{| Doubts and Discussions about Mahabharata - 2 |}

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

Shivani Priyam Kumar

@Meself

Rocker

+ 3

Posted: 11 years ago

#301

I found a very interesting article on the internet saying that Parvati is the truest manifestation of Adi-Shakti and that Lord Vishnu and Lordess Parvati are considered as cosmic siblings. If that is the case then Subhadra should be the incarnation of Lordess Parvati; but then Draupadi too is said to be a human form of Lordess Parvati. My head is totally confused; someone please help!!

Quote

Surya Sundarraj Sriram

@Surya_krsnbhakt

Dazzler

Posted: 11 years ago

#302

Originally posted by: Meself
I found a very interesting article on the internet saying that Parvati is the truest manifestation of Adi-Shakti and that Lord Vishnu and Lordess Parvati are considered as cosmic siblings. If that is the case then Subhadra should be the incarnation of Lordess Parvati; but then Draupadi too is said to be a human form of Lordess Parvati. My head is totally confused; someone please help!!

Adishakti is diversity - you can never tell how she works.. and how many ever forms she takes. Even Jambavati, along with Subhadra and Draupadi are parts of Devi (notice how I am not mentioning Parvati anwhere...)..

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

Cherry

@chirpy_life19

Inactive

+ 2

Posted: 11 years ago

#303

Originally posted by: Bhabhuha

Wearing Chhodamani was part of marriage traditions.
It died down as Indian soceity became poor due to External invasions
My greatgrand ma bought choodamani for all daughters and daughter-in-laws saying it is the tradition and as we can now afford it, we should do it

She insists on wearing it every day though we can't wear it to office

Wow!👏If you don't mind,to which part of the country you belong to!?😳

Edited by Cool-n-Fresh - 11 years ago

Quote

Shivani Priyam Kumar

@Meself

Rocker

+ 3

Posted: 11 years ago

#304

Originally posted by: Surya_krsnbhakt

Adishakti is diversity - you can never tell how she works.. and how many ever forms she takes. Even Jambavati, along with Subhadra and Draupadi are parts of Devi (notice how I am not mentioning Parvati anwhere...)..

So would it be correct to say that Adi-Shakti is the cosmic energy? But if so then why do its mentioned eveywhere that she is the consort to Shiva?

Edited by Meself - 11 years ago

Quote

TheWatcher

@TheWatcher

Voyager

Posted: 11 years ago

#305

@Meself

Okay I will try to explain from what I understood.

Adi-Shakti is the energy which the universe uses, all of the energy which is present in the Universe is none other than Ad-Shakti herself.

Adi-Shakti is the personal abode of Lord Shiva ( One can say that Ad-Shakti is the female aspect of Lord Shiva ). Parvati is a full incarnation of Adi-Shaki, hence, she is Adi-Shakti herself. Like Krishna is the purna avatar of Lord Vishnu, Parvati is the purna avatar of Adi-Shakt. There is no difference between the two.

Shiva gave his female energy to Brahma to create the universe. Obviously, without energy nothing can be created, Shiva's female energy is her consort but he already donated it to Brahma to keep the universe running. But Adi-Shakti took an full incarnation of Parvati to be with her consort Lord Shiva

Edited by TheWatcher - 11 years ago

Quote

K.Puja Biswas

@Pikachu_007

Dazzler

Posted: 11 years ago

#306

Can anyone tell me why don't bride's of those era don't wear sindur?

Quote

Shivani Priyam Kumar

@Meself

Rocker

+ 3

Posted: 11 years ago

#307

@ TheWatcher..thank you so much. The entire thing is now cleared. So it should be safe to say that Adi-Shakti/Parvati/Devi is the dynamic entity that executes the functioning. Thank you for clearing it for me!!

Quote

Justitia

@Justitia

Rocker

Posted: 11 years ago

#308

Blame my lack of understanding for this.

But, what is the main significance of Dhritarashtra receiving the Gita updesh (from Sanjaya)? Granted, it might've not really made an impact on him, but he still received it...

How is it that a person who was completely "blind" to his son's misdeeds actually gets the Gita narrated to him (even if it is through a "secondary" source)?

I mean, if Dhritarashtra (of all people) can receive the Gita gyaan, then why not Bhishma or Drona or anybody else?

Everybody asks "Why Arjuna?"

But nobody seems to ask "How AND Why Dhritarashtra?"

Quote

Surya Sundarraj Sriram

@Surya_krsnbhakt

Dazzler

Posted: 11 years ago

#309

@Shani interesting..

But I think that even though he received it, it was of no use at all. When Arjuna himself could forget it after a few months, then Dhriti would have forgotten it the next day itself.

So no harm done.😆

I think, it came as a free package along with Sanjaya's divine sight.

Hm.. jokes apart.

It would have made Dhriti realise all his mistakes and that he can never undo them, he has to suffer his whole life. (One can argue that the Gita gives solace, not guilt, but then it can also be like Dhriti thinking, "I have sinned so much and I got Gita upadesa, and I forgot it the next day!"😭😭😭

Apart from that, I don't know any reason. Ask Krishna. (And check my answer in the Mytho Masti Discussions thread).

Quote

Surya Sundarraj Sriram

@Surya_krsnbhakt

Dazzler

Posted: 11 years ago

#310

New thought.

Dhritarashtra receives the Gita Upadesa.

Isn't it something we all receive in our life? I mean some time or th eother we have all read at least a little of the Gita. But though we admire it and worship its advice and all, we don't really follow it, do we?

We try, but we fail.

I think, this was discussed in the BG discussion thread, that there are four people in the Gita: God, Bhakta, Mumukshu, and Murkh.

So it may also be a reminder to us, like: Look at the three listeners of the Gita. Whom do you want to become?