Originally posted by: vinuchand
You are entitled to your belief Janaki and me to mine. I do dis agree.
Comparison between Rama and Krishna itself is not right. They were completely different. Rama never knew or he never showed that he was an incarnation. Whereas Krishna from day has known the purpose of his existence. Ram may not have shown as many miracles as Krishna, but he definitely did show some...no normal human could have turned a stone into a woman without freaking out😆, so just that fact itself tells me that Ram knew he was God, but acted like a human to teach people how to live the ideal life.😳 How can God not know about himself, especially Lord Narayana? There were also other incidents, like sages bowing down to him during vanvaas, killing Khar and Dushan's 14,000 rakshas with just one arrow, etc, and remember, after Ram killed Ravan and the devtas appeared to him, Brahma told him that he was the avatar of Lord Vishnu, and Ram neither denied it nor did he proclaim himself to be god. He said that in that life, he was the son of Dashrath and that is all he knows.
I dont think its Sathybhama's interpretation. It is something which has passed through generations. and If all 8 were Lakshmi's amsas and his soul mates, then, why only Rukmini offered the tulsi and the balance was rectified. It is stated in the Bhagwat Puraan that all eight chief queens of Krishna were the avatars of the ashta Lakshmis, and Rukmini was Adi Lakshmi (or the complete one). All the other wives were under Yogmaya's illusion so that they could enjoy being the wives of Krishna as ordinary humans, without knowing of their divine identities. Only Rukmini and Krishna knew about their divine avatars. There is some meaning and substance to it. I completely dis agree here.
Whether a true parent or not, every parent has a favourite. I definitely don't agree with this statement. How can a parent love one child more than another, when both were born from him/her? I agree that some parents may connect with one child over the other because of common interests and all (which is why we hear terms like daddy's little girl or mommy's boy), but parents do not have favorites and they do love all equally. Even preference is a wrong word for this, I would call it bonding because parents do not feel happier in the presence of one child over the other. Having preference is definitely not a universal truth because it is against morality and moreover wrong. They may not make an express distinction but they definitely prefer one over the other and this is a universal truth. Just beacuse they prefer one over the other does not mean they are bad parents.
And since Krishna married 16,108 or 16008 wives not all can be termed as avatars of Lakshmi. The 16. 100 wives were women during the Treta Yug who wished to marry Ram but could not because he was an Eka Patnivrat, while Krishna's eight queens were the Ashta Lakshmis. Many don't know this, but it is stated explicitly in the Bhagwat Puraan.
Infact no record stated Duryodhana or Dristrashtra as being unjust or unfair except to the Pandavas. Perhaps Duryodhana was a good ruler, but Dhritarastra was definitely a bad King because for the sake of his ego, he sacrificed the lives of thousands. He never stopped his sons from doing ill deeds and a righteous King should never be partial to his family when situation requires him to be totally impartial. Dhritarastra is the best example of how bad a King can go. Their is no record as far I know that they illtretaed their subjects or were bad kings.
And as an incarnation, they were supposed ehibit those very traits of a Human. They were God's incarnation in human form. They were supposed to exhibit the good traits of a human, not the bad. The point of their incarnations was to teach human how to live, how to help society, and how to be a good, moral human being. That is why Ram showed people the advantages of a one man-one woman marriage, and Krishna taught people how politics should be. Even with his many wives, Krishna never had any favorites or attachments. In the Brahma Vaivarta Puraan, Radha accuses Krishna at one point of having no attachments, and Krishna tells her that she is right. He was the avatar that was attached to no one. He performed his duty and taught people what Dharma was, but he also taught them how a human can go astray with too many emotions and attachments. He was Prem Avataar, but at the same time he was a Yogi.
And just beacuse some os said to be preferred or a favpourite does not imply or mean that the others were treated badly or ignored. It definitely does, because if one wife is the favorite over another, that means the others are considered lesser or less important, and that itself gives a negative feeling of neglect, sadness, and/or jealousy to the other wives. I don't believe Krishna would ever have done this to his other wives.🤔
Mannat Har Khushi Paane Ki
Sensational South
Bigg Boss 19
