one serious doubt..!!! - Page 2

Hemant Chadda - Balaram - once had a role in Geet, as well as in Surya the super cop.

I see what you are saying about a real avatar being unaware about who he is. That was true in Valmiki's Ramayan, although a lot of other versions turned it around and made Rama fully aware of who he was. But w/ Krishna, all the records - like his showing his Vishwaroop in the Kaurava court - seemed to suggest that he knew precisely who he was. That's how he was different. Of course, those who analyze it historically usually discount the miracles, as well as the divine projections w/ them.

I agree w/ you that it's impossible to pinpoint what is true and what ain't. But one thing that struck me about both this serial as well as the AS Ramayan was that they showed Vishnu & Lakshmi both in their heavenly abode @ the same time that their avatars were here on earth. This is not something I've read anywhere, and in fact flies in the face of claims that they are 2 and the same. And yeah, the serial, again like AS Ramayan, does have a disclaimer about not claiming to be authentic, and so I am not faulting it there.

However, in my initial observations about this serial in other threads, I did have problems w/ Krishna's philosophy being distorted. Everybody knows what he taught Arjun in the Gita, and everybody knows why he allowed the Kurukshetra war to happen in a way that ensured that there were only 11 survivors. So if one has that in mind, the dialogs he had w/ Balaram in the episodes in the first week were really bizarre. He talked about how when a soldier is killed, his family also suffers as a result, and so on, all before running away to the Gomantak mountain which Jarasandha then burned.

Usually, on the subject of warfare, there are 2 very diametrically opposite philosophies - the 'just war' philosophy, and the pacifist philosophy, and where people come down typically determines their political bent. The pacifist philosophy is usually about avoiding war @ all costs, and while it's true that Krishna went to the Kauravas w/ peace proposals, he never went w/ the idea that if the Kauravas refused to give anything, that would be an acceptable arrangement. The just war philosophy, on the other hand, clearly identifies the good and evil, and argues that going to war is not just right, but the dutiful thing to do. That's what happened in the Ramayan, and in Kurukshetra, that's what Krishna did as well.

I therefore don't have so much of a problem when they change the story, like for instance making Rukmi a villain who ousts his father and seizes the throne. But I do have a problem when Krishna argues just like a peacenik would, when in reality, he was completely dedicated to destroying what was evil, even if it meant killing relatives who were evil, such as uncle Kamsa, cousin Sishupal and so on.

In Vaishnavism, this is what is normally told, Radha was the daughter of Vrishabhanu. Vrishnabhnau himself was king Suchandra in his previous life. Suchandra and his wife had done penance and got a boon that Goddess Lakshmi will be born as their daughter, which i think, Brahma had said that their wish will be fulfillled in dwapara yuga when Radha will be born in their house. as such vrishabhanu and his wife were reborn and Lakshmi was born as Radha. It also believed thatNarada hiolself went to Vrishabhanu before Radha;s birh and prophesised that her beauty and nature will be divine and whereever she sets her foot, Lord Vishnu will reside.

So Lakshmi being Sakthi had many manifestations one among that of Radha the predecessor to Rukmini if I may say so. Thats the reason many give for Radha being worshipped with Krishna more often and in many places.

I have even heard of what Sindhuch above has posted.

But Rukmi's characterisation is awful as also is Jarasandha's. They have a fabulous actor for Jarasandha I hope they dont make a caricature out of it. Given all Jarasandha's flaws, I have never ever heard that his subjects were unhappy. He was also known for his charity and never ever refusing anyone asking for alms.

But krishna's philosophy on life, his flute playing and him mocking balarama literally piuts me off.

Krishna avatar infact has over shadowed all his other avatars. It was possible one of hois longest avatars.

And vrish,

regarding incarnation of Vishnu and Lakshmi and Adisesha following him, it was applicable only for Rama and Krishna. Rama avatar, as I mentioned in my other post Vishnu was cursed by Bhrigu to suffer the pangs of seperation from his wife as Vishnu had killed Bhrigu's wife. Thus, the necessity of Lakshmi's avatar. Similarly in Krishna avatar, it is said that the avatar was required to depict what people will be like in future.

Parasurama was in fact an incarnation with the sole purpose of destroying sinful and destructive kshtriyas who were causing havoc. And many beleive the reason why he is not worshipped is that Parasurama is still alive while some say that he was bale to give up his wordly body with the help of guru dattatreya.

You know plenty yourself - don't sell yourself short 😆

Only point of possible disagreement - I think Parashuram was the longest avatar - he lasted much of Treta Yug, entire Dwapar Yug, and is supposedly still alive. Rama & Krishna only lasted a small fraction of their respective yugas. Except that his representation of Vishnu supposedly ended during his encounter w/ Rama after the latter's marriage, and so he could have been shorter. But then again, Rama ruled for 11,000 years: how long was Krishna on Bhulok?

I too have never read of Jarasandha being a tyrant, as they showed in the episode where he kills one of his soldiers just to demonstrate his own strength (as Bugs Bunny would say, what a maroon!!!) His main fault was his imprisoning several kings and planning to sacrifice them once that number reached 100. Other than that, his problem was that he felt obliged to avenge the widowing of both his daughters, and made enemies of the Yadavs.

And neither was Rukmi - but here, they've almost made him like Kamsa, dethroning his father and seizing power. 😡 In addition to killing a messenger who was giving his father the news of Kalyavan's death. 🤢 I really don't see the need to demonize Jarasandha & Rukmi in order to rationalize Krishna's fighting them - what Krishna did was correct in the bigger picture, despite Jarasandha and Rukmi not being totally evil.

But like you, Krishna constantly mocking Balaram really pisses me off - unlike others, I did not find his dialogs w/ Balaram amusing where he tells him that people may be doubting his valor given that he fled... His flute playing is annoying, but not nearly as annoying as his obvious disrespect for his elder brother. In reality, the only time Krishna played such games w/ Balaram was during Subhadra's proposed marriage, where Krishna prevented it from being Duryodhan, and after Bhima struck Duryodhan on his thighs. Otherwise, Krishna always loved and respected Balaram. When after he arranged for the handover to Arjun, he went to see Balaram and saw the serpant leave the latter's mouth, he got depressed and decided that his time too was up, and went and lay down under a tree. He didn't have the heart to wait for Arjun to arrive now that Balaram was gone. He didn't react that way when Pradhyumna & Satyaki were killed - he plucked a grass which became a mace, and started fighting.

Finally, on Lakshmi, I understand the reason Sita had to be incarnated - there were several. But did Lakshmi take Rukmini's avatar simply b'cos she didn't want to be left out while Vishnu's avatar took other wives that he had according to some legends been promised to? B'cos there was nothing she did that wouldn't have happened had she not been around. Krishna's enemity w/ Sishupal would have been unchanged, since the latter was already Jarasandha's ally, Rukmini or no Rukmini.

Also, some of the avatar stories are confusing - in the Ramayan forum, I read one about Brahma trying to press Rama to marry Vedavati after Ravan's deaht, and even Sita releasing him from that ek-patni vow and offering to accept her as a co-wife, but Rama refusing to budge on his vow. Of course, problem w/ that a/c was that Sita was Vedavati reborn, but that didn't stop a story existing where both were simultaneously 😕

Vishnuji in his Ram avtar was born as maryada-purushottam, with 12 kalas, whereas in Krishna-avtar, he was born as purn purushottam, with all 16 kalas. Krishnam Vande Jagadguru. As Krishna, he guided people. With Radhaji he showed path of love & devotion to people, that's why We mostly see Radha-Krishna temples.

As per Devi-Bhagwat, Radhaji lives permanently in Golok, with Krishna. Due to some reason, she was born asVrishbhanu's daughter in Vrindavan. Without worshiping Radhaji, Krishna can not be worshiped, because she rulls Krishna's heart, she is the godess of Krishna's Raasleela. So Radhaji is not a Laxmiji's incarnation.