Sleet of Emotional Quivers on RadhaKrishn Love CC#11 - Page 36

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Yes. And she is constantly called by that name. While male Krishna is not.

In the English translations, both names are written with same spelling so it's very easy to see he's hardly called that name in MBh.

But in our times, Krishna means Shouri VAsudeva Govinda.

That and Panchali's backstory is why I keep saying she was meant to be Vyasa's Vishnu avatar, not Govinda. Like Mohini before. But Panchali didn't have progeny to promote her. Also, society prefers male gods. So...

Quite a big probability but definitely even he decided otherwise later

I think this show will show Radha as the cause of Yadava farticide

But seriously he made Samb the king? Aur kuchh nhi to Balram ko hi bana dete itne saalon se sidekick ki Tarah raha hai

Check this video

https://youtu.be/A4-tDuzn-jg

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Check this video

https://youtu.be/A4-tDuzn-jg

Though I haven't watched this video but I know people are talking a lot about this video because it's criticizing all the mytho shows. Frankly speaking, these mytho shows deserve all the backlash. The way I see lot of people specially youngsters blindly believing every nonsense they show without verifying whether they're true or not. Take the example of this show itself. Teenage and kiddo fans of this show do believe Radha lived with Krishna in Dwarka, Krishna doesn't love his wives, Jamvanti was selfish mother and Sambh was evil son because that's what they see in this show.

I don't have problems with makers taking creative liberty but all mytho shows should be at least 60% reality and 40% fiction but nowadays it's 99.9% fiction and hardly 0.1% reality. What's the point making shows on Gods and Goddesses if they make up their own stories. Isse achha they just give any fictional name to their characters and show whatever they want. Nobody will question them.

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Quite a big probability but definitely even he decided otherwise later

Actually he didn't. Most scholars agree the Krishna as Vishnu part was inserted much later, not by Vyasa.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Actually he didn't. Most scholars agree the Krishna as Vishnu part was inserted much later, not by Vyasa.

Is there any evidence of Draupadi as a Roop of Narayana in epic?

Or could he have mentioned some portions which was removed by later Rishis

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Is there any evidence of Draupadi as a Roop of Narayana in epic?

Or could he have mentioned some portions which was removed by later Rishis

The closest Vyasa mentions avatars in his own dialogue is in his convo with Drupada.

Panchali is mentioned as Lakshmi. She was spotted by Indra/Arjun near a lotus lilake, crying her heart out. That's when Indra/Arjun sees her for the 1st time. Other versions have interpreted that to mean Arjun saw Panchali before swayamvar. Even Star Mb showed that.

In the same convo with Drupad, Vyasa says Vishnu sent two of his hairs to be Krishna and Balram.

All other avatars IIRC are in other people's words or in narration.

Thing is only Panchali is mentioned in the entire epic without a beginning, which was pretty much the m.o. for any avatar propaganda. I suppose she could've been Brahma or Shiva avatars too. Or Saraswati because someone else (I think Bheeshma) calls her Saraswati at one point, and acc to Rig Veda, Sarswati was goddess of war. Or maybe Kali. Because in the same lotus lake scene, Vyasa actually says the wielder of trident created her. I said Vishnu avatar because MBh eventually turned Vishnu-centric.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

The closest Vyasa mentions avatars in his own dialogue is in his convo with Drupada.

Panchali is mentioned as Lakshmi. She was spotted by Indra/Arjun near a lotus lilake, crying her heart out. That's when Indra/Arjun sees her for the 1st time. Other versions have interpreted that to mean Arjun saw Panchali before swayamvar. Even Star Mb showed that.

In the same convo with Drupad, Vyasa says Vishnu sent two of his hairs to be Krishna and Balram.

All other avatars IIRC are in other people's words or in narration.

Thing is only Panchali is mentioned in the entire epic without a beginning, which was pretty much the m.o. for any avatar propaganda. I suppose she could've been Brahma or Shiva avatars too. Or Saraswati because someone else (I think Bheeshma) calls her Saraswati at one point, and acc to Rig Veda, Sarswati was goddess of war. Or maybe Kali. Because in the same lotus lake scene, Vyasa actually says the wielder of trident created her. I said Vishnu avatar because MBh eventually turned Vishnu-centric.

Without a beginning means? Born from fire?

Originally posted by: vyapti

Without a beginning means? Born from fire?

From fire, without a childhood, without biological parents.

Krishna also comes into the story as a grown man, but his biological origins are mentioned.

All of them are born normally, except for Panchali and her brother.

Originally posted by: vyapti

Without a beginning means? Born from fire?

She is completely mysterious nothing is known about her pre adolescent life I think that's what HMR wants to show could be an attempt to make her an avatar