I agree w/ a lot of what you say, so decided to post my comments on last night's episode here. Didn't mean to get into a big bhashan, but there's sooo much in my mind that I end up doing it anyway, so here it is.
Devaki getting her children back now didn't bother me - it seems logical that once she witnessed miracles - not Kritavarma's son, but Guru Sandipan's son - that she'd want hers back as well, and that she's more likely to have wanted it when she was still young enough to have more children, rather than towards the end of her life when she would have had so many grandchildren to cuddle as babies. Also, in the texts, the order in which they appeared was more according to Parikshit's/Janamejaya's curiousity, rather than any actual chronological order. The only chronological order that can be assigned are things like Pradhyumna's return to Krishna would have had to have happened b4 the Pandava Rajasuya yagna, things of that sort. Otherwise, I don't think one can definitively say that this incident happened towards the end of her life, particularly when in that story, she actually breast-fed those babies b4 releasing them.
I found it somewhat amusing how they've smuggled these fictitious characters like Amod, Raman, Ramiya into the story. But the thing I didn't like is that in this fictional construct, Balarama is portrayed as being more interested in protecting Krishna than seeing justice done.
Even in the original Raman episode, I didn't like how Balarama was portrayed as refusing to listen to Raman's pleas @ all
. In reality, Balarama, like Lakshman, did have a fiery temper, but he was not unreasonable, and nor was he unjust. The real Balarama, had he actually been king, and had he been in such a situation, would have given Raman a fair chance to vindicate himself.
The end result of that ugly twist was that everytime Krishna meets Ramiya, he's filled w/ guilt, and nobody can fault Ramiya w/ what she says to Krishna - whether it's refusing to let him help her w/ the water, refusing to accept his gifts, etc. Till now, I haven't gotten the point of depicting Krishna as guilt ridden. Somehow, they're trying to show that Krishna being accused by Satrajit was a moral consequence of Raman being accused by Balarama. And last night, she didn't bear false witness against him, so the way the story has been spun, despite the total assassination of Satrajit's character, it's hard to blame him in these circumstances when he has a witness backing up what he suspects. And Ramiya was right about Balarama - having refused to listen to Raman, Balarama looked more like a family b4 people when he refused to do anything against Krishna w/o evidence - evidence he hadn't insisted on for Raman's case. It's only b'cos Krishna insisted that all citizens must have trust in the government that Balarama's reputation seemed saved.
Speaking of which, I wonder whether the Sagars are trying a Ramayanification (never thought I'd come up w/, much less use that word) of Krishna's history? In the Krittivas version of the Ramayan, Rama exiled Sita just b'cos a dhobi suspected her: here, Krishna is leaving just b'cos Satrajit suspects him. In the original, when Prasenjit was found dead, Satrajit suspected Krishna, but never confronted him on it, but Krishna, in a similar spirit, decided to get to the bottom of that.
My biggest problem w/ the story is that while it's well known even in the serial that Krishna knew about his incarnation, Balarama, who is a part of the same incarnation, doesn't seem to show it. Last night, when Krishna was leaving, neither Balarama nor Revathy nor Rukmini should have been bothered, but the tears they showed in their eyes, and Balarama asking Krishna what if you can't get the gem? After Krishna has retrieved their dead brothers, how can someone, particularly Balarama, doubt that Krishna would be successful? He has so many divine resources @ his disposal - aside from the fact that his chariot can fly, he has Garuda, and Vishnu's divine weapons, can invoke Hanuman if he wishes, and so many other things. But Rukmini is really a let down - all she does is cry, and express concern whenever Krishna does anything. In reality, she had a very happy life & marriage - only miserable times was when Pradhyumna was stolen from her, and @ the end, when the entire race was massacred and she got briefly widowed. Of all women, apart from Sita, she's the one who should be the least worried about apshakuns.
Krishna was right in pointing to Balarama that Raman did the wrong thing by killing himself, but if the point of the story here is that Raman should have done what Krishna is doing, I think it fails. First of all, Raman didn't have anywhere near the resources Krishna had to vindicate himself, although one could argue that had he approached a rishi, he might have found out who stole it and tried to implicate him. But had those rishis been tied up by monsters like in last night's episode, Raman would have been out of luck. I do hope that after Krishna is vindicated, he finds out who actually framed Raman and produces him to Ramiya, so that she can stop hating Krishna (really, her real anger should be towards Balarama - Krishna did try to give her a hearing, but Balarama stopped him) and be @ peace w/ the turn of things.
The sages & the monsters story seems inserted - these monsters looked like some of the ones Hanuman encountered when he was out to save Rama & Lakshman from Ahiravan & Mahiravan.
But again, one thing I like about this serial - they show Krishna using weapons other than his discus. It did look strange @ first when Krishna went into the ashram w/ his bow when his purpose was to ask the rishis for directions. But looks like the bow was put into good use
(Don't look @ me like that - I love astras & shastras, so love everytime Rama or Krishna get to use them
And the discus in this serial is the best I've ever seen!!!
Another thing - aside from Krishna frowning in adverse situations, I don't like how he takes oaths. In fact, I doubt that he ever took an oath, except maybe in case of Narakasura, where he vowed to kill him for snatching Aditi's earrings. W/ Shrutadeva, he merely promised to forgive Sishupala 100 times, but again, never swore it. Here, he's taken one now to prove his innocence, and earlier, he took one for Kritavarma's wife. Krishna was never that impetuous! Even in Kurukshetra, where people think he had sworn not to fight - no! He told Arjun that he wasn't going to fight for either side, but it was not in the form of a vow or anything. So had Krishna decided @ any point of time to fight, he'd not have been breaking any promise, just changing his mind. But he's made 2 vows already.
The last thing I didn't get - I know that a lot of things changed for Jambavan b/w Treta & Dwapar Yugas. But in Treta Yuga, Jambavan was based in Kishkindha, where he was an advisor to Sugriva, and later presumably Angad. So how does he now live in a cave north of Dwarka? Kishkindha is in Karnataka, where Vijayanagar/Hampi was, so how is that anywhere near? I'm not sure the CVs are wrong either in this case, since Prasenjit couldn't have gone far, but if anybody knows how Jambavan came so far north, I'd sure like to hear it.
P.S. Where is everybody?
The forum is so empty after the long weekend in India has ended