Mythological Masti

   

What if Krishna became the charioteer of Rama? Note Pg4 (Page 3)

Post Reply New Post

Page 3 of 6

Page 1 Page 2
Page   of 6
Page 4 Page 6

AishuHiBawari

IF-Rockerz

AishuHiBawari

Chidiya Ghar Banner Contest Winner

Joined: 13 October 2010

Posts: 6222

Posted: 07 May 2011 at 9:05am | IP Logged

Hi guys. Well, I've just caught up to reading all of your posts and have to comment myself.

 Devotion is indisputably higher than karma. The fruits of Karma are not eternal at all. Yes, if one earns enough punya, or good deeds, then he can go to the material heaven, which is the court of Indra. As soon as your good deeds run out, you have to be reincarnated back here on earth. What is the point of pursuing karma then? Karma means nothing else than ones actions. Devotion, faith, love, and respect are embodied in bhakti, not karma. Moksh is to be united with God. Bhakti is the want of that union. And so, if we do not want Moksh, why would we get it? Hence, bhakti, not Karma, leads to eternal salvation.

If you find Krishna in your heart, then you are a bhakt. And as Debi di said, there is something called self-realization, when we realize that we are separate from our karma, our bodies, and mind, but not from Krishna. We are jivatmas, and we are of the paramatma which is Krishna. Krishna is the full manifestation of the lord, and all of us are always attracted to him because of that. And that is true for those who are not even self realized. People visit temples and worship idols to perform bhakti outwardly since they have not completely recognized the Krishna within them. You are right, he is within every molecule and atom of the universe, but we need to perceive him with our senses before we realize him with our mind and heart. And there is much to learn through bhakti. You can learn more about Krishna that way. How can it be blind?

And if bhakti was not important, then Krishna would have never stayed in Gokul. He would have never performed his divine pastimes with the Braj Gopikas, the Raas Leela would never had occurred. And all of the great saints have always advocated for bhakti over karma. We must assume that they are realized souls since we are not and respect what they say. It must be much more true than our own made up philosophies.

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

..RamKiJanaki..

Dear Guest, Being an unregistered member you are missing out on participating in the lively discussions happening on the topic "What if Krishna became the charioteer of Rama? Note Pg4 (Page 3)" 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!

anku-

IF-Sizzlerz

anku-

Joined: 16 April 2008

Posts: 23722

Posted: 07 May 2011 at 10:03am | IP Logged
Can someone shorten what this article is saying? It looks quite offending but I want to know what it says before I can give my thoughts on it...

AishuHiBawari

IF-Rockerz

AishuHiBawari

Chidiya Ghar Banner Contest Winner

Joined: 13 October 2010

Posts: 6222

Posted: 07 May 2011 at 10:29am | IP Logged
Originally posted by x.Anku.x

Can someone shorten what this article is saying? It looks quite offending but I want to know what it says before I can give my thoughts on it...


It is basically a parody on SHri Krishna and Shri Raam. In this story, Shri Raam is leaving for Vanvaas and he tells his charioteer to drive, but then the charioteer turns around it it is Shri Krishna. Shri Krishna and Shri Raam then have a debate on whether going to the forest is right or not. Shri Raam sounds very much like a push over and Shri Krishna ruthlessly insults everyone, saying that nothing should stop Raam from taking over and ruling Ayodhya. Yes, it is quite offensive as both characters are made fun of and taken to the extremes.

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

..RamKiJanaki..

anku-

IF-Sizzlerz

anku-

Joined: 16 April 2008

Posts: 23722

Posted: 07 May 2011 at 10:32am | IP Logged
Thanxxx Aishu. I did rather not read then. It boils my blood!

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

..RamKiJanaki..

Rehanism

IF-Dazzler

Rehanism

Joined: 07 August 2010

Posts: 3458

Posted: 07 May 2011 at 10:32am | IP Logged
@Debipriya Di.

1. Worshiping - Who told you that I am against worshiping? Its just that my idea of worshiping Krishna is different from others. Others worship Him with flowers, kumkum, garland and incantations while I worship Him through my own Karma. Because the former ways only attach us further to the materialistic world while the later leads us to enlightenment. Did Krishna ever asked us to worship him or chant his names? Here lies the problem. Lord Buddha was Himself against going to temples or worshiping an idol, but see the irony - His own 'devotees' have erected numerous temples containing His idols and worship Him with all sort of rituals. So what kind of devotees are they and what shall we gain from this superficial 'Bhakti' which undermines those basic principles which these people preached? We forget that God never asked us to do all this - He never asked us to pray to Him or worship Him with these rituals. He asked only a simple thing - to do our own Karma. Nothing more, nothing less.

2. Vivek - This is exactly what I have always said. Its essential to use our Vivek/Chetna in whatever we do. You call it Vivek and I call it intellect/conscience. How many of us have questioned the relevance of these numerous rituals or traditions? Most of us blindly follow them. Somebody said that Ganesh idol has started drinking milk, and everybody is busy 'feeding' him. A country where 47% children suffer from malnutrition, tons of milk are poured over Ganesh Murtis and Shiva Lingas. Is that Bhakti? There are many Babas and Astrologers out there, showing all sort of magic tricks and claiming themselves to be divine manifestations. How many of us dare to question their cogency? Right from President downwards, everybody falls in their feet and pay them donations in millions. Have we ever thought why do these Avtaars appear only in India - why not in US, UK, Germany, France? Because they know their business won't flourish in those nations. In India, however, these Babas are millionaires and the best part is nobody can harm a hair of them. Their income is not taxable nor are they susceptible. They are considered above the nation's law. Is that Bhakti or stupidity?

3. You ask when did Krishna called upon us to disregard meaningless rituals and idol worship? Yes He did. He said so in Bhagwad Gita - He said that He's pleased by nothing more than Karma. Every other path is delusive. They only bear temporary fruits and turns us complacent. Karma is the ultimate Dharma and the only path to enlightenment. And when Krishna returned as Buddha, He openly shunned the hollow rituals, discarded the Vedas, cussed the fraud Brahmins and once again showed us the path of Karma in a much simpler way. 'Sincere Devotees' are those who understood this and dared to follow His ways and swam against the tides. While the rest, still trapped in materialism and vague traditions, continued to follow the path of Blind Faith.

Rehanism

IF-Dazzler

Rehanism

Joined: 07 August 2010

Posts: 3458

Posted: 07 May 2011 at 11:18am | IP Logged
In the debate of Karma Vs Bhakti, I almost forgot to comment on the article. I neither found it appropriate nor repulsive.

Krishna wouldn't have stopped Ram from accepting Vanvaas as that was a necessary Leela to cause Ravan's demise. By going to Vanvaas, Ram was actually offering a bait to Ravan in the form of Sita, which in turn would give Him an excuse to kill Ravan. Ravan tried to trap Ram in his Maya by sending the Golden Stag, but instead himself got entrapped in Ram's Maya i.e. Sita and invited his own downfall. Krishna Himself did this Leela several times, e.g. by fleeing from battles with Jarasandh and relocating to Dwarka.

But, but, but. I think Krishna would have never accepted Ram's treatment of Sita at any cost. He would have never allowed an innocent lady to jump on fire or banished a pregnant woman to please few jackasses. He would have argued, quarreled, turned against the whole world and ultimately would have succeeded to secure justice for her.

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

AishuHiBawari

..RamKiJanaki..

IF-Stunnerz

..RamKiJanaki..

Joined: 20 August 2008

Posts: 45215

Posted: 07 May 2011 at 12:15pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by Darklord_Rehan

Originally posted by JanakiRaghunath

but neither would be 'acceptable' today in the Kali Yug because people have more westernized views on things that don't flow with either Krishna or Ram's principles. Each day and age has its own ideal model, and it falls to us to merge Ram and Krishna's discources on Dharma to make our lives more liveable in the Kali Yug. Each by himself would not work.

Agree with you partly, but what has westernization got to do with this? Is Krishna only the God of Indians? Isn't He the lord of the universe? So His words as well are universal just as He is.
 
By western, I am speaking more about materialism because many of the materialistic aspects of India today came from the west. I do not mean to characterize the west as 'bad' or anything, since I live in the US myself and like life hereLOL, but there are certain aspects of society that annoy men and they're being emulated by India.
 
As for Krishna being universal, that is true, but we cannot expect people of other religions and cultures accepting Krishna as their God. Though you and me may think differently, other religions do not consider their Gods as the same as Krishna, and they would take it offensively if we claimed that Krishna was universal. So though we believe Shri Hari and his avatars to be universal, it is unfair to expect others to accept that.

..RamKiJanaki..

IF-Stunnerz

..RamKiJanaki..

Joined: 20 August 2008

Posts: 45215

Posted: 07 May 2011 at 12:19pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by Darklord_Rehan


But, but, but. I think Krishna would have never accepted Ram's treatment of Sita at any cost. He would have never allowed an innocent lady to jump on fire or banished a pregnant woman to please few jackasses. He would have argued, quarreled, turned against the whole world and ultimately would have succeeded to secure justice for her.
 
While I agree with the first part of your post that Krishna would never have stopped Ram from going on vanvaas, I kind of find it amusing that we all are (in the process) differentiating Krishna and Ram...aren't they both avatars of the same God? What is the sense in speculating about how Ram would analyze Krishna's actions or Krishna analyzing Ram's actions?LOL Shri Hari displayed different ideals in both avatars, but had Shri Krishna come to Treta Yug, he would have acted just like Ram and had Ram gone to Dwapar Yug, he would have acted just like Krishna, because the customs of those avatars required such respective ideals. So it makes no sense to bring Dwapar Yug into Treta Yug and Treta Yug into Dwapar Yug. There is no difference between Ram and Krishna, so it is pointless wondering how one would act in the 'other's' avatar.


Edited by JanakiRaghunath - 07 May 2011 at 12:18pm

Post Reply New Post

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category

Active Forums

Mythological Masti Topic Index

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.