Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism
Sabhi ko Ramjanmasthan Mandir shilanyas ki shubhkamnaayein.
Jambudweepe Bharatkhande Aryavate Bharatvarshe ek bhoomi hai Vikhyat Ayodhya naam se.
Yehi janmbhoomi hai Maryada Puroshottam Sri Ram ki
Ramjanmasthan mandir shilanyas ki shubhkamamnaayein🥳
It's a day of celebration for every Bharatiya😳
Originally posted by: SarmaShru
The story is mentioned in Brahma vaivartana purana. But the reason of curse is not as they shown in the serial.If I were to believe in the actual curse story mentioned there, I would leave this planet😆 🤣That serial is a complete mess with no relation to any scriptures, nothing. It's just a show to satisfy the fans of the lead actors😆
I don't watch that serial , I accidentally catch some episodes on YouTube.
I saw first episode only.
Ya that serial is full distortion
Originally posted by: deepikagupta9
I don't watch that serial , I accidentally catch some episodes on YouTube.
I saw first episode only.
Ya that serial is full distortion
Better you didn't.
The same Krishna who killed serpant Kaliya is now playing Dwarakadheesh Krishna.They are showing the whole Mahabharat named as 'Krishna-Arjun Gatha'😕
But since people are so prone to beileving different sources. Let me post a source that is closer to vyasa.
О dear, you are Radhika in the Goloka, you are the same in Gokula. You happen to be Mahalaksmi and Sarasvatl of the Vaikuntha. You happen to be the MartyalaksmI in the ocean of milk. You are the daughter-in-law of Dharma and appear in the form of Laksml with peaceful form You happen to be the chaste Bharat!, the dearest wife of the sage Kapila in the land of Bharata. You are the one known as Sita in Mithila. you happen to be shadow of the chaste DraupadI, DraupadI who was bom of your ray became the spouse of the Pandavas
From brahma vairta purana.
So this is in lines with what vyasa himself says in the oldest text Mahabharata
Drapaudi=radha=laxmi= sita.
In Vedas the epithet/name used for prosperity is Shree.
Indra being the supreme amongst devas represented rains. Rains was directly connected with prosperity for agrarian society. Farmers were dependent on rain for bountiful harvest and when farmers had a good harvest, traders also had a good revenue. Overall the kingdom would have a good economy and prosperity.
Hence Shree became the Shakti of Indra the power of prosperity that Indra will give his devotees when they pray to him.
Prayers to Indra seek his blessing, address him as lord of Shree.
In Puranas as Vishnu was raised to prominence by Vaishnava, they made prosperity or Shree Devi Vishnu's wife, and got stories like Bhrigu cursed Indra and she went into ocean and came out of Samudra Manthan and chose Vishnu as husband. Some stories have her as Bhrigu's daughter. Some as Sagar's daughter. Some as Dharma's daughter.
Basically personified prosperity as a woman and mad her someone's daughter and most importantly Vishnu's wife and his power.
But she was originally Indra's power, and to cover that up, Indra's wife was given the name Sachi and Swargashree.
In Mahabharata this conundrum becomes more obvious.
Krishna is incarnation of Vishnu. And Indra is supposed to be the greatest amongst King's and Lord of all, so Pandavas being supported by Krishna the protagonist of MB become the five Indras in some stories . In other stories Arjun Krishna's friend becomes Vishnu's brother in a previous incarnation, in the main story however he becomes avatar/ansha/son of Indra helped by Krishna Avatar of Vishnu.
In this particular incarnation of Krishna his own wives especially Rukmini has no role whatsoever other than being his wife. Satyabhama was atleast has Narakasura's death, Parijata story etc. Rukmini has nothing to do other than being a devoted wife. Something like Urmila in Ramayana or Subhadra in MB. (these roles are awesome in themselves but not relevant as such for the main action in the story)
Unlike in Ramayana where Sita was as critical to the story as Rama.
You can consider Parshuram avatar for eg. He is brahmachari and has no wife, so Lakshmi does not even exist in that story. But here in Krishna Avatar he has wives, but wives are not relevant in the most critical Leelas of his life. Kansa vadha and Mahabharata.
In MB that heroine position belongs to Draupadi, the one whose presence takes the story forward. And if who is not there story falls apart.
But Krishna is Vishnu and his wife is Rukmini who has no role in the story of Mahabharata and Draupadi the power of prosperity is with Pandavas (Arjun) the Indras.
That's the conundrum of Indra Vishnu and Shree.
Or Pandavas Krishna and Draupadi.
Vaishnava in the purana make Krishna's wives Ashtavharya different forms of Lakshmi and Rukmini specially as Shree Devi. Because now Lakshmi has to be Vishnu's wife come what may. If Krishna had to be Vishnu Rukmini and other wives are default Lakshmi. Even Radha is Vishnu's Shakti and Vishnu's Shakti is Shree... So all that confusion.
And Draupadi becomes Sachi/Swargashree wife of Indras.
But instead of all that prudishness, if people can simply go as per Vyasa. A wife is the biggest strength or power for her husband. She with her love and intelligence and wisdom brings prosperity in his life. A man's wife is his Lakshmi the power of prosperity
Draupadi was Pandavas Shree. Rukmini, Satya and his other 6 wives were Krishna's shree, Radha was Krishna's Shree too.
Just like Sita was Rama's Shree.
They all basically represent the same Devi, we all call as Lakshmi, Sree, or prosperity.
As per Purana only Vishnu's wife is Lakshmi as per Vyasa, For everyman his wife is his grihaLakshmi.
Vyasa in MB has given that position for Draupadi because she is female protagonist, the heroine of that epic. Rukmini is mentioned only by name a few times as Krishna's wife that is all.
Draupadi because of her knowledge of Dharma is Saraswati. He calls her Jaya. The epic starts with a prayer to Nara Narayana and her as saraswati.
Draupadi because of her intelligence wisdom and deeds is also the Shree in the epic. As long as she is treated with respect Pandavas rule the world and when she is disrespected they become beggars
Draupadi is also represented as Kali who helped execute the will of the almighty in getting the earth rid of evil Kshatriya.
So she is not just Lakshmi, she is Saraswati, She is Kali too.
PS. Nothing against Rukmini or Radha but fact is they have nothing to do with Mahabharat and they have nothing to do in Mahabharat
Different things r said 4 draupadi in different purans
Vayu puran she is said to be bharti devi
Narad puran she is said to composite avtar of shymla, bharti, usha, devi & ansh of kaali.
She is also said to vedvati d lady who wanted to marry lord Vishnu but her penance was disturbed by raavan , she cursed raavan . Lord shiv promoted d lady to swargalakshmi position who is celestial shree wife of 5 indra.
Mahabharat , she was said to nalayani in her past life by vyas.
Vedvyas actually created a good confusion for draupadi as all puran r written by ved vyas .
Be Vishnu puran which actually mentioned life of lord Vishnu. Bhagwat puran or harivansham Vishnu parv Rukmini is mentioned Lakshmi .
Draupadi can never be radha coz draupadi is dark skinned ,radha is fair , radha was 3 yrs 11 months elder than krishna , she was married to ayan & she dint died or left barsana after Krishna left 4 mathura. She lead her life in barsana .
Mahalakshmi has molten gold complexion which pink touch with it , lord Vishnu have dark complexion no doubt lord Ram & krishna both r dark skinned.
Be radha , sita or Rukmini all r said have complexion of molten gold or fair complexion.
Originally posted by: SarmaShru
Better you didn't.
The same Krishna who killed serpant Kaliya is now playing Dwarakadheesh Krishna.They are showing the whole Mahabharat named as 'Krishna-Arjun Gatha'😕
Actually first swastik planned only 4 radha krishna story , sumedh was not be changed., Later they brought Dwarkadhish & mahabharat story.
Swastik is hell bent after mahabharat .
Sumedh as young krishna is awesome no doubt but he is not able to justify Dwarkadhish character .
Makers have to understand Dwarkadhish was full grown up man not a teenager .
Krishna looks younger than the Pandavas n Kauravas which is so unreal
Coming to Draupadi discussion. I think this makes it clear that they were all historical people, normal humans and not someone divine. Later people chose to make the ones they consider most important as the divine Avtars. Divinity wasn't actually there
Originally posted by: deepikagupta9
Actually first swastik planned only 4 radha krishna story , sumedh was not be changed., Later they brought Dwarkadhish & mahabharat story.
Swastik is hell bent after mahabharat .
Sumedh as young krishna is awesome no doubt but he is not able to justify Dwarkadhish character .
Makers have to understand Dwarkadhish was full grown up man not a teenager .
Mahabharat 2013 was kind of a dream project for the production house. But this Radhakrishn's Mahabharat is completely commercial. This show will soon overpower 'Suryaputra Karna' in distorting Mahabharata.
There was no need to introduce anything after Krishna killed Kansa (It's funny how they showed Krishna killing Kansa in his late teens, when scriptures say that he was 11)
Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism
Krishna looks younger than the Pandavas n Kauravas which is so unreal
Coming to Draupadi discussion. I think this makes it clear that they were all historical people, normal humans and not someone divine. Later people chose to make the ones they consider most important as the divine Avtars. Divinity wasn't actually there
They are no way trying to prove historicity or anything! If that's the case they should have shown it that way,right from the start. This show is making fun of our Ithihasa for the sake of TRP. I really don't know what is wrong with them. Why can't they just show things as it is instead of adding mirchi masala to it😵
I think there are many things in Mahabharata which we can't explain with our current knowledge of modern science.
comment:
p_commentcount