Mahabharat & Bhagvat Portrayal of Krishna - Page 2

@Lola di---Ravan's case was different from the villains of Dwaparg Yug. Once after Ravan had conquered the Heavens, Vishnu appeared before Ravan and hurled the Sudarshan Chakra at him but Ravan repelled it with a single blow of his arm and Vishnu disappeared. Ravan believed that he had scared Vishnu and from that day Ravan considered himself to be Supreme and he went on to challenge Shiva believing that after defeating Shiva he would be the Lord of the universe. So that is why Ravan never bothered even if people warned him that Ram was Vishnu as he in any case considered himself to be superior to Vishnu.

Originally posted by: Darklord_Rehan

But I also think that there is lot to learn from flawed Human beings as well. Being a Harry Potter fan how can you say that there's nothing to learn from such people?😛In fact I think that if we wish to learn, there's lot to learn even from the insects.

Oh..You have created a separate thread for this? Good. Now we can discuss with comparisons.

Yeah, I agree. The Sri Krishna of Ramanand Sagar Sri Krishna was not that good. I don't mean that Sri Krishna of RS didn't act well. He was superb. But the dialouges given to him were so good. But he in his portrayal and acting was amazing.

As far as your last para goes. Your right.  Only few kings and some people would know about Lord Krishna being god. In Gokul and Braj, Lord Krishna never showed that he is god. Infact, after every leela of his he wud do some maya and make the gokulvasi believe that he is not god. Only after he came to Mathura was he known b.w large people that he is god but for Gokulvasis, he was always Nand Baba's child and natkhat Sri Krishna. They always felt there is something but never in a 'purna roop' that yes, he is God. This is verified in Bhagvad ji's 10th chapter's 2nd verse where from little children to eldery's after Goverdhan parvat's puja that he does very big magical leelas but still they are not able to reach a conclusion that he is God. Besides the Rishi munnis, no1 in Gokul and Braj ever came to a conclusion.

Even Pandavs didn't know he was God until Gita ji was recited. And even later, Arjun forgot about Gita ji's Gyan. Its written in Mahabharat ji.

So, yeah, God's divine-ness was known to MANY people but not everyone. It was known to many yet NOT known to many others.
Edited by x.Anku.x - 12 years ago

Weren't Mahabharat & the Bhagwat Puranas both by Vyasa?  If there are conflicts b/w them, what does that say about Vyasa's credibility?

^^ 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.
Edited by Darklord_Rehan - 12 years ago

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.

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.😆

 

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.😛
Edited by Darklord_Rehan - 12 years ago

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! 😆

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.😛
Edited by Darklord_Rehan - 12 years ago

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 - 12 years ago