Joined: 21 August 2014
The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:
Joined: 21 August 2014
Joined: 30 March 2014
The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:
Joined: 20 October 2014
Hi all, newbie here, only starting to
watch DKDM last month, but have been in love with Lord Shiva for a decade or
so. I couldn't find a place to post this concern of mine, so this is the place,
I suppose. It's about Lord Ganesh and Shiv-ji (or rather his trishul) chopping
off Ganesh' head (16 Dec 2012, ep 285). The link below isn't active anymore, so
I need to write my comments here.
I should first state that my comments here are based on the link above and also on the DKDM ep 285, instead on commenting some Puranic texts. After watching episode 285 last night, I am grateful that the DKDM writers took the "Sage Kashyap's curse" route instead of the "more popular" view of Lord Shiva chopping Bal Ganesh' head just because of a fight. As Lord Shiva is the avatar of compassion, I just couldn't wrap my head around it. It just doesn't make sense that Shiva beheaded Ganesh just because the latter prohibited the former to enter the cave and meet Parvati.
The curse of Rshi Kashyap made more sense (although there have been some versions too on whether Shiva killed Surya because the latter caused cosmic imbalance, or just because the latter killed Shiva's followers - I choose to believe the first explanation). I still find it hard to chew the fact/ongoing knowledge that someone (albeit with high power like the sages) could curse the Trimurti, but that's another discussion.
Now, I am very thankful that member Srushti provided the written update for the 16 Dec 2012 episode. I am also grateful that Srushti got the essence of that episode right: that "Mahadev is as if completely helpless as one single tear escapes his eyes and the Trishul on his own volition attacks its attacker".
I think that was what happened. Mahadev did not attack Vinayak to kill the latter. Mahadev told Vinayak to let go of his weapon and stop being so stubborn. Vinayak threw the club/gada towards Mahadev; the latter was trying hard to control his anger. And I think what happened was, the Trishul sensed its owner's anger and acted on its own volition, counter-attacking Vinayak's gada and moved along the trajectory - chopping Vinayak's head.
I agree with Srushti that "there can be no justification, that just because her son had become proudy and stubborn he was to be killed". I just don't agree that (quoting Srushti): "Mahadev tries to reason with Parvati, that her son was not ready to listen to anybody, he had become stubborn headed...he had become proudy, and so he had to be killed."
Now, I took the cited sentence from the written update link above. Not sure if it was Srushti's assertion or the verbatim translation of the Hindi script - I have been watching the Indonesian subtitles, which usually are mediocre at best. Anyway, I respectfully disagree with the later part of the sentence ("so he had to be killed"). Unfortunately, more than one fellow poster thought that Mahadev had the clear intention of killing Vinayak, hence I also need to point out the comments verbatim. Fellow poster Nymphadora wrote, "personally i loved the way Parvati shouted down Mahadevs justifications for beheading Vinayak-nothing in the world can justify the beheading of little Vinayak-and Mahadev,the Devtas and co were wrong. No amount of Mahadevs tears would cover the fact that HE was the one who beheaded Vinayak". Fellow poster Indu_IF wrote that, "What Mahadev did had very little justification. Only a mother can feel the pain of loosing her child and that too so brutally by the hands of his own father." I respectfully disagree with Indu and Nymphadora for the same reason I disagree with Srushti.
I don't think Mahadev came for the second time to the cave entrance to kill his own son (the first time he came, Vinayak told him off, and off Mahadev went). Mahadev came to the cave entrance for the second time to pacify Vinayak, because the latter had been involved with some brawl game with the Devas and the Ganas. The fact that Shiva's trishul chopped Vinayak's head was not Shiva's doing. To me, it was clear from Mohit's portrayal that Shiva did not plan to chop Vinayak's head. He actually tried to stop the trishul from leaving his hand, but he knew that the trishul was just fulfilling Kashyap's curse. The tears Shiva-ji shed before, during, and after the chopping was evident enough for me that he never meant to chop his son's head. In fact, technically speaking, it was his trishul who chopped Vinayak's head. Shiva didn't even throw the trishul; he tried to stop it from charging towards Vinayak.
I mean, he didn't chop Kartikeya's head when his first son displayed some hubris, did he? So why should he chop Ganesh' head, just like that? To me, the DKDM team tried to portray it as an accident (albeit waiting to happen, what with the curse and all), and I agree with this take. It reminds me of Saurav Mohapatra's The Book of Shiva, who portrayed Shiva as having a brawl with Ganesh after the latter defeated Nandi (here, Shiva was portrayed as NOT realising that Ganesh was Parvati's son). Ganesh clubbed Shiva from the back, and in anger, Shiva's third eye opened and chopped the head clean.
Back to the DKDM episode discussion. I also respectfully disagree with fellow mnx12's comments "Parvti's agnger was perfect, every time she can not be taken for granted. Everyone from time to time should get a dose from Aadi Shakti. Even today Shivji refuse to bring Vinayak back to life but fearing her anger to save the World he had to do it."
I respectfully disagree. Shiva-ji could not bring back Vinayak to life because V's head was already gone and dusted, literally became ashes. Of course Mahadev could just lift his finger and replace the head with another creature's head (like Daksha's case). But this time, knowing there is a chance to "upgrade" Vinayak, Shiva asked Nandi and Indra to go northward to find a creature that would willingly sacrifice his head (and thus, his life) for Vinayak. I'd say, Shiva knew Nandi would meet Gajasur. Mahadev himself granted the elephant a boon those years ago. So it wasn't a random request that Mahadev asked Nandi to go north. It was foreseen.
And I also disagree that Shiva took Parvati for granted (this concern has been voiced by some posters, e.g. Srushti and Nymphadora, with all due respect). After Indra's fiasco that led to Rshi Gautam's anger (and more curses), Shiva withdrew into a prolonged meditation session. But when Narayan and Brahma-dev visited the cave, Shiva told them the other real reason behind his tapasya this time. He withdrew not just because he was disappointed in Indra. Shiva withdrew because he didn't want to see Parvati sad anymore. He knew Parvati would deliver another son. He knew he would have to return to Kailash to see his family, and he knew what would happen then. He knew Parvati would cry, that she would be sad again. As he said in ep 280, why should Parvati suffer again and again, "just" for the world to be prosperous and happy? In Episode 281, Mahadev even thought of not coming out of the cave and just remained there forever, not returning to Kailash, if that is what it takes to avoid Parvati's sadness. Ergo, Shiva did not take Parvati for granted. He loves her so much, such that he avoided her so that she remained happy with her new son.
There is one aspect of the episode discussion that I agree on, though (yay!). I agree that DKDM has been rather unfair towards the Devi aspects. Fellow poster subha2601 wrote, "I didn't like today's episode at all. Today they crossed all the limits in showing parvati in very bad light. I hated it when mahadev called parvati selfish and was justifying his action."
I agree with Subha. From the moment I learned about Parvati's various incarnations pre-Sati, I have been concerned about it. Seems weird that Shakti herself has to reincarnate so many times before re-connecting with her own divinity (two reincarnations I can accept. But more than that??). I somewhat agree why Mahadev call Parvati's intention of having Vinayak as selfish, because she wanted the latter just for herself, not for the whole world. But isn't that what a normal mother would want? I think what Mahadev should have done (or what the script writers should have written) is to portray him as understanding why Parvati wanted to have Vinayak for herself (with Kartikeya and Ashok Sundari gone), but Mahadev can also remind her that the world needs her son as well.
Guess that's what happened when husband and wife are quarrelling, eh? They cannot see both sides of the story as well as they should have seen?
Another thing about Parvati being portrayed in a very bad light: I understand that many people like Sonarika's portrayal of Parvati, particularly in this ep... but I found her angers a tad too manic for an angry devi. I understand Parvati's right to be angry, but venting off and screeching like that didn't look divine to me. I mean, there's divine anger, but I felt the anger in ep 285 was more of a manic anger instead of divine anger. Difficult to portray, I know... But perhaps it was not just the Sonarika factor... perhaps it was the script as well. Perhaps Sonarika just did what was requested of her; portraying a manic devi, instead of a divine feminine in anger.
In this case, I agree that episode 285 (16 Dec 2012) has done great in portraying Mahadev's greatness (the way Shiva treated Gajasur's head with respect was touching). But as in many other episodes where Parvati became angry (Kartikeya's birth came to mind), the episode did not show Parvati as the Divine Mother in anger. It instead showed her as a manic devi in anger. Too bad, because I believe Her potential is much more than an angry wife or mother. I mean, yes, Parvati's anger was justified (although, as I already stated above, I also disagree with the notion that Mahadev intended to kill Vinayak; I think it was an accident waiting to happen). Yes, Parvati had the right to vent off. But surely there are ways of venting off that are more divine than manic. And that aspect was not conveyed well in this episode.
With that, I close this awfully long note, with the hope that I don't offend too many posters with my comments here. I love this series, I appreciate this forum, and as a fan, I want the series to be perfect. But I should also remind myself that scripts are written by humans (how many DKDM scripts were written by men instead of women writers, I wonder?), and thus are bound to be imperfect. Heh, even the Puranic texts are not perfect (they were, after all, written by humans), let alone this post of mine...
The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:
Joined: 25 October 2008
The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:
Joined: 10 June 2014
Author: ShivsSudishna Replies: 27 Views: 3039
|ShivsSudishna||27||3039||21 November 2013 at 10:15am by rasyafan|
Lord Shiva: original narrator of Ramayan
Author: harianant Replies: 0 Views: 1922
|harianant||0||1922||18 July 2013 at 11:44am by harianant|
Lord Brahma,Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiva
Author: prem426 Replies: 2 Views: 6085
|prem426||2||6085||18 April 2013 at 9:29am by prem426|
Lord Bramha = Lord Vishnu = Mahadev
Author: Kanu007 Replies: 10 Views: 3346
|Kanu007||10||3346||24 July 2012 at 12:34pm by Kal El|
WHy ws Lord Bramha cursed by Lord Shiva?
Author: snehalS Replies: 16 Views: 90939
|snehalS||16||90939||28 December 2011 at 5:31am by _Eternity_|
Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.
Popular Channels :
Quick Links :