Did Krishna have 16000 wives?
16,100 wives of Lord Krishna rescued from the inner city of the so-called Narkasur: history or fiction?
(This article is dedicated to Arun Dar, the real truth of traditional religion which has not been reached.)
The common story about Krishna's polygamy is that Krishna had six chief buffaloes or wives and the number of wives rescued from the inner city of King Narkasur of Assam was 16,100; In all, the number of wives of Lord Krishna is 16,106.
After hearing this, the head of any Hindu gets hated at first, they have no place to be proud of Lord Krishna, the main man of Hinduism. And by bringing this information to the fore, Muslims also argue that if Krishna can marry 16,000, then why can't we marry four? And without knowing the real facts, in answering these questions or in presenting arguments in favor of many marriages of Lord Krishna, we Hindus also try to come up with various fair and logical stories, which in reality have no need; Because, Krishna had only one wife, she was Rukmini. After reading this post, you will understand that the story about the other 18,106 people is a complete lie.
However, this is stated in verse 19 of chapter 15 of 4 parts of Vishnu Purana,
“Bhagavatohapyatra mortalokehabatirnasya. Dhikani Strinambhavana.
It simply means sixteen thousand one hundred wives of Lord Krishna.
But it is said in Chapter 26 of the 5th part of Vishnu Purana,
"Anyascha Varya: Krishnasya Babhubah: Sapta Shobhana:"
"Sixteenth Sahasrani Strinamannyani Chakrinah."
These two verses mean that the total number of wives of Krishna is sixteen thousand seven.
Sixteen thousand or sixteen thousand one hundred of them are women rescued from the inner city of the so-called Narkasur. The story begins in the Vishnu Purana and then extends to the Bhagavata Purana. Since we Hindus have come after the Vedas and Gita without understanding the Puranas, our Hindus did not have the power to deny all these facts mentioned in the Puranas, and there were very few wise people to speak against the Puranas. Has polluted for years and caused the destruction of Hindu society.
It is necessary to say something about Bhagavata Purana before the main discussion, then you will understand what is Bhagavata Purana, and what is the purpose of this Bhagavata Purana?
There are two types of Bhagavata Puranas in Bengal, one is Subodh Chandra's Bhagavata, the other is Beni Madhav Shil's Bhagavata. The story of the two Bhagavats is quite similar. But Subodh Chandra's Bhagwat is full of obscenities. Sometimes it is so obscene that it cannot be read to anyone and even if you read it yourself, you get the feeling of reading a sex story.
In Subodh Chandra's Bhagavat, Krishna's Raslila is a sex party, where nine lakh men and nine lakh women get naked and have sex together. Krishna is also in it. But nowhere is it said that Krishna was only 8 years old at the time of Raslila, so it was not possible for him to take part in that kind of sex. And in the episode of undressing, Krishna is a great lustful, whose purpose would seem to be to see the naked bodies of girls. The Bhagavata Purana of Subodh is described in this way. I am amazed to think that Hindus have been swallowing these gossips for hundreds, not thousands, of years, and no one has protested that no, Krishna's character cannot be like that; No one even raised the question of how it is possible for a 6/7 year old boy to get involved in such sexual matters. On the contrary, everyone has come to believe the story of Bhagavata Purana in simple faith and has taken the Hindu society to the abyss day after day.
As I said before, the story of Subodh's Bhagavat and Benimadhab's Bhagavat is almost the same. But in the description of Beni Madhab's Bhagavat, obscenity is a bit less than Subodh's Bhagavat. But Raslila and the incident of undressing are the same, in both cases Krishna is suffering from sexual fever. This means that the real truth is absent in both Bhagavats and the purpose of both Bhagavats is to defile Krishna's character. Krishna is portrayed as a full-fledged youth in both the Bhagavats, hiding the fact that Krishna was only 6 years old at the time of the alleged theft of Gopis' clothes and at the time of Raslila, so Hindus cannot know the real truth by reading these Bhagavats. To conceal the truth behind a story or a lie.
We Hindus have been worshiping such Bhagavat as a religious book. Is the fall of Hindu religion and society like this?
However, the story of Krishna's sixteen thousand one hundred wives is propagated in the society through all these Bhagavats, the purpose of which is not to make Krishna's character great, but to make him small; And for those who consider Bhagavata to be a religious book, there is no way to deny these facts. But in the face of the question of anti-Hinduism, in order to make the story of Krishna's so-called sixteen thousand one hundred wives acceptable, we try to come up with various explanations, to tell the truth, without knowing the real truth. But if you know the real truth, there is no need to give any such argument, that truth will be presented to you today.
The story of Narakasur's birth is told in various myths,
When Vishnu saved the submerged earth in the form of a pig incarnation, Narakasur was born in contact with the earth and the pig, in this formula, earth means mother of hell. Now said, is it possible in reality? Is the earth a human being that will directly give birth to a human child? This unrealistic story of the birth of Narkasur tells us that the events of Hell were made complete, in fact Narkasur never existed. It is completely imaginary to capture his 18,100 daughters, rescue them by going to Krishna and marry them. Moreover, if we assume that Narkasur was somehow born in contact with the Varaha incarnation and the earth, was it possible for Hell to survive till the time of Krishna? The incarnation of Varaha, the incarnation of the third incarnation of Vishnu, which took place in Satya Yuga, and Krishna, the ninth incarnation of Vishnu, reigned from the living of Narakasura for a long time?
However, the story of Narakasur is old and it is said that he had planned to marry sixteen thousand girls after capturing Mahadev's bride; Here the question is, if Krishna did not kill Narakasur, then who killed?
One thing needs to be made clear here that Krishna is the historical character and Narkasur is the mythological character; Mythological characters are fictional, and myths are made only for public education. So there is no possibility of seeing the real character with the fictional character. The destruction of the mythical character has to be done with the mythical character, so according to the mythology, Shiva kills Narkasur. So Krishna has nothing to do with the story of Narkasur, so the sixteen thousand women rescued from the inner city of Narkasur are also fictional.
Another historical fact is known here that in the time of Krishna, the kingdom of Narakasur is said to have been the king of Pragjyotishpur or present day Assam.
Another proof that such an event never happened in Krishna's life is that there is no mention of this event in the Mahabharata, as there is no mention of Radha. If Krishna had caused such an incident, then at the time of Yudhisthira's Rajsuya Yajna, Shishupala, who was Krishna's main enemy and critic, must have mentioned the incident of these sixteen thousand one hundred girls while slandering Krishna, but Shishupala did not mention it, as Shishupala mentions. Didn't talk about Radha. Because, just as there was no one called Radha in Krishna's life, there was no incident of rescuing and marrying sixteen thousand one hundred girls in his life.
Not to mention here, in the Mahabharata broadcast on Star Jalsa but about the girls rescued from the inner city of Shishupal-Radha and Narkasur, there is no reason to believe after watching this serial that these are true. The Star family has brought up the common myths about Krishna, they did not want to lose the audience by standing against anything. Therefore, the Mahabharata of Star Jalsa is not an exact construction of the actual Mahabharata. For example, in the original Mahabharata, Krishna goes alone to marry Rukmini, with some Yadav forces behind him, but in the Mahabharata of Star Jalsa, a role of Arjuna is shown here, which is not true. The same applies to Lord Krishna, the devotee preached at Star Jalsa. They also present the conventional facts about Krishna, they do not want to reveal the real truth through research, so just as they saw Radha here, they also saw Krishna's polygamy. But I hope you don't believe them and cheat.
However, many may refer to some of the geographical events associated with Krishna's rescue of these sixteen thousand one hundred girls, such as a place called Asvaklanta, which is said to be the time when Krishna, after rescuing the girls, returned to that place because his chariot horses got tired. In this way the name of the place is Ashvaklanta.
In fact, these naming events are influenced by the story written in the Puranas and naming in this way is not impossible, where the Puranas were written thousands of years ago. Where the Hindu mythology has changed under the influence of these myths, they have considered fictional events to be true, what is the impossibility of naming a place under the influence of mythological stories?
Another bizarre information in the Vishnu Purana about this sixteen thousand marriages of Krishna, which we have come to believe, is that Krishna had 160,000 sons. It is also said that every wife of Krishna had 10 sons and one daughter; According to this formula, it is possible to have 1,8,16 sons and daughters of Krishna. I am sure that the heads of the mythologists were not right; Because, even though they say that Krishna's main wife is 6, they have named 21 people, in this formula again the number of Krishna's children is 1,6,331. Krishna lived for 125 years, he married Rukmini at the age of 29, and since then if he started having children he would have given birth to children for 95 years, which is impossible in reality Children, thus more than 5 children were born every day. Is it ever possible?
Without knowing or trying to understand the real truth, we acknowledge Krishna's sixteen thousand wives, saying that they were Lakshmi's part or incarnation and Krishna could have been with all the wives at the same time, he would not have been with any wife in turn. In this way it may be possible to be on Krishna's side and in this way it is possible to have so many children in one life by staying with all the wives every night. But the question is why none of Krishna's wife and children are present at work? If they were real, would there be any evidence of their existence anywhere else?
Wikipedia also lists the names of Krishna's so-called chief wives and their sons and daughters. In this list, except for the children of the other seven wives, except Krishna and Rukmini's son Pradyumna. There are 10 names. Then why is the name of any son other than Pradyumna or any of his deeds mentioned not only in Mahabharata but also in any other Purana? If Rukmini had 10 sons, then they should have been of equal importance to Krishna like Pradyumna. But Krishna said only Pradyumna, what is the reason? The reason is that Krishna had only one son, Pradyumna, and Pradumna's mother Rukmini was Krishna's only wife.
Take a look at Wikipedia's account of Krishna's wife, whose information is believed by millions of people around the world.
As I said earlier, Wikipedia has written about Krishna's chief wife and their 10 sons and one daughter on their site, as well as more.
“Krishna took Rukmini, the princess of the Vidarbha kingdom, away from the marriage pavilion at his request and married her. Krishna then rescued 18,100 women from the demonic prison of Narkasura and married them to protect their honor. These are Rukmini, Satyabhama, Jambavati, Kalindi, Mitravrinda, Nagnajiti, Bhadra and Lakshmana. [55] [56] [56] According to the social norms of the time, captive women had no respect in society and there was no way for them to get married as they were already under Narkasur. Bankimchandra Chattopadhyay's essay on Krishnacharita gives ample evidence about the baseless facts of Krishna's polygamy. Krishna's character shows that Krishna's more than 16,000 wives are confined to one part of the Puranas. There is no mention of this in any other field of life of Lord Krishna He refers to it as a myth or story The activities of any other wife other than Rukmini are not seen in the biography of Lord Krishna. ”
-Wikipedia once referred to Krishna's so-called total of 16,107 wives, then later said, "There is no proper basis for Krishna's more than 18,000 wives and eight wives."
Bankimchandra Chattopadhyay's essay on Krishnacharitra gives ample evidence of the baseless facts about Krishna's polygamy. Krishna's character shows that Krishna's more than 16,000 wives are confined to one part of the Puranas. There is no mention of this in any other field of Krishna's life. ”
People hope and believe that when wikis write something, they will do research and write the truth, but if they talk like that, on what basis will people decide or know the truth? No matter how much one tries to hide the truth with lies, the truth will peek in one way or another, in this way the truth about Krishna's wife may have peeked out in the wiki information that "there is no correct basis for Krishna's more than 16,000 wives and eight daughters."
How will the foundation be? If the facts are true then it will have a basis. There is no basis for saying that the facts are false and thus behind the thousands of lies the truth seekers are peeking at the wiki page for a fact that,
"There is no exact basis for Krishna's more than 18,000 wives and eight wives."
This means that these things are completely false. Because, Krishna had only one wife, she was Rukmini and Rukmini had not 10, the son was one, he was Pradyumna, and Pradyumna's son was the hero mentioned in the Purana Aniruddha.
Whoever exists, he leaves the proof of his existence in this way, not to mention all the wives and sons of Krishna, except the Puranas or wikis who say that Rukmini and Krishna had 10 more sons, where are they? Why don't they talk somewhere? I have asked that question before. They are not mentioned, because Pradumna had no son other than Krishna. And the fact that he had no other son proves that Krishna had no other wife except Pradyumna's mother Rukmini.
So the conventional story of Lord Krishna's polygamy, which is completely fictional and fabricated, I hope I have been able to clear to my reader friends.
