Jalandhar is not a villain/ DT Nt pg 11 - Page 7

Originally posted by: viper833

First not true,
Have you heard of Vaihnavites ( 2/3 Majority of all Hindus considered themseleves Vaishnaviates)
and they are not a fringe group.

Second
That your opinion what moral and not moral.I
from your pov All devas and two tridev are wrong and made mistake. Well all three tridev made mistakes ok. I have example of all the tridev mistakes but i will not state them here.

I Believe that none of the Tridev made any mistake as it is there Maya.

Originally posted by: sashashyam

Dear Krishna,

Thank you for a very interesting and distinct take on all this. I agree that in the end, it all comes down to anthropology, and the inter-tribal interactions across our vast country.

For example, in some parts of Tamil Nadu, where I come from, Ravana is seen as a hero and a champion of the Dravidians against an invasion by the Aryans led by Lord Rama. Of course current historians have started debunking the Aryan invasion theory my generation grew up taking for granted.

To revert, there was a very famous play called Lankeswaran, of course with Ravana as the central figure, produced and acted in by a noted Tamil theatre personality called Manohar. This was about 45 years ago, and I saw the play when I was schooling in Chennai (then Madras). Ravana was shown as a very great scholar, which he was. And, hold your breath, Sita was his daughter, from whom he had to be separated because of a curse. So he puts the baby Sita in a gold box, travels underground, and places the box in the field where Janaka later finds her. The whole of the Sita apaharan was thus, in this radically different version, an attempt by Ravana to get his daughter back with him.

The play was hugely successful, so much so that for the rest of his long theatrical innings, he was always known as Lankeswaran Manohar. I wonder if such a totally different take on the Ramayana would go down as well today. People are much quicker these days to react to any real or imagined slight to their traditional beliefs.

Warm regards.

Shyamala B.Cowsik

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

On your authority and POV your stated a what you believe is a fact where which instead opinion.

Originally posted by: kkr531

I

1 NNarayan 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.

who are vaishnaviate if only Devas believe in them Lord Narayan?

Originally posted by: kkr531

I

2) 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.

Again your Opinion which you have right make but what give the authority judge what is justifiable (moral) of not justifiable (immoral) are the any on the following

Lord Narayan = For Vaishnavites

Lord Shiva = For Shivaite

Goddess Shakti = Durga/Amba mata

God = For Christians

Allah = For Islam

Are any of the deity listed above that gives you right judge what moral or immoral.

Originally posted by: kkr531

I

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.

Originally posted by: kkr531

I

Puranas are not an authority in Hindus, only vedas and Upanishads are accepted as ultimate authority in Hinduism by all sects present in it. So they are open to interpretation, adaptation and even addition. So everybody can his have his own opinion on puranas.

What about the Bhavagt Gita and Ramayana?

I know what in puranas the there are something's that all tridevs have done something that is not kosher but I can list them all but I respect and believe both Lord Narayan and Lord Shiva so I considered it a leela or there maya not because it unexplainable. The vedas does state who the supreme deities is but I will not make that clear. So that why I use the purana who the diffent sect can chose who they considered the Supreme.

BTW people from the South India one of the most oldest sect of Vaishnavites is from the South. The Shri Vaishnav sect is the most orthodox among the Vasihnavites.

Originally posted by: Zoyal

awesome post 👏 thankz

Originally posted by: canapoem

Awesome post!!!

Originally posted by: viper833

On your authority and POV your stated a what you believe is a fact where which instead opinion.

who are vaishnaviate if only Devas believe in them Lord Narayan?

Again your Opinion which you have right make but what give the authority judge what is justifiable (moral) of not justifiable (immoral) are the any on the following

Lord Narayan = For Vaishnavites

Lord Shiva = For Shivaite

Goddess Shakti = Durga/Amba mata

God = For Christians

Allah = For Islam

Are any of the deity listed above that gives you right judge what moral or immoral.

What about the Bhavagt Gita and Ramayana?

I know what in puranas the there are something's that all tridevs have done something that is not kosher but I can list them all but I respect and believe both Lord Narayan and Lord Shiva so I considered it a leela or there maya not because it unexplainable. The vedas does state who the supreme deities is but I will not make that clear. So that why I use the purana who the diffent sect can chose who they considered the Supreme.

BTW people from the South India one of the most oldest sect of Vaishnavites is from the South. The Shri Vaishnav sect is the most orthodox among the Vasihnavites.