Why was Lord Shiva not able to save Sati, Lord Ram not able to save Sita from abduction and Pandavas not able to save Draupadi's honor. Now where should they look for any help?

 Good Question. This answer is gonna be very long, so bear with me. But here, we need to know the reasons correctly as to why these incidents happened.

WHY WAS LORD SHIVA NOT ABLE TO SAVE SATIDEVI?

As per the Bhagavata Purana, Lord Brahma came from Lord Vishnu’s navel. Lord Brahma gave birth to mind-born sons known as the Brahma Maanasa Putras. He even gave birth to Daksha, named Devata. This Daksha was married to Prasooti, the daughter of Svaayambhuva Manu. Now, Daksha and Prasooti had 14 daughters, of whom 13 were married to Sage Kashyapa, and the 14th one was married to Lord Shiva. This wife of Lord Shiva was known as Satidevi.

Now, once Daksha Prajapati arranged a yagya. He invited everyone, along with Lord Brahma, Lord Shiva, etc. Lord Vishnu wasn’t present at that yagya. Now, what happened was that Daksha Prajapati came there, and everyone stood up to respect him. But then, Daksha saw Lord Shiva, who was sitting along with Lord Brahma, His father. Now, Lord Shiva was meditating on Lord Vaasudeva present within Him. Though Lord Shiva is far superior to Daksha Prajapati, since Daksha is the father-in-law of Lord Shiva, He bowed to Daksha in His mind only and didn’t show it externally.

Daksha didn’t know this and thought Lord Shiva was disrespecting him. Enraged by this, He cursed Lord Shiva that there wouldn’t be any oblation in the name of Lord Shiva in the yagya. At this, Nandishwara was very angry and cursed Daksha that he would not know the deeper spiritual meaning of the Vedas. At this, Sage Bhrigu too cursed Nandishwara and the Shiva ganas that they would become paashandas. Lord Shiva noticed this exchange of curses, and then left that place. Nandishwara and others also left that place along with Lord Shiva.

Now, Daksha again organized a yagya after some time. He invited everyone, but didn’t invite Lord Shiva and Satidevi. Satidevi came out and saw that everyone was going in the vimaana. Some asked Satidevi, “O Sati! Aren’t you coming for the great sacrifice that your father Daksha has organized?” Satidevi went to Lord Shiva and said, “O Lord! Let’s go and attend Daksha Prajapati’s yagya.”

Lord Shiva refused, saying that when someone hasn’t invited us, we shouldn’t forcibly go there. At this, Satidevi said, “But O Lord! Going to father or guru’s house without invitation is valid! Therefore, we must attend the sacrifice.” But Lord Shiva said, “Sati! I agree with you on this. But now the situation is different!” and Lord Shiva narrated the whole incident of how Daksha cursed Him and how the exchange of curses took place. Lord Shiva even warned Satidevi about the consequences of going to the yagya, but Satidevi didn’t agree and urged him to go there.

Lord Shiva, assuming it to be the will of Lord Srihari, allowed Her to go. He already knew what was about to happen. Lord Shiva didn’t come there, but Satidevi went to the yagya. As She went there, Prasooti, Her mother, Her sisters, and all welcomed and talked to Her. But Daksha Prajapati, didn’t even talk to Her. Satidevi came to know that there was no oblation in the name of Lord Shiva. She felt insulted and said, “O Daksha! What are you thinking of? Do you even know how great Lord Mahadeva is, and what is His position? Just by chanting the two syllables ‘Shi’ and ‘Va’ is enough to burn all our sins. In that case, you dare to insult Lord Shankara?”

But Daksha didn’t pay any heed to Her. Now, She thought, “In case anyone insults a high-personality, then one should do either of these: 1. Cut down the tongue of the person. 2. Refute him, if possible. 3. Leave that place. I cannot cut Daksha’s tongue because he is my father. I cannot also refute him, because he is my father, and I cannot talk against him. If I leave and go back to Kailasa, Lord Shiva will say, ‘O Daakshaayani! You came back!’ I cannot hear the word Daakshaayani from His mouth! I don’t want to be called the daughter of a man who insulted Lord Shiva!” and, thinking so, Satidevi decided to do deha tyaaga.

She summoned the yogic fire, remembered Lord Shiva and Lord Narasimha within Lord Shiva, and burnt Herself in the yogic fire. After this, Her deha was reduced to ashes. This Satidevi was afterwards born as Aparna, the daughter of Himavan raja and Mena devi, and married Lord Shiva again. So, this is why Satidevi did dehatyaaga, and it was destined to happen. After that, when Lord Shiva learnt that Satidevi did dehatyaga, He took out a strand of hair from His jataa and threw it on the ground. From this, Veerabhadra came out. He went to the yagya and destroyed the yagya, removed Sage Bhrigu’s beard, broke Pusha’s teeth for laughing at Lord Shiva, and finally, when He caught Daksha, He couldn’t behead Daksha.

Afterwards, Lord Shiva Himself appeared there and beheaded Daksha, considering it an oblation to Lord Srihari. Then, on the prayers of the devatas, Lord Shiva granted the head of a goat to Daksha and made him alive, and Daksha repented for his mistake. Then Lord Vishnu appeared there, and everyone bowed to Him, and thus the yagya ended.

Plus, Satidevi had tested Lord Rama. When Sita apaharana happened, Lord Rama was weeping a lot. Satidevi saw this and said, “O Lord! You say Rama is your Bhagavan! You chant His name, then why is He, the Parabrahman, crying like this on losing His wife? How can He be Parabrahman? Let me test Him!” At this, Satidevi assumed the form of Sitadevi and went to Rama. She said, “O Lord! Your Sita is here. Why are you crying?” At this, Lord Rama's crying only increased. Rama said, “I am crying because my Ramaa is in Lanka, and here, Satidevi Herself came here to test me!” Realising that Rama was not an ordinary human but Bhagavan Himself, Satidevi bowed to Her. So, since Satidevi did the chintana of the viyoga of Sita-Ramachandra, She had to suffer separation from Lord Shiva.

WHY COULDN’T LORD RAMA SAVE SITADEVI FROM GETTING ABDUCTED BY RAAVANA?
Actually, Lord Rama wanted Ravana to try to kidnap Sita Devi. And Sitadevi was never abducted in real. It was Chhaya Sita who was abducted by Ravana. When Lakshmana refused to go to help Rama, Sitadevi said, “O Lakshmana! You have your evil eye on me? You want to rule Ayodhya? Fine. Go to Ayodhya today itself and stay there only! Here, my husband is in trouble, and you don’t even want to go to help Him?” And then Lakshmana prayed to the vanadevatas and left to help Rama. Now, here, Ravana came in the form of a sage. Sitadevi welcomed him and introduced him to Her, Rama, and Lakshmana.

On hearing this, Ravana revealed his real form. Sitadevi said, “O wicked demon! If my Rama comes and sees you hurting me, He will surely kill you! Nobody can harm my Rama!” But Ravana grabbed Sitadevi by Her hair, and lifted Her by Her legs and took Her to Lanka in the Pushpaka Vimaana. Here, notice the weird behaviour Sitadevi shows. Where was this confidence when She was scolding Lakshmana? Why didn’t She say Rama was unharmed at that time? And why, in front of Ravana, did She say all this about Rama being unharmed by anything or anyone? So, here the Puranas, like the Kurma Purana, clarify that Sitadevi already knew that Ravana would come to abduct Her. So, it was a plan of Sitadevi and Lord Rama. So, according to that plan, Sitadevi acted with Lakshmana as if scolding him, and actually didn’t possess any such intention toward Lakshmana.

Then, when Rama and Lakshmana went away, Sitadevi disappeared. She invoked Agni and asked Her to make an aakruti of Sitadevi, which looked like Her only. And Vedavati entered this Sitaakruti. She was an amsha of Mahalakshmi only. Now, Sitadevi kept some portion (a dx portion of Herself), in that aakruti so that the behavior should match like of Hers, and instructed Indra to enter the aakruti for bodily movements, talking, walking, etc. So, as per that, this aakruti was known as Chhaya Sita, or Sitaakruti. This Sitaakruti was kept in the Parna Kuteera, and it was this Sitaakruti who introduced Herself to Ravana, and Ravana kidnapped Her.

Why did Rama do all this? Could He have simply killed Ravana there itself? No. Because, firstly, Rama had to prove how wicked this Ravana was and wanted to make it world-famous. Second, if He killed Ravana there, it would have been a serious problem. Because, as per the orders of Lord Brahma, the devatas had incarnated as vaanaras to serve Lord Rama. If Rama killed Ravana there itself, then the birth of all these 60 crore vaanaras would have gone to waste. So, that’s why Lord Rama did all this leela. And at last, after killing Raavana, the Agnipravesha was just to exchange this Chhaya Sita with the real Sitadevi, who was in Kailasa, being worshipped by Lord Shiva and Umadevi.

So, this was the reason why Lord Rama let Sita's haran happen.

WHY COULDN’T THE PAANDAVAS PROTECT DRAUPADI’S HONOR?
After the Raajasuya Yagya, Lord Vedavyasa came and said, “O Dharmaraja! After 13 years, a great battle is going to happen. In this battle, all the Kauravas, including Bhishma Pitamaha and all, are going to die. And for all this, you will be the sole reason!” At this, Dharmaraja was very much scared, and thus vowed, “No matter who calls me anywhere, I won’t say ‘no’. No matter who scolds me or insults me, I won’t speak even a word against him/her.”

After this, Duryodhana, Dushasana, Karna, and Shakuni gathered and planned the gambling game to be played in the sabha, and to snatch everything that the Pandavas had. Dhritarashtra invited the Pandavas to this game. Everyone- Bheemasena, Arjuna, Nakula, Sahadevi, Kunti, Draupadi, and all- explained to him not to go. Even Vidura, who was sent by Dhritarashtra to invite Dharmaraja to the gambling, told him not to go. But Dharmaraja had already vowed that he wouldn’t refuse anyone. That’s why he came to play the game of gambling.

Now, Dharmaraja and the other Pandava brothers had come to attend the gambling game. Dharmaraja kept losing his stakes. He kept all his treasury, a divine chariot given by Bahlikaraja, and even his brothers, and then Draupadi, and then himself. But he lost everything, and after that, Dushasana went to Draupadi’s room and dragged Her by Her hair. She was menstruating at that time and was in 1 garment only. Dushasana was teasing Draupadi and was telling Her to leave all Her shyness and go to Duryodhana’s room and climb onto his bed. He also teased Her, “Where is your Krishna? Call Him! Let’s see how your ‘dear Vaasudeva’ helps you?” and brought Her to the sabha.

But as he went to do the vastraharana of Draupadi, She remembered Krishna. Krishna immediately gave the Akshaya vastra to Her. As Dushasana was pulling Her garment, another garment was there on Her body. She didn’t rotate as shown in the serials. Like this, Dushasana pulled infinite sarees and finally fell. Here, why didn’t the Pandavas react? They did react, especially Bheemasena. Bheemasena criticizes Dharmaraja by asking Sahadeva to bring fire so that He could burn Dharmaraja’s hands for putting Draupadi on the stake. Arjuna then calms Him down. Bheemasena said to Arjuna, in his ear, “I told this because we must criticize the wrongdoing, and shouldn’t keep silent. I won’t do it literally.”

Duryodhana said, “Now, agree that everything happened due to Dharmaraja, then I will leave all of you!” and teased the Pandavas. At this, Bheemasena said, “My Dharmaraja is my elder brother and is always right. Plus, I am the elder brother to all of you. If you have guts, come on and fight me.” The Pandavas remained silent because of their respect for Dharmaraja. They were about to kill the Kauravas if they wanted, but Dharmaraja, with his eye coordination, asked them to sit down and not to say anything. But the question here is: why didn’t Krishna say anything about this? Why didn’t He stop Dharmaraja from going there?

To this, there is another strategic move by Krishna. SriMadhvacharya tells this in the Mahabharata Tatparya Nirnaya. He says that Krishna did this for a few reasons: 1. To expose the evil and deceitful nature of Duryodhana and the Kauravas to the whole world. Why was this necessary? 2. Because in the Mahayuddha that was to happen after 13 years, nobody should question why Krishna made everyone die by cheating. 3. He did let it happen because Dharmaraja did the Raajasuya Yagya, but He didn’t have the capacity to sustain all that much Punya himself. So, that punya was to be distributed among the Pandavas, with maximum Punya coming in Bheemasena and Draupadi’s account.

That’s why it was Bheemasena who actively criticized the act of disrobing Draupadi and rightly vowed to break Duryodhana’s thigh. SriMadhvacharya says that Duryodhana even asked Dharmaraja to put Krishna on the stake too. At this, Bheemasena vowed that He would kick Duryodhana’s face mercilessly for this, and it was completely rightly done by Bheemasena. Plus, all these people in the Dyuta Sabha, including Bhishma Pitamaha, Dronacharya, Krupacharya, Dhritarashtra’s Punya, should be transferred to the Pandavas, since they kept silent during this deceitful gambling game unfolding.

Another thing was to increase the sins of Duryodhana and the Kauravas, so that they could be killed outright. And what Krishna did in the Mahabharata yuddha was completely correct and just. So, this was all Krishna's plan. But they had to lose everything in the second round of gambling and go to the forest. Was this also Krishna’s plan? The answer is yes. This was also Krishna’s plan. The whole world runs on His plan; what is this? The reason was that Krishna had incarnated to reduce the burden of the earth.

Now, He had already killed the majority of demons like Pootana, Shakatasura, Trunavarta, Vatsasura, Bakasura, Dhenukasura, Arishthasura, Aghasura, Pralambasura, Keshi, Vyomasura, Kuvalayapeeda, Chaanura, Mushtika, Kamsa, and Kamsa's 11 brothers, Shankhachooda, the akshouhini army of Jarasandha 18 times, Kaalayavana, Shatadhanva, Shishupaala, Saalva, etc. But now, some demons were left, like Kirmeera, Jatasura, Krodhavasha raakshasas, Maniman, etc., who were living in the teertha kshetras and destroying their piety. So, He enabled the Pandavas too to contribute to His mission of reducing the burden of earth, thus serving Krishna.

NOW WHERE SHOULD THEY LOOK FOR ANY HELP?
For Satidevi, it was destined for Her to do dehatyaaga and be born as Aparna, and to remarry Mahadeva. For Sitadevi, She was already safe. But for the Pandavas, it was Krishna only who could help them in any way.

Thank you for reading, and bearing with me!😊🙏

Hope this helps!
Jay SriRam!
ShriKrishnarpanamastu!

Why was Hanuman called "Maru" by Lord Rama?

 Lord Hanuman is the son of Vayu Deva, the Wind God. Marut means Wind, and Maruti means “of the wind”, in this case it means “Son of the Wind”

Therefore Lord Hanuman is called Maruti.

Why he is called Hanuman as per scriptures

While still a baby, Hanumanji , the son of the wind god, tried to fly up and grab the Sun, which he mistook for a fruit. Indra, the king of the Gods, struck Hanumanji with a thunderbolt on the jaw (hanu), to stop Hanumanji. Thus he became known as Hanuman.

His original name is Anjaniputra ( his mothers name is Anjani) or Keshari Nandan ( his fathers name is Keshari).

Why is the name of Lord Rama equivalent to Vishnu Sahasranama?

 First of all, all the names of Bhagavān possess the same glory (mahimā) insofar as they have the power to destroy the sins of all living entities—including the mahā-pātakas and even prārabdha-karma—and to award liberation. Thus, every single name of Bhagavān has the potency to grant mukti—the freedom from saṁsāra—just as the rising sun dispels darkness (sarveṣāṁ pāpa-rāśīnāṁ yathaiva tamasāṁ raviḥ). This liberating potency of Bhagavān’s Holy Names is primarily known as their tāraka-śakti. Whatever name of Bhagavān one chants, whether with knowledge or ignorance, when chanted without offence, it has the power to destroy all anarthas (sarvānartha-kṣaya).

All the names of Śrī Bhagavān that are invoked, in general, in relation to Lord Viṣṇu—whether intentionally to glorify the particular transcendental attributes of Śrī Viṣṇu, the husband of Śrī Lakṣmī, or even unintentionally in a general sense—carry the same potency, possess equal mahimā, and therefore produce the same effect upon the chanter. In this regard, there is no tāratamya or intrinsic gradation among the Holy Names, since every name is complete and eternal (sarve pūrṇāḥ śāśvatāś ca — Padma Purāṇa).

A devotee whose iṣṭa-vigraha is the four-handed form of Śrī Viṣṇu or Śrīman Nārāyaṇa may glorify the husband of Śrī Lakṣmī by calling Him Rāma—“He in whom the yogīs delight” (ramante yogino ’nante). He may also glorify that same Lord as Kṛṣṇa, the bluish-dark-complexioned Lord, or as He whose transcendental form is the embodiment of transcendental bliss (kṛṣir bhū-vācakaḥ śabdo ṇaś ca nirvṛti-vācakaḥ). In each of these cases, the names Rāma and Kṛṣṇa are being used as epithets or attributes of Śrī Viṣṇu.

Thus, when a devotee intends to glorify the particular attributes of his iṣṭa-vigraha—for example, the catur-bhuja form of Śrī Viṣṇu—and uses names such as Rāma, Kṛṣṇa, and so forth as epithets or attributes of Lord Viṣṇu, he is not calling upon other specific avatāras of Bhagavān, such as Daśarathi Rāma or Yaśodā-tanaya Śrī Kṛṣṇa. In such a case, whichever name he uses to address his iṣṭa-vigraha produces the same effect, for there is no svagata-bheda within Bhagavān: His name, form, qualities, and pastimes are intrinsically nondifferent from one another. Thus, due to ruci-vaicitrya, whatever particular name a devotee finds especially attractive or feels deep affection for, he may chant that Holy Name, and it will bestow the same perfection.

sarveṣāṁ bhagavan-nāmnāṁ samāno mahimāpi cet |

tathāpi sva-priyeṇāśu svārtha-siddhiḥ sukhaṁ bhavet ||

Although all of Bhagavān’s names are equally glorious, one’s desired goal is attained quickly and easily through the Holy Name that one cherishes the most. — Śrī Bṛhad-bhāgavatāmṛta 2.3.160.

sarvārtha-śakti-yuktasya devadevasya cakriṇaḥ |

yac cābhirucitaṁ nāma tat sarvārtheṣu yojayet ||

All the names of Bhagavān Cakrapāṇi, who is endowed with the power to fulfill all purposes, are capable of accomplishing every purpose. Therefore, whatever name one finds especially attractive, one should chant that name to attain one’s desired perfection. — Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa, cited in Hari-bhakti-vilāsa 11.401.

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 11.2.40 also acknowledges that one can quickly advance on the path of bhakti by chanting the name that is especially dear to one’s heart (evaṁ-vrataḥ sva-priya-nāma-kīrtyā). Thus, some devotees may have one favourite name of their beloved iṣṭa-vigraha, some may have two or three, while others may relish many names. As a devotee gradually advances and develops genuine taste (ruci), he naturally begins to relish all the names of his beloved Lord, for each name evokes a unique variety of devotional emotions in his heart (kramāt sarveṣu nāmasu | priyatā-sambhavāt tāni sarvāṇi syuḥ priyāṇi hi). Every name evokes its own particular sweetness, reminding him of a particular quality, form, or pastime of his beloved Lord.

Since every name of Bhagavān is like a cintāmaṇi (wish-fulfilling gem or touchstone), each name can independently bestow the complete perfection that any other Holy Name can bestow, in relation to one’s iṣṭa-vigraha. Therefore, when one name is glorified as being equal to a thousand names, the purpose is not to establish the inferiority of the remaining names, but to proclaim the unlimited potency of every individual Holy Name, in relation to one’s iṣṭa-vigraha. Whichever name of one’s iṣṭa-vigraha one considers especially dear to oneself (sva-priya-nāma) is fully capable of independently bestowing the complete perfection that can be attained through chanting all the other names of the Viṣṇu-sahasranāma.

Since Lord Śiva has a special attachment to Rāma-nāma, he advises Mother Pārvatī to chant that beloved Name.

rāma rāmeti rāmeti rame rāme manorame
sahasra-nāmabhis tulyaṁ rāma-nāma varānane

[Lord Śiva addressed his wife, Durgā:] ‘O Varānanā, I chant the holy name of Rāma, Rāma, Rāma, and thus delight in this beautiful sound. This holy name of Rāma is equal to one thousand holy names of Lord Viṣṇu.-Bṛhad-viṣṇu-sahasranāma-stotra in the Uttara-khaṇḍa of the Padma Purāṇa, 72.335

The intention is that if one finds it difficult or does not have sufficient time to chant all one thousand names of Viṣṇu, one should at least take shelter of a single Holy Name of Bhagavān that is dear to one’s heart and keep that name constantly upon one’s tongue. That one cintāmaṇi-nāma is sufficient to bestow the complete perfection attainable through chanting the entire Viṣṇu-sahasranāma.

The implied purport is: “What is the need for many touchstones if a single touchstone can fulfill all desires?” Be that as it may, devotees who possess deep affection for their beloved Lord are not satisfied with merely uttering His name once. Rather, they delight in repeatedly chanting the name that is most dear and charming to them, never becoming satiated. Similarly, a devotee who has affection for several names may relish chanting many names, or even all one thousand names, repeatedly. The essential principle is to chant the Holy Name with deep affection.

yadyapi samānas tulya eva mahimā “ekenaiva cintāmaṇinā aśeṣārtha-siddheḥ, bahubhis tair alam!” itivad ekasya bhagavan-nāmnaḥ sahasra-tulyatoktyā anantatā paryavasānāt |

tathāpi svasya sevakasya priyeṇa manorameṇa bhagavan-nāmnā, ata eva rāma-nāma-priyair uktam—sahasra-nāmabhis tulyaṁ rāma-nāma varānane ity-ādi ||

Although the glory of all the names of Bhagavān is indeed equal, just as a single cintāmaṇi can fulfill all varieties of desires and therefore there is no need for many such cintāmaṇis, similarly, the statement that one name of Bhagavān is equal to a thousand names ultimately establishes the unlimited glory of each and every Holy Name.

Nevertheless, one’s desired goal is attained quickly, effortlessly, and happily through the Bhagavān-name that is especially dear and charming to that particular devotee. Therefore, those who are fond of the name of ‘Rāma’ say, ‘sahasra-nāmabhis tulyaṁ rāma-nāma varānane,’ and so forth.

— Śrī Sanātana Gosvāmī’s Dig-darśinī-ṭīkā on Śrī Bṛhad-bhāgavatāmṛta 2.3.160.

Yet, there is another consideration of rasa in the chanting of Bhagavān’s Holy Names, whereby tāratamya exists in their capacity to manifest different degrees of prema and intimacy with the beloved Lord. If one is a devotee of the son of Daśaratha, Śrī Rāma, the husband of Sītā, then he invokes the name Rāma specifically in relation to that iṣṭa-vigraha, and not merely in a general sense or as an attribute of the four-handed Lord Viṣṇu. At this point, the discussion enters the domain of rasa, and distinctions therefore arise in the fruits attained.

viṣṇor ekaika-nāmāpi sarva-vedādhikaṁ matam |
tadṛṅ-nāma-sahasreṇa rāma-nāma samaṁ smṛtam ||

Even a single name of Viṣṇu is considered superior to all the Vedas. A single name of Rāma is remembered as being equal to a thousand such names.— Śrī Rāmāṣṭottara-śata-nāma-stotram, Padma Purāṇa, cited in Hari-bhakti-vilāsa 11.380

Just as śāstras often describe distinctions among the avatāras according to the degree of manifestation of transcendental qualities such as aiśvarya and mādhurya, resulting in corresponding gradations of rasa experienced and exchanged, they also describe these manifestations in terms such as pūrṇa, pūrṇatara, pūrṇatama, aṁśa, kalā, and so forth.

Corresponding distinctions may also be understood in relation to the names belonging to those particular forms, because nāma is ultimately nondifferent from nāmī. Thus, whatever tāratamya exists among the forms of Bhagavān is also reflected in their respective names (yac chaktir nāma yat tasya tasminn eva ca vastuni). Consequently, the fruits of chanting these names manifest to a much greater degree when a sādhaka chants with a specific devotional mood directed toward his iṣṭa-deva, rather than chanting the name merely in a general sense.

However, this distinction does not concern siddhāntic completeness—for all these forms are svarūpas of Bhagavān. Rather, it concerns the degree to which His transcendental qualities are manifested and the corresponding gradations of rasa exchanged, according to the degree of intimacy arising from the intensity of prema.

For example, one may exchange śānta-rasa and dāsya-rasa with Śrī Viṣṇu; with Śrī Rāma, one may develop relationships extending up to sambhrama-sakhya and vātsalya-rasa; whereas with Śrī Kṛṣṇa, one can enter fully into mādhurya-rasa. Thus, as the degree of intimacy and the corresponding manifestation of transcendental qualities increase, the rasa exchanged with the particular form of Bhagavān also reaches progressively higher levels.

It is in this sense that one will often find statements in śāstras glorifying the name of Śrī Kṛṣṇa over the other names of Bhagavān. This pertains specifically to the domain of rasa, which becomes relevant when one chants the name with a specific devotional mood directed toward Śrī Kṛṣṇa, rather than invoking the name merely in its general sense, according to its meaning as an attribute, or as a name applicable to other avatāras of Bhagavān. This is the extraordinary working of the nāma’s pārakā-śakti that reaches its zenith in the name of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the beloved of Śrī Rādhā.

siddhāntatas tv abhede ’pi śrīśa-kṛṣṇa-svarūpayoḥ |

rasenotkṛṣyate kṛṣṇa-rūpam eṣā rasa-sthitiḥ ||

Although according to siddhānta, there is no difference between the forms of Śrīśa and Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa’s form is superior by virtue of rasa. This is the conclusion of rasa-tattva. — Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya-līlā 9.117 (Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 1.2.59).

nāmnāṁ mukhyatamaṁ nāma kṛṣṇākhyaṁ me parantapa

Śrī Bhagavān said: O chastiser of the enemies, among My names, the name Kṛṣṇa is the foremost.—Prabhāsa Purāṇa, Nārada-Kuśadhvaja-saṁvāda; cited by Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī in Kṛṣṇa-sandarbha (82) and in his Dig-darśinī-ṭīkā on Brahma-saṁhitā 5.1

vyaktīkriyate cādhika-phalatvaṁ kṛṣṇa-nāmnaḥ pādme pātāla-khaṇḍe śrī-mathurā-māhātmye śrī-mahādevasyaiva vākye—tārakāj jāyate muktiḥ prema-bhaktis tu pārakātiti | pūrvam atra mocakatva-premadatvābhyāṁ tāraka-pāraka-saṁjñe rāma-kṛṣṇa-nāmnor hi vihite | tatra ca rāma-nāmni mocakatva-śaktir evādhikā, śrī-kṛṣṇa-nāmni tu mokṣa-sukha-tiraskāri-premānanda-dātṛtva-śaktiḥ samadhiketi bhāvaḥ |

The superior result bestowed by Kṛṣṇa-nāma is explicitly demonstrated in the Padma Purāṇa, Pātāla-khaṇḍa, in the Śrī Mathurā-māhātmya, in the very words of Śrī Mahādeva:

‘’tārakāj jāyate muktiḥ prema-bhaktis tu pārakāt’’

‘From tāraka arises liberation (mukti), whereas from pāraka arises prema-bhakti.’

Earlier in this context, the names tāraka and pāraka were assigned to Rāma-nāma and Kṛṣṇa-nāma respectively, on the basis of their respective functions of delivering one from bondage and bestowing prema. The purport is that, in Rāma-nāma, the power to liberate (mocakatva-śakti) is especially prominent, whereas in Śrī Kṛṣṇa-nāma, the power to bestow the bliss of prema (pure unadulterated: prema ), which surpasses the happiness of liberation, is equally prominent.

-Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī’s Kṛṣṇa-sandarbha (82)

Therefore, when the name Rāma is invoked specifically to please the husband of Mother Sītā, Śrī Rāmacandra, that Holy Name manifests the prema corresponding to the mood of the residents of Ayodhyā. Likewise, when the name Kṛṣṇa is invoked to call upon Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa as the son of Yaśodā, the Holy Name manifests the highest degree of prema—Vraja-prema—culminating in the sweetness of mādhurya-rasa. This highest mādhurya-rasa cannot manifest when the name Rāma is invoked specifically as Daśarathi Rāma, but it can certainly manifest when the name Rāma is invoked as Rādhikā-ramaṇa Kṛṣṇa. These are the subtle nuances that arise in the domain of rasa.

śrīman-nāmnāṁ ca sarveṣāṁ māhātmyeṣu sameṣv api |

kṛṣṇasyaivāvatāreṣu viśeṣaḥ ko’pi kasyacit ||

Although the glories (māhātmya) of all the names of Śrī Bhagavān are equal, there is nevertheless some particular distinction (viśeṣaḥ) among them, just as there is a particular distinction among Kṛṣṇa’s avatāras.-Hari-bhakti-vilāsa 11.487

evaṁ sāmānyato nāmnāṁ sarveṣāmapi māhātmyaṁ likhitvā idānīṁ viśeṣato likhan tatra māhātmyasya sāmye'pi kiñcidviśeṣaṁ dṛṣṭāntena sādhayati-śrīmaditi śrīmato bhagavataḥ śrīmatāṁ vā aśeṣaśobhāsampattyatiśayayuktānāṁ nāmnāṁ kasyacinnāmnaḥ ko'pi māhātmyaviśeṣo'sti | nanu cintāmaṇeriva bhagavannāmnāṁ mahimā sarvo'pi sama eva ucita ityāśaṅkya dṛṣṭāntena sāmye'pi kiñcidviśeṣaṁ darśayati—kṛṣṇasyaiveti | yathā śrīnṛsiṁha-raghunāthādīnāṁ mahāvatārāṇāṁ sarveṣāṁ bhagavattayā sāmye'pi kṛṣṇastu bhagavān svayam (śrībhā. 1.3.28) ityuktyā kṛṣṇasyāvatāratve'pi sākṣādbhagavattvena kaścidviśeṣo darśitaḥ tadvadityarthaḥ |

Having thus described the glories (māhātmya) of all the names of Bhagavān in general, now we proceed to describe a particular distinction (viśeṣaḥ) among them. Although their glories are equal, he establishes through an example that there is nevertheless some particular distinction.

The word śrīmat refers to Bhagavān, who is endowed with the supreme abundance of all beauty and splendour, and śrīmatām refers to His names, which are endowed with an extraordinary abundance of all such beauty and splendour. Among these names, the name of a particular [form of Bhagavān] possesses some special excellence of glory (māhātmya-viśeṣa).

One may object: “Since the glory of Bhagavān’s names should, like that of cintāmaṇi gems, be entirely equal, how can there be any distinction among them?” In response, through an example, he demonstrates that even while there is equality, a particular distinction may nevertheless exist.

This is expressed by the word kṛṣṇasyaiva. Just as, although all the great avatāras, such as Śrī Nṛsiṁha and Śrī Raghunātha, are equal in their status as Bhagavān, nevertheless the statement “kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam” (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 1.3.28) establishes a particular distinction in Kṛṣṇa: although Kṛṣṇa is counted among the avatāras, He is directly Svayam Bhagavān. Similarly, there is a particular distinction among Bhagavān’s names.

—Śrī Sanātana Gosvāmī’s Dig-darśinī-ṭīkā on Hari-bhakti-vilāsa 11.487

Thus, this is confirmed by the following statement of the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa.

sahasra-nāmnāṁ puṇyānāṁ trir āvṛttyā tu yat phalam |

ekāvṛttyā tu kṛṣṇasya nāmaikaṁ tat prayacchati ||

The result attained by reciting Lord Viṣṇu’s thousand Holy Names three times is attained by reciting Kṛṣṇa’s name once.-Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa (2.36.19), Nārada Pañcarātra (4.1.15)

baladevaḥ: vaiśampāyanoktānāṁ sahasra-nāmnāṁ trir āvṛttyā yat phalaṁ, tat, kṛṣṇasya ekaṁ nāma—brahmāṇḍa-purāṇagatāṣṭottara-śata-nāmasthaṁ kṛṣṇāvatāra-sambandhy ekam eva nāma, ekāvṛttyā prayac chatīty arthaḥ | teṣu sarva-svāvirbhāvatva-viśiṣṭasya nāmāny uktāni, iha tu kṛṣṇatvena viśiṣṭasyeti viśeṣaḥ

The result attained by reciting three times the thousand names of Lord Viṣṇu spoken by Vaiśampāyana (Mahābhārata Viṣṇu-sahasranāma) is attained by reciting once a single name among the 108 names pertaining specifically to Kṛṣṇa-avatāra, as found in the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa (2.36.21–41). In the thousand names of Lord Viṣṇu, the names are characterised by the Lord’s manifestation in all His various forms, whereas here the name is specifically characterized by Kṛṣṇa-ness (kṛṣṇatvena), being related specifically to Kṛṣṇa-avatāra. This is the distinction (viśeṣa).—Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s Sāraṅga-raṅgadā-ṭīkā on Śrī Rūpa Gosvāmī’s Laghu-bhāgavatāmṛta (1.5.354)

sādhāraṇānāṃ keśavādi-nāmnāpi tadīyatā-vailakṣaṇyenāgṛhyamāṇānām avatārāntara-nāma-sādhāraṇa-phalam eva jñeyam |

nāma-kaumudyāṃ tu sarvānartha-kṣaya eva jñānājñāna-viśeṣo niṣiddhaḥ na tu premādi-phala- tāratamye |

tad evaṃ kṛṣṇa-nāmnaḥ sādhāraṇa-phala-dattve sati - sahasra- nāmabhis tulyaṃ rāma-nāma varānana ity api yuktam uktam | vastutas tv evaṃ sarvāvatārāvatāriṇām abhyaḥ śrī-kṛṣṇa-nāmno'bhyadhikaṃ phalaṃ svayaṃ bhagavattvāt tasya |

Those who chant names such as Keśava and others only in a general sense, without realising their unique and intimate relationship to the form of Śrī Kṛṣṇa (tadīyatā-vailakṣaṇya), attain only the general results (up to the point of mukti) common to the names of other incarnations (avatāras).

In the Nāma-kaumudī, however, the distinction between chanting with knowledge or ignorance is dismissed (jñānājñāna-viśeṣo niṣiddhaḥ) only with respect to the eradication of all unwanted impediments (anarthas ); this rule does not apply to the gradations of higher fruits like divine love (na tu premādi-phala- tāratamye).

Therefore, when the name of Kṛṣṇa is considered solely from the perspective of bestowing these general results, the scriptural statement—‘sahasra- nāmabhis tulyaṃ rāma-nāma varānana’—is appropriate. Yet, in absolute reality, the fruit of Śrī Kṛṣṇa’s name is immensely superior to the names of all other avatāras and even the source of all avatāras (avatārī), because He Himself is Svayaṁ Bhagavān—the original Supreme Lord.

—Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s Sarva-saṁvādinī-ṭīkā on Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī’s Kṛṣṇa-sandarbha (82)

Thus, the statement that Rāma-nāma is equal to the Viṣṇu-sahasranāma must be understood at both levels: in terms of the general mahimā and liberating potency of the Holy Name, a single name of Bhagavān is complete in itself and can bestow the full perfection attainable through the thousand names; yet, when a name is invoked specifically in relation to a particular iṣṭa-vigraha, its viśeṣa manifests according to that form’s particular qualities, identity, and rasa. Therefore, there is no tāratamya in the completeness or essential potency of the names, but there can be tāratamya in the specific prema and rasa they manifest according to the form of Bhagavān being invoked and the devotee’s corresponding devotional mood. It is precisely this distinction between the universal completeness of nāma and the particular rasa revealed through nāma that reconciles the statement ‘rāma-nāma is equal to a thousand names’ with the śāstric glorification of particular names such as Kṛṣṇa-nāma.

Was Lord Rama black or white, in color?

 In Sundara Kanda of Valmiki Ramayana Mata Sita asks Lord Hanuman to prove himself that he knew Sri Rama and Lord Lakshmana. Then Lord Hanuman starts describing various characteristics Of Sri Rama. As a part of the description, Lord Hanuman says as follows:

दुन्दुभि स्वन निर्घोषः स्निग्ध वर्णः प्रतापवान् |
समः सम विभक्त अन्गो वर्णम् श्यामम् समाश्रितः ||

Meaning:

He has a voice like the sound of a kettle-drum. He has a shining skin. He is full of splendour. He is square-built. His limbs are built symmetrically. He is endowed with a dark-brown1 complexion.

When Mata Sita enters the fire by herself, All the Gods reach Lanka and approach Sri Rama. Lord Brahma describes who Sri Rama in reality is and proclaims his(Rama's) divinity.

सीता लक्ष्मीर्भवान् विष्णुर्देवः कृष्णः प्रजापतिः ||
वधार्थं रावणस्येह प्रविष्टो मानुषीं तनुम् |

sītā lakṣmīrbhavān viṣṇurdevaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ prajāpatiḥ ||
vadhārthaṃ rāvaṇasyeha praviṣṭo mānuṣīṃ tanum |

Meaning:

Seetha is no other than Goddess Lakshmi (the divine consort of Lord Vishnu), while you are Lord Vishnu. You are having a shining dark-blue hue. You are the Lord of created beings. For the destruction of Ravana, you entered a human body here, on this earth.

Ramaraksha Stotram written by Budha Kaushika muni is a popular hymn. In that stotra, Budha Kaushika rushi praises Lord Rama as below.

ध्यात्वा नीलोत्पलश्यामं रामं राजीवलोचनम् ।
जानकीलक्ष्मणोपेतं जटामुकुटमंडितम् ||

dhyātvā nīlotpalaśyāmaṃ rāmaṃ rājīvalocanam ।
jānakīlakṣmaṇopetaṃ jaṭāmukuṭamaṃḍitam ||

Meaning:

Meditating on Rama who is black like the blue lotus flower, Who has lotus like eyes, who is our Lord, Who is accompanied by Sita and Lakshmana, Whose head is surrounded by the tufted hair.

राजेंद्रं सत्यसंधं दशरथतनयं श्यामलं शांतमूर्तिम् ।

rājeṃdraṃ satyasaṃdhaṃ daśarathatanayaṃ śyāmalaṃ śāṃtamurtiṃ |

Meaning :

Who is the best among kings, Who is truthful, who is son of Dasaratha, Who is black and Who is the personification of peace and patience.

So, He was in the colour of blue lotus. He is also called Nīlimeghaśyāma meaning one with complexion of blue cloud.

Lord Rama is not completely black but in a complexion of a blue lotus just like the Lord Srimannarayana.

The dhyaanam of Sri Vishnu Sahasranaam describes Sri MahaVishnu as follows:

शान्ताकारं भुजगशयनं पद्मनाभं सुरेशम्
विश्वाधारम् गगन सदृशं मेघवर्णं शुभाङ्गम् |

ṣānthakaram Bhujaga ṣayanam Padmānabham ṣuresam
Visvādhāram gagana sadrusam ṃegha Varnam ṣubāngam||

We meditate upon Vishnu, who is ever peaceful, who lies on the great serpent-bed from whose navel springs the lotus of the creative power, who is the controller of the gods, whose form is the entire universe , and who is the foundation for the universe, who is all pervading as the sky, of the hue of the cloud, of fascinating beauty.

मेघश्यामं पीतकौशेयवासं श्रीवत्साङ्कं कौस्तुभोद्भासिताङ्गम्

meghaśyāmaṃ pītakauśeyavāsaṃ śrīvatsāṅkaṃ kaustubhodbhāsitāṅgam |

Whose body is of the dark like the clouds. He lives in the pure ocean of milk. He has Lakshmi in his chest.

From the above verses, it is clear that the complexion of Sri Rama is just as the complexion of Lord Srimannarayana. It is because, he is Sri Narayana himself!

Bolo Siyavar Ramachandra ki Jaya!