Mythological Masti

   

What if Krishna became the charioteer of Rama? Note Pg4 (Page 4)

Post Reply New Post

Page 4 of 6

Page 1 Page 3
Page   of 6
Page 5 Page 6

lola610

Viewbie

lola610

Joined: 03 November 2008

Posts: 7515

Posted: 07 May 2011 at 12:19pm | IP Logged
Viewbie's Note: I request that we all stick to the topic at hand, i.e. give our views on the content of the article. Broad criticism of other influences and devotional practices is neither relevant nor appropriate, and even in making a relevant post please ensure that respect for other members' beliefs is maintained. Thank you Smile

Edited by lola610 - 07 May 2011 at 12:25pm

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

Rehanism.Vrish...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 4)" 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 12:35pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by Darklord_Rehan

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.



Uhh, have you read Valmiki Ramayan? Or watched Ramanand Sagar's Ramayan? =/
If you have read Valmiki or Tulsidas ji's Ramayan then please let me know WHY Lord Ram treated Sita ji that way or WHY he told her to go away during the time she was pregnant. Thank you.

If you have read Valmiki ji or Tulsidas ji's Ramayan, you will know the CORRECT answer to the 2nd part and if you have watched RS Ramayan then you would know the answer to the first question.

Let me know.

anku-

IF-Sizzlerz

anku-

Joined: 16 April 2008

Posts: 23722

Posted: 07 May 2011 at 12:45pm | IP Logged
Oh and also, since you mentioned Gita ji, I am guessing you believe in scriptures. And you prefer Lord Krishna more. Have you read Bhagvad ji? The chapter where Gopi bhav has been described...

Cause you know any huge devotee of Lord Krishna would read Bhagvad ji first and foremost more than anything! As it has been said by Lord Krishna himself that he RESIDES in Bhagvatam...
So, that's why I am wondering... Since even @ our place, we have firm belief in Lord Krishna and hes our isht God... other than Lord SiyaRam and Bhagvan Shiv...


Would like to know your views on a certain thing.. hence asking! Thankyou!

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

..RamKiJanaki..

Rehanism

IF-Dazzler

Rehanism

Joined: 07 August 2010

Posts: 3431

Posted: 07 May 2011 at 1:01pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by JanakiRaghunath

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.

That's because we try to limit Krishna in Temples or Allah in Mosque and worship Him through rituals prescribed in different texts which can never be expected to be identical. But if we truly understand Krishna or Allah with our own intellect then its easy for a Muslim to worship Krishna and Hindu to worship Allah. And I don't think we need any Miracle Baba or Prophet and their Rule books to guide us. Self-realization is the only way to liberation. Its due to this precise reason I keep on saying that Karma is superior to ritualistic worship. Because rituals and traditions are varied and often clash with each other, but Karma is one and universal. If you see carefully, all clashes and communal riots happen due to different ways of expressing Bhakti. Some say that cows should be sacrificed to please Allah, others say that no; goats should be sacrificed as cow is holy. But if everyone discards these meaningless rituals and rites and accept the way of Righteous action as the only way to the Supersoul, then every person shall have a common faith.

To me, Krishna is not a deity or God. Krishna/Shiva is Supreme consciousness and Shakti is the boundless Energy. They are Nirgun and Niraakaar and inconceivable. So restricting them to stone of Amarnath or Mecca is foolishness.

Rehanism

IF-Dazzler

Rehanism

Joined: 07 August 2010

Posts: 3431

Posted: 07 May 2011 at 1:07pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by x.Anku.x

Oh and also, since you mentioned Gita ji, I am guessing you believe in scriptures. And you prefer Lord Krishna more. Have you read Bhagvad ji? The chapter where Gopi bhav has been described...

Cause you know any huge devotee of Lord Krishna would read Bhagvad ji first and foremost more than anything! As it has been said by Lord Krishna himself that he RESIDES in Bhagvatam...
So, that's why I am wondering... Since even @ our place, we have firm belief in Lord Krishna and hes our isht God... other than Lord SiyaRam and Bhagvan Shiv...


Would like to know your views on a certain thing.. hence asking! Thankyou!


No I don't believe in scriptures. I believe in myself. Bhagwad Gita is NOT a scripture. Its a boundless Energy and Truth. It is the only thing which makes sense as it is universal and unchanging. I have read many scriptures of several religion and all disappointed me equally.

I have no Isht Dev and I don't worship anyone atleast not in the way most others do. To me Shiva and Krishna are one and the same and I never found any difference in them.

..RamKiJanaki..

IF-Stunnerz

..RamKiJanaki..

Joined: 20 August 2008

Posts: 44029

Posted: 07 May 2011 at 1:14pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by Darklord_Rehan

Originally posted by JanakiRaghunath

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.

That's because we try to limit Krishna in Temples or Allah in Mosque and worship Him through rituals prescribed in different texts which can never be expected to be identical. But if we truly understand Krishna or Allah with our own intellect then its easy for a Muslim to worship Krishna and Hindu to worship Allah. And I don't think we need any Miracle Baba or Prophet and their Rule books to guide us. Self-realization is the only way to liberation. Its due to this precise reason I keep on saying that Karma is superior to ritualistic worship. Because rituals and traditions are varied and often clash with each other, but Karma is one and universal. If you see carefully, all clashes and communal riots happen due to different ways of expressing Bhakti. Some say that cows should be sacrificed to please Allah, others say that no; goats should be sacrificed as cow is holy. But if everyone discards these meaningless rituals and rites and accept the way of Righteous action as the only way to the Supersoul, then every person shall have a common faith.

To me, Krishna is not a deity or God. Krishna/Shiva is Supreme consciousness and Shakti is the boundless Energy. They are Nirgun and Niraakaar and inconceivable. So restricting them to stone of Amarnath or Mecca is foolishness.

 
Clashes and communal riots happen because of people's disrespect for another's religion, not because of the rituals themselves. If everyone respected one another's culture and religion, these riots would not happen, because these rituals do not clash if there is respect observed.
 
Also, I believe we should just end this discussion here, becaue I have my beliefs concerning rituals and you have yours. Neither is going to be convinced by the other's arguments and like our Viewbie said, we are going off topic.

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

Rehanism

Rehanism

IF-Dazzler

Rehanism

Joined: 07 August 2010

Posts: 3431

Posted: 07 May 2011 at 1:15pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by x.Anku.x

Originally posted by Darklord_Rehan

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.



Uhh, have you read Valmiki Ramayan? Or watched Ramanand Sagar's Ramayan? =/
If you have read Valmiki or Tulsidas ji's Ramayan then please let me know WHY Lord Ram treated Sita ji that way or WHY he told her to go away during the time she was pregnant. Thank you.

If you have read Valmiki ji or Tulsidas ji's Ramayan, you will know the CORRECT answer to the 2nd part and if you have watched RS Ramayan then you would know the answer to the first question.

Let me know.


Yeah I have read Valmiki Ramayan and Goswami Tulsi Das Ramayan, but I don't think the latter wrote Uttar Khand, and I have watched RS Ramayan as well. If you wish to know my opinion on this please read the second last post of this page :
http://www.india-forums.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1595399&PID=41536805&#41536805

BTW, Good to see someone from CMG Phorum over here.HugEmbarrassed

anku-

IF-Sizzlerz

anku-

Joined: 16 April 2008

Posts: 23722

Posted: 07 May 2011 at 1:32pm | IP Logged
Good to see you here too Hug

Coming back to the debate:

U don't find any difference in Lord Krishna and Lord Shiv then let me tell you there is no difference in Lord Ram and Lord Krishna either.

And uhh, Bhagvad Gita is not a scripture? Is a table not a table? A table is what we call it and being solid is its quality. Same way Gita ji is a scripture and being boundless Energy and Truth is its quality.

Anyways, call it whatever you want, you go by what Gita ji says. Same way other scriptures, call them scriptures or your supreme energy truth etc, but one of them supreme energy and truth states this:


[i was trying to post the shlok here but I-F is not allowing me to do so saying it contains invalid words :S]

Anyways, what the shlok basically says is it's said by Lord Shiv that those who believe in me and don't respect Lord Ram or those who believe in Lord Ram and don't respect me, I am not fond of them either... there is furthermore what has been said but I am not going 2 get to that as it would be too rude...

Now you can make whatever you want to of this. But you believe so much in Lord Shiv and this is said by him. I am not being rude to you but I am just telling you what Lord Shiv says. Don't take it as a personal issue. It's what scriptures say. I mean the supreme energy and truth states this.

And acc. to you, what's the REAL reason behind the pariksha?

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.