one serious doubt..!!! - Page 4

Originally posted by: varaali

The story goes like this-

Markandeya was absorbed in Shiva Puja when Yama approached him. As Yama, seated on the black buffalo threw his noose around Markandeya, the lad in desperation hugged the Shivalinga which he had been worshipping.

Gods have always had to appear in response to devotees heart rending pleas- be it Draupadi or Prahlada or in this case Markandeya ... An effulgent form Shiva sprang out of the linga and kicked Yama with His left leg.

This was the Kaala-Samhaara -Murthi (Kaala- meaning Yama, Samhaara meaning Defeat)- form of Shiva and this is supposed to have occured in Tirukkadayur- a pilgrimage spot in Tamil Nadu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirukadaiyur

Originally posted by: _Vrish_

Tan

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.