Originally posted by _Vrish_
Tan
Good to see you again - it's been a while since the Ramayan days (my id used to be Chandraketu). Yeah, I've heard about some theories about all of Krishna's wives being Lakshmi, and someone even once posted that Draupadi was Lakshmi as well. However, the only wife of Krishna that the scriptures are unanomous about as being Lakshmi is Rukmini.
In Krishna's battle w/ Narakasura, Satyabhama accompanied him, and according to some South Indian traditions, it was she who slew Naraka. But in this episode, after Narakasura's death, Bhudevi herself takes Narakasura's son Bhagadatta to Krishna to have him spared. If Satyabhama is an avatar of Bhudevi, it begs an explanation of how come both of them were on Bhulok @ the same time. It's similar to the episode last night where Vishnu and Lakshmi are discussing Rukmini's plight 🤪
hey hi, u changed ur id, wow now u r a coolbie, thats nice.
thing is with mythology specially Hindu mythology and also to some extent indian history, there is no one recorded or accepted document or script which can be taken as the conclusive premise. and as we believe, there are as many ways as are opinion, to form one conclusive opinion is very difficult.. the main reason being, the tradition of written records for anything is quite new, and indians since the rig vedic time relied more on passing the knowledge orally, and oral transmission always has the flaw of being added and exaggerated. Some accounts even suggest lord K was a very adept politician and warrior who actually existed and did many good jobs and gradually became God.
anywho, keeping that in mind, although some broad storylines are more or less same, there is not need to think what we r being shown here as the ultimate truth. Sagars do their research but they mostly follow one book as standard while there r so many which sometimes have conflicting opinion.
not just in south India, even in north india , at places ithe story goes satyavama is said to slay narakasura. it is said, at the perfect moment, narakasura hurled his strongest satagni at lord K and he pretended to faint and transferred his power to SV who then killed narakasura. narakasura was given a boon that he will only die when his mother wishes for and only she can kill him. so makes sense she was born as an avatar of bhudevi.
Also, the show frequently shows the avatar knows fully who he or she is, which actually is not true. scripts say, even when a normal human being after yrs of meditation can realise his true self, he becomes one with his true self. the true self being the one and infinite all emcompassing energy or matter or whatever we call as HIM/HER the supreme. . we all have the presence of the supreme being in us, just that we donot realise it. if we truly and finally realise it, the whole cycle, universe will be one and same and hence we will cease to exist. An avatar has little more presence of the supreme being in him than a common person. and that is why he/she can perform feats we cannot even imagine. but once an avatar knows their true self, they leave even faster to reunite with the whole. that is why an avatar is never fully aware of who he or she is.
so it makes kinda sense that an avatar can see and meet the true form without realising who they are. coz once realisation strikes, that they r the same, the whole point of existing as different will be moot. so it is possble that bhudevi came and met lord K.
having said that again, we cannot pinpoint on what exactly is the truth and what exactly is not right, every thing is true, we have the right to choose which one to believe.. Confusing i know, but well thats what happens when stories survive over 3000 years.the evolve and have branches.
u r right, mostly people consider rukmini to be an incarnation of Laxmi. but laxmi herself in a part of the Maha shakti, so why is it not possible that if radha exists, she is also part of her shakti. i believe that , i find the concept cooler.
anywho, i like the guy who plays balram, do u know where else he has acted?
and vishal has cute smile.