Mythological Masti

   

Mahabharat & Bhagvat Portrayal of Krishna (Page 3)

Post Reply New Post

Page 3 of 4

Page 1 Page 2
Page   of 4
Page 4 Page 4

.Vrish.

IF-Veteran Member

.Vrish.

Joined: 25 October 2008

Posts: 20800

Posted: 27 June 2011 at 11:12pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by Darklord_Rehan

^^ Vrish ji, do you really think that's true? It's a traditional belief that Vyas wrote/compiled Vedas, Mahabharata and 18 major Puranas. But obviously that has no factual basis.

Different Puranas say different version of same stories, eulogize one God and trivialize all others. Some say Vishnu alone is supreme and others are his subordinate, some Purans say Shiva alone is Supreme and Vishnu and others are his subordinate and so on. Puranas were composed and written over a period of 8-12 centuries, starting from 4th century, by different sectarian believers. They have no connection with the writers of Vedas or Epics.

In fact Puranic culture itself has little to do with Vedic or Epic culture. Vedic culture was a monotheistic culture with formless Supersoul while Puranic was Polytheistic with Supreme God(s) assuming personal forms and Avatars. In Vedas, there were mainly 33 Gods and all were some form/symbolic representation of the elements of nature. While in Puranas, the number is inflated to 33 crores.
 
Vyasa didn't, and couldn't have written the Vedas - in the Satyayug, Vishnu, in his Matsya avatar rescued them from Hayagriva, whereas Vyasa didn't exist until the Dwapar Yuga.
 
Some of the Puranas, I thought Vyasa did write!  I was under the impression that he wrote the Bhagwat Puranas - the ones describing Krishna's life.  One thing that struck me about the Mahabharat is that Krishna's birth, and his wars w/ Jarasandha are not part of it, but the destruction of the Yadavas is.
 
If the Vedas had 33 Gods, calling it 'monotheistic' is a misrepresentation, purely definition wise.  It's polytheistic.
 
P.S. No need to address me as -ji - Vrish is fine! LOL

Dear Guest, Being an unregistered member you are missing out on participating in the lively discussions happening on the topic "Mahabharat & Bhagvat Portrayal of Krishna (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!

Rehanism

IF-Dazzler

Rehanism

Joined: 07 August 2010

Posts: 3458

Posted: 27 June 2011 at 11:21pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by JanakiRaghunath


As for Krishna being blue, that is not only a problem in SK, but every other mytho show. Not only Krishna, but Ram was also supposed to be dark (or blue-hued). Neither Ramanand Sagar, Anand Sagar, Meenakshi Sagar, nor BR Chopra showed their Rams or Krishnas blue in any of their shows. It is always Vishnu who is blue, but never Ram or Krishna. However, this does not really bother me, because color is the least of my worries when characterization goes wrong. As long as Ram and Krishna behave like a Ram and Krishna, I don't care whether they are shown dark, light, blue, pink, orange, etc.LOL
 

I personally don't think any of the human Avatars were blue as per original texts. As far as I know,

Vaman was pale yellow
Parashuram was wheatish
Ram was of golden or turmeric hue, much like Sati/Gauri
Krishna was dark-skinned, like Kali

The blue colour is an artistic representation as portraying dark in painting is difficult. In case of Ram, I think they want to distinguish Ram from Lakshman and depict him as Vishnu, so artists portray them as the same colour as of Vishnu ie Cloudy blue. Even Goddess Kali is mostly painted blue while she should be black. The only blue-hued Gods are Vishnu and Shiva. While the former has colour of Cloudy day sky, the latter has a colour of Moonlit night sky.

I think RS Ram (and for that matter all Rams) were convincing as per skin colour. Nitish Bharadwaj was dark skinned as well. So he was perfect as Krishna IMO. But SD Bannerjee was not only fair, but they added pink face powder and magenta lip-colour to made him look a complete mismatch.Tongue


Edited by Darklord_Rehan - 28 June 2011 at 12:42am

Rehanism

IF-Dazzler

Rehanism

Joined: 07 August 2010

Posts: 3458

Posted: 27 June 2011 at 11:28pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by _Vrish_

Vyasa didn't, and couldn't have written the Vedas - in the Satyayug, Vishnu, in his Matsya avatar rescued them from Hayagriva, whereas Vyasa didn't exist until the Dwapar Yuga.
 
Some of the Puranas, I thought Vyasa did write!  I was under the impression that he wrote the Bhagwat Puranas - the ones describing Krishna's life.  One thing that struck me about the Mahabharat is that Krishna's birth, and his wars w/ Jarasandha are not part of it, but the destruction of the Yadavas is.
 
If the Vedas had 33 Gods, calling it 'monotheistic' is a misrepresentation, purely definition wise.  It's polytheistic.
 
P.S. No need to address me as -ji - Vrish is fine! LOL

How could have Vyasa written Puranas? There was nearly 600 years gap between composition of Epics and the first Puran. I think you are sticking to the traditional belief of Yugas and immortality of Vyasa while making these assumptions. From a logical POV, that's impossible. Even if Bhagwad Puran was written by Vyasa, then it has to be some other Vyasa - not the one who wrote Mahabharat. Mostly these scriptures were written with pseudonyms.

Those 33 gods were not 'Gods' as we know now. They were symbolic representation of the elements of nature like Indra represented Sky, Agni-fire, Varuna-water, Ishan-direction, etc. They had nothing to do with Creation or preservation or destruction or taking avatars.

While the Brahman was formless and nameless. That's why I called it monotheistic. Even most 'monotheistic' religions of West have such demi-gods, angels and inferior deities. Even Buddhism which is an atheistic religion has such demi-gods.Tongue


Edited by Darklord_Rehan - 27 June 2011 at 11:56pm

Rehanism

IF-Dazzler

Rehanism

Joined: 07 August 2010

Posts: 3458

Posted: 28 June 2011 at 12:02am | IP Logged
Actually not only wars with Jarasandh, even the Baal lilas and the Gopis and even the Bhagwad Gita, as we get it now, might not have been a part of Mahabharat. They were added later in Harivamsa, which was an intermediate to Bhagwad Puran.

http://www.oration.com/~mm9n/articles/dev/07Puranas.htm


Edited by Darklord_Rehan - 28 June 2011 at 12:13am

.Vrish.

IF-Veteran Member

.Vrish.

Joined: 25 October 2008

Posts: 20800

Posted: 28 June 2011 at 12:06am | IP Logged
No, I don't believe in the immortality of Vyasa, or else, i'd have believed that he was around to write the Vedas.  I'm open to the probability that the Puranas preceded him and others came much later - I only suggested that he wrote some of them, which is not the same as claiming that he wrote all of them.
 
All the devas, such as Indra, Surya, Varun, Vayu, Yama, et al were recognized gods, and worshipped as such, even as late as the Dwapar Yuga (the incident of Krishna & the Govardhan mountain).  So calling it monotheistic is still inaccurate.  And when you reference western religions, I'm assuming that you're not talking Judaism or Chirsitanity here, but rather, Greek, Roman and Norse religions, where you had Gods like Apollo (the Greek equivalent of Surya), Zeus (the Roman equivalent of Brihaspati) and Thor (the Norse equivalent of Indra).  All 3 of these were polytheistic, as was the Vedic religion.
 
Even the trinity model in Hinduism - Brahma, Vishnu & Shiva- qualifies as polytheistic, by definition.  It's not a question of whether monotheism is better than polytheism or vice versa, it's just a question of the terms.  Any religion w/ just 1 god is monotheistic.  Any religion w/ >1 god is polytheistic.  The post-Puranic model is more pantheistic i.e. every god gets to be recognized as such and worsipped.

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

Rehanism

Rehanism

IF-Dazzler

Rehanism

Joined: 07 August 2010

Posts: 3458

Posted: 28 June 2011 at 12:22am | IP Logged
No  Vrish, I am not referring to Hellenic or Roman religions. I was referring to Abrahamic religions, where there are several celestial deities. But normally, Theism is considered with reference to Supreme God and not deities or demi-gods. By that logic, Vedic religion was monotheistic.


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

.Vrish.

Rehanism

IF-Dazzler

Rehanism

Joined: 07 August 2010

Posts: 3458

Posted: 28 June 2011 at 12:38am | IP Logged
How's this Krishna?Embarrassed

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

.Vrish...RamKiJanaki..

...Mina...

IF-Dazzler

...Mina...

Joined: 02 July 2010

Posts: 3400

Posted: 28 June 2011 at 12:22pm | IP Logged
with ram ji and krishna ji being shown blue, id like to leave an input.Embarrassed actually, ram ji and krishna ji were never blue as per any texts !! that's just the way paintings show them because its easier than coloring them 'dark' since indians have this thing against darkness and showing gods dark would be controversial. ram ji and krishna ji had dark skin and some sources even say they were golden because of their godliness, but they were never blue, since thats not even a natural skin color people then or now had.LOL so im satisfied with the sagars' choice of actors for ram ji, both arun ji and guru bhaiya have a darkish, goldish skin, and nitish bharadwaj ji was also dark.Clap

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

Rehanismcityoflights

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.