident, took place before the Mahabharata war, since Vidura refers to the same, in the Udyoga Parva (before the war), as follows:

Slaying that Naraka in battle, he brought away (from his city) a thousand damsels and married them all, according to the ordinance.
-Mahabharata Udyoga Parva Chapter 130

As discussed here, Rukmi, coming to offer his help, is rejected by both sides in the Mahabharata war, and hence remains neutral.

This creates a confusion, as Balarama is said to have killed Rukmi in the Rukmi incident, before the war, yet, during the war we see Rukmi alive and offering his aid to both sides.

Additionally if one reads the killing of Rukmi by Balarama may seem a bit harsh instead of him just hitting Rukmi, and hence I ask:

Question: How do we reconcile the apparent contradiction of Balarama killing Rukmi and him being alive at the time of the Mahabharata war?

Is it that he only hit Rukmi, but didn’t kill him, in some older manuscripts? (Current versions clearly mention a killing)

Note: The incident being mentioned in the Harivamsa and Srimad Bhagavatam cannot be brushed off as mere interpolation, also, more so because the verses in both have variation among them and don’t show a single text copied to both.

Aupakarana Abhibhaa
  • 1,994
  • 4
  • 20
Adiyarkku
  • 11,038
  • 3
  • 42
  • 89
  • Excellent question Archit, I personally of the opinion that Rukmi offered help first, then he was killed and then war happened. It was just before the war, while making arrangements he was killed, if w have to fit in the chronology. You can see that Naraksura is being killed in Udyoga Parva. That's the parva when Krishna made war arrangements. So when Krishna was making was arrangements Rukmi ordered help and it was refused. Then he was killed by Balarama and then the war happened. This is my guess. What do you think.? –  Jun 18 '21 at 18:25
  • @MrGreenGold haha maybe. But 1. the incident happens much before the Pandavas Rajasuya if you go as per Bhagavatham (SB) chronology. 2.Also in the story there’s a Kalinga king who shows his teeth & Balarama breaks it. If we take him into account then him being in the Kaurava camp at the war time wouldn’t fit. 3. Also just before the war, before Rukmi comes to offer his aid, Balarama goes on pilgrimage during which only killing Romaharshana is mentioned in ŚB (see linked answer for ref on Balarama). During pilgrimage & pre-war Aniruddha marriage unlikely. Naraka not in Udyog but much before. – Adiyarkku Jun 18 '21 at 19:05
  • 1
    Very interesting reference to Narakasura episode happening after Rukmi's death.. which also means means married 16100 damsels after his grandson's marriage... x_x – Surya Jun 18 '21 at 19:45
  • In 63.1 of Vishnu parva - The word used in Sanskrit is viShNurhate which does not necessarily mean that Vishnu killed Rukmi. The word hata also can mean wounding, injuring etc. In chapter 60, the defeat of Rukmi is described. It seems to me that this sloka is probably referring to the defeat of Rukmi at the hands of Krishna. It is not referring to killing of Rukmi by Balarama. –  Jun 18 '21 at 20:39
  • 1
    @zero it did cross the mind however it wouldn’t be absolutely accurate. The verse is: pratyetya dvArakAM viShNurhate rukmiNi vIryavAn akarot; meaning hate Rukmini - when Rukmi was killed, Vishnuh akarod yat- what did Vishnu do?. The line isn’t vishnuhate (killed by Vishnu), it’s vishnurhate (showing they’re two separate words). Anyway it is mentioned that Rukmini cried and she was consoled and Krishna didn’t give an reaction (happy or sad) to avoid losing ties with either Balarama or Rukmini - this is possible only for a killing. Hence I rejected it in favour of a killing. – Adiyarkku Jun 19 '21 at 03:10
  • Vishnurhate is vishnuH + hate, Sanskrit visarga samdhi. Vishnu is the subject. That is my understanding. –  Jun 19 '21 at 03:16
  • I am sorry, I did not understand your point. hata in any case does not imply killing. So even if we translate it your way, hata does not imply killing. –  Jun 19 '21 at 03:28
  • @zero see comment below your answer – Adiyarkku Jun 19 '21 at 03:30
  • Ok, I got your point and deleting my answer. –  Jun 19 '21 at 03:36
  • @Archit Please provide a link for Harivamsha you are referring to. – hanugm Jun 19 '21 at 05:22
  • @hanugm it’s there here: http://mahabharata-resources.org/harivamsa/vishnuparva/hv_2_063.html – Adiyarkku Jun 19 '21 at 05:28
  • 1
    I think that kalpa bhedha can be a reconciliation in this case. I Mahabharatha belongs to Varaha kalpa and the Srimad Baghavatham is of Sarasvata kalpa. I think that HariVamsha also is of same kalpa as aMahabharatha. And hence the both are in disagreement with Srimad Bhagavatham. Useful links Related: https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/29643/does-kalpa-bheda-explanation-for-reconciling-different-narrative-in-puranas-have, https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/11080/why-is-there-a-huge-difference-regarding-the-liberation-of-parikshit-in-the-maha?rq=1, – hanugm Jun 19 '21 at 06:21
  • @hanugm thanks for the links. But Harivamsa itself (same Kalpa as Mahabharata) is saying killing of Rukmi happens before Narakasura. So even if we don’t rely on Bhagavatam, then also the question still remains. I’ve not used Bhagavatham quotes above. Anyway just for info: SB is of Varāha when narrating he says : this Kalpa is called Varaha Kalpa. https://vedabase.io/en/library/sb/3/11/37/. As per SB2.10.47 however it’s of Padma Kalpa- https://vedabase.io/en/library/sb/2/10/47/. Thanks for the links :) – Adiyarkku Jun 19 '21 at 10:28
  • 1
    @Archit Oh! I will go through. Thanks for information. – hanugm Jun 19 '21 at 13:07
  • looks like harivamsa is not following strict chronology.. as u can see that marriage of Krishna, Pradyumana and Aniruddha is given in subsequent chapters..even though it's supposed to be "after the killing of rukmI" looks like only 2-3 shlokas followed that and then Narka's incident is from past..same is the case with Vishnu and Bhagvata Puranans.. ideally the order should be Naraka's killing, MBH war, Rukmi's killing... – YDS Jun 19 '21 at 16:38
  • @YDS yes but then the Harivamsa wouldn’t say - after killing Rukmi what happened? And Vaishampayana wouldn’t immediately narrate the Narakasura episode. That’s why older pre-colonial manuscripts maybe of help or simple proof that it wasn’t killing but only hitting with the game board in both Bhagavatam and Harivamsa (and Vishnu Purana) – Adiyarkku Jun 19 '21 at 17:23
  • @Archit Are you sure that Harivamsa incidents and Mahabharatha are of same Kalpa? – hanugm Jun 20 '21 at 03:06
  • 1
    @hanugm yes because Harivamsa is a part of the Mahabharata itself as per first chapter of Adi Parva. Mahabharata khila bhaga. It’s not a separate Purana but in fact Itihasa like Mahabharata – Adiyarkku Jun 20 '21 at 03:37
  • 1
    @Archit Yeah true, I heard it as khilam for Mahabharatha. – hanugm Jun 20 '21 at 04:18
  • Could it be that Rukmi was killed by Balarama earlier and then revived sometime afterwards (and somehow the incident disappeared from the scriptures over time)? – MassEnquirer Feb 02 '22 at 23:58

0 Answers0