Rukmini Krishna : Lakshmi Narayan of Dwapar Yug - Page 5

Originally posted by: SarmaShru

Gaudiya Vaishnavas believe that Radhakrishna are the supreme dieties, who are superior to LakshmiNarayan, infact they believe that Krishna is the source of Narayan and Radha is the source of Lakshmi. So these, kind of stories where Rukmini is Chandravalli, Satyabhama is Radha, Krishna's wives are the expansions of Radha etc. are their sectarian beliefs. Radha being the incarnation of Niladevi or Rukmini&Radha being the same person are pure folktales without no scriptural basis.

Oh , d story which radhakrishan shown , mean sridama cursing radha to be seperate from krishna for 100 yr , is true , I thought frictional hai.

Originally posted by: deepikagupta9

Oh , d story which radhakrishan shown , mean sridama cursing radha to be seperate from krishna for 100 yr , is true , I thought frictional hai.

Sridama cursing? I knew the story of Narad cursing him resulting in their Separation in Ram avtaar

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Sridama cursing? I knew the story of Narad cursing him resulting in their Separation in Ram avtaar

Is not narad but sage brigu who cursed lord Vishnu 4 wife seperation as lord Vishnu killed sage brigu's wife.

Narad cursed lord Vishnu to take help from vanar tribe as lord Vishnu made narad vanar when narad wanted to marry a princess who was mahalakshmi herself.

Both curse were instrumental in ram avtar.

In radhakrishan serial it was shown bin starting

Originally posted by: deepikagupta9

Is not narad but sage brigu who cursed lord Vishnu 4 wife seperation as lord Vishnu killed sage brigu's wife.

Narad cursed lord Vishnu to take help from vanar tribe as lord Vishnu made narad vanar when narad wanted to marry a princess who was mahalakshmi herself.

Both curse were instrumental in ram avtar.

In radhakrishan serial it was shown bin starting

Yes he killed Khyati something which Bhrigu couldn't tolerate. Didn't know anything about Sridama

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Yes he killed Khyati something which Bhrigu couldn't tolerate. Didn't know anything about Sridama

Some people believe after narad curse only lord shiv decided to take birth as hanuman in vanar tribe to assist lord Vishnu

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

He mentioned her like Saraswati not an incarnation of Saraswati

Anyhow Rukmini is nowhere mentioned for sure BORI removed the portions of her name

Do you mean Rukmini is not mentioned anywhere in BORI CE? Or are you talking about this particular part in Adi parva?

However it makes perfect sense to me if Draupadi is Shachi who married Arjun who is amsha of Indra. Goddess Sri is mentioned as the ever inseparable consort of Narayana in the Vedas too. Vedas hold the highest authority than Ithihasas and puranas.

And I am not particularly fond of any critical editions.Its method is not applicable for Indic texts. It tries to reconcile multiple recensions to create one text which is meaningless.There is a reason there are multiple recensions. Each tradition can have its own. There is a reason Veda is also preserved and learned through multiple branches though the content is extremely similar between some of them. Afterall,the teachings from the text are more important than focusing on the story itself.

Originally posted by: deepikagupta9

Oh , d story which radhakrishan shown , mean sridama cursing radha to be seperate from krishna for 100 yr , is true , I thought frictional hai.

The story is mentioned in Brahma vaivartana purana. But the reason of curse is not as they shown in the serial.If I were to believe in the actual curse story mentioned there, I would leave this planet😆 🤣That serial is a complete mess with no relation to any scriptures, nothing. It's just a show to satisfy the fans of the lead actors😆

Originally posted by: SarmaShru

Do you mean Rukmini is not mentioned anywhere in BORI CE? Or are you talking about this particular part in Adi parva?

However it makes perfect sense to me if Draupadi is Shachi who married Arjun who is amsha of Indra. Goddess Sri is mentioned as the ever inseparable consort of Narayana in the Vedas too. Vedas hold the highest authority than Ithihasas and puranas.

And I am not particularly fond of any critical editions.Its method is not applicable for Indic texts. It tries to reconcile multiple recensions to create one text which is meaningless.There is a reason there are multiple recensions. Each tradition can have its own. There is a reason Veda is also preserved and learned through multiple branches though the content is extremely similar between some of them. Afterall,the teachings from the text are more important than focusing on the story itself.

No she isn't mentioned as Lakshmi/Sri anyware in BORI Mahabharata.

Coming to Arjun, Arjun is the son of Indra not a part of it. Going by just epic, he is the incarnation of Nara, and Nara is the incarnation of Vishnu.

Could you tell me where Narayana n Sri are mentioned as inseparable in Vedas?

Coming to CE well they don't compile different versions, but different manuscripts. Obviously Vyas would have written only one text right? Vaishampayan would have only said one narration so would have been done by Ugrashrawa. Different versions are definitely due to Interpolations. They have tried to remove those interpolations

Definitely the text isn't meaningless

Vedas have been preserved to the core for years we don't have multiple versions of it

Sabhi ko Ramjanmasthan Mandir shilanyas ki shubhkamnaayein.

Jambudweepe Bharatkhande Aryavate Bharatvarshe ek bhoomi hai Vikhyat Ayodhya naam se.

Yehi janmbhoomi hai Maryada Puroshottam Sri Ram ki

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

No she isn't mentioned as Lakshmi/Sri anyware in BORI Mahabharata.

Coming to Arjun, Arjun is the son of Indra not a part of it. Going by just epic, he is the incarnation of Nara, and Nara is the incarnation of Vishnu.

Could you tell me where Narayana n Sri are mentioned as inseparable in Vedas?

Coming to CE well they don't compile different versions, but different manuscripts. Obviously Vyas would have written only one text right? Vaishampayan would have only said one narration so would have been done by Ugrashrawa. Different versions are definitely due to Interpolations. They have tried to remove those interpolations

Definitely the text isn't meaningless

Vedas have been preserved to the core for years we don't have multiple versions of it

Arjuna was amsha of Nara rishi overlapped with the amsha of Indra.

And coming to the inseparable nature of Sri and Narayan, Sri is Narayani the divine mother of the world. She is forever present in his chest as the Srivatsa mark.In Sri suktam,she is called as the utmost dear consort of Vishnu. She is Madhavapriya, she is Harivallabha.Great Acharyas like Madhavacharya,Shankaracharya etc say that they are "Nitya dampathi" the eternal couple. Commentaries on Upanishads points out that she is his Shakti and thus they are inseperable.

The Vedas Presently available are definitely preserved to the core but what I meant is that there is difference in the way in which each branches chant the mantras as well as the interpretation of verses slightly differ among branches.

The critical edition definitely bring us closer to the original version as composed by Krishna Dwaipayana Vyasa. It focuses on what would have actually happened 5000 years ago? Which are the events that actually took place and which are not? It helps historians and indologists in their researches.But what we consider as an interpolation may be an actual event which has not received a mention in most number of manuscripts because of a loss in the continuity of narrative. Different authors may have collected different narratives and combined them differently,giving them a common continuity,different versions exist, and I consider all of them as valuable accounts for we don't know what exactly Vyasa composed in his Jaya. It's my personal opinion and everyone is free to disagree.

I personally don't care about who cut whose arrow in the 12th day of war? What exactly was the physical attributes of Bhima? etc. I prefer various teachings from the text than the exact historical events that took place in a different timeline for it has no effect on my present life.