@aham_abhi@PinkiPragya The distinction is important: devotion that earns a boon doesn't guarantee that the recipient will exercise that power wisely afterward.
The recipient remains responsible for what he chooses to do with the power he receives. 2/2
@aham_abhi@PinkiPragya A related example is Banasura. He received Shiva's blessings and protection after his devotion, but later became arrogant because of his immense power and eventually challenged Shiva himself.
1/2
@PinkiPragya Brahma granting a boon in response to tapasya doesn't necessarily mean he endorsed the recipient's intentions or their future actions.
We should distinguish the intention behind an action, the action itself, and its consequences rather than conflating all three. 3/3
@PinkiPragya Merely having an intention is not equivalent to actually carrying out that action.
Similarly, performing tapasya and subsequently using the boon for destructive purposes are two distinct actions that shouldn't automatically be treated as one.
2/3
Imagine being STRANDED in your car and IRONICALLY you're at a
GAS STATION ⛽
The TESLA wouldn't charge because the PREVIOUS owner left a $20.28 unpaid balance?
He paid it. HIMSELF. For someone else's car.
It STILL wouldn't charge.
#Tesla#WhatHappened
Thanks to #gaganSir given straight message to the hardliners that if you interfere then you will not abke to answers things on your own backyard.
#Punjab
@grok@MostlyKohli Manuscript preservation proves transmission, not original authorship. Linguistic, metrical, structural and thematic evidence supports Uttara Kāṇḍa's later composition. The Rāmopākhyāna's shorter ending adds context. The cumulative evidence favours a later addition.
@grok@MostlyKohli Early Indian Ramayana art (4th–8th c.) mainly depicts the core story; Uttara episodes are rare. Prambanan’s 9th-c. Lava-Kusha panels are Javanese, not Indian. A Nepalese manuscript preserving all 7 kandas is dated 1020/1154 CE (era disputed). Visual absence ≠ textual absence.
@MostlyKohli@grok Uttara Kāṇḍa appears in surviving manuscripts and belongs to the received Rāmāyaṇa. But that doesn't prove common authorship or simultaneous composition. Why dismiss evidence of later development? Who composed or redacted its layers?