Manipulation of da real story for trps - Page 2

there are many many verions...mostly and more popularly the penance version is identified with Parvati and not Sati...Sati in one version married Shiv without any resistance from Daksh,while in one version she did a swayamvar...the title "aparna" which Sati got in the penace version is mostly assosiated with Parvati and not Sati...since they are essentially the same-generally such confusion arises!

Originally posted by: shruti.nil

there are many many verions...mostly and more popularly the penance version is identified with Parvati and not Sati...Sati in one version married Shiv without any resistance from Daksh,while in one version she did a swayamvar...the title "aparna" which Sati got in the penace version is mostly assosiated with Parvati and not Sati...since they are essentially the same-generally such confusion arises!

One version even said she was married to Rishi Angiras(its wrong he married Smriti another daughter of Daksh)...

In the show they have taken the swayamvar route so that the differentiation between Parvati and Sati can be made in the future,and the way they persuade Shiv to marry them/Shakti does not seem over lapping...

the marriage of Sati and Shiv track through the swaymvar is a version-yes they did tweak it a bit with the statue part-but it is one of the versions of the story and cannot be labeled as wrong

shruti

Originally posted by: subha2601

I had gone thru many websites and read stories abt shiv and sati.in some of da sites,it's written dat sati did tapasya or meditation.Shiv was impressed with her tapasya,appeared before her and asked her a boon.when sati told shiv dat she wants 2 marry him,shiv obliged and both got married and dey lived happily 4 many years.But nothing of dis sort was shown in the serial.dey never showed sati doing tapasya and shiv asking her 4 boon.i agree makers make certain changes in mythological serials 2 gain trps but dat doesn't mean dey can show a completely different story.dis is like cheating da viewers but ofcourse we don't know what's da real story of shiv and sati so we accept whatever is shown.One more thing.there was no child born 2 shiv and sati.i am doubtful whether dey will show deir milan.

1) Sati did not do tapasya but she did a nanda vrat and that was for one year, shiv puran states that
Shiva did not wanted to get into wedlock but was pusuaded by Brahma and Sati's devotion

2) Of course they had milan and lived happily for many years but nothing came out of that milan i mean kartikeya was not born.

3) i guess story is more based on Devi Puran rather than Shiv Puran which is the more popular version as it is named among maha puranas.

4) As long as they maintain the right spirit modifications are possible, it is only when they introduce meaning less tracks to prolong the serial we feel offended

5) So far CVs have learn't their lesson i guess as they have stopped some imaginary characters
and cut down the role of some.

right now story is going on perfectly well with some interesting moments with divinity intact.

regards
Krishna

Originally posted by: Sweet24

yaar this line is absolutely wrong,

Brahma, the Prajapati, mentally created ten sons (manasa putra) to carry out his task of creation and destruction. Both Shiva and Daksha were the outcome of such a creation.

Shiv was not a creation of brahmaji. There are many scriptures which are totaly wrong, I have read that In Bhagwat puran, part i don't remember written that 'Sati was the wife of Angira, and she accepted atharva as her son.' This line is completely wrong, this line shows the apposition towards Shiv. I don't know who is the great person who has written this. But when we compare to other scriptures this is totally wrong.

Actually this refers to an older legend from Vedas where Rudra (the Vedic deity of storms) is born out of Prajapati's anger. Now we need to know that Vedic legends are completely different from Puranic and Epic ones..In Vedas Prajapati (later known as Brahma) is the patriarch and direct manifestation of Hiranyagarbh (in later myths Vishnu takes this position) while Rudra is a comparatively secondary deity, subordinate to Indra - who's the chief God. In fact in Rig Veda both Rudra as well as Vishnu are mentioned only 5-6 times each compared to hundreds of verses dedicated to Indra, Agni, Varuna, Soma, Visvadevas etc. In later times, the Vedic pantheon began to lose its position as Vishnu and Rudra gained popularity as Super-Gods - Vishnu being associated with avatars and Rudra became exclusively referred with the name Shiva (starting from Shwestaswara Upanishad).

Now different Purans were written at different period of times, spanning 15 centuries, by multiple authorities (though they are traditionally attributed to a single author, Vyasa) and hence they give diverse, and often contradicting, accounts. The Vaishnava Purans try to eulogize Vishnu as Supreme while give a secondary role to Shiva while Shaiva Purans mete out similar but opposite treatment. The Devi Purana offers the Supreme place to Shakti while the Ganesha Purans claim Ganesha to be Supreme God and others being his subordinates..No one can tell which one is right and which is not simply because we are not dealing with historical facts, but with faith based legends. What we can agree upon is that various authors have written the texts as per their preferences and to propagate their faith over others.

Originally posted by: Rehanism

Actually this refers to an older legend from Vedas where Rudra (the Vedic deity of storms) is born out of Prajapati's anger. Now we need to know that Vedic legends are completely different from Puranic and Epic ones..In Vedas Prajapati (later known as Brahma) is the patriarch and direct manifestation of Hiranyagarbh (in later myths Vishnu takes this position) while Rudra is a comparatively secondary deity, subordinate to Indra - who's the chief God. In fact in Rig Veda both Rudra as well as Vishnu are mentioned only 5-6 times each compared to hundreds of verses dedicated to Indra, Agni, Varuna, Soma, Visvadevas etc. In later times, the Vedic pantheon began to lose its position as Vishnu and Rudra gained popularity as Super-Gods - Vishnu being associated with avatars and Rudra became exclusively referred with the name Shiva (starting from Shwestaswara Upanishad).

Now different Purans were written at different period of times, spanning 15 centuries, by multiple authorities (though they are traditionally attributed to a single author, Vyasa) and hence they give diverse, and often contradicting, accounts. The Vaishnava Purans try to eulogize Vishnu as Supreme while give a secondary role to Shiva while Shaiva Purans mete out similar but opposite treatment. The Devi Purana offers the Supreme place to Shakti while the Ganesha Purans claim Ganesha to be Supreme God and others being his subordinates..No one can tell which one is right and which is not simply because we are not dealing with historical facts, but with faith based legends. What we can agree upon is that various authors have written the texts as per their preferences and to propagate their faith over others.

what you said is perfectly correct Shiva and Vishnu have gained over Indra and other pantheon over later Vedic and Puranic period.

as you said vaishnava puranas give prominence to vishnu and vice versa.

but we can safely say that we can rule out all puranas except shaiva puranas and devi purana while discussing Mahadev since its more important what shiva devotees think rather than
what devotees of other deities think.

regards
Krishna

Now different Purans were written at different period of times, spanning 15 centuries, by multiple authorities (though they are traditionally attributed to a single author, Vyasa) and hence they give diverse, and often contradicting, accounts. The Vaishnava Purans try to eulogize Vishnu as Supreme while give a secondary role to Shiva while Shaiva Purans mete out similar but opposite treatment. The Devi Purana offers the Supreme place to Shakti while the Ganesha Purans claim Ganesha to be Supreme God and others being his subordinates..No one can tell which one is right and which is not simply because we are not dealing with historical facts, but with faith based legends. What we can agree upon is that various authors have written the texts as per their preferences and to propagate their faith over others.
Every purana gives importance to the deity whose story it is. But today we all are matured enough to understand, they all represent one supreme God, who is called by various names Vishnu, Shiv, Shakti , Ganesh etc. The aim of knowing their stories is to learn & understand that Supreme power only.

I can only add this.

Originally posted by: Rehanism

Actually this refers to an older legend from Vedas where Rudra (the Vedic deity of storms) is born out of Prajapati's anger. Now we need to know that Vedic legends are completely different from Puranic and Epic ones..In Vedas Prajapati (later known as Brahma) is the patriarch and direct manifestation of Hiranyagarbh (in later myths Vishnu takes this position) while Rudra is a comparatively secondary deity, subordinate to Indra - who's the chief God. In fact in Rig Veda both Rudra as well as Vishnu are mentioned only 5-6 times each compared to hundreds of verses dedicated to Indra, Agni, Varuna, Soma, Visvadevas etc. In later times, the Vedic pantheon began to lose its position as Vishnu and Rudra gained popularity as Super-Gods - Vishnu being associated with avatars and Rudra became exclusively referred with the name Shiva (starting from Shwestaswara Upanishad).

Now different Purans were written at different period of times, spanning 15 centuries, by multiple authorities (though they are traditionally attributed to a single author, Vyasa) and hence they give diverse, and often contradicting, accounts. The Vaishnava Purans try to eulogize Vishnu as Supreme while give a secondary role to Shiva while Shaiva Purans mete out similar but opposite treatment. The Devi Purana offers the Supreme place to Shakti while the Ganesha Purans claim Ganesha to be Supreme God and others being his subordinates..No one can tell which one is right and which is not simply because we are not dealing with historical facts, but with faith based legends. What we can agree upon is that various authors have written the texts as per their preferences and to propagate their faith over others.

the tapasaya u spoke about is of parvati avataar not sati...sati's was swayamvar

The Story He's Saying Seems True.
Read here:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_(goddess) it Shows that Sati did the Tapasya and Got a Boon from Shiva.