Mythological Masti

   

What if Krishna became the charioteer of Rama? Note Pg4 (Page 5)

Post Reply New Post

Page 5 of 6

Page 1 Page 4
Page   of 6
Page 6 Page 6

esrujan

Newbie

esrujan

Joined: 04 November 2010

Posts: 18

Posted: 07 May 2011 at 3:24pm | IP Logged
I see some members are offended by the topic of discussion. Please read the disclaimer once again (I am highlighting it now) and only if u r comfortable reading/discussing about the topic, proceed to read and post in this thread.



As Lola noted in her "Viewbie Note", kindly refrain from off-topic discussions that seem to make ppl very emotional and angry against each other Tongue


Edited by esrujan - 07 May 2011 at 3:28pm

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

DebipriyaRehanism

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 5)" 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!

Rehanism

IF-Dazzler

Rehanism

Joined: 07 August 2010

Posts: 3427

Posted: 07 May 2011 at 3:28pm | IP Logged
Anku, I shall answer your questions if you promise to ponder over it with an open mind. That is very essential.

I have clearly said that there is no difference between Shiva or Ram or Krishna. They all are different facets of the same existence. We can collectively call them Purusha/Brahm or Sat-Chit-Anand. Most of you consider Him to be God with various attributes, worthy of being worshiped in religious places; while I consider Him to be nothing more than my own consciousness. Krishna is my guide, my charioteer, not God. I seek Him for advice but I do not worship Him.

Now coming to Scriptures and Tables. Bhagwad Gita is not a table, its the Tree from whose trunks these tables are made. The Tree can exist independently but the tables have neither existence nor identity without the tree whence its material comes. Tables are man-made while Tree is the creation of the nature or Parabrahm. Similarly Scriptures/Rule books (viz. Vedas, Shastras, Quran) containing all do's and dont's, worldly traditions, rituals and customs are written by men who claimed to be God's representative while Gita is the word of Krishna Himself. That is why Scriptures are temporary and even can be wrong at places and may not be accommodated with changing times, but Bhagwad Gita is universal and eternal as is its narrator, Krishna.

Ram and Krishna :
You need to understand one thing, Ram Avatar was much restrictive - Ram came as an ordinary man and all His life, He behaved like an ordinary man. He cried, He suffered, He was defeated, He fainted in battles, He displayed limited knowledge, He sought other's advice and help and in rarest occasions, He even got angry. On the other hand the cowherd of Vrindavan, Krishna, was complete and beyond all worldly restrictions. He never cared much for traditions or norms and He could have gone to any length to secure justice. He had one simple funda - Everything can be abandoned for Righteousness but there is nothing for which Righteousness can be abandoned.

While Shri Ram was bound by His Maryada and acted accordingly, Krishna was ready to break any Maryada or custom for the sake of Dharma/ Righteousness. In Sita's banishment, Ram obeyed the prevalent custom and passed His verdict accordingly. But customs never prevented Krishna to stand for absolute justice. Krishna married 16,100 sex-slaves of Narakasur to save their honour, without caring what others would say. In those days slaves were treated like prostitutes and they had no right to self respect, and marrying a prostitute is a sin according to the Vedas. But Krishna broke this tradition for the sake of justice and honour of those women. That is the difference between Ram and Krishna. There were irrelevant customs in both of their ages, but where Ram and Krishna had to choose between Customs and Righteousness, the former stuck to customs while the latter stood for absolute justice and righteousness.

Well Ram did it because of the curse of a sage. But what kind of example did he want to set? Now think this with an open mind. If today there is a custom that if a woman is captured/kidnapped then after being released she has to prove her chastity by walking on fire. And God forbid, if you are that woman - would you accept that. Would you take it kindly if your husband refuses to accept you without Agnipariksha? Would you still venerate your husband as a just man? Such practices are still prevalent in remote villages where apostles justify themselves with the excuse of Ram. In certain scriptures, its written that women must cover their faces behind veil or wear Burkha in public. I ask why? Is being a woman a matter of shame that she has to cover her face in public? Why the scriptures restrict women's education? Why are women never allowed to cremate their parents? These questions must be asked to the Pundits and Maulavis. Such traditions need to be broken for the sake of Dharma, for the sake of a better future and the initiative must be taken by you girls. And for that you need to shed all sort of blind faith and deal matters with your own intellect and power of reasoning.

I am sorry if I have gone off the topic once again, but I had to clarify certain things.Big smile


Edited by Darklord_Rehan - 07 May 2011 at 3:32pm

..RamKiJanaki..

IF-Stunnerz

..RamKiJanaki..

Joined: 20 August 2008

Posts: 44021

Posted: 07 May 2011 at 3:38pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by Darklord_Rehan


There were irrelevant customs in both of their ages, but where Ram and Krishna had to choose between Customs and Righteousness, the former stuck to customs while the latter stood for absolute justice and righteousness.

 
This is where most people would get offended, because Ram is the epitome of Dharma and righteousness. Saying Ram merely followed customs and abandoned righteousness is what is insulting. And in fact, Ram did not blindly follow any customs of his age. He embraced such souls as Guha and Shabari, who were considered untouchables in those times. He ate the half-bitten fruits of Shabari with love, he accepted his enemy's brother without any bias or suspicion. He considered the Vanar Sena his equals, when the rest of the world saw them as lower beings.
 
Ram did not banish Sita or ask her to give Agni Pariksha because of customs. He did so because the Dharma of his situation required it. If you analyze Ram and Krishna's actions equally, you will see that both acted according to situation. I believe even Krishna would have banished Rukmini had he been put under the same situation. There is absolutely no difference between them, none at all.

Rehanism

IF-Dazzler

Rehanism

Joined: 07 August 2010

Posts: 3427

Posted: 07 May 2011 at 3:58pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by JanakiRaghunath

Originally posted by Darklord_Rehan


There were irrelevant customs in both of their ages, but where Ram and Krishna had to choose between Customs and Righteousness, the former stuck to customs while the latter stood for absolute justice and righteousness.

 
This is where most people would get offended, because Ram is the epitome of Dharma and righteousness. Saying Ram merely followed customs and abandoned righteousness is what is insulting. And in fact, Ram did not blindly follow any customs of his age. He embraced such souls as Guha and Shabari, who were considered untouchables in those times. He ate the half-bitten fruits of Shabari with love, he accepted his enemy's brother without any bias or suspicion. He considered the Vanar Sena his equals, when the rest of the world saw them as lower beings.

Insulting people on the basis of caste is NOT a Vedic custom. These customs were inducted in later Vedic age. In Ram's times Caste system was much more liberal than in later ages. Do you think that I hate Ram or do not respect Him? Because I do. I respect almost all His actions except for His treatment of Sita. That is one thing I can never accept. And stay assured, Ram and Krishna are beyond respect and disrespect. Neither can you increase their respect nor can I reduce it.Tongue
 
Ram did not banish Sita or ask her to give Agni Pariksha because of customs. He did so because the Dharma of his situation required it. If you analyze Ram and Krishna's actions equally, you will see that both acted according to situation. I believe even Krishna would have banished Rukmini had he been put under the same situation. There is absolutely no difference between them, none at all.

I think its time we must agree to differ on this. In my opinion, Krishna would have never done what Ram did. Dharma is not situational - its absolute. And punishing an innocent can never be Dharma in any situation. Krishna always managed to rescue the Righteous people from the tightest corners by any and every means. Krishna never cared for these vague customs. He married 16,100 slaves without raising an eyebrow and gave them equal status as Rukhmini and Satyabhama. When the Brahmins of Dwarka questioned Him regarding the chastity of his wives, He gave them a piece of mind and silenced them - not with force but with logic and reason. Ram and Krishna might not be different as soul, but their way of thinking was different as was their course of actions.

AishuHiBawari

IF-Rockerz

AishuHiBawari

Chidiya Ghar Banner Contest Winner

Joined: 13 October 2010

Posts: 6222

Posted: 07 May 2011 at 4:26pm | IP Logged
Ok, there are quite a few things here that can be quite offensive. We're not really getting anywhere and if this debate goes on, we might not be as friendly afterwards.
Lola di, please just lock this forum and lets have an end to this. We can't change someone's spiritualities and shouldn't even try to. Khatam karlo yeh sab!


Edited by AishuJSKfan - 07 May 2011 at 4:25pm

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

Debipriya..RamKiJanaki..

esrujan

Newbie

esrujan

Joined: 04 November 2010

Posts: 18

Posted: 07 May 2011 at 4:32pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by Darklord_Rehan

Originally posted by JanakiRaghunath

Originally posted by Darklord_Rehan


There were irrelevant customs in both of their ages, but where Ram and Krishna had to choose between Customs and Righteousness, the former stuck to customs while the latter stood for absolute justice and righteousness.

 
This is where most people would get offended, because Ram is the epitome of Dharma and righteousness. Saying Ram merely followed customs and abandoned righteousness is what is insulting. And in fact, Ram did not blindly follow any customs of his age. He embraced such souls as Guha and Shabari, who were considered untouchables in those times. He ate the half-bitten fruits of Shabari with love, he accepted his enemy's brother without any bias or suspicion. He considered the Vanar Sena his equals, when the rest of the world saw them as lower beings.

Insulting people on the basis of caste is NOT a Vedic custom. These customs were inducted in later Vedic age. In Ram's times Caste system was much more liberal than in later ages. Do you think that I hate Ram or do not respect Him? Because I do. I respect almost all His actions except for His treatment of Sita. That is one thing I can never accept. And stay assured, Ram and Krishna are beyond respect and disrespect. Neither can you increase their respect nor can I reduce it.Tongue
 
Ram did not banish Sita or ask her to give Agni Pariksha because of customs. He did so because the Dharma of his situation required it. If you analyze Ram and Krishna's actions equally, you will see that both acted according to situation. I believe even Krishna would have banished Rukmini had he been put under the same situation. There is absolutely no difference between them, none at all.

I think its time we must agree to differ on this. In my opinion, Krishna would have never done what Ram did. Dharma is NOT situational - its absolute. And punishing an innocent can never be Dharma in any situation. Krishna always managed to rescue the Righteous people from the tightest corners by any and every means. Krishna never cared for these vague customs. He married 16,100 slaves without raising an eyebrow and gave them equal status as Rukhmini and Satyabhama. When the Brahmins of Dwarka questioned Him regarding the chastity of his wives, He gave them a piece of mind and silenced them - not with force but with logic and reason. Ram and Krishna might not be different as soul, but their way of thinking was different as was their course of actions.


Without digressing from the topic, your above statement seems to be contradicting what the thread has been created for.

Can you please explain the underlined statement and what you meant by saying that?



Edited by esrujan - 07 May 2011 at 4:33pm

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

Rehanism

Rehanism

IF-Dazzler

Rehanism

Joined: 07 August 2010

Posts: 3427

Posted: 07 May 2011 at 5:56pm | IP Logged
Well TM, to understand this, the characters of Ramayan would be inappropriate as Ramayan's war was plainly a clash between Good and Evil. All the good people sided with Ram and the baddies sided with Ravan. They fought, good people won and bad people lost, story ended. So Dharma and Adharma cannot be understood properly from it.

But Mahabharata War was not fought between Good and Evil. Because there were many good people on the wrong side and bad/selfish people like Drupad, Shikhandi and Drishtadyumn on the side of Dharma who fought the war for personal revenge and not Dharma. You may have heard people justifying the likes of Bhishma, Drona, Kripa and even Karna with the argument that they did their 'respective Dharmas' and 'sacrificed their lives'. Firstly there is nothing like 'Respective or Individual Dharma'. Dharma is one and same. Dharma is righteousness and it is same for all situations. And if a person doesn't oppose unrighteousness, then he's an Adharmi under every circumstances. And secondly they never sacrificed their lives for anything. They bore the consequences of supporting Adharma.

Lets start with Bhishma's example. He was the noblest and most virtuous man of his age. He was extremely devoted to his father and made a vow that he would see his father's image in every King of Hastinapur and serve them unquestionably. But this vow proved to be a bane for him. When Draupadi was insulted in front of him it was his Dharma to oppose it, but he chose to remain silent for the sake of Maryada - for obeying that promise, he overlooked Dharma.

Same for Drona and Kripa. They were most learned men of that age. They were in the King's debts and hence could not oppose him or his son's actions and chose to remain quiet. They too obeyed their Maryadas, but were they Dharmic?

Maryadas, customs, promises, debts are all worldly attachment while righteousness is absolute and impeccable. If one sees that something unrighteous is happening before his eyes, his only Dharma is to oppose it, even if it requires him to forsake all Maryadas, customs or promises. This is true for all beings of all ages and all statuses. Traditions, laws, customs keep on changing, but the meaning of Righteousness remains same for all and forever.

That is why, when Krishna visited Hastinapur, He did not stay or eat with Bhishma, Drona or Kripa. They too revered Him; infact, Bhishma had accepted Him as Narayan much before anyone else, but still He chose to stay in Vidur's house as Vidur was the only man in Hastinapur who had always followed the path of Dharma even if it required him to speak against his king or resign from his post. That shows that Krishna values only those who follow this Absolute Righteousness and not those who try to evade Dharma with the excuse of promises and customs, how noble or virtuous they might be. Krishna never allowed an innocent or righteous person to suffer under any circumstance. He had always managed to rescue them in whatever way He could think of.

Dharma also means justice and Justice means giving out people precisely what they deserve. Did Sita deserve what she got? Draupadi still secured justice because she had Krishna to support her. But did Sita get justice? Please think it with your own intellect - Can asking an innocent woman to walk on fire be Dharma? Can banishing a sinless pregnant lady be Dharma in any way under any situation? Our law too says that even if it requires to let go 100 criminals, an innocent should never be punished at any cost as their can be no greater injustice than that.


Edited by Darklord_Rehan - 07 May 2011 at 6:09pm

..RamKiJanaki..

IF-Stunnerz

..RamKiJanaki..

Joined: 20 August 2008

Posts: 44021

Posted: 07 May 2011 at 6:28pm | IP Logged
One thing I would like to correct people on...Ram never asked Sita to jump into fire. According to Valmiki Ramayan, he simply told her to go where she pleased, because he had fulfilled his Dharma in rescuing her from Ravan's clutches. Sita then ordered Lakshman to kindle a fire so that she could jump into it, because she could not conceive going anywhere where Ram was not present. Agni Dev then appeared and proclaimed Sita's purity to all, and Ram accepted her back.
 
According to Valmiki Ramayan, Ram himself never asked Sita to jump into fire.
 
According to Tulsidas, the Sita Ravan had abducted was not even the real Sita. She was the shadow form of the real Sita which Ram and Sita had concocted to fool Ravan, and so in this version when Ram asks Sita to give an Agni Pariksha, it was to regain his real wife who had been safeguarded with Agni Dev the entire time. The shadow form of Sita was gone during the so-called "Agni Pariksha" and the real Sita returned with Agni Dev. Only Ram and Sita knew of this, and eventually Lakshman, but to the entire world it looked as if Ram had asked Sita to proove her chastity.
 
As for Sita's abandonment, we must remember that Shri Krishna himself said for the sake of a household, one member must be sacrificed if necessary. For the sake of the town, one house, and for the sake of the country/kingdom, one village. It is the King's Dharma to consider his praja above all else, even his own family, and if their betterment must be wrought by sacrificing a member of his family, that is his duty to do so. Sita was not at fault for this, but it had to happen for Lok Kalyaan. We can draw a paralell with Krishna's sacrifice of Pradyumna. He allowed his infant son to be kidnapped by Sambhrasur because Pradyumna had to eventually kill him. What was the infant's fault? One can say the baby was even more innocent than Sita Ma, and did not deserve to be separated from his mother and father at such a young age. As a father, was it not Krishna's Dharma to protect his son and prevent the demon from kidnapping him? Yet Krishna knew he had to sacrifice his son for the sake of Lok Kalyaan, and likewise, despite Ram's duty to stick by his wife as a husband, his duty as a King was higher in that case because it affected his people. Both Sita and Pradyumna cooperated in both cases, because they too knew it was right. Sita herself never rebelled against Ram during vanvaas, and she brought her children up to respect their father. That is because Sita knew her duty as Queen of Ayodhya, and she knew it lay in the betterment of the people.
 
Dharma is not rigid. It does change for every circumstance and situation. People have many Dharmas, that of a child, parent, spouse, ruler, etc, and we must use God's avatars as guidance to determine which Dharma takes precendence in a particular situation.

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

vik rocksRehanismAishuHiBawari

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.