\|/Doubts & Discussions about Lord Shiva Part-1\|/ - Page 116

Originally posted by: MahadevBhakt1

Hi,

I am more confused about what this show is telling. Adding to it...

Lord Vishnu incarnated as Shri Ram at sati's time(when mata sati was alive) & slayed dashanan Ravana. After thousands of years, Aadishakti reborn as parvati & got married to Mahadev. Now this show is showing us that the same dashanan ravan who was slayed by Shri Ram thousands of years ago has made bhavan for Lord Shiva & his family. From where ravana has appeared again? Can any one answer to my question please...

Thanks & Regards

Originally posted by: mnx12

Sati was shown time travelling in future to test Ram, as they both existed in different Yugas. Was shown suffering for that deed in present by the makers., where as Ram is yet to take birth in the show.Some stories in Puranas are added later on , which doesn't have logical connection with the main story, but is accepted by some because it is written in Puranas. This is one such story. Some even say this Sati was from another Kalpa, but why did this Kalpa's Sati has to suffer for other Kalpa's Sati. Some questions doen't have logical explanation to them, sati testing Ram is one such story.

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

Saraswati & Lakshmi are already in the show, and they are not Shiva's daughters, except in Bong tradition, as is shown during Durga Puja. Even Ambika is a form of Devi Parvati when she was approached by Shumbha.

Shiva's only 2 daughters, AFAIK, were Asokasundari and Manasa Devi. Both of them are known only in some folklore, and are certainly not as universal as Kartikeya and Ganesh.

I'd be more interested in seeing Devasena back and marrying Kartikeya, rather than umpty marriages of Shiva & Parvati.

Originally posted by: Meynika

A huge blooper I think...

In the current track Jalandhar is born in Parvati era (Sati in previous life).

But Prasuti (Sati's mother) already told the Tulsi and Jalandhar story in one of the early episodes (Jan or Feb 2012 somewhere).

Is this a mistake?

Saunaka and others: OKay OKay.

So why didn't Saunaka say this: HEY! YOu have already told this SAME story! Your just replacing names. Its the same story. ARe you lying or what? Don't confuse us like this.. Blah blah

Originally posted by: Surya_krsnbhakt

OKay, my doubt might sound irrelevant to the topic, but its connected.

We all know that our great Vyasa Bhagavan wrote different versions in different Puranas. He made different deities Supreme. Also, all Puranas were narated by Ugrasrava Sauti to Saunaka and others. So, when the write is same, and orator is same, and audience is same, HOW COME the audience didn't get confused abt the different versions. Like for example:

• Sauti (while saying Shiva Purana): Jalandhar was the ansh of shiva's anger and he married vrinda. He lusted after Parvati but because of his wife's pativrata dharma, he couldn't be killed. So Vishnu took Jalandhar's form and lived with VRinda. So her dharm was destroyed and Jalandhar was killed.

Saunaka and others: OKay OKay.

• Sauti (during Devi BHagavata): Shankhachooda was an incarnation of Shridama, the parisada of Sri KRishna and Radha, adn he married tulasi. because of his wife's pativrata dharma, he couldn't be killed. So Vishnu took Shankhachooda's form and lived with Tulasi. So her dharm was destroyed and Shankhachooda was killed.

So why didn't Saunaka say this: HEY! YOu have already told this SAME story! Your just replacing names. Its the same story. ARe you lying or what? Don't confuse us like this.. Blah blah

Originally posted by: varaali

Surya,

i have a question. Is Radha explicitly mentioned in the Devi Bhagavatam ?

Originally posted by: Surya_krsnbhakt

Yes. In the Ninth Skandha, there is an entire chapter dedicated to her and her worship. And most stories in that Skandha are connected to Radha and Krishna.

I find this rather strange, because Vyasa has not mentioned her in the Srimad Bhagavatham (except once and that too rather obscurely in the word 'araadhite'). She is not mentioned in the Hari Vamsa too, by the same author. One of the explanations usually given to explain this obvious omission, is that it was by Radha Rani's grace that Vyasa was able to see the Rasa Leela in his mind and describe it so vividly. In effect, Radha Rani became his guru and hence Vyasa was very hesitant to mention her directly by name.

However, this begs another question. If Vyasa (i.e Krishna Dwaipayana) didn't have any compunctions describing Radha in Devi Bhagavatham, why did he not do so in Srimad Bhagatvatham?

Which makes me wonder if both the Vyasas are the same. After all 'Vyasa' is an appellation which means 'compiler, editor'. Several people could have borne it- including Krishna Dwaipayana, who probably was the first.

For example, the story of Shankhachooda itself is a result of Radha's curse.

Radha is described as the HIghest Shakti of Krishna, the Supersoul of the Universe (I AM little biased here, so forgive me)

She is supposed to be the Greatest POwer of the Universe, and Lord Krishna's Kriya Shakti. Durga Devi is his Iccha Shakti and Maya Shakti. Sarasvati is his Gnana SHakti. Lakshmi is his... I don't know, maybe its BHoga and Yoga SHakti. Savitri also I'm not sure. Sorry abt that. You can check It on this link. http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/db/index.htm

Wouldn't Radha and Lakshmi be the same?

Oh yeah, though i don't feel like saying this, Devi Bhagavati is the Mula Prakrti into which Lord Krsna is transformed at the end of each Kalpa.

That's because Devi Bhagavtham, is a Devi oriented text where She is venerated as the Supreme Power. In Vishnu texts, Vishnu would be described as the Supreme, each text gives importance to whichever deity it is based on.