Sati's fatal tragedy

First Previous

Page

Frequent Posters

NST1983

@NST1983

Explorer

Posted: 13 years ago

#31

Originally posted by: kkr531

there lies the attachement and their lies the binding aspect because of daksh being her father she cannot act in unbiased independent manner.
thats the reason she gave up her life to unbind that relation. In this way the immolation is justified. due to unscruplous father she had to do that. i put in different manner by mentioning the sin aspect .

I also cannot agree to this stressing that Sati is somewhat less eligible than Parvati and also that she is more bound by laws of nature than Shiv. I think that when it comes to leela, both Shiv and Shakti act as ignorant but it does't mean that they completely bounded by laws of nature(for example Shiv becoming angy at Ganesh and cutting his head - is made for means of leela, and really he transcend this limitation, staying both knowing and acting like unknowing).

I feel that your talking of Shiva as divine supreme and Shakti as an energy bound by earthly connections is somehow associated with Sankhya philosophy (correct me if I'm wrong), mostly a Dvaitic position. And it's only one point of view, not universal one.

As far as I understand , other versions treat Shiv as an unmoving principle, which cannot become Saguna without Shakti, so even his manifestation in the world is impossible without her

I like the neht word from some translation of Shiv puran (you can examin it for correctedness and sourses, cause I'm not sure what the version is translated)

http://shivamahapurana.blogspot.com/2011/10/god-has-to-accept-influence-of-prakriti.html

Quote

Krishna

@kkr531

Explorer

Posted: 13 years ago

#32

Originally posted by: NST1983

I also cannot agree to this stressing that Sati is somewhat less eligible than Parvati and also that she is more bound by laws of nature than Shiv. I think that when it comes to leela, both Shiv and Shakti act as ignorant but it does't mean that they completely bounded by laws of nature(for example Shiv becoming angy at Ganesh and cutting his head - is made for means of leela, and really he transcend this limitation, staying both knowing and acting like unknowing).
I feel that your talking of Shiva as divine supreme and Shakti as an energy bound by earthly connections is somehow associated with Sankhya philosophy (correct me if I'm wrong), mostly a Dvaitic position. And it's only one point of view, not universal one.
As far as I understand , other versions treat Shiv as an unmoving principle, which cannot become Saguna without Shakti, so even his manifestation in the world is impossible without her

I like the neht word from some translation of Shiv puran (you can examin it for correctedness and sourses, cause I'm not sure what the version is translated)
http://shivamahapurana.blogspot.com/2011/10/god-has-to-accept-influence-of-prakriti.html

when did i say Sati is less eligible its the association with daksh which is the reason for all this things. i only said Parvati is in more awakened state of mind due to her penance is there some wrong in that.

yes i was presenting samkhya point of view glad you got that point. as i already mentioned its not universal interpretation, you are welcome to have your own. would be glad to hear one from you as well.

i already mentioned the words should be taken in context

association of daksh was sati's single most hurdle in completely attaining Shiva so she gave up that association to become parvati, unlike sati she attained Shiva by doing penance which makes her more eligible what is so offending in that.

regards
Krishna

Quote

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

mnx12

@mnx12

Channel Moderator

+ 14

Posted: 13 years ago

#33

OK i understand that you posted a version which is written in devipuran, thanks for that. i will also accept what you have said but please let me know what purpose did it serve. as we all know all divine actions have some underlying message or meaning could you also throw light on that aspect. how is immolation of sati justified here ? whats the purpose?

But due to the fear of pitru-hatya, I will not do it.

there lies the attachement and their lies the binding aspect because of daksh being her father she cannot act in unbiased independent manner.

thats the reason she gave up her life to unbind that relation. In this way the immolation is justified. due to unscruplous father she had to do that. i put in different manner by mentioning the sin aspect .

thanks for the reply

Compared to the other Puranas Devi Puran covers max about Sati. Sati is divine only in that there is no need for her to uplift herself. When rishi Dadhichi explains Daksh about Shivji's greatness, he refuses to understand at that time rishi Dadhichi thinks it seems Shivji & Bhavani have decided not to shower their kripa on Daksh. This shows she was divine. This entire human drama is only shown in the show.

In the Devi puran, she was never bound by the limitations as depicted in the show. When Daksh did the penance, Devi shakti told him she will be with him as long as his punya remains. When his punya will get over, he will disrespect her at that time she will go back to her dham. This entire thing was predestine.

That's why accepting anything based on Sati's human form, she was attached to her father is not possible for me. She was with Daksh as long as he had his account of punya with him. She was divine, she never needed to uplift herself.

When she said pitru-hatya it is not her attachment, it is her way of analysing the situation.

Edited by mnx12 - 13 years ago

Quote

NST1983

@NST1983

Explorer

Posted: 13 years ago

#34

Originally posted by: kkr531

when did i say Sati is less eligible its the association with daksh which is the reason for all this things. i only said Parvati is in more awakened state of mind due to her penance is there some wrong in that.
yes i was presenting samkhya point of view glad you got that point. as i already mentioned its not universal interpretation, you are welcome to have your own. would be glad to hear one from you as well.
i already mentioned the words should be taken in context
association of daksh was sati's single most hurdle in completely attaining Shiva so she gave up that association to become parvati, unlike sati she attained Shiva by doing penance which makes her more eligible what is so offending in that.

Well, that's funny word game, and really not taking much from your context, but you write for yourself.

It's seems you trying to stress that Parvati is more eligible than Sati (as it seems ok comparing their attempts to "fit" Shiva), but for me it sounds like finishing with measurable and limited eligibility for both of them. And this measurability, as Minakshi stated earlier, is the most questionable point.

Originally posted by: kkr531

yes i was presenting samkhya point of view glad you got that point. as i already mentioned its not universal interpretation, you are welcome to have your own. would be glad to hear one from you as well.

as for me I prefer another interpretation, when Shiv is divine consciousness, and Shakti is supreme creative energy, giving life to the whole world. In the absolute - they can't be distinguished from each other. That's very simplistic interpretation of Kashmiri Shaivism position (or, Trika, adding to Shiv and Shakti individual soul - nara), and I can't tell exactly, but it's seems to me that this position shared by some other Shaivas.

Quote

Krishna

@kkr531

Explorer

Posted: 13 years ago

#35

I have received tonns of post criticizing my point of view but even one of them did not address the central issue.

1) If you really think the whole episode happened " LITERALLY" then what was the reason for that i mean why should that happen. i think we all agree that all divine actions have some underlying meaning and should make sense.

2) I only interpreted with Shiva and Shakti analogy which provides some justification for the immolation.

3) please don't say that for the love of Shiv and for the Love daksh explanations as these are too simplistic to apply for Gods, and they donot take decisions in fit of anger or emotions as we humans do.

4) if everything was perfect and all was well i donot see any reason for she to be separated with Shiva . if there is one please enlighten me. also let me know why did she go to yagnya in spite of denial by Shivji.

Best Regards
Krishna

Regards
Krishna

Quote

NST1983

@NST1983

Explorer

Posted: 13 years ago

#36

Originally posted by: kkr531
I have received tonns of post criticizing my point of view but even one of them did not address the central issue.

what seems criticism for you is arguments for other. no intentions of criticising, it's a mere ideas exchange

Originally posted by: kkr531
1) If you really think the whole episode happened " LITERALLY" then what was the reason for that i mean why should that happen. i think we all agree that all divine actions have some underlying meaning and should make sense.

idea of yagya destruction is a victory over arrogance. Yagya was improper cause it tried to exclude the whole sense of it (Shiva). Sati as Shakti, achieved by Daksh with penace, freed herself from the bonds (which were a boon for Daksh) by immolating herself.

Originally posted by: kkr531

3) please don't say that for the love of Shiv and for the Love daksh explanations as these are too simplistic to apply for Gods, and they donot take decisions in fit of anger or emotions as we humans do.

well, the same way the idea of 'sin' doesn't go well with idea of deity.

Originally posted by: kkr531

2) I only interpreted with Shiva and Shakti analogy which provides some justification for the immolation.

4) if everything was perfect and all was well i donot see any reason for she to be separated with Shiva . if there is one please enlighten me. also let me know why did she go to yagnya in spite of denial by Shivji.

Your positions seems to be justified from the sankhya poin of view, when Prakriti is something ignorant and passive in principle and should be subordinate to superior principle.

But imagine completely different position:

Sati went there cause she wanted it. If Shiv didn't feel like having any rights to stopping her, why we mere humans could judge her.

"Sin" supposes punishment from someone superior - Sati's immolation was an act of her free will - she couldn't tolerate to disrespect to Shiv

Not she was withdrawn from Shiva but Shiva and whole the world was deprived from her presence

Edited by NST1983 - 13 years ago

Quote

Krishna

@kkr531

Explorer

Posted: 13 years ago

#37

what seems criticism for you is arguments for other. no intentions of criticising, it's a mere ideas exchange

i meant that in a positive way criticism can also be positive so no issues there i only wanted others to present their point of view also

idea of yagya destruction is a victory over arrogance. Yagya was improper cause it tried to exclude the whole sense of it (Shiva). Sati as Shakti, achieved by Daksh with penace, freed herself from the bonds (which were a boon for Daksh) by immolating herself.

if you read my all posts i have been exactly saying the same albeit i also added the sin part which seems to not go down well with most of the members.

well, the same way the idea of 'sin' doesn't go well with idea of deity.

and there have been other axplanation 0 not the love for Daksh but connection as the result of tapasya (that's normal to Puranas - boons given by deities serve as limitations to them. AS we now about Tarakasur)

Listening to a Shiv Ninda and partaking in a yagnya from which shiv is excluded is a sin not just sati all the devatas who were present there paid for that.

Your positions seems to be justified from the sankhya poin of view, when Prakriti is something ignorant and passive in principle and should be subordinate to superior principle.

But imagine completely different position:

Sati went there cause she wanted it. If Shiv didn't feel like having any rights to stopping her, why we mere humans could judge her.

"Sin" supposes punishment from someone superior - Sati's immolation was an act of her free will - she couldn't tolerate to disrespect to Shiv

Not she was withdrawn from Shiva but Shiva and whole the world was deprived from her presence

Shatki is energy and Shiva is the consciousness which guides shakti. Shakti needs shiva in order to guide her and shiva needs shakti to do anything. so were does the question of subservience come from both are in equal need for each other.

Sin does not suppose punishment from someone superior. it is the result of karma which one has done either knowingly or unknowingly. Shiva Purana explains no reason why sati went there it only says she was eager to attend the yagnya. i tried to access devi purana online but its not available i will comment once i read it.

actually we don't judge what transpired we only deduce what is logical based on the events that took place. if what you say is correct, i.e sati's actions were perfect in every sense then, the whole episode of immolation etc is not justified.

regards
krishna

Quote

NST1983

@NST1983

Explorer

Posted: 13 years ago

#38

Originally posted by: kkr531
actually we don't judge what transpired we only deduce what is logical based on the events that took place. if what you say is correct, i.e sati's actions were perfect in every sense then, the whole episode of immolation etc is not justified.

I really feel that we're going round and round. Your choise if words reflects underlying philosophy, which is different from what i believe.

And mere logical deduction is made on this inevitably biased position (there's nothing bad about bias, cause it's a foundation of any judgements, but for mutual understanding it's better if bias is explicated)

the point is that you're folloving dualistic judgements sin- not sin, prefection-imperfection, and I believe that Shiva-Shakti cannot be deskribed that way.

Quote

1 2 3 4

Sati's fatal tragedy - Page 4

Related Topics

Explore Topics