|| Atha Shri Krishna Katha || - My Journey - Page 19

Originally posted by: JanakiRaghunath

I'm glad we're in agreement about the Kaikeyi concept, Shiv, nothing more to say on that.😃 And yes, it really is very bewildering why Nand-Yashoda never went to see Krishna, Balram, and the others. Nand and Vasudev were said to be close childhood friends, so even without the connection they shared as co-fathers of Krishna, it is really puzzling why they never met up.😕 Nice valid addition.

I guess maybe Krishna was too busy during the Mahabharat phase aiding the Pandavas and all, but that's absurd. Who is too busy for parents and family? Plus, he spent many years in Dwaraka during Pandavas' exile, so even during then Nand and Yashoda could have come.

Right. But even if Krishna was too busy in his duties anyway (which he was but was also in Dwarika for quite sometime despite always fulfilling some duty or the other related to dharmsansthapan), just the parents could have lived with each other together like a big happy family as family friends (or even as frequent guests even in absence of Krishna) put Krishna's availability aside.

I read that Nand, Yashoda, and Radha meet Krishna during the eclipse that happened sometimes towards the end of the Kurukshetra war, and they had a reunion then, but other than that....I find it unbelievable that they did not visit. With Radha I can understand since Shridhama's curse came between them, but what about Nand and Yashoda?

Yes. Apart from Shridama's curse, Radha was also married woman as per some sources and anyhow she had no socially known relation with Krishna other than being his sakhi. So that is still not questionable. Regarding Nand-Yashoda, in Harivanshpuran, it is written that Krishna gave them the darshan towards the end of the life ("I will come back again once" that is the promise given by Krishna to gopis while leaving Vraj as shown in the serial).

What I also always felt was that Nand and Yashoda should have had another child. I know they wished only to witness Krishna's childhood and not necessarily have him as their own son, but God could have given them another child so that he or she could have been their companion in old age. I find Nand and Yashoda's life after Kans Vadh really sad and tragic, they were literally bereft of a child's love and had only each other for company. I wonder why God did not bless them with another child after Krishna. Krishna could have had a younger sibling too, and it would have made Nand and Yashoda's pain slighly lesser if another child demanded their love and attention after Krishna's absence.

That we can actually still consider Nand-Yashoda's destiny rather than injustice with them because they had no child for long many years anyhow before Krishna's birth and God's grace of Yogmaya baby born (who was a girl again and not a boy) was just a bonus or surplus for them and Krishna's childhood was the fruit of that yagya (which was their praarabdh karma having its mythological connection way back with Krityug austerity) in essence (even though the actual fruit of that yagya was gone in the sky). We can compare this with the king Janak who had no child and got a child by God's grace and that too was girl who was to leave his house in future eventually.

And you also made an interesting point about Gokul being a part of Mathura. I think it was, as Kans killed all the babies in the Kingdom around the time Krishna had been born, and it included Gokul's babies. But dunno why they were not taken to Dwaraka...maybe only the people of the Royal City were?

Yes. Precisely the same. Since all Vraj villages were connected to and part of Mathura kingdom (not the Mathura city - capital of the kingdom), they should have been qualified for that migration and they should also fall within the danger zone of Jarasandh's wrath (as they actually brought up that child and were all well wishers having bondage with that child who was enemy of Jarasandh and responsible according to him for the widowhood of his daughters).

And I also cannot wait to write about the Dwait-Adwait part of the episode, I really loved that conversation so much, as well as Gargacharya's following discourse to Akrur about the importance of love amidst politics.😍 I will definitely be spending a lot of time on those two scenes, they were really taken sooo well that it never gets boring re-watching them.👏 In fact, most scenes in Ramayan and SK do not get boring to re-watch, so my previous comment was unnecessary.😆

Ha ha ha. So very true. In fact, every time we watch again, the interest increases even more than before due to the more and more depth and bliss felt.

Yes, my DVD did have the Chaitanya Mahaprabhu part in it, and I loved seeing SDB like that.👏 He had that natural grace and divinity in his look as he danced, could totally imagine him in that role though I did not see the movie you referred to.😍

Yes you probably might not have seen that movie (Krishna in it is our Nitish Bharadwaj only but Chaitanya is another Bengali actor Saaheb Chatterjee who has also done well though) that I guessed because I am not sure (don't remember) that is available with English subtitles or not. But I referred to that movie since its youtube link, direction-actor information and song lyrics were posted before by Debipriya in MB CC and its link later was also posted by Anku in R-SK CC5 regarding one scene of it of mathematics class (significance of numbers 8 and 9) so I thought the name or existence of the movie would still be popularly known here.

No, Akrur or anyone else did not refer to the Govardhan story in that scene, so few years probably already passed by the time he came to visit Devaki and Vasudev. That's what I also thought, that the Ashok-Swapnil transition only showed repeat scenes of Ashok since it was nothing new, I guess they wanted Swapnil's entrance to be creative so they did the transition.

Right. So I have no problem with Ashok-Swapnil transition. That is just alright because both back to back songs ('Shyam tere kaam' and 'Manmohan lala') also showed phases of Krishna even before Ashok. But I agree about Swapnil-SDB transition. Just a while ago Swapnil gave darshan to Muchkund in the cave and when he was back in Mathura before Jarasandh army came to support the army of Kalyavan, he became SDB.😆 Although they have tried to hide this fault by showing in next Ramanand Sagar commentary the wars for many years between Jarasandh and Krishna and that transition is shown that way in commentary. But such 17 wars for many years were already over before calling Kalyavan (there is one song mentioning about it) and hence Kalyavan war is supposed to be the last one the way it is portrayed in the serial (also mentioned in sources too that it was the war or avoided war - just a failed invasion - which was along side the migration event). So actually if they wanted to do that transition smartly, they should have cut one small scene before that commentary where Jarasandh looks at one Yavan army head and gives instructions about who will lead which troop to invade which gate of the city. This small scene has the indication that it was the same time war where Yavan army was already there and Jarasandh army just joined and Krishna must have come back from Muchkund's cave. The best transition would have been to show SDB straightaway in Dwarika only after Revati's marriage with Balram - because that event is also supposed to be immediate after migration.

Anyhow, I enjoyed your reply so thanks a lot for that!🤗 Keep posting here!😃😉

Sure.😊🤗 Now you can clearly notice the natural tendency of mine how spontaneous it is.😆

Originally posted by: ShivangBuch

Originally posted by: JanakiRaghunath

Originally posted by: lola610

@ Vedo - another beautiful entry hun, thanks again!! 🤗 Totally my pleasure! Gotta agree about the cuteness of little makhan chor bowing left and right after his mommy freaks out having seen the universe in his mouth, as well as the adorable speech of the slightly older makhan chor... "matki pholun?" Yes soooo darn adorable!! 🤣 That kid is awesome, I feel like giving him a high five and doing the little victory dance with him when he's being such an adorable brat 😆 Mee too but I must say that if he was my kid he would have definitely been spanked!! Being honest here!! 😳 I am the strict disciplinarian in my family and Kanha's acts are so naughty here! 😆 Let's call it a mother's prerogative! 😆

rofl @ your "nahinnnnn", thank God they didn't have Naradji do that and kept it subtle 🤣 I agree, just imagining it has me in splits, Naradji's reactions were sublte but oh so meaningful...like if he could already feel the pain of his Lord! 😳And that acceptance of whatever devotees give him is a beautiful message to get out of this scene, a wonderful echoing of the Gita's "patram pushpam phalam toyam"... very well said 👏 Yes Prabhu is soo...what can I say....all merciful that he accepts even the tiniest bit of love and devotion offered onto him! And last but not least, obviously agree about Narad - both his acting and his dialogue for that scene have a special place in my heart, love love LOVE it 😍 Can't wait for more!!! More coming soon! 😃

Originally posted by: JanakiRaghunath

@Shiv,

It's an interesting comparison between Meera-Radha, but there is a debate between whether Meerabai was a re-incarnation of Lalitha, Radha, etc or if she was just a normal devotee without divine origin, while we know for sure that Radhaji was Lakshmi avatar, so I find that fact hard to believe that she married someone else. Radha and Krishna's love itself caused talk in society, and yet they did not desist because of the pressure, so I do not think Radha would have married because of society's pressure. But anyhow, we will never know for sure I guess since it happened so long ago.😳

Yes. Definitely. It is not clear whether Meera was Radha's incarnation/reincarnation or Lalita's reincarnation but anyway she was Radha's ansh or Radha's form only even if she was Lalita's reincarnation or a normal devotee. And for Radhaji also, there are plenty of different theories. As per one theory she is Jeevaatmaa longing for or suffering to meet Parmaatmaa. As per one theory she is body/sharir/Vyakt prakriti/expressed or expressive nature of God. As per one theory she is Prem lakshanaa bhakti symbol. As per one theory she is Lakshmi avataar. As per one theory she is mother of the universe (aadhaar/base of everything) and even mother of Vishnu explicitly mentioned in the source (so mother in law of Lakshmi 😊 😕) and other half of Supreme soul which is Ardhanaarishwar. So Radhaji is a character also and Radhaji is a concept (some eternal element of the universe present in all actively or in dormant state) also and subject matter of individual faith of all alternative approaches of devotion. So that element was always there in Meera like in every Gopi and every devotee or lover. And yes I can understand you when you say that you find it difficult that she could marry someone else but I still find no difficulty in it (if she married as a matter of her social duty) because when Meera also married, only her body - physical action of 7 phere - married while performing that procedure/marriage ceremony. Mentally she had already married to Krishna and she was also mentally not taking those marriage ceremony promises in their true essence while marriage ceremony was going on. She just accepted that relation from social perspective and never spiritually. Spiritually she was always of Krishna. So this itself can be intuited for Radhaji. She never left the essence of her eternal relation with Krishna known to her. Outward behaviour was immaterial when mind was always meditating in Krishna only.

Originally posted by: ShivangBuch

By connecting her with Meera it makes a lot more sense, but I guess I've been connecting her with Sita Ma all this time so that's why it did not make sense. Either way....both versions of the story could be true in different manvantaras, to exhibit different ideals, I guess.

Originally posted by: JanakiRaghunath

Yes, if you put it like that I guess it is not so hard to believe, but every time I associate Lakshmi Ma with her incarnation as Sita, I find it hard to believe that her other incarnation as Radha would not give marriage the same importance Sitaji gave....after all Sita Ma was the ideal wife, so why would she not display the same qualities as Radha Maiyya? And if she did....I find it hard to believe that she would think of no other man than her husband because Krishna was always supreme in her mind. So by thinking of Krishna, would she not be going against the ideal of marriage?

By connecting her with Meera it makes a lot more sense, but I guess I've been connecting her with Sita Ma all this time so that's why it did not make sense. Either way....both versions of the story could be true in different manvantaras, to exhibit different ideals, I guess.😳

Yes. Possibilities are wide open from social point of view. But its spiritual essence always remains the same. Yes. I understand what you mean to say. Meera thinking only of Krishna and considering him only as husband by clearly saying this to her husband Rana Bhojraj openly treating marriage as a formality is different from Radha doing the same with her husband Ayyan as Krishna was a living person also contemporary. So marrying someone and thinking about someone else could go against the ideals of marriage. And in any action, your heart and mind are somewhere and body is somewhere else (which actually was the destiny of Radha's incarnation whether married or not isn't it?). This reminded me of Bhishma's complicated stance in Kurukshetra war. He was loyal to Duryodhan/Dhritarashtra only mechanically and not totally by heart. Was he still fulfilling his oath in essence or he had already broken it?

But then the argument completely rests on the fact whether Radha believed the actual husband as her husband ever or not. If not, then what she would be doing by considering Krishna only as her husband whom she had already married mentally recognizing her true form and eternal relation was her inner voice of soul and never sin and mechanically what she did was from social perspective. She is breaking norms then only by betraying her husband mechanically. I may be wrong here since what we are discussing is sensitive topic which gets mixed up sometimes between their actions as humans applicable to other humans to imitate and their actions as supreme leelas. We all live in this world and think about Krishna. She lived in her own given social world (as a part of Shridama's curse) and kept on meditating on Krishna whose spiritual entity she already had recognized. Actual saansaarik marriage with Krishna didn't become possible and she might have recognized her own situations forcing her to marry mechanically to someone else treating it just as outward relation from others' angle. Even if we compare her with Sita mata, then also essence is important and not what looks from outside from saansaarik point of view. And Sita mata demonstrated her independence like Durga when she was in Ashok van and in Valmiki's aashram. Radha could have demonstrated the same independence like Durga (what we find in swachchhand Meera) in her love & devotion mentally despite physically engaged in different activity. Spiritual independence. And Sita Mata was also a queen whereas Radhaji was an innocent Gopika if you look at them from human point of view idealizing dharma of the mortal world. Even Krishna acted differently from Ram in that sense but whoever Krishna married was Radha for him and was done to save lives under certain forcing situations.

And guess what is going on right now in front of me on DVD. My favourite scene of Garg-Akrur.😊 And just when I was reading your post and writing the above reply, Radha's pride part was going on when Krishna says that he looks Radha in every Gopi.😊 Next is the Gauripooja song to get Krishna as husband and the boon granted by Shailputri maa to all Gopis in spiritual essence.😊

And one more thing. Do you know why in all marriage ceremonies, the father in law touches and washes feet of son in law and takes that water? It is because in all marriage ceremonies, spiritually every couple is looked at or should be looked at by us as Lakshmi-Narayan (so it is the procedure of stepping into the shoes of the Ocean God - father of Lakshmi - and seeing sacredly to son in law to be Vishnu). And marriage taking place with that MAANAS POOJA bhaav will have the greatest of essence and should turn out to be actual Lakshmi Narayan marriage life in terms of mutual relationship. Ironically Radha in this sansaar didn't marry to Krishna however Rukmini did (who is clearly Lakshmi's incarnation as per every theory). I mean to say that even though we popularly say SiyaRam and RadheShyam but I am more comfortable in comparing Rukmini with Sita mata than Radha with Sita mata (Noteworthy point is that Rukminiji was also princess and she also preferred to die rather than marrying someone else other than Krishna - this is clear reflection of Lakshmiji or Sitaji.). Radha's major source is Brahmvaivart Puran where Krishna himself is given the place above Vishnu what I understand from its parts so Radha can't be Lakshmi's incarnation from that point of view. Either she is Lakshmi's incarnation or Lord Krishna's own mirror image or she is beyond our understanding in terms of her mythological origin with mind lost between all theories of different ancient and modern sources. Radhaji is more portrayed as concepts in sources than just a mythological personality (bhakti/prakriti/sharir/jeevatma etc) so applying that theory of different manvatar story repeat with random changes is difficult in her case like in any other case. If we look at her as character, it is not as clear as other Ramayan and Mahabharat characters to grasp in terms of her actions as Vyasji has not conceived her the way Valmiki conceived Sita mata. I hope you understand what I mean to say. I mean Radhaji is much better to just accept and feel about than to think about (& getting confused) and beyond the sphere of other moral boundaries which are below pure love.