\|/Doubts & Discussions about Lord Shiva Part-1\|/

First Previous

Page

117

Next Last

Frequent Posters

varaali

@varaali

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 13 years ago

#791

Originally posted by: .Vrish.
Oh, and an aside - was there any particular reason that Mahadev & Parvati didn't have any uterine babies?

To answer your last question:

Parvati, in her Divine Primordial form is considered to be an eternal virgin.

Among the sevaral names used in her worship are Brahmacharini, Nitya Youvanna, Kanya Kumari, etc all pointing to her "virgin" status. The Gayatri Mantra used to invoke her is "Katyayanyai Vidmahe Kanyakumari cha Deemahi Tanno Durge Prachodayat"

She is the incarnate of Prakriti itself. She herself symbolizes the process of creation. The human process of procreation is for, well, humans. As the Supreme Goddess, She possesses other methods to create new lives. The uterine way would be degenerating her Divinity.

Quote

Vrish

@Vr15h

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 13 years ago

#792

Thanks for this reply. Incidentally, is the same thought to be true about Lakshmi & Saraswati - them being eternal virgins?

Quote

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

varaali

@varaali

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 13 years ago

#793

Originally posted by: .Vrish.
Thanks for this reply. Incidentally, is the same thought to be true about Lakshmi & Saraswati - them being eternal virgins?

Lakshmi- in her Divine Form, yes. Anyway, I don't think the Sanskrit Puranas mention Lakshmi ever having children. But when she took a human form, for e.g Sita, then she had to resort to the human process of giving birth.

Quote

Nandini

@NandiniRaizadaa

Trailblazer

+ 4

Posted: 13 years ago

#794

Thank you. I didnt know about the concept of eternal vigins

Quote

whatthewhat

@whatthewhat

Dazzler

Posted: 13 years ago

#795

Neither did I! Know about eternal virgins, that is!

@.Vrish.

I was given to understand that even though the births weren't uterine, that both Shiva and Parvati needed each other's power somehow to "produce" Kartikeya and Ganesha in whatever way they ultimately did.

It couldn't have happened in the absence of the male/female power...

I was told this by some mama once when I was a pesky young kid asking impossibly logical questions! 😆

Quote

varaali

@varaali

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 13 years ago

#796

Originally posted by: .Vrish.
Anyway, particularly for my question about Kartikeya above - given what ultimately happened, why was it necessary for Mahadev to marry in order to give the Devas what they needed?

Shiva represents the Purusha aspect while Parvati represents the Prakriti. Any creation in this world requires the presence of both.Only then will the creation be stable, whole and positive. Now, no doubt both Shiva and Parvati had the capability to create living beings, independent of each other, but in order to uphold the laws of creation and abide by its principles, their joint presence was required to produce Kartikeya.

In the case of beings which were created by Shiva, independent of Parvati, ( Andhakasur and Planet Mars- OTOH), they were not complete beings. One was created blind with asuric tendencies while the other was dispatched to be a planet in the solar system.

Even in the case of Ganesh, whom Parvati created w/o Shiva's help (hence his name Vi- nayak), the end result was disastrous and only when Shiva got to play his role (i.e fixing Ganesh's head), did Parvati get her son back. So, it is only when the Male and Female energies, the yin and the yang, the Purusha and the Prakriti, come together can creation take place.

In case of Kartikeya, Parvati is Shiva's Shakti and hence embedded in him. The marriage of Mahadeva and Parvati itself symbolizes the merger of Shiva and Shakti. When their hands were joined in front of the fire, they became One. Hence they don't have to rely on any other physical action to create an offspring. If Shiva was able to create the sparks that ultimately produced Kartikeya, he could do so, because Parvati's Shakti was already within him.

And most importantly, it is Parvati who gives Kartikeya the Vel (Spear/ lance) with which he ultimately kills Surapadman. ( I know, the ACK has Shiva giving it, but the comic is wrong)

Quote

Romi

@romi21

Voyager

Posted: 13 years ago

#797

Originally posted by: varaali

Shiva represents the Purusha aspect while Parvati represents the Prakriti. Any creation in this world requires the presence of both.Only then will the creation be stable, whole and positive. Now, no doubt both Shiva and Parvati had the capability to create living beings, independent of each other, but in order to uphold the laws of creation and abide by its principles, their joint presence was required to produce Kartikeya.

In the case of beings which were created by Shiva, independent of Parvati, ( Andhakasur and Planet Mars- OTOH), they were not complete beings. One was created blind with asuric tendencies while the other was dispatched to be a planet in the solar system.

Even in the case of Ganesh, whom Parvati created w/o Shiva's help (hence his name Vi- nayak), the end result was disastrous and only when Shiva got to play his role (i.e fixing Ganesh's head), did Parvati get her son back. So, it is only when the Male and Female energies, the yin and the yang, the Purusha and the Prakriti, come together can creation take place.

In case of Kartikeya, Parvati is Shiva's Shakti and hence embedded in him. The marriage of Mahadeva and Parvati itself symbolizes the merger of Shiva and Shakti. When their hands were joined in front of the fire, they became One. Hence they don't have to rely on any other physical action to create an offspring. If Shiva was able to create the sparks that ultimately produced Kartikeya, he could do so, because Parvati's Shakti was already within him.

And most importantly, it is Parvati who gives Kartikeya the Vel (Spear/ lance) with which he ultimately kills Surapadman. ( I know, the ACK has Shiva giving it, but the comic is wrong)

Truly & almost perfectly said... why almost coz.. These are all god's mysterious doing...the truth only he knows...

Quote

whatthewhat

@whatthewhat

Dazzler

Posted: 13 years ago

#798

this prompts me to ask what could be a somewhat controversial question..

Should we even ask questions of these texts based on our understanding of history, science and logic?

Edited by narangi_77 - 13 years ago

Quote

Vrish

@Vr15h

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 13 years ago

#799

^^^ Yes & No

Questions like how can either Shiva or Parvati create beings themselves, I don't ask - I assume that being deities, they can. The question I asked was more of 'Why did Shiva need Parvati & marriage if in the end, he could create something just by himself'? It was not a whether s/he could do it, but rather, why did the devas choose such a long & circuitious route if in the end, Shiva was going to do it himself.

Varaali

The explanation on Ganesh - in the Ganesh ACK, after Shiva beheaded him, while the Devas & Ganas were dancing & rejoicing, Shiva himself was worried. He noted that this kid had been created by Parvati, and therefore, he was Shiva's son as well, even though he had no role in creating him. And here, Manu Smriti rules don't apply - they applied only for humans, but never for the deities, or even the devas.

Quote

Krishna

@kkr531

Explorer

Posted: 13 years ago

#800

Originally posted by: narangi_77
this prompts me to ask what could be a somewhat controversial question..

Should we ask questions of these texts based on our understanding of history, science and logic?

Puranas are pure myth with may be 20% historical quotient, that too interleaved among the layers.
puranas are respected and accepted because they are endorsed by so many faithful who in order to emotionally connect with gods attribute many human kind of actions and stories to god.

every story has some emotion attached to it. for example there is no proper uterine birth of skanda and ganesh because devotees considered mata to be eternal virgin and they do not want her to loose that status.
so they portrayed her to have given birth to ganesha and kartikeya in unusual way.

but if you as bhakt of mahadev and mata aadishakti want skanda to be real proper son of the both, as long as you want such depiction purely in order to connect more with deities, you can always do that.

there is no blasphemy in doing or thinking like that you can always manufacture your own stories as long as you do it with right intention. after all purpose of all these stories is to bring devotees more closer to god.

the most popular of them will survive. thats how even puranas came into being.

instead of asking questions you can always mold the divine story according to your needs ad logic.

regards
Krishna

Edited by kkr531 - 13 years ago

Quote

1 ... 78 79 80 81 82 ... 117

\|/Doubts & Discussions about Lord Shiva Part-1\|/ - Page 80

Related Topics

Explore Topics