How real is Krishna?

[Agnideva]

Silver,

It’s important to remember when we’re discussing Hinduism that it is not one monolithic religion. Saying someone is Hindu is like saying someone is Judeo-Christian-Islamic, except the word Hindu is even broader than that. So each denomination of Hinduism is a religion in itself. But since almost all of them accept the Veda, concept of Brahman, and have similar beliefs and practices, we consider them one religion. In reality, each branch within each denomination has the authority to accept or reject doctrines.

The doctrine of incarnation (that God Himself embodies here on Earth) is a Vaishnavite concept and that is truly what unifies all Vaishnavas. If you ask a Vaishnavite devotee, Rama and Krishna were always God, they knew it, wise people around them knew it, they were not people like you and me, and to say otherwise is sacrilege. The authority on who is an incarnation for Vaishnavas is the Bhagavat Purana. Anyone not mentioned in the Bhagavat Purana can never be a true incarnation in Vaishnavism. Buddha is mentioned in the Bhagavat Purana. However, some Vaishnavites do not accept the Buddha as an incarnation because the Alvar Vaishnava saints specifically spoke against the Buddha. In any case, even the Vaishnavites who do accept the Buddha as an avatar, do not worship him. Since Jesus is not mentioned in the Bhagavat Purana, he can never really become an incarnation of Vishnu.

In Saivism and Shaktism, God has never had an incarnation, nor will S/He. Neither religion speaks of Rama or Krishna in their central texts. But, because of the popularity of Rama and Krishna, some non-Vaishnavaites have come up with alternate explanations of what is an avatar. The alternatives to God’s literal embodiment are: (a) they were lesser beings that embodied themselves; or (b) they were individuals who performed superhuman feats and later became deified.

Using these alternative explanations of avatar, some *universalist* groups that have emerged from liberal (smarta) Hinduism in the last 150 years do accept Jesus as a teacher, a yogi, a master or avatar.

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

And why isn't Rama as revered and as famous as Krishna?

Rama is as revered and famous as Krishna in the Hindu world. The largest branch of Vaishnavism known as Ramanandi Sampradaya is focused on Rama and has 100 million followers. I suspect Krishna is better known because of the worldwide presence of ISKCON.

It seems the core religious people in the hindu epics were avatars of Vishnu the preserver, so whether does this leave Shiva the destroyer? What about Devi? How come all these avatars are avaters of Vishnu and no other major God. And what ever happened to Brahma, not one really cares about him anymore.

The idea that Vishnu is the preserver and Shiva is the Destroyer comes from the purana stories and is not part of true Hindu theology which is derived from the Vedas and Agamas.

For example, in Saivite religion, Shiva is God - Creator, Preserver, Dissolver, and all the Vedic hymns are written with the understanding that Shiva is within man and Shiva in within nature. So, the different hymns written to different “Gods” in the Vedas are addressed to Shiva only. There is no question of worshipping Brahma, Vishnu, Rudra or Indra separately in Saivism. I suspect the Vaishnavite explanation is very similar.

If someone claims that there are three supreme Gods: Brahma is a creator god, Vishnu is the preserver and Shiva is the Destroyer, they should be asked why Brahma is not worshipped (as you did). There is no real answer to this question, but you will get plenty of mythological answers.

[prajapati]

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

But wasn't Indra the supreme God? If he is the supreme God how come no one prays to him anymore and did he loose his high place to Vishnua and a few others or something.

I actually read from somewhere that there is some connection between Indra and Shiva, but I'm not so sure.

I don't know so much about Hare Krishna, but I liked the fact they adopted Jesus as an avatar. Many people think of him as the sun of God! Hindus are right now divided on the issue, but why not give Jesus right of being an avatar? Afterall Jesus lived a very similar life to Buddha and Krishna, and a lot of sources say he actually went to India when he was a kid, which is where he might of learned to follow his Nirvana. So yea there is nothing wrong with Jesus, I think Hindus have a hard time accepting him as something because of how close-minded traditional christians used to be. But they shouldn't be and should go to that level IMHO, so Jesus as well as any other should be granted full rights as an avatarl.

hare krishnas are NOT hiundus... what they say and believe in, is all their own with no real links to hinduism. & stop trying to be sardonic like you did in the 1st para - indra is the king of gods - not the preserver of life. hence the various planes of existance are not considered to be representative of the avatars of indra, but vishnu.

and brian - if you will please tell what was so wrong in my language, i could address the problem. hare krishnas are not repeat not hindus. they are as hindu as the kaabal is true jewish or the illuminatti is christian.

[I, Brian]

It's simply an issue of attitude and language - please try and mellow to a more civil tone and respect that CR is a place of many different faiths - there is a board for the Hare Krishna's here.

[prajapati]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

there is a board for the Hare Krishna's here.

aahh, the fog lifts.