Rukmini Krishna : Lakshmi Narayan of Dwapar Yug - Page 3

Originally posted by: Krishnapanchali

.

They mostly echoes thr same thought process  Plus vyasa calls krishna vishnu and drapaudi laxmi. So that ends the discussion there.  Vyasa does not mention rukhmini 

But i would rather beileve in these two being two great human being and a human s ability to do the right thing. 

PS - in the original text drapaudi is only called sri/laxmi. Not any other goddess. 

Sorry but Vyasa does mention Rukmini as the incarnation of Sri/Vaikuntha Lakshmi in the Adi parva of Mahabharata.Draupadi is the incarnation of Shachi/Celestial Sri (Wife of Indra).By any logic, it's not possible that Krishna married 16108 women, but not his Lakshmi! 

Originally posted by: SarmaShru

Sorry but Vyasa does mention Rukmini as the incarnation of Sri/Vaikuntha Lakshmi in the Adi parva of Mahabharata.Draupadi is the incarnation of Shachi/Celestial Sri (Wife of Indra).By any logic, it's not possible that Krishna married 16108 women, but not his Lakshmi! 

Lol not going to get in this debate. 😆 So yeah beileve what you want. I have read the epic and know exactly what vyasa says. 

And i would like to believe that god took incarnation to serve higher purpose rather than just "getting married". To confine them into human stereotype is something done by mortals looking for "happy endings" sadly real life is all about logical and practical endings which serves a purpose. 

Originally posted by: Krishnapanchali

Lol not going to get in this debate. 😆 So yeah beileve what you want. I have read the epic and know exactly what vyasa says. 

And i would like to believe that god took incarnation to serve higher purpose rather than just "getting married". To confine them into human stereotype is something done by mortals looking for "happy endings" sadly real life is all about logical and practical endings which serves a purpose. 

I too am not interested in debates😆But just quoting from the English translation of the Mahabharat itself (translated by KMG).

".......And he, called Vasudeva, endued with great valour, was among men a portion of him called Narayana--the god of gods--eternal. And Valadeva of exceeding strength was a portion of the Naga, Sesha. And, O monarch, know that Pradyumna of great energy was Sanatkumara. And in this way the portion of various other dwellers in heaven became exalted men in the race of Vasudeva, increasing the glory thereof. And, O king, the portions of the tribe of Apsaras which I have mentioned already, also became incarnate on earth according to Indra's commands--And sixteen thousand portions of those goddesses became, O king, in this world of men, the wives of Vasudeva. And a portion of Sri herself became incarnate on earth, for the gratification of Narayana, in the line of Bhishmaka. And she was by name the chaste Rukmini. And the faultless Draupadi, slender-waisted like the wasp, was born of a portion of Sachi (the queen of the celestials), in the line of Drupada....."

And yeah, everyone is free to believe in what they want😆

Originally posted by: SarmaShru

I too am not interested in debates😆But just quoting from the English translation of the Mahabharat itself (translated by KMG).

".......And he, called Vasudeva, endued with great valour, was among men a portion of him called Narayana--the god of gods--eternal. And Valadeva of exceeding strength was a portion of the Naga, Sesha. And, O monarch, know that Pradyumna of great energy was Sanatkumara. And in this way the portion of various other dwellers in heaven became exalted men in the race of Vasudeva, increasing the glory thereof. And, O king, the portions of the tribe of Apsaras which I have mentioned already, also became incarnate on earth according to Indra's commands--And sixteen thousand portions of those goddesses became, O king, in this world of men, the wives of Vasudeva. And a portion of Sri herself became incarnate on earth, for the gratification of Narayana, in the line of Bhishmaka. And she was by name the chaste Rukmini. And the faultless Draupadi, slender-waisted like the wasp, was born of a portion of Sachi (the queen of the celestials), in the line of Drupada....."

And yeah, everyone is free to believe in what they want😆

Do you know know the countless times this same citation is presented and refuted. 😆. Try something new. But just for the record Here you go -

gaṇas tv apsarasāṃ yo vai mayā rājan prakīrtitaḥ

     tasya bhāgaḥ kṣitau jajñe niyogād vāsavasya ca

 94 tāni ṣoḍaśa devīnāṃ sahasrāṇi narādhipa

     babhūvur mānuṣe loke nārāyaṇa parigrahaḥ

 95 śriyas tu bhāgaḥ saṃjajñe ratyarthaṃ pṛthivītale

     drupadasya kule kanyā vedimadhyād aninditā

Plus when a goddess like laxmi takes incarnation why will take a birth as someone who plays no role whatsoever in the establishment of dharma What did rukhmini do?? What role did she play ?? Absolutely nothing ?? On the contray panchali is only the person who actually understood the need for change. The importance of justice. And actively 

Worked all her life to make it happen apart from krishna

So panchali being laxmi is more probable. Laxmi was a goddess if she takes incarnation it will for a special reason. 

But i would like to believe both krishna and krishnaa as humans who through their work were raised to status of divine being specially panchali because she deserves it more than anybody else more than Krishna himself. 

Continue with your "happy ending" syndrome. 

But not interested anymore so not going to indulge further. Don't want to sound rude and i am sorry if i do but please don't quote me on this any further not interested. 

Have a good day. 

Originally posted by: SarmaShru

I too am not interested in debates😆But just quoting from the English translation of the Mahabharat itself (translated by KMG).

".......And he, called Vasudeva, endued with great valour, was among men a portion of him called Narayana--the god of gods--eternal. And Valadeva of exceeding strength was a portion of the Naga, Sesha. And, O monarch, know that Pradyumna of great energy was Sanatkumara. And in this way the portion of various other dwellers in heaven became exalted men in the race of Vasudeva, increasing the glory thereof. And, O king, the portions of the tribe of Apsaras which I have mentioned already, also became incarnate on earth according to Indra's commands--And sixteen thousand portions of those goddesses became, O king, in this world of men, the wives of Vasudeva. And a portion of Sri herself became incarnate on earth, for the gratification of Narayana, in the line of Bhishmaka. And she was by name the chaste Rukmini. And the faultless Draupadi, slender-waisted like the wasp, was born of a portion of Sachi (the queen of the celestials), in the line of Drupada....."

And yeah, everyone is free to believe in what they want😆

Actually it vedvyas who created confusion for draupadi , some where she called shri, somewhere nalayani , even she is mentioned as saraswati 2.😆 I guess it more like praising someone like humari beti Lakshmi or saraswati jaise.

Draupadi is said to be incarnation of many goddess including ansh of Lakshmi & kali both.

It is also said krishna's astrabharya excluding Kalindi who is considered human form of river Yamuna , Lakshmi means all r Lakshmi ansh . Among all wives only Rukmini & satyabhama r most famous.

Originally posted by: SarmaShru

Sorry but Vyasa does mention Rukmini as the incarnation of Sri/Vaikuntha Lakshmi in the Adi parva of Mahabharata.Draupadi is the incarnation of Shachi/Celestial Sri (Wife of Indra).By any logic, it's not possible that Krishna married 16108 women, but not his Lakshmi! 

Bhudevi wife of varaha 

Dharini wife of parshuram 

Malola narshimbha or Lakshmi narshimbha

Padmavati wife of Venkateswara

Sita wife of ram

Rukmini wife of krishna

Yasodhara wife of Buddha

Padma wife of kalki.

It's such a sad thinking that if you wife of protector of whole universe then u have to prove ur worth then only u will consider wife to ur own husband

If people think bit logically & practically keeping their fantasy aside , then they will understand why Lakshmi Vishnu r inseperable,.

Ya Draupadi is considered incarnation of swargalakshmi , as she too is one of d form of Lakshmi only difference she is power of indra who reside in swarg not vaikuntha.

Its just that i don't see laxmi just as somebody s wife. No she was NOT just that. She is  goddess of wealth and prosperity  An individual in her own respect  A protector of universe and realm of all living creatures. So if she takes incarnation it should be for something greater bigger. An incarnation who will give us message of forgiveness justice right and wrong. Who will punish the evils and restore and just system. Goddess Lakshmi is that for me and much more. Equal to Vishnu. No way less  

 i refuse to follow the age old patriarchal mindset of a woman being known as just "somebody s wife"

But more than anything else i would say panchali was a human being who raised to a divine position because of her action. A woman of substance. Enigma as i call her. 

Originally posted by: Krishnapanchali

Do you know know the countless times this same citation is presented and refuted. 😆. Try something new. But just for the record Here you go -

gaṇas tv apsarasāṃ yo vai mayā rājan prakīrtitaḥ

     tasya bhāgaḥ kṣitau jajñe niyogād vāsavasya ca

 94 tāni ṣoḍaśa devīnāṃ sahasrāṇi narādhipa

     babhūvur mānuṣe loke nārāyaṇa parigrahaḥ

 95 śriyas tu bhāgaḥ saṃjajñe ratyarthaṃ pṛthivītale

     drupadasya kule kanyā vedimadhyād aninditā

Plus when a goddess like laxmi takes incarnation why will take a birth as someone who plays no role whatsoever in the establishment of dharma What did rukhmini do?? What role did she play ?? Absolutely nothing ?? On the contray panchali is only the person who actually understood the need for change. The importance of justice. And actively 

Worked all her life to make it happen apart from krishna

So panchali being laxmi is more probable. Laxmi was a goddess if she takes incarnation it will for a special reason. 

But i would like to believe both krishna and krishnaa as humans who through their work were raised to status of divine being specially panchali because she deserves it more than anybody else more than Krishna himself. 

Continue with your "happy ending" syndrome. 

But not interested anymore so not going to indulge further. Don't want to sound rude and i am sorry if i do but please don't quote me on this any further not interested. 

Have a good day. 

Sorry, no more quoting you after this one but I want to say I have no "happy ending" syndrome😆 Even Krishna-Rukmini are not a "happy ending" couple in one sense.

First you said Vyasa doesn't mention Rukmini. But she is there in Mahabharata. Why do you think that Lakshmi needs to play an important role in the story everytime she takes birth along with Narayan? Why can't she be a silent supporter in his journey after suffering a lot in her previous incarnation as Sita? It is specifically stated that she took incarnation as Rukmini for the  sole purpose of gratifying Narayana,not for Dharmasthapana. 

Draupadi being Shachi is the most accepted belief, I do believe in the same and everyone is free to believe in what they want. I quoted you because you said that Rukmini is not mentioned by Vyasa at first.If Draupadi is Lakshmi, who was Rukmini according to you? A normal princess from Vidarbha? 

Moreover what is the purpose of debating with you when you ultimately believe in them being humans elevated to the status of divine!

Have a good day👍🏼 and yes, no more quoting😆😆

Originally posted by: SarmaShru

Sorry, no more quoting you after this one but I want to say I have no "happy ending" syndrome😆 Even Krishna-Rukmini are not a "happy ending" couple in one sense.

First you said Vyasa doesn't mention Rukmini. But she is there in Mahabharata. Why do you think that Lakshmi needs to play an important role in the story everytime she takes birth along with Narayan? Why can't she be a silent supporter in his journey after suffering a lot in her previous incarnation as Sita? It is specifically stated that she took incarnation as Rukmini for the  sole purpose of gratifying Narayana,not for Dharmasthapana. 

Draupadi being Shachi is the most accepted belief, I do believe in the same and everyone is free to believe in what they want. I quoted you because you said that Rukmini is not mentioned by Vyasa at first.If Draupadi is Lakshmi, who was Rukmini according to you? A normal princess from Vidarbha? 

Moreover what is the purpose of debating with you when you ultimately believe in them being humans elevated to the status of divine!

Have a good day👍🏼 and yes, no more quoting😆😆

She gave the same verse in Sanskrit dear. The name of Rukmini isn't mentioned, KMG did a mistake in translation that's something we have discussed multiple times

I consider both Krishna, Rukmini n Draupadi as humans who were raised to divine status due to their importance in changing the Bharat society so I am least interested in who was the  incarnation of Lakshmi (for I think there was none)

But your confusion about the mention of Rukmini is wrong here

Originally posted by: deepikagupta9

Actually it vedvyas who created confusion for draupadi , some where she called shri, somewhere nalayani , even she is mentioned as saraswati 2.😆 I guess it more like praising someone like humari beti Lakshmi or saraswati jaise.

Draupadi is said to be incarnation of many goddess including ansh of Lakshmi & kali both.

It is also said krishna's astrabharya excluding Kalindi who is considered human form of river Yamuna , Lakshmi means all r Lakshmi ansh . Among all wives only Rukmini & satyabhama r most famous.

That's true😆

Bold: That's foolish to believe that everyone is Lakshmi except one in the Ashtabharya group. People generally associate Ashtamahishis with Ashtalakshmi whereas the concept of Ashtalakshmi is relatively new. I believe they are called prime queens because Krishna married them prior to marrying the 16100 women at once😆 For me Rukmini,his first wife and chief queen is Mahalakshmi which is authenticated by various puranas. Satyabhama is considered as Bhudevi who is another consort of Narayana. Acharyas who wrote commentaries on Bhagavatam, Vishnu Purana etc. mentions his other wives as Lakshmi aveshas sometimes.