one serious doubt..!!!

Page

dwarkadheesh

@dwarkadheesh

Beginner

Posted: 14 years ago

can any one plz explain dat if rukmani was lakshmi mata's avtaar den who was radha???
i always thaught that radha was lakshmi ma's avtaar..!!??😲😲😲

Quote

Frequent Posters

Vrish

@Vr15h

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 14 years ago

This has already been discussed in this thread - see the discussions, and follow the links in those discussions.

Essentially, while Rukmini is unanimously accepted as Lakshmi avatar, opinion is divided on Radha.

Quote

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

kamna

@superdil19

Dazzler

Posted: 14 years ago

hey friends janha tak mughe pata hai wo ye ki har koi devta kisi na kisi karan is dharti par roop leta khabhi to dushto ka sanhar karne to kabhi manav jati ko kuchh samjhane jaisa ki mahabharat ka yudha sirf is baat ko samjhane ke liye hua tha ki adharm kitna bhi majboot kyo na ho ant mai jeet saty ki hoti hai

anyway i come to the point

baat darsal mai ye hai ki maa radha or rukmani sabhi maa laghmi ka hi avtar hai alag alag roop lekar wah manav jati ko alag tarah ki shikgha pradan karti hai

or vaise bhi kahte hai na bhagwan to ek hi hai bas uske roop or use dekhne ka andaaj alag alag hai

Quote

popeye

@popeye

Dazzler

+ 6

Posted: 14 years ago

It is always said that Laxmi and Vishnu's is a divine love and that whenever Vishnu's avtaar comes to earth.. laxmi also takes the human form and comes down to be his life partner. For example when vishnu came down as Ram, Laxmi came down as sita and likewise when Vishnu came down as Krishna .. she comes down as Rukmini.
Radha's love for Krishna is more Bhakti and devotion than Love. But his wife is always Laxmi ie. Rukmini.
Another interesting fact is that even the Shesh Nag ... Vishnujis snake incarnated with him. In his Ram incarnation as Laxman and in his Krishna incarnation as Balram.

Quote

divan

@divan

Rocker

Posted: 14 years ago

It is explained by Krishna why the Lord takes a human form by the shloka:

Yada Yada hi dharmasya glanir bhavati bharata
abhyuthmanam adharmasya tadatmanam srjamy aham
(Gita, chapter 4, Verse 7)

Literary Translation: Whenever righteousness falls and
unrighteousness grows the Almighty reveals His
presence! The Supreme though unborn and undying,
becomes manifest in human form to overthrow the forces
of ignorance and selfishness.

Basically it is when Dharma is under attack and is overwhelmed by Adharma then for the protection and preservation of dharma the Lord will come in its defence.

Quote

dwarkadheesh

@dwarkadheesh

Beginner

Posted: 14 years ago

thanks a lot guyz...for making it clear..!!😊

Quote

Vrish

@Vr15h

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 14 years ago

Originally posted by: popeye
It is always said that Laxmi and Vishnu's is a divine love and that whenever Vishnu's avtaar comes to earth.. laxmi also takes the human form and comes down to be his life partner. For example when vishnu came down as Ram, Laxmi came down as sita and likewise when Vishnu came down as Krishna .. she comes down as Rukmini.
Radha's love for Krishna is more Bhakti and devotion than Love. But his wife is always Laxmi ie. Rukmini.
Another interesting fact is that even the Shesh Nag ... Vishnujis snake incarnated with him. In his Ram incarnation as Laxman and in his Krishna incarnation as Balram.

There is plenty of evidence to contend that neither Lakshmi, nor Adisesha have to accompany Vishnu when he comes to earth.

In Matsya avatar, when Vishnu took the form of a horned fish (not a swordfish), he needed a snake to tie him to the boat that saved the saptarshis. Here, he could have used Sesh nag - his serpantine throne - as a chain, but didn't. Instead he used Vasuki.

In Kurma avatar, he married Lakshmi in his original form, and so that was where Lakshmi entered. But here too, in the samudra manthan, he again used Vasuki, rather than Sesha-nag as the rope used to rotate the mountain.

In Varaha, Narasimha, Vamana and Parashurama avatars, neither Lakshmi nor Sesha nag went w/ him. Granted, Varaha and Narasimha were really brief, and so they were not needed, and besides, there was no role for Lakshmi there. But Sesha Nag could have accompanied him as a warrior, but didn't.

In Vamana avatar, I think Vishnu was there for a while - don't think he grew overnight. There would have been no role for Sesha Nag here, but Lakshmi didn't incarnate to be Vamana's wife.

In Parashuram avatar, Vishnu took that form (and left it according to some accounts after Parashuram's encounter w/ Rama). Parashuram lived throughout the Treta and Dwapar Yugas. Despite that, Lakshmi didn't incarnate to marry him, and Sesha Nag didn't incarnate to be his companion.

In Rama avatar, Valmiki doesn't claim that Lakshman is Sesha-nag: by that account, Lakshman is part of Vishnu himself, as is Bharat & Shatrughan. It's in Adhyatma that Lakshman is Sesha Nag.

In Kalki Avatar, Lakshmi is supposed to incarnate as Ramaa and marry him, but Sesha Nag isn't scheduled to come w/ him.

Edited by _Vrish_ - 14 years ago

Quote

246851

Hibernated

Posted: 14 years ago

Originally posted by: _Vrish_

There is plenty of evidence to contend that neither Lakshmi, nor Adisesha have to accompany Vishnu when he comes to earth.

In Matsya avatar, when Vishnu took the form of a horned fish (not a swordfish), he needed a snake to tie him to the boat that saved the saptarshis. Here, he could have used Sesh nag - his serpantine throne - as a chain, but didn't. Instead he used Vasuki.

In Kurma avatar, he married Lakshmi in his original form, and so that was where Lakshmi entered. But here too, in the samudra manthan, he again used Vasuki, rather than Sesha-nag as the rope used to rotate the mountain.

In Varaha, Narasimha, Vamana and Parashurama avatars, neither Lakshmi nor Sesha nag went w/ him. Granted, Varaha and Narasimha were really brief, and so they were not needed, and besides, there was no role for Lakshmi there. But Sesha Nag could have accompanied him as a warrior, but didn't.

In Vamana avatar, I think Vishnu was there for a while - don't think he grew overnight. There would have been no role for Sesha Nag here, but Lakshmi didn't incarnate to be Vamana's wife.

In Parashuram avatar, Vishnu took that form (and left it according to some accounts after Parashuram's encounter w/ Rama). Parashuram lived throughout the Treta and Dwapar Yugas. Despite that, Lakshmi didn't incarnate to marry him, and Sesha Nag didn't incarnate to be his companion.

In Rama avatar, Valmiki doesn't claim that Lakshman is Sesha-nag: by that account, Lakshman is part of Vishnu himself, as is Bharat & Shatrughan. It's in Adhyatma that Lakshman is Sesha Nag.

In Kalki Avatar, Lakshmi is supposed to incarnate as Ramaa and marry him, but Sesha Nag isn't scheduled to come w/ him.

thanks a lot vrish, whoo, u really know the stuff.

i would like to add, in some bhakti scripts and specially the vaishnava scripts( i cannot give u the names of the scripts coz i never really remember them and i read them from gospels of sri Ramakrishna), rukmini, radha and also satyavhama are considered as incarnations of laxmi.

laxmi, who herself is the manifestation of shakti, has different shaktis in her . rukmini is the incarnation of her hladini shakti, radha sandhani shakti . this is based on the premise where we accept thar radha actually exists. radha's existence is highly debatable and she became a more prominent figure only during and after the bhakti movement and after the vaishnava school of thoughts. In many scriptures satyavama is considered as laxmi's shakti too, the fact that she was mother earth reincarnated proves this strongly. Mother earth or bhudevi is one form of laxmi , who is also the divine wife of vishnu in his baraha avatar. she is the fertility form of laxmi and the other form of laxmi is sridevi or the luck and wealth form, this form stays with narayana. so more or less rukmini and radha and satyabhama r all manifestations of laxmi

Edited by Tannistha - 14 years ago

Quote

Vrish

@Vr15h

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 14 years ago

Tan

Good to see you again - it's been a while since the Ramayan days (my id used to be Chandraketu). Yeah, I've heard about some theories about all of Krishna's wives being Lakshmi, and someone even once posted that Draupadi was Lakshmi as well. However, the only wife of Krishna that the scriptures are unanomous about as being Lakshmi is Rukmini.

In Krishna's battle w/ Narakasura, Satyabhama accompanied him, and according to some South Indian traditions, it was she who slew Naraka. But in this episode, after Narakasura's death, Bhudevi herself takes Narakasura's son Bhagadatta to Krishna to have him spared. If Satyabhama is an avatar of Bhudevi, it begs an explanation of how come both of them were on Bhulok @ the same time. It's similar to the episode last night where Vishnu and Lakshmi are discussing Rukmini's plight 🤪

Quote

246851

Hibernated

Posted: 14 years ago

#10

Originally posted by: _Vrish_
Tan

Good to see you again - it's been a while since the Ramayan days (my id used to be Chandraketu). Yeah, I've heard about some theories about all of Krishna's wives being Lakshmi, and someone even once posted that Draupadi was Lakshmi as well. However, the only wife of Krishna that the scriptures are unanomous about as being Lakshmi is Rukmini.

In Krishna's battle w/ Narakasura, Satyabhama accompanied him, and according to some South Indian traditions, it was she who slew Naraka. But in this episode, after Narakasura's death, Bhudevi herself takes Narakasura's son Bhagadatta to Krishna to have him spared. If Satyabhama is an avatar of Bhudevi, it begs an explanation of how come both of them were on Bhulok @ the same time. It's similar to the episode last night where Vishnu and Lakshmi are discussing Rukmini's plight 🤪

hey hi, u changed ur id, wow now u r a coolbie, thats nice.

thing is with mythology specially Hindu mythology and also to some extent indian history, there is no one recorded or accepted document or script which can be taken as the conclusive premise. and as we believe, there are as many ways as are opinion, to form one conclusive opinion is very difficult.. the main reason being, the tradition of written records for anything is quite new, and indians since the rig vedic time relied more on passing the knowledge orally, and oral transmission always has the flaw of being added and exaggerated. Some accounts even suggest lord K was a very adept politician and warrior who actually existed and did many good jobs and gradually became God.

anywho, keeping that in mind, although some broad storylines are more or less same, there is not need to think what we r being shown here as the ultimate truth. Sagars do their research but they mostly follow one book as standard while there r so many which sometimes have conflicting opinion.

not just in south India, even in north india , at places ithe story goes satyavama is said to slay narakasura. it is said, at the perfect moment, narakasura hurled his strongest satagni at lord K and he pretended to faint and transferred his power to SV who then killed narakasura. narakasura was given a boon that he will only die when his mother wishes for and only she can kill him. so makes sense she was born as an avatar of bhudevi.

Also, the show frequently shows the avatar knows fully who he or she is, which actually is not true. scripts say, even when a normal human being after yrs of meditation can realise his true self, he becomes one with his true self. the true self being the one and infinite all emcompassing energy or matter or whatever we call as HIM/HER the supreme. . we all have the presence of the supreme being in us, just that we donot realise it. if we truly and finally realise it, the whole cycle, universe will be one and same and hence we will cease to exist. An avatar has little more presence of the supreme being in him than a common person. and that is why he/she can perform feats we cannot even imagine. but once an avatar knows their true self, they leave even faster to reunite with the whole. that is why an avatar is never fully aware of who he or she is.

so it makes kinda sense that an avatar can see and meet the true form without realising who they are. coz once realisation strikes, that they r the same, the whole point of existing as different will be moot. so it is possble that bhudevi came and met lord K.

having said that again, we cannot pinpoint on what exactly is the truth and what exactly is not right, every thing is true, we have the right to choose which one to believe.. Confusing i know, but well thats what happens when stories survive over 3000 years.the evolve and have branches.

u r right, mostly people consider rukmini to be an incarnation of Laxmi. but laxmi herself in a part of the Maha shakti, so why is it not possible that if radha exists, she is also part of her shakti. i believe that , i find the concept cooler.

anywho, i like the guy who plays balram, do u know where else he has acted?

and vishal has cute smile.

Quote

1 2 3 4

one serious doubt..!!!

Related Topics

Explore Topics