What happened to Mandodari after Ravan died? - Page 4

Originally posted by: Omshanti1111

Dear Madam,

It is very unfortunate that you are trying to console Charu, and you have no words for the person who insulted her. The way sita11 wrote in" old bold letters"--it seems from your explanation that you support her in her actions.

Only one article that I found insulting was when someone by the name "SitaLaxmi" was trying to abuse Ramayan for no solid reason. But later on, she also played safe by apologising.

Discussions and disagreeements are always welcome in any GD, but one should have the basic courtesy of not attacking a person in particular. Please read my reply to Mr. Rajnish and you can make out the level of arrogance that Ms. Sita had reached. And if you still support her, then no use of discussing this any more.

Originally posted by: sita11

chill !!! we all know tht charu is ur friend !! don't drag the issue so much !!! i already said sorry !!!

i really wonder u don't hv any objections to the threads in which there r so many unethical stuff written for GODS like the thread truth of sugriva & the thread of dharam veer fan at jaishri krishna forum !!!!

don't drag the issue anymore !!!

plz!!! refrain from usgae of words like nautanki esp when ur writing any stuff for LORD RAMA !!!!

Originally posted by rupalip




Jai Shree Ram!

Rupali, thanks for your reply. As per the reason given by you, many ladies wanted to marry Ramji as well, but he never married anyone else except Sita maa . [btw i have read ramayan]

Well many ladies would want to marry Srk or Imran Khan, but would it be fair if they marry 10-15 ladies??
Just because those apsaras prayed to marry Vishnuji doesn't mean that he should grant those wishes to them even though it is wrong. Some things are wrong and it shouldn't be done.
And about "gods are never wrong" I disagree, even gods make mistake.
For example: Parvati maa asked ganesh bhagwan not to let anyone come inside the gufa as she was praying[ i think.] At that time, Shivji came there, and asked ganesh bhagwan to let him go inside. Ganesh bhagwan didnt let him go inside. Thus the furious Shivaji cut ganesh bhagwan's head. Later on, Shijii came to know that Ganesh bhagwan is actually his son, and was merely obeying his mother's order.



Edited by dharam-veer fan - 19 September 2008 at 5:41pm

__________________
** Banner Signatures viewable to members only with Vi



Right, the above underline is the one I persume Ms Sita1.1 is talking about.


I was not going to get in the middle of this, but I had no idea about this Jai Shri Krishna forum until today and looked up what I think Ms Sita1.1 is talking about. I felt I had to intervene at this point.


In my opinion, that above post given by dharam -veer hardly has the same quailification as the "surgiva" is this forum.

DV is trying to use everyday life explanation to the things happen longtime back ago. Also, it is not necessary that devotees like DV have the same understanding as people with more understanding.
Therefore, they will question, it is our job, as more knowledgeable ones, to try to talk at their level of understanding and bring them to "our" level. You can read so much or whatever, but the UNDERSTANDING needs to be there. Like why did Lord krishna marry so many times but Lord Ram only once, since that are from the same incarnation? That why I believe he brought in Celebrities.


For example, lets take something simple. Science: say you never heard of an "atom" before. I tell you it's the smallest thing possible. You look at me blank thinking
"huh? What is she on? I thought the smallest thing is what I can see, how can I believe that about atom?" So the job of the scientist is to use everyday things to get them to think--- for example bricks in building blocks, it's the smallest thing.


That's probably a very bad example but being a lecturer in Science I couldn't think of a more basic one at this point. Otherwise, everyone would be confused.

Now, getting back to the topic, most people do not know that Lord krishna was not attached to any of his wives. He had reached the heights of spiritualisms that all he was doing was "acting out". Basically, he was a A Man of Self-Realization, that everything happening to him was His own karma, Good or Bad. He was incarnated straight from the God-principle, Like Ram--but Ram's role was different. So whatever came their way, both of them took sorrows and happniess equally. They "acted out" but once that "scene" was finished, they were back to doing their duties, because the understood the Magic of Maya, since Maya has come from them LOL.

Just think of other Great people, Mahathma Gandhi, Jesus, Adi Shankararacharaya, etc. Look at what they achieved, by understanding the concept of the universe, controlled by the Lord.
(I could go on)
Also, people like DV and Omshanti, I have to say, are very true people, because they question everything, they don't follow dogmatically. Watch, people like them will grow further spiritually and religiously, reaching the heights further than we have, because they are not afraid to question. Because questioning stimulates the mind and you learn more.


Just my opinion.

Please do not get offended.

God Bless.

Originally posted by: diva82

Originally posted by rupalip

Hi n jai shri ram ...

Good to know u r devotee of Shri Ram and u r absolutely right that Lord Ram n Lord Krishnaji are Vishnujis avatar... a very simple theory see... one Amitabh bachhan or any actor play diff roles in diff movies...

same is the case here..

Vishnuji is the actor who took diff avatars in diff Yugas.... and acted accordingly .....

U said u r a Ramji devotee , plz go n read Ramayan .. u ll get no. of females who love Ramji and wanted him to be their husband but as Ramji was Maryada Purushottam and promised Sitaji for one-female man(thats ek patni vrat) so Ramji promised all those females that u all do tapasya I ll marry u all in my Krishna Avatar ......

Theres no diff in Ramji n Kriishnaji ... they are one n thats Vishnuji....

Mainly Krishnaji got married with Satyabhama, Rukmini and Jambavati...

After Ramjis avatar, theres one more ansh-avatar of Vishnuji ... Nar-Narayan

Theres a story where Indraji send 16050 apsara to distueb tapasya of

Nar-Narayan tapasya but they were failed to do so ... and Nar showed his power of Tap by creating many apsara from his power.....

All 16050 apsaras got impressed by narayan and prayed him to marry all...

Narayan repl I m brahmachari and cannot marry , but dont get disheartened

as i ll marry u all in Krishna Avatar.....

hence Krishnaji has more than 16000 wives....

Now say Is he wrong???????????????????

I dont find him wrong in any way .......

Gods are never wrong... always u can see some or the other reasons behind everything .........

Krishnajis character is very strong , he fulfilled everyones dream ... as the best son with Yashoda ma , best husband with all wives best friend ....

Jai Shree Ram!

Rupali, thanks for your reply. As per the reason given by you, many ladies wanted to marry Ramji as well, but he never married anyone else except Sita maa . [btw i have read ramayan]

Well many ladies would want to marry Srk or Imran Khan, but would it be fair if they marry 10-15 ladies??
Just because those apsaras prayed to marry Vishnuji doesn't mean that he should grant those wishes to them even though it is wrong. Some things are wrong and it shouldn't be done.
And about "gods are never wrong" I disagree, even gods make mistake.
For example: Parvati maa asked ganesh bhagwan not to let anyone come inside the gufa as she was praying[ i think.] At that time, Shivji came there, and asked ganesh bhagwan to let him go inside. Ganesh bhagwan didnt let him go inside. Thus the furious Shivaji cut ganesh bhagwan's head. Later on, Shijii came to know that Ganesh bhagwan is actually his son, and was merely obeying his mother's order.



Edited by dharam-veer fan - 19 September 2008 at 5:41pm

__________________
** Banner Signatures viewable to members only with Vi



Right, the above underline is the one I persume Ms Sita1.1 is talking about.


I was not going to get in the middle of this, but I had no idea about this Jai Shri Krishna forum until today and looked up what I think Ms Sita1.1 is talking about. I felt I had to intervene at this point.


In my opinion, that above post given by dharam -veer hardly has the same quailification as the "surgiva" is this forum.

DV is trying to use everyday life explanation to the things happen longtime back ago. Also, it is not necessary that devotees like DV have the same understanding as people with more understanding.
Therefore, they will question, it is our job, as more knowledgeable ones, to try to talk at their level of understanding and bring them to "our" level. You can read so much or whatever, but the UNDERSTANDING needs to be there. Like why did Lord krishna marry so many times but Lord Ram only once, since that are from the same incarnation? That why I believe he brought in Celebrities.


For example, lets take something simple. Science: say you never heard of an "atom" before. I tell you it's the smallest thing possible. You look at me blank thinking
"huh? What is she on? I thought the smallest thing is what I can see, how can I believe that about atom?" So the job of the scientist is to use everyday things to get them to think--- for example bricks in building blocks, it's the smallest thing.


That's probably a very bad example but being a lecturer in Science I couldn't think of a more basic one at this point. Otherwise, everyone would be confused.

Now, getting back to the topic, most people do not know that Lord krishna was not attached to any of his wives. He had reached the heights of spiritualisms that all he was doing was "acting out". Basically, he was a A Man of Self-Realization, that everything happening to him was His own karma, Good or Bad. He was incarnated straight from the God-principle, Like Ram--but Ram's role was different. So whatever came their way, both of them took sorrows and happniess equally. They "acted out" but once that "scene" was finished, they were back to doing their duties, because the understood the Magic of Maya, since Maya has come from them LOL.

Just think of other Great people, Mahathma Gandhi, Jesus, Adi Shankararacharaya, etc. Look at what they achieved, by understanding the concept of the universe, controlled by the Lord.
(I could go on)
Also, people like DV and Omshanti, I have to say, are very true people, because they question everything, they don't follow dogmatically. Watch, people like them will grow further spiritually and religiously, reaching the heights further than we have, because they are not afraid to question. Because questioning stimulates the mind and you learn more.


Just my opinion.

Please do not get offended.

God Bless.

Hi godisone,
No I didn't get offended, you were just expressing what you feel.
I understand what you are trying to say but I still don't think DV was being disrespectable.
Lets just agree to disagree.

Hare Krishna.

Originally posted by: diva82

Hi godisone,
No I didn't get offended, you were just expressing what you feel.
I understand what you are trying to say but I still don't think DV was being disrespectable.
Lets just agree to disagree.

Hare Krishna.

Originally posted by: sita11

ok !!! lemme clarify myself

first of all ,i found a member dharamveer fan at JAI SHRI KRISHNA FORUM ,who was calling lord KRISHNA as a casanova types & was comparing lord krishna to movie actors like srk ,imran khan !!!! tht was highly un-ethical ,i did not like tht ,so i made a thread titled-------who is the mod of this forum !!! at jai shri krishna forum , so tht i cud know tht who is the mod ,so tht i cud ask tht mod to edit the comments of dharam veerfan which were really insulting types !!! so what is wrong in tht ????

om shanti om !!! why ur not telling the whole story ??? how can u tolerate any member calling lord krishna as casanova types & comparing him with movie actors ,who r surrounded by girls !!! u shud hv given ur piece of advice to tht member !!!! tht was really an unwanted topic at jai shri krishna forum !!!! so i asked global mods to hv a look at tht topic !!!! SO WHAT IS THE PROB IN THT ???????? can anyone tell me !!!!!

as a coolbie i hv got some responsiblity as we hv tht much right to question any member who tries to create any chaos on the forum !!!!,i don't want to insult any members !!!!

om shanti om !! it will b great if u don't use the cheap word nautanki at this RAMAYAN FORUM !!! plz!!! refrain from usage of such words !!!! & as a coolbie of this forum ,i can ask u not to use tht word !!!

@ luv-khwaish !!! if ur hurt ,then i am sorry !!!!

Hi,
I'll give my reasons:

1. First of all, you have framed ideas in your mind-- never in this world had I ever use "Nautanki" for Ramayan. You are using this word against me just to prove me wrong and yourself right. I think I am quite legible in my posts, and anyone who can understand language, will never say that.
Ref: For other members, pls go back to my posts and tell me for which character have I used " Nautanki". I can defend myself and can explain that someone had written "NAUTANKI" against my post and that what I was referring to. I even raised objections against the word "Nautanki".Either Sita11 does not understand the language or she is just trying to label me bad to prove her right.

2. Second idea that you have framed is luv_khwaish is my friend, who else except you has this idea? The reason you are trying to label luv_khwaish and me friends is simply that you want to prove that I am taking her side. The sole idea of yours is to prove that whatever you wrote and write are always right. And also, then whoever is speaking the truth about your arrogant nature are luv_khwaish's friends.

For other members, I have only read luv_khwaish's ideas here and there in the forum and those seem extremely mature and sensible, one can never taste an inch of arrogancy in her statements.

3. You still write in bold letters, that means you think you are exceptional in this forum. This actually shows your superiority complex again.

4. I am writing a complete article about Lord Krishna, his Raas leela for the person who has written that article on Murari that why he has 16000 wives. As a devotee of Lord, one should always try to logically bring someone who is going astray to right path, rather than criticising.

5. Your anger about certain people is however, right... some people intentionally say bad, like one lady named Sita Laxmi was doing before, that sort of a person who jokes about Ramayana--- should never be forgiven. So if you show your anger on them, its worth it.

So try to differentiate who is actually talking sense and who is not.

But I appreciate your "Prabhu Bhakti"-- may the Lord bestow you with patience.

Originally posted by: coolpurvi

U misunderstood me n Rajnish. I made no personal comments on u or on any character or on anyother. all my comments were on that issue or concept only. I read those books before writing so. Ram took birth has human being. Vishnu imposed his own maya on him. According to Valmiki Ramayan Ram was unawae abt his future happenings n sufferings. Do we find krishna of Mahabahrat crying n lamenting like this on the sorrow of his near n dears one? no? because he was above maya n is a purna avtar. The mission of the two avtar were a bit different. Through Ram a ideal human life was shown. Vishnu n Laxmi took incarnation as Ram n Sita to purify this earth. Wherever they went that place became pure.

Ramayana means journey of Ram n Sita

Some writers termed Sita as maya(illusion) whereas Valmiki described Sita as self-same Ram or very self of Ram.

Ram too birth as human he didnt knew what will happen in future. It is according to Tulsidas that Ram knew everything. Thats why ull find mention of Chhaya Sita in it. But in Valmiki Ramayan Ram didn't know abt his future.

Through Sita Valmiki has shown the strength of women. One who bravely faced Raavan in Ashok Vaatika was Real Sita n not a illusion(Maya). In Valmiki Ramayan both Ram Sita had equal importance while in Ramcharit Mana only Ram is given importance n Sita is shown as someone inferior to him who has no key role to play in the story. Sita doesn't need protection from Agnideva to protect herself. She's much greater then him. By her Satitva she even cooled down fire.

If Ram was one who knew everything about his future then there is nothing inspiring in Ram's life. If Ram was one who knew everything about his future then Ram can't be our ideal because Gods can be worshiped but not followed. Gods can't be our ideal. A human being has capacity to follow a human being only not God. Dharma imposes many duties on human being. Lord Vishnu took birth as human being with human limitations n showed us an ideal human life. He didn't took those great n unselfish decision because he knew every about future. He happily accepted exile, fought with evils, wage war with Ravan not because he knew everything but because he wanted to follow dharma. Ram-Sita showed that human beings have capacity follow dharma and dharma does not impose any impossible duty on human.
Valmiki has shown Ram as human. Ram suffered all pains for Dharma. He showed that avoiding hardship can't be a excuse for violating Dharma. He didn't suffer all these pains because he knew everything. The way Ram lamented for dasrath in his death no way suggest that he knew everything. He cried for Sita like a madman. He recollected her every moment. He wept like a orphan collapsing on earth on Jataayu's death.

Pls dont interpret my words wrongly.


for me only Lord Ram is Lord Ram. I cant think of comparing him with any one. Lord Ram can be compared with Lord Ram only. want to qpute something from Tulsidasji : "Raghuvar Ki Chabi samaan raghuvar chabi baniya"

Thanks for sharing your views and also for all your clarifications. I had misunderstood before, appreciate your generosity and effort.
May God bless you now and always...

Originally posted by: Omshanti1111

Hi,
I'll give my reasons:

1. First of all, you have framed ideas in your mind-- never in this world had I ever use "Nautanki" for Ramayan. You are using this word against me just to prove me wrong and yourself right. I think I am quite legible in my posts, and anyone who can understand language, will never say that.
Ref: For other members, pls go back to my posts and tell me for which character have I used " Nautanki". I can defend myself and can explain that someone had written "NAUTANKI" against my post and that what I was referring to. I even raised objections against the word "Nautanki".Either Sita11 does not understand the language or she is just trying to label me bad to prove her right.

2. Second idea that you have framed is luv_khwaish is my friend, who else except you has this idea? The reason you are trying to label luv_khwaish and me friends is simply that you want to prove that I am taking her side. The sole idea of yours is to prove that whatever you wrote and write are always right. And also, then whoever is speaking the truth about your arrogant nature are luv_khwaish's friends.

For other members, I have only read luv_khwaish's ideas here and there in the forum and those seem extremely mature and sensible, one can never taste an inch of arrogancy in her statements.

3. You still write in bold letters, that means you think you are exceptional in this forum. This actually shows your superiority complex again.

4. I am writing a complete article about Lord Krishna, his Raas leela for the person who has written that article on Murari that why he has 16000 wives. As a devotee of Lord, one should always try to logically bring someone who is going astray to right path, rather than criticising.

5. Your anger about certain people is however, right... some people intentionally say bad, like one lady named Sita Laxmi was doing before, that sort of a person who jokes about Ramayana--- should never be forgiven. So if you show your anger on them, its worth it.

So try to differentiate who is actually talking sense and who is not.

But I appreciate your "Prabhu Bhakti"-- may the Lord bestow you with patience.

OMG i cant believe my user name is everywhere in this thread. Just to clear things a bit:
I have had the question about Krishnajii marrying 1600 women since i was a kid. However, i never really asked anyone about it because i dreaded the other persons response.

I thought why not ask that question in the JSK forum; and i put my views forward in a civilized. Again, I have not demeaned Krsihanjii in anyway; and i do not regret posting that topic in the JSK forum.


Sita 11 wrote " i found a member dharamveer fan at JAI SHRI KRISHNA FORUM ,who was calling lord KRISHNA as a casanova types & was comparing lord krishna to movie actors like srk ,imran khan !!!! tht was highly un-ethical ,i did not like tht ,so i made a thread titled-------who is the mod of this forum !!! at jai shri krishna forum , so tht i cud know tht who is the mod ,so tht i cud ask tht mod to edit the comments of dharam veerfan which were really insulting types !!! so what is wrong in tht ????"

Ms. Sita: I did not call Krishnajii a Casanova. It seems like you have misunderstood me.The only thing i wanted to know, was what was the reason for Krishnaji to marry 1600 women? and Charu aka Luv_khwaish educated me about the topic. Thanks to her for being patient and guiding me to the right direction. If you read my entire post, I also mentioned that Bhagwad Geeta is a blessing to mankind.

As per me comparing Krishnajii to an ordinary human being ..

Rupali wrote : 1600 apsaras were captured by a demon and krishnajii freed them; and all of the apsaras wanted to marry Krishnajii. Thus, he married them...

And i did not find that answer very convincing. The very immediate question that crosses my mind was "just bcuz those apsaras wanted to marry Krishnajii . He agreed to marry them???????? that way many gurls/ladies would wanna marry celebrities and that wudnt be appropriate.

Rupali forgot to write that after the captivation of those apsaras no one would marry them. THus, Krishanjji had to marry them .

also..My granny says " god is present in every human being". So, why is it wrong to compare an ordinary human being with god?

One more thing: Even though i have recently joined IF, I have always visited the Ramayana forum. I remember Sita11 mentioned in one of post that " she never liked the idea of Draupadi having 5 husbands"

Similarly I stated in my post in JSK forum that i never understood the idea of Krishnajii having 1600 women. What is wrong with that?

I can also reach to the conclusion that you were trying to call Draupadi a characterless woman, but is that what you meant? No right? Similarly, I did not mean to call Krishnajii a casanova.

PS: @ Sita11 : BY pointing at that specific post of yours, i am not trying to put you down. I am just trying to make you understood my point of view. thats it.

jai shree ram!