Why did Kali kill Narakasur? - Page 2

Yes, Sri is wealth (or fortune, rather); Lakshmi is anthropomorphic wealth. Narakasura isn't "kidnapping" Lakshmi, but robbing the universe of good fortune. Similarly, Sita symbolized the natural Earthly balance. Ravana purloined nature; he never actually kidnapped Sita.

Okay I have been trying to refrain from commenting, but I need to vent.

What can I say about Saturday's epi 😭😭😭😭

Is there any story where such a wide array of boons are granted in one go? Does anyone know? It seemed totally absurd to me ...!...! I know that UN always has his own "creative blah", but is there any such story on which it is based?

Besides, there is the factor of Shiv being "Bhola" so he just gives away boons ... char pe ek free free free... ...really that is just so I know that is the popular way of constructing it, but if they showed a human or even one of the devatas making such a comment on Bholenath it would be okay. But Narayan and Parvati ...?????

Originally posted by: Maleficarum

Yes, Sri is wealth (or fortune, rather); Lakshmi is anthropomorphic wealth. Narakasura isn't "kidnapping" Lakshmi, but robbing the universe of good fortune. Similarly, Sita symbolized the natural Earthly balance. Ravana purloined nature; he never actually kidnapped Sita.

At the risk of inciting anger: the gods are representatives of the universe. Just like any other pantheon, they help us visualize and understand the universe. Looking at it literally -- that is, as Narakasura physically kidnapping Lakshmi -- utterly tarnishes the fundamental message: greed will always lose. We can see this in the Ramayana, which is incredibly similar to the Vedic Indra slaying Vritra; the serpent which blocked the rivers and thus stole nature from the world. Both relay the same message, but the Ramayana includes numerous others.

I'm saying this for the umpteenth time: it's a serial. Turn to mythological canon for accuracy. Holding serials to such high standards will guarantee your discontent.

To me Krishna killing Narakasura as per Mahabhagawata and Mahabharata is acceptable not this Kali killing the demon,

Originally posted by: ltelidevara

To me Krishna killing Narakasura as per Mahabhagawata and Mahabharata is acceptable not this Kali killing the demon,

Since Narakadura's son Bhagadutta is a prominent ch. through out Mahabharat that happened in Dwaparyug ,it made sense to me.

Adi Sakti killing various demons along with Parvati story happened in Satya yug. So as usual I stand firm on my belief. It is Krishna and Satyabhama,the incarnation of Bhudevi for me but not Kali who killed Narakasura.

Krishna marrying sixteen thousand captives of Narakasura also is linked with it.

It's OK if UN wants the whole of India to celebrate Kali's victory over Narakasura but to me it is Krishna's triumph over Narakasura that make me light up diyas and celebrate.

Lakshmi

Originally posted by: ltelidevara

To me Krishna killing Narakasura as per Mahabhagawata and Mahabharata is acceptable not this Kali killing the demon,

Since Narakadura's son Bhagadutta is a prominent ch. through out Mahabharat that happened in Dwaparyug ,it made sense to me.

Adi Sakti killing various demons along with Parvati story happened in Satya yug. So as usual I stand firm on my belief. It is Krishna and Satyabhama,the incarnation of Bhudevi for me but not Kali who killed Narakasura.

Krishna marrying sixteen thousand captives of Narakasura also is linked with it.

It's OK if UN wants the whole of India to celebrate Kali's victory over Narakasura but to me it is Krishna's triumph over Narakasura that make me light up diyas and celebrate.

Lakshmi

Originally posted by: rsnarula67

Okay I have been trying to refrain from commenting, but I need to vent.

What can I say about Saturday's epi 😭

Is there any story where such a wide array of boons are granted in one go? Does anyone know? It seemed totally absurd to me ...!...! I know that UN always has his own "creative blah", but is there any such story on which it is based?

Besides, there is the factor of Shiv being "Bhola" so he just gives away boons ... char pe ek free free free... ...really that is just so I know that is the popular way of constructing it, but if they showed a human or even one of the devatas making such a comment on Bholenath it would be okay. But Narayan and Parvati ...?????

Originally posted by: KalyaniPanchali

I agree. I feel they are not giving enough importance to them even. And they made Lakshmi as Narayani, when in general, Parvati is. Lakshmi is Vaishnavi. I actually feel, if given attention, even Kanan Malhotra can improve his performance 😊

Originally posted by: Maleficarum

Out of context, it seems absurd. However, it's important to remember Shiva bestowed upon Narakasura a boon which provided him Sri. Without the boon, he wouldn't have been able to just snatch Lakshmi from Vishnu (especially now, as Vaishnavi).

Ask yourselves this: how could Rati curse Parvati, when Parvati is Adi Shakti? Curses and boons are extraordinarily powerful in Hinduism. Even the gods can't escape.

Originally posted by: Rudrasa999

WOW Lakshmi ! Thank you for voicing up .

I admire and respect you for standing up for what you believe in and being firm on your point .

I too personally believe only in this story ( which makes much sense) and not the one that's being shown in this Mahakali show .

I don't get it why UN always twist our puranas in such a complicated way when there are many actual stories of Parvati that can be depicted in authentic manner !!!