Jalandhar is not a villain/ DT Nt pg 11 - Page 6

Originally posted by: mnx12

Avatar & ansh are not same. Ganesh & Kartikeya are Shivji's ansh they are not same as him. Though they are Parvati's ansh too. Veerbhadra was invoked for a purpose, he compeleted his work, came back to MahaRudra (Shivji). He is worshipped even today, Jalandhar is not.

There are ansh avatars & purna avatars, aavesh avatars of Vishnuji. All are not same.

Originally posted by: viper833

Define Avatar and Ansh with defintion and source please.

Originally posted by: Arnav90

ROFL on you for blaming Tridev specialy Mahadev 🤣, You like Jalandhar fine but don't point finger at Mahadev when you don't know the real story, Cv's showed it in twisted way for sake of TRP, The only thing to like abt Jalandhar is "Mohit n his superb diffrentiation b/w two charactors" , The person i would like to blame is Indra he deserve to die from Jalandhar's hand

Originally posted by: kaatayani

At first shyama mam.. I think u hv read my mind, coz I hav surprisingly same views as regards jalandhar.
This track has made atleast some of us thinking abt how a man can slip into darkness? I am particularly miffed wid shukracharya wen he tried 2 vindicate himself, but later admitted tht he was aware jalandhar's gradual destruction wen he met him at first place. Then why the shukra did nothing 2 prevent this fall. He had ample time wen jal was a boy & shukra clearly understood tht at tht point he won' override his guru. Clearly jalandhar's hatred was nt given a proper direction, and the cocept of 'asuron ka hith & utthan' was vague in itself & nt properly defined.
2nd thng I felt was the tridev's attitude. I did see narad pestering Brahma & Visnu 2 stop jalandhar asap as he is siding the asuras. Thus it shows tht even the devrishi is nt free frm bias. Suddenly after jalandhar's coronation the tridevs bcame eager 2 stop J merely on basis of the fact tht they had seen the future. I ask what stopped Brahma n Visnu's eagerness wen Indra contemplated Ahilya's violation, attack on Trishira etc. They cud read the future, the ought 2 hav stopped him.
Wen J took up the war, he cited inequality. Wen he was told the Lingodhbhav story, all he cud interpret tht tridevs r the perpatrators of this inequality. He failed 2 see tht tridevs r a system of checks and balences.
Jalandhar leads a rebellion against this order which he feels is unequal, a thinking tht has nt been checked by J's guru.
Jalandhar thus poses question as 2 why a child innocent bcums evil, a question frm which no one can escape!

Originally posted by: Arnav90

ROFL on you for blaming Tridev specialy Mahadev 🤣, You like Jalandhar fine but don't point finger at Mahadev when you don't know the real story, Cv's showed it in twisted way for sake of TRP, The only thing to like abt Jalandhar is "Mohit n his superb diffrentiation b/w two charactors" , The person i would like to blame is Indra he deserve to die from Jalandhar's hand

Originally posted by: sashashyam

My dear Katyayani,

I am glad you and some others agree with me about the sadness of Jalandhar;s descent into darkness. As for those who have other views, I expected that and have said as much in my post, and this is the norm in a free forum. I welcome such differing views when they are lucidly expressed, as I learn a lot from them.

As for the various acts of omission and commission by so many characters that has led to Jalandhar being what he is now, it is tough to keep track of them here, though you have done a good job of it.There are instances in the Ramayana as well, and they are usually explained as due to the human limitations under which Lord Rama had to operate in his human avatar. In the Mahabharata, it is much worse, with almost everyone being some shade of grey.

One small point: I think only Mahadev is a trikaladarshi, not the other two of the Tridev. But I am open to correction.

I think that even for a person who ends up as a very negative individual, there is a point in his/her life when there is a possibility of course correction due to wise guidance, leading to redemption. My feeling is that in Jalandhar's case., except for Vrinda, no one close to him does anything useful in time to redeem him from becoming what he is now becoming.The maximum blame should be placed at Shukracharya's door, and you have brought that out very clearly.

Of course we are talking here of the DKDM take on Jalandhar.

Shyamala Di/Aunty

Originally posted by: kkr531

I would put all of this in Historical perspective away from Mythology

1) Narayan as i have posted in my very old posts, is god exclusive to devas he was not very popular among other tribes and people of Indian subcontinent, while Mahadev was the one who was very popular among the fringes and outside the civilizational sphere and he was the god of ascetics and wanderers with no part in day to day lives of people . Similarly Indra Varuna Surya and other devas were never accepted as representing the five elements of the nature by other group of people in Subcontinent. In a sense devas represented one point of view of people and all others who did not accept this were classified as asuras.

2) Since Asuras were not uniform group, they were never united and were always loosing but still they did not allow devas overwhelm them and impose their ideas of devas. hence eventually agni

varuna Indra etc lost importance after the intermingling of all people in the subcontinent.

3) Coming to the present case of Jalandhar, devas in many wars committed very sick acts of deceit lies and other immoral acts. Narayan is also on the list as he had also done many acts which are not justifiable. The case of Vrinda included in this

4) Now after committing such acts they had to justify these things in one way or the other. Hence they came up with many explanations like Vishnu being a ruler Brahma Creator and Shiva the destroyer. Also the story of Vrinda being devotee of Vishnu in previous birth etc are apologist versions and are of later development. In-spite of all this explanations a fact stands out that these are all explanations of certain section of people who people believe in certain belief system. Vishnu or Narayan was never accepted or accorded a Supreme God head by people who have been even metaphorically been deceived by him. So all these explanations stand null and void.

Even Lord Shiva was made part of yagnya only after the landmark event of daksha yagnya. so the present system of trimurti is a result of syncretism of various sects which evolved into mains stream Hinduism.

However considering all the above facts we should not be afraid to call a spade as spade and we should not meekly put up some apologist versions to justify some wrong which has been done.

I definitely agree with author of this thread that some of our puranic narrations to be overtly biased towards devas and highly hostile to Asuras. Which has to be accepted and agreed upon.

Regards

krishna

Originally posted by: kkr531

I would put all of this in Historical perspective away from Mythology

1) Narayan as i have posted in my very old posts, is god exclusive to devas he was not very popular among other tribes and people of Indian subcontinent, while Mahadev was the one who was very popular among the fringes and outside the civilizational sphere and he was the god of ascetics and wanderers with no part in day to day lives of people . Similarly Indra Varuna Surya and other devas were never accepted as representing the five elements of the nature by other group of people in Subcontinent. In a sense devas represented one point of view of people and all others who did not accept this were classified as asuras.

2) Since Asuras were not uniform group, they were never united and were always loosing but still they did not allow devas overwhelm them and impose their ideas of devas. hence eventually agni

varuna Indra etc lost importance after the intermingling of all people in the subcontinent.

3) Coming to the present case of Jalandhar, devas in many wars committed very sick acts of deceit lies and other immoral acts. Narayan is also on the list as he had also done many acts which are not justifiable. The case of Vrinda included in this

4) Now after committing such acts they had to justify these things in one way or the other. Hence they came up with many explanations like Vishnu being a ruler Brahma Creator and Shiva the destroyer. Also the story of Vrinda being devotee of Vishnu in previous birth etc are apologist versions and are of later development. In-spite of all this explanations a fact stands out that these are all explanations of certain section of people who people believe in certain belief system. Vishnu or Narayan was never accepted or accorded a Supreme God head by people who have been even metaphorically been deceived by him. So all these explanations stand null and void.

Even Lord Shiva was made part of yagnya only after the landmark event of daksha yagnya. so the present system of trimurti is a result of syncretism of various sects which evolved into mains stream Hinduism.

However considering all the above facts we should not be afraid to call a spade as spade and we should not meekly put up some apologist versions to justify some wrong which has been done.

I definitely agree with author of this thread that some of our puranic narrations to be overtly biased towards devas and highly hostile to Asuras. Which has to be accepted and agreed upon.

Regards

krishna