Mythological Masti

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

Created

Last reply

Replies

43

Views

5108

Users

8

Likes

40

Frequent Posters

Rehanism thumbnail
Anniversary 13 Thumbnail Group Promotion 4 Thumbnail + 2
Posted: 12 years ago
@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 thumbnail
Anniversary 13 Thumbnail Group Promotion 4 Thumbnail + 2
Posted: 12 years ago
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.
RamKiSeeta thumbnail
Anniversary 15 Thumbnail Group Promotion 8 Thumbnail + 6
Posted: 12 years ago
Originally posted by: Darklord_Rehan


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 here๐Ÿ˜†, 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.
RamKiSeeta thumbnail
Anniversary 15 Thumbnail Group Promotion 8 Thumbnail + 6
Posted: 12 years ago
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?๐Ÿ˜† 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 - 12 years ago
MagadhSundari thumbnail
Anniversary 15 Thumbnail Group Promotion 5 Thumbnail + 4
Posted: 12 years ago
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 ๐Ÿ˜ŠEdited by lola610 - 12 years ago
anku- thumbnail
Anniversary 16 Thumbnail Group Promotion 6 Thumbnail + 4
Posted: 12 years ago
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- thumbnail
Anniversary 16 Thumbnail Group Promotion 6 Thumbnail + 4
Posted: 12 years ago
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!

Rehanism thumbnail
Anniversary 13 Thumbnail Group Promotion 4 Thumbnail + 2
Posted: 12 years ago
Originally posted by: JanakiRaghunath

 
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 here๐Ÿ˜†, 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 thumbnail
Anniversary 13 Thumbnail Group Promotion 4 Thumbnail + 2
Posted: 12 years ago
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.
RamKiSeeta thumbnail
Anniversary 15 Thumbnail Group Promotion 8 Thumbnail + 6
Posted: 12 years ago
Originally posted by: Darklord_Rehan


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.