I'll comment on last night's topic here, since it'll probably go on for some days and was not on last night's episode alone.
For starters, I'm pleasantly surprised that they showed this story more or less authentically, given the way they've so gingerly treated Vishnu's past wrongdoings - whether it was at Daksha's yagna, his confrontation w/ Veerbhadra, his role in the Tripura incident or what he really did in the Vrsng avatar. Only thing here - Parvati's role in instigating Vishnu to do this deed has been totally whitewashed, and Lakshmi is shown as being the one who instigated Vishnu. Never thought I'd see that day in this serial.
Now, coming to the scene itself last night, I know that what Vishnu did was controversial, but even assuming his rationale for doing what he did (whether in the original or here), he treated this a lot more gracelessly than he could have. For starters, once he had achieved his purpose in damaging Vrinda's chastity, he should have stayed silent. (It would have been funny had Vrinda told him, saas bahu style, not to mention her name w/ his dirty mouth 😈)
It was fine of him to tell her that he accepted her curse, but ridiculous of him to bless her w/ being eternally associated w/ him, when Vrinda from that moment found that association repugnant. I mean, substitute Vrinda w/ Sita and Vishnu w/ Ravan - what would one think if Ravan said that Sita would be forever associated w/ him? That statement actually struck me as more lusty, even if that wasn't the intent. The last thing Vishnu worshipers should do is have Vrinda in the puja scene as well, and the last thing that Vrinda admirers should do is associate her w/ Vishnu: if she should be associated w/ anyone, that should be Jalandhar.
I also thought that Vrinda's curse was the wrong one, and also, its implementation was misapplied. Vrinda should have cursed Vishnu - just like Shiva cursed Brahma - that he'd never be worshiped. That would have been his proper punishment. Or if he was to be separated from Lakshmi, that separation should have been eternal. After all, Jalandhar did not ever get back Vrinda, and also, Rama was not the cause of her chastity being violated, so roasting him was just a temporary retribution for someone else's permanent damage. Once Rama's avatar was over, Lakshmi was again re-united w/ Vishnu - something that Vrinda didn't get. But IMO, the cleaner way of doing this would have been to end Vishnu's worship just like Brahma's, and that way, Sita or Lakshmi wouldn't have had to bear the brunt of Vrinda's curse - it would have applied only to Vishnu. Sometimes, a hand for an eye or a fist for a tooth is a better idea.
On Vrinda herself - as far as this story goes, if she was indeed a Vishnu devotee and if Jalandhar did object to it, this incident would have taught her what Sukhracharya & Jalandhar already knew - that Vishnu would never be fair to the asuras in any dispute. She was an asura princess & queen - what did she imagine? Neha displayed this realization on the part of Vrinda beautifully last night. I have no idea whether the Shiva Purana version has Vrinda as a Vishnu devotee, but if she was, it would have been a salutary lesson for her and those who thought that Narayan could be just regardless of the group that a person belonged to.
Seher Hone Ko Hai
