Was Rishi Kindama's curse fair? - Page 5

Hi Peridot

this is the story I was telling you about where Shiv paid for killing a brahman Brahma, here read this

Brahma insults Shiva using his fifth head's mouth, while the rest of them praise Shiva when he comes to Brahma's abode as a guest. In another instance in the Shiva Purana, when an argument erupts between Brahma and Vishnu over who is superior, Shiva appears as an infinite fiery pillar (Linga) in front of the pair. They decide whoever finds the end of the pillar is superior. Brahma lies about finding the head of the infinite pillar and declares himself as superior. In the Varaha Purana, in which Shiva is born from Brahma's brow, Brahma calls his son a Kapali and angers him. In all versions, an infuriated Shiva or Bhairava cuts off Brahma's head as a punishment.^[7][8] However, all Puranas (Kurma, Varaha, Shiva, Skanda, and Vamana) agree that the head of Brahma stuck to Bhairava-Shiva's left palm due to the sin of killing Brahma, the most learned Brahmin - Brahmahatya or Brahminicide. To expiate the sin of brahmahatya, Shiva had to perform the vow of a Kapali: wandering the world as a naked beggar with the skull of the slain as his begging bowl.^[5][6] In the Kurma and Vamana Puranas, Shiva's sin takes corporeal form, becoming a ghoulish woman called Brahmahatya who follows Bhikshatana everywhere he goes.^[9]

The Kurma Purana further narrates that Bhikshatana wandered the three worlds (heaven, earth, and netherworld) begging from door to door with a host of bhutas (goblins). The women of the houses who came to grant him food became enamoured by his appearance and followed him, singing and dancing.^[6] Wandering, Bhikshatana reached the Deodar Forest (also called Daruka forest, Daruka-vana or Daru-vana), where he shocked the sages with his "lewdness and nudity" and tempted their wives. Bhikshatana-Shiva made them realise his greatness after their confrontation.^[5][6] However, in some other Puranas this encounter is placed in a different time period unrelated to Bhikshatana's expiatory wandering.

The Kurma Purana goes on to state that after the encounter with the sages of the Deodar Forest, Bhikshatana continued to wander, visiting various countries of gods and demons before he finally reached the abode of the god Vishnu. Vishnu's gatekeeper Vishvaksena did not allow him to enter. Angered, Bhikshatana slew Vishvaksena and impaled the corpse on his trident, which added to his sin. This form of Shiva with a corpse on his trident is called Kankala-murti ("One with the skeleton"). Bhikshatana, now as Kankala-murti, entered Vishnu's abode and begged for food. Vishnu offered his own blood as food in one version. In another version, Vishnu cut an artery on Bhikshatana's forehead; a stream of blood spurts into his begging bowl as his food. Vishnu then directed Bhikshatana to visit the sacred city of Varanasi, where his sin would be expiated.^[5][6][10] The encounter with Vishnu's gatekeeper is also retold with some variation in the Vamana Purana and the Matsya Purana.^[11]

All Puranas agree that upon reaching Varanasi, Brahma's skull falls off Bhikshatana's palm at a place now called Kapala-mochana ("liberating from the skull") and Vishaksena's corpse disappears. The sin, personified by Brahmahatya, vanishes into hell. Vishaksena is resurrected and the sanctified Bhairava-Shiva, having bathed in the sacred pond in Varanasi, casts off the appearance of Bhikshatana and returns to his abode.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhikshatana

Read the full story it's interesting and explains about dharm too

^^ Thanks for sharing rasyafan. I knew some of these stories but not all.

Originally posted by: bhas1066

hi peridot,
it wont seem dubious if we get to know the facts correctly as it happened.
while taking creative liberty these authors of folk editions or the makers of BRC Mahabharat fail to understand that these small things may not change the main essence of mahabharat itself, but leads to ambiguity in the karma cycle. it leads to more questions and sadly misinterpretations.

see, if you go by the KMG translation available on sacred texts, pandu argues with the rishi that killing/hunting of deer, helpless or not, is not a sin for kshatriyas. the rishi agrees and clarifies that the sin is not in killing him as a deer but that he(pandu) should have waited till he had done with his mating.


Vaisampayana said, 'O king, one day Pandu, while roaming about in the woods (on the southern slopes of the Himavat) that teemed with deer and wild animals of fierce disposition, saw a large deer, that seemed to be the leader of a herd, serving his mate.(pandu saw the deers mating and yet he shot at them, it was deliberate and not a mistake) Beholding the animals, the monarch pierced them both with five of his sharp and swift arrows winged with golden feathers. O monarch, that was no deer that Pandu struck at, but a Rishi's son of great ascetic merit who was enjoying his mate in the form of a deer. (the word mate is used and not wife) Pierced by Pandu, while engaged in the act of intercourse, he fell down to the ground, uttering cries that were of a man and began to weep bitterly. (if the female deer was rishi's wife why not mention her change to a woman on death? beacause the deer was only a deer, not a human in disguise of deer)

"The deer then said, 'O, king, I did not blame thee for thy having killed a deer, or for the injury thou hast done to me. But, instead of acting so cruelly, thou shouldst have waited till the completion of my act of intercourse. ( pandu is nor cursed for killing a deer , but for the time of killing it) What man of wisdom and virtue is there that can kill a deer while engaged in such an act? The time of sexual intercourse is agreeable to every creature and productive of good to all.
I am a Muni of the name of Kindama, possessed of ascetic merit. I was engaged in sexual intercourse with this deer, because my feelings of modesty did not permit me to indulge in such an act in human society. In the form of a deer I rove in the deep woods in the company of other deer. ( Kindama says himself a muni, not rishi, and mentions it as this deer or as other deer but not his wife. No wife of his is mentioned in this book.) Thou hast slain me without knowing that I am a Brahmana, the sin of having slain a Brahmana shall not, therefore, be thine. But senseless man, as you have killed me, disguised as a deer, at such a time, thy fate shall certainly be even like mine. When, approaching thy wife lustfully, thou wilt unite with her even as I had done with mine, in that very state shalt thou have to go to the world of the spirits. And that wife of thine with whom thou mayst be united in intercourse at the time of thy death shall also follow thee with affection and reverence to the domains of the king of the dead.(the book also explains why it is madri only who dies on the funeral pyre and kunti is left behind) Thou hast brought me grief when I was happy. So shall grief come to thee when thou art in happiness.'


p.s. by the way i am posting this excerpt for the second time in the same thread. i wonder whether people do read my posts or that they dont accept this version of mahabharat text as original.😕

yes. that's what I am saying. the rishi couldn't have cursed pandu for hunting as it was very much acceptable. and also since the rishi was in deer form pandu didn't get any sin of killing a brahmana. if pandu would have waited till the deer/rishi completed his act, he wouldn't have been cursed at all.

I too found that this curse was unfair as he was after the dear and killed him unknowingly.

Maadri wanted the deer skin as her bedspread so Paandu had gone after the deer and killed it.

Originally posted by: peridot.

Are you trying to say that the reason for the Rishi's outrage wasnt the death of his wife but the unfulfilment of his act 😆 poor Pandu! He probably could never have anticipated that the deer was a rishi who was trying to fulfil his" immodest" desires in the form of a deer.

Originally posted by: Sweet_Krishna

It would be immodest if he would have tried intercourse with deer in his human form. But he did that act in form of a deer as an animal. And there are no specifications in scriptures regarding mating between two animals.

how many have seen a human turn into an actual animal or think that it is possible ? Animal- like is different matter.

Originally posted by: JanakiRaghunath

Do you guys think Rishi Kindama's curse to Pandu was fair? Kshatriyas hunt, it's in their nature and it's not against Dharma for them. Pandu did not kill Kindama and his wife in their human form. For some bizarre reason, they took the form of deer. 😕 How was he to know that the deer he was hunting was human?

What do you guys think?

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

I meant to get to this before, but was delayed somewhat. I blame Rishi Kindama here for taking the form of a deer - what sort of a retard does that? In the case of Dasharath, which Rishi Kindama cited, Dasharath was indeed @ fault for hunting down Shravan Kumar, but in this case, Pandu did hunt a deer, not a human who sounded or looked like one.

Rishi Kindama's accusation to Pandu on how he could rule if he couldn't distinguish b/w a human & a deer - 🤬 Kindama caused his own death - and his wife's - by choosing to consummate in the open as deer. Whatever happened to cuddling in a bed in your cottage and then just doing it?

All Kindama did was royally screw up the future of Hastinapur. If Pandu killed him & his wife, Kindama was at least partially responsible for the holocaust @ Kurukshetra.

If you check a few pages back Bhas has quoted some lines saying that it is nowhere mentioned that it was the Rshi's wife . It was his mate .-( a deer). The Rishi also said that he thought it was immodest to indulge in the act in his human form and hence he took to the deer form. So what was immodest for a human was modest for a deer but he overlooked the possibility of being shot down as one 😛