Mythological Masti

   

Question

Post Reply New Post

Page 1 of 12

Page 1
Page   of 12
Page 2 Page 12

Quixotic5

Goldie

Quixotic5

Joined: 30 March 2014

Posts: 1177

Posted: 25 April 2014 at 12:01pm | IP Logged
OK now , as adviced by one of the senior members of the forum I m seeking answers to my question here( apparently I was seeking it at the wrong forum earlier).. b4 I get into real question I just want to make it clear that my knowledge of Vaishnavism is abysmal (hence the questions pertaining to it), so feel free to enlighten me..any input to the following questions will b greatly appreciated..
1. Is it just me, or has Vishnu always been partial to devas unlike Shiva?

2. Is it just me, or the whole caste system in Hinduism originated from Vaishnavism? ( as in superiority of bhrahmins n other caste over some other caste)

3. Why is Ram regarded as maryada 'purushottam' when in fact what he did with( abandoning pregnant wife in forest) and demanded from(agni pareeksha) his chaste wife under societal pressures instead of standing by her was quite appalling n anything but 'purushottum'?

Please note that these questions r not intended to hurt any religious sentiments or to prove a god's superiority over other..just trying to clear some of the burning questions I had about our gods since I was kid n watching Ramayana/ Mahabharata on TV.. I finally got a platform to clear things out , so just trying to make the best out of it..peace...Smile

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

Radhikerani

Dear Guest, Being an unregistered member you are missing out on participating in the lively discussions happening on the topic "Question" in Mythological Masti forum. In addition you lose out on the fun interactions with fellow members and other member exclusive features that India-Forums has to offer. Join India's most popular discussion portal on Indian Entertainment. It's FREE and registration is effortless so JOIN NOW!

sherlock

IF-Dazzler

sherlock

Joined: 12 February 2010

Posts: 3578

Posted: 26 April 2014 at 12:50am | IP Logged
Originally posted by Akash005


1. Is it just me, or has Vishnu always been partial to devas unlike Shiva?

ConfusedConfused
What do you mean by 'partial' here?
If you are saying that Lord Vishnu has stopped asuras' plans so many times so that makes him partial to devas as compared to Lord Shiv, you need to go and read the entire Shiv Puran. You'll get tired counting the number of asuras Lord Shiv or Maa Parvati has vanquished. 
As for Lord Vishnu, Vibhishan, Prahlad, Bali grandson of Prahlad, none of them is a devta, yet all of them are among the most beloved of Lord Vishnu. So...

Fact is, Lord is not partial to anyone. He has declared, "everyone is dear to me, for everyone is an eternal part of me." 
But there's the task of making sure that Dharma is not annihiliated completely, because if Dharma is annihiliated completely, then large scale terror, destruction and misery is the one and only result. And for that, the Taamsic component of "Trigunatmika Prakriti" needs to be checked before it completely overpowers the other two components. 
Search for a Vedic master who can explain to you concepts like "Prakriti", its three components, "MaayaBadh Jeev" and what asuras usually represent. You'll get the answers.

2. Is it just me, or the whole caste system in Hinduism originated from Vaishnavism? ( as in superiority of bhrahmins n other caste over some other caste)

Neither vaishnavs nor Shaivs nor Shakta nor whatever "originated" the caste system.
Vaishnavism or Shaivism are misnomers. Lord Shiva is the foremost Vaishnav, so that makes all his followers i.e. "Shaivites" vaishnavs. if you feel like it, you can state it vice-versa too, terming all vaishnavs Shaivs, because Lord Krishna has said again and again that Lord SHiva is His "AtmaRoop." 
About caste system. "Varnashram" is a very imp component of Vedas' "Karm Marg." There are two more paths in Vedas but in those, there's no concept of 'varna' or 'ashram'. A 'Gyaani' is a gyaani, a 'bhakt' is a bhakt. 
So 'Varna' + 'Ashram' is supposed to help all humans lead  a Sattvic life and lead them towards the final goal of every jeevatma, i.e. God realisation. 
A comprehensive butchering of this "varnashram" system in the recent past, (by recent I mean last two thousand years or so) due to extraneous factors gave rise to discrimination of the basis of castes, though the term caste and the Vedic term Varna are not the same, mind you. There is certainly no justification for this discrimination, and what's more the discrimination has no basis in Vedanta, so if we are going to pass judgements on a society of the past, justice demands that the external conditions in which that society was trying to survive are given due weightage too. 



3. Why is Ram regarded as maryada 'purushottam' when in fact what he did with( abandoning pregnant wife in forest) and demanded from(agni pareeksha) his chaste wife under societal pressures instead of standing by her was quite appalling n anything but 'purushottum'?

LOLLOL

Ok, seriously, very seriously, as you said, "abandoning wife in forest" first asking the person taking his wife to forest to make sure that his wife reaches valmiki's ashram safely, then refusing to ever remarry saying that only Sita can be his wife, even going to the extent of making a gold idol of his wife for the purpose of a fire ritual, all this in a day an age where having many wives was a given for kings, don't you think that's a very unique way of abandoning one's wife?

Further, if you know concepts like "Dharma-Aarurdh" King and "Dharma-Rakshan", then simply read Ramayan from start to finish, and not just "relevant passages", your confusion will be over. 
If not, you need to read relevant passages form texts like Mahabharat's Shanti Parv or Agni Puran's Shri Raamoktani or Shukra Niti Saar etc, where these texts talk about what it means to be a king AND ALSO A QUEEN, and you'll get the answers.

finally, it's the nature of Shri Raam that he gladly accepts all criticisms and unfavourable judgements  upon himself and makes sure that His beloved ones are eulogized. That's how He is, can't be helped. Smile


 a god's superiority over other.

There is no superior and no inferior God. 

God is one and only, though He is free to appear in as many forms as he feels like, and not only that, he may have as many avatars, anshavatars, parshads, parikars, etc as he feels like. And that's because he is infinitely powerful, infinitely capable, beyond any constraints of time, place, rules, and beyond everyone's intellect and imagination. 

This is one of the very first things Dharma tell us, so we can't get any more basic than this. You probably heard people say that after describing God, vedas end that discussion by declaring, "Na Iti." (there's no end to Him.)

The following 3 member(s) liked the above post:

viper83Surya_krsnbhaktRadhikerani

Quixotic5

Goldie

Quixotic5

Joined: 30 March 2014

Posts: 1177

Posted: 26 April 2014 at 2:24am | IP Logged
Originally posted by sherlock

Originally posted by Akash005


1. Is it just me, or has Vishnu always been partial to devas unlike Shiva?

ConfusedConfused
What do you mean by 'partial' here?
If you are saying that Lord Vishnu has stopped asuras' plans so many times so that makes him partial to devas as compared to Lord Shiv, you need to go and read the entire Shiv Puran. You'll get tired counting the number of asuras Lord Shiv or Maa Parvati has vanquished. 
As for Lord Vishnu, Vibhishan, Prahlad, Bali grandson of Prahlad, none of them is a devta, yet all of them are among the most beloved of Lord Vishnu. So...

Fact is, Lord is not partial to anyone. He has declared, "everyone is dear to me, for everyone is an eternal part of me." 
But there's the task of making sure that Dharma is not annihiliated completely, because if Dharma is annihiliated completely, then large scale terror, destruction and misery is the one and only result. And for that, the Taamsic component of "Trigunatmika Prakriti" needs to be checked before it completely overpowers the other two components. 
Search for a Vedic master who can explain to you concepts like "Prakriti", its three components, "MaayaBadh Jeev" and what asuras usually represent. You'll get the answers.

2. Is it just me, or the whole caste system in Hinduism originated from Vaishnavism? ( as in superiority of bhrahmins n other caste over some other caste)

Neither vaishnavs nor Shaivs nor Shakta nor whatever "originated" the caste system.
Vaishnavism or Shaivism are misnomers. Lord Shiva is the foremost Vaishnav, so that makes all his followers i.e. "Shaivites" vaishnavs. if you feel like it, you can state it vice-versa too, terming all vaishnavs Shaivs, because Lord Krishna has said again and again that Lord SHiva is His "AtmaRoop." 
About caste system. "Varnashram" is a very imp component of Vedas' "Karm Marg." There are two more paths in Vedas but in those, there's no concept of 'varna' or 'ashram'. A 'Gyaani' is a gyaani, a 'bhakt' is a bhakt. 
So 'Varna' + 'Ashram' is supposed to help all humans lead  a Sattvic life and lead them towards the final goal of every jeevatma, i.e. God realisation. 
A comprehensive butchering of this "varnashram" system in the recent past, (by recent I mean last two thousand years or so) due to extraneous factors gave rise to discrimination of the basis of castes, though the term caste and the Vedic term Varna are not the same, mind you. There is certainly no justification for this discrimination, and what's more the discrimination has no basis in Vedanta, so if we are going to pass judgements on a society of the past, justice demands that the external conditions in which that society was trying to survive are given due weightage too. 



3. Why is Ram regarded as maryada 'purushottam' when in fact what he did with( abandoning pregnant wife in forest) and demanded from(agni pareeksha) his chaste wife under societal pressures instead of standing by her was quite appalling n anything but 'purushottum'?

LOLLOL

Ok, seriously, very seriously, as you said, "abandoning wife in forest" first asking the person taking his wife to forest to make sure that his wife reaches valmiki's ashram safely, then refusing to ever remarry saying that only Sita can be his wife, even going to the extent of making a gold idol of his wife for the purpose of a fire ritual, all this in a day an age where having many wives was a given for kings, don't you think that's a very unique way of abandoning one's wife?

Further, if you know concepts like "Dharma-Aarurdh" King and "Dharma-Rakshan", then simply read Ramayan from start to finish, and not just "relevant passages", your confusion will be over. 
If not, you need to read relevant passages form texts like Mahabharat's Shanti Parv or Agni Puran's Shri Raamoktani or Shukra Niti Saar etc, where these texts talk about what it means to be a king AND ALSO A QUEEN, and you'll get the answers.

finally, it's the nature of Shri Raam that he gladly accepts all criticisms and unfavourable judgements  upon himself and makes sure that His beloved ones are eulogized. That's how He is, can't be helped. Smile


 a god's superiority over other.

There is no superior and no inferior God. 

God is one and only, though He is free to appear in as many forms as he feels like, and not only that, he may have as many avatars, anshavatars, parshads, parikars, etc as he feels like. And that's because he is infinitely powerful, infinitely capable, beyond any constraints of time, place, rules, and beyond everyone's intellect and imagination. 

This is one of the very first things Dharma tell us, so we can't get any more basic than this. You probably heard people say that after describing God, vedas end that discussion by declaring, "Na Iti." (there's no end to Him.)


Thank you very much for these valuable inputs..I very much appreciate the time n effort put into it..sadly none of my questions were satisfactorily answered..but its my fault really..u did point out to b clear as in what exactly I mean by 'partial'.. n that is exactly what I intend to do with this post.. ironically, the only question that was aptly answered was the question that was never intended in the first place .i.e. 'superiority of one god over another'.. I think it was made clear in the topic itself that these questions r not intended for such purpose..but the inputs r appreciated nevertheless.. highly enlightened!.. thank you once again..

1. As for partiality, what I meant is, with regards to Mahadev, it is repeatedly pointed out that he is the only god in Hinduism who is impartial to the nature of an individual be it asura, manushya , devta, danav..whatever..infact, all the asuras worship mahadev ( ravana, banasura..) exclusively for this very reason.. i may b  wrong, but as far as I know there r no instances of an asura worshipping Vishnu as aradhya..but if there r any such instances, please feel free to share.. n yes Shiva n Parvathi have vanquished evil entities from time to time just like Vishnu for the sake of preservation of righteousness...therefore, the 3 aspects of prakriti r irrelevant here..all supreme gods ensure that tamasic/materialistic  or evil aspects ( usually found in asuras) doesn't over power the goodness n disturb the balance..but that wasn't the point..hope u get it now..

2. As for cast system, m 100% sure Vishnu himself never thought such atrocities.. but such practices r more prevalent in vaishnava followers as opposed to shiv or shakthi followers..at least that holds true in my home state kerala .. even the temples of shiv shakthi r much more accommodating than Vishnu temples ( the most famous balaji temple is an exception n ideal example for making people understand God loves everybody irrespective of their caste status).. but its true that such practices r consequences of drawbacks of human civilization n thinking..

3. As for Ram, yes bravo ! He created a golden statue of his wife n never remarried even wen kings used to take multiple queens, instead of never letting his pregnant wife go at the first place n demanded an agni pareeksha from her under societal pressure!.. I think it deserves an award for the most godly act ever that he ensured Sita reaches the ashram in forest..that totally negates the injustice done to sita! A very strange abandonment indeed !! You r right I haven't read our religious texts from top to bottom to know what it says about the dharma of a king or what it means to b a king or a queen, but I do have a vague idea about what it is based on the terminology , it probably means that a person in position of power a.k.a a king often has to make tough decisions n as the responsibility of his praja lies with him , he should always give priority to his praja n not get influenced by his personal life no matter how hard it is..it probably means more than that but I think the basic meaning should suffice as of now..the king dharma is often used to justify ram's actions towards sita..however, such explanations n justifications fail terribly when compared with the magnitude of injustice of such actions which eventually led Sita to seek shelter in Bhumi devi, her mother, for all eternity..




Edited by Akash005 - 26 April 2014 at 4:22am

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

Radhikerani

viper83

Newbie

viper83

Joined: 19 July 2010

Posts: 26

Posted: 26 April 2014 at 8:38am | IP Logged
Answer to
1.
Devas and Daitas(asur) -

Prahlad
King Mahabali
Virochan
Vrinda( Daugther of  Asur)
Vishbishan

The hatred of Lord Vishnu by Asur comes from Guru Daitas Guru. Read up on it aleast.


2. Dude read about Vaishnavism  don't just commment on, during there era of the  the religion was not called Hinduism if you read you scriptures right. It was called something else. During the era the Vaishnavism  only going scripture was liberal pertaing atituded caste system. Now remmber people like who were rich( Kings/Merhcants) and Educated (Brahmins) and had access to scripture like today in India but back then they didn't have the internet. Goto any Vaishnav temple there is no speration between by caste. (Read Bhajan about Vaishnavism)  Again do you think Gandhji got his ideology from.

3. Again read about Daitas Guru Father and Narad Muni curse on Lord Vishnu






Edited by viper83 - 26 April 2014 at 8:37am

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

Quixotic5Radhikerani

Surya_krsnbhakt

IF-Dazzler

Surya_krsnbhakt

Joined: 20 March 2013

Posts: 2583

Posted: 26 April 2014 at 9:40am | IP Logged
Originally posted by Akash005


Let me just answer your first question in this post.
1. Is it just me, or has Vishnu always been partial to devas unlike Shiva?

According to Devdutt pattanaik, Lord Shiva is indifferent to devas or asuras, whereas Brahma is supportive of both devas and asuras. This is seen in the fact that they eaily grant boons to both parties. So Brahma symbolises er, magnetism and Shiva repulsion, best way I can put it.
So when both magnetism and repulsion exist, nature is balanced. At the same time, due to Brahma's generosity and SHiva's indifference, nothing can happen in the universe. So, hm..
Ah, according to Newton's first law,
  • An object that is at rest will stay at rest unless an external force acts upon it.
You get me? So, applying this in our case, the universe will remain at rest unless an external force acts upon it.
So, that external force is Vishnu, who creates an imbalance in the universe and sets thing into motion. You understand? So, Lord Vishnu, as the preserver, is responsible for preserving order, as well as motion. The universe needs to function, and he creates the necessary element by making one party stronger, thus the other party strives to reach that level, and the universe is in motion.

Now see the devas and asuras case. IN this, when Vishnu supports the devas, the asuras strive to reach that level of strength, and when they reach thislevel, balance is reached. The next step is to overthrow the devas, which is weakening of the other party. Imbalance is created right? Vishnu then once again creates a balance by restoring the devas, and sets the next series of events into motion by defeating the asuras. Thus, universal equilibrium is maintained.


Edited by Surya_krsnbhakt - 26 April 2014 at 9:38am

The following 4 member(s) liked the above post:

viper83Quixotic5Radhikeranikaatayani

Surya_krsnbhakt

IF-Dazzler

Surya_krsnbhakt

Joined: 20 March 2013

Posts: 2583

Posted: 26 April 2014 at 9:52am | IP Logged
Originally posted by Akash005


2. Is it just me, or the whole caste system in Hinduism originated from Vaishnavism? ( as in superiority of bhrahmins n other caste over some other caste)

Ah, this question.
So, right from the beginning, the varnashrama dharma was set up to preserve social order.
This was determined purely by one's actions and not by birth.
Whether one was a Brahmana or Sudra depended on how one behaved in the society.
This is supported in the Mahabharata as well.
And the rigidity of the caste system and power of one order over another, all came only after the Kali era began, specially after the invasions by the Muslims and those useless British.
British wanted to divide the society. That was their policy remember? Divide and Rule.
So to rule over us, and to divide us, what was necessary? To show that one set of people is trying to dominate another set, right? Suppose you and your elder brother are sitting peacefully, and your um.. girlfriend (don't take it personally) wants to listen to her and not to your brother. What will she do? She will try to tell you, "why are you following whatever your brother is telling? You have your own rights," etc. Am I right?
This exact thing was done by the British on a large scale. To prove their point, they started writing their own history about India, portraying it as a very stupid country, with all the tribals living, and the Aryan invasions, and Brahmin domination. Total utter hogwash.

But the people believed the British. They believed that the caste system was a means of domination. And they began to oppose it.
Basically, the Vedas don't support domination of one varna over another. Neither does Vaishnavam or Shaivam or any other sect for that matter.
But since I don't live in Kerala, I cannot tell about hte people there. But generally I think temples are open to all, like Lord Krishna himself said (at Udipi, to Kanakadasar), or Lord Ranganatha to Tiruppaan Azhvar.

The following 4 member(s) liked the above post:

Quixotic5varaaliRadhikeranikaatayani

Surya_krsnbhakt

IF-Dazzler

Surya_krsnbhakt

Joined: 20 March 2013

Posts: 2583

Posted: 26 April 2014 at 9:56am | IP Logged
I will leave the third question for Urmila11, or  lola610, or varaali to answer.Smile

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

Radhikerani

Quixotic5

Goldie

Quixotic5

Joined: 30 March 2014

Posts: 1177

Posted: 26 April 2014 at 10:50am | IP Logged
Originally posted by viper83

Answer to
1.
Devas and Daitas(asur) -

Prahlad
King Mahabali
Virochan
Vrinda( Daugther of  Asur)
Vishbishan

The hatred of Lord Vishnu by Asur comes from Guru Daitas Guru. Read up on it aleast.


2. Dude read about Vaishnavism  don't just commment on, during there era of the  the religion was not called Hinduism if you read you scriptures right. It was called something else. During the era the Vaishnavism  only going scripture was liberal pertaing atituded caste system. Now remmber people like who were rich( Kings/Merhcants) and Educated (Brahmins) and had access to scripture like today in India but back then they didn't have the internet. Goto any Vaishnav temple there is no speration between by caste. (Read Bhajan about Vaishnavism)  Again do you think Gandhji got his ideology from.

3. Again read about Daitas Guru Father and Narad Muni curse on Lord Vishnu





OK first of all thank you for your inputs..its just the thing I was looking for here..

@ bold.. I wasn't commenting on anything, was merely asking bcoz as u rightfully guessed , I haven't read enough about Vaishnavism.. as far as commenting goes I have left it to you guys coz that's what I m looking for here..I will only bug u if I still have any doubts regarding the same..

Post Reply New Post

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Topic Starter Replies Views Last Post
The Time has come to Question the History - Mahabharata mayekarparag 4 120 29 March 2014 at 1:04am
By Surya_krsnbhakt
Question about Mytho Shows

2 3 4

.anishaa. 31 1393 07 January 2011 at 4:22pm
By Aradhana87
The most asked question....

2

anku- 14 720 24 November 2010 at 11:39am
By AishuHiBawari

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category

Active Forums

Limit search to this Forum only.

 

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.