How Krishna was transformed from a tribal deity to a supreme god in the Puranic tradition

[renuka]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

All such articles are written by perverted persons with an intention to downgrade or upgrade Sanathan Dharma as per individual perspective. In fact there is a North Indian lady preacher who is saying that Allah is same as Hindu Brahaman. It is a matter of time that such individuals will soon designate the desert tribal as Son of the Supreme Deity.

In reality everything is from Brahman and everyone is a " son/daughter" of The Supreme Deity

The word Allah is the Arabic default word for God also known as The Supreme One.

 

[prasad1]

All such articles are written by perverted persons with an intention to downgrade or upgrade Sanathan Dharma as per individual perspective. In fact there is a North Indian lady preacher who is saying that Allah is same as Hindu Brahaman. It is a matter of time that such individuals will soon designate the desert tribal as Son of the Supreme Deity.

What is a perversion?

Your post makes no sense. If you have proof that the original article is wrong, please post it. This is a debatable subject and each and every point is welcome, as long as it is on the topic. There is no point in commenting on the mental status of the poster.

 

[Vaagmi]

In reality everything is from Brahman and everyone is a " son/daughter" of The Supreme Deity

The word Allah is the Arabic default word for God also known as The Supreme One.

Then how come that idol worshippers who are also sons and daughters of that Supreme One deserve to be killed?

 

[prasad1]

ARE HINDUS IDOL WORSHIPERS?

No! A thousand times No. Hindus are not idol worshipers in the sense implied by Webster’s dictionary – which defines “idol” as a false God or a form or appearance visible but without substance. A sacred image used in Hindu worship represents a particular manifestation of the ultimate reality Brahman. The substance that the sacred image represents is the ultimate reality and none other. Thus, Hindus’ worship of the sacred images of God is neither a false God nor is it without substance. How can then image worship be called idol worship in the sense implied by Webster’s Dictionary? The image itself is not God, but a symbol of God. The Hindus do not worship the image as God but they worship God through an image. To worship an image as God is idolatry but to worship God through an image is a valid form of worship.

Symbolic Form of God

In every religion, God in some form is worshipped. Christians worship the crucifix as a symbol of Christ, and Muslims adore Kabba in Mecca as the most sacred symbol of God.

Other examples are Adi Granth Shrine in the Golden Temple of Amritsar, or the Arc and Torah of the Jews, the image of meditating Buddha, the totems of indigenous faiths, and the artifacts of many holy men of all religions. The examples go on and on, but the bottom line is that in every religion, God in some form is worshipped. Hinduism has the courage to admit it to the world. It is interesting to note that when sacred images are used in other religions, they are called icons and regarded as holy works of art. But when sacred images are used by Hindus, they are called idols. In the words of Dr. David Frawley, the scholar from USA, “An image of Christ as the good shepherd is called an icon and viewed with respect. An image of Krishna as the good cow herder - which is a similar image of the Divine as watching over the souls of men – is called an idol, which encourages one to look down on it. This is prejudice and negative stereotyping in language of the worst order.”

ARE HINDUS IDOL WORSHIPERS?

www.speakingtree.in

But I am deviating from the original thread. Sorry I could not refrain from such blasphemy. I am amazed that a Hindu is accusing other Hindus of being Idol-Worshipper.

 

[renuka]

Then how come that idol worshippers who are also sons and daughters of that Supreme One deserve to be killed?

Its always best to read the history behind each verse.

The Quran is like the Mahabharat that is it has the war episodes, and the sermons.

The Bhagavad Geeta is also in the Mahabharat but since It has been removed from it for us to understand it better so the Geeta is more of a manual for practical living.

In the Quran, the manual for practical living sermons are not removed to form a separate book like how The Bhagavad Geeta has become, so in the Quran you would find a lot of war episodes with less emphasis on history that led to wars and battles.

In the text you are quoting the history of that verse of killing others happened becos a treaty was broken and the non "believers" started a war without informing the "believers" that they had broken the treaty.

In the rules of any treaty if one party breaks it they need to inform the other party and then plan for next actions and only go to war when they dont see eye to eye and not just attack sans notice.

Just like in Mahabharat the Kauravas and Pandavas only went for war once all talks for peace failed.

Now, when in war the order is to kill the enemy.
Just say the Kaurava and Pandavas are fighting..the instruction is "Kill the enemy"


So that was the scenario.

This is why for each verse be it in the Quran or Geeta, its best to read the history behind each post and not rush to a conclusion by reading a translation of a single verse.



The verse you quoted is often not understood by Muslims themselves cos honestly not many of them actually understand the history behind it and misuse this verse to kill for their gain and make it their Licence to Kill in the name of God.

That way Hindus have the Mahabharat in real detail to understand what led to the great epic battle.

The Quran doesn't really always gives too much details on the history like the Mahabharat and one has to read the history from other books.

 

[Kaymakshi]

Then how come that idol worshippers who are also sons and daughters of that Supreme One deserve to be killed?

They do not deserve to be killed in MY book. I am a Hindu. Why ask what other children are doing? You follow your code.

 

[Kaymakshi]

ARE HINDUS IDOL WORSHIPERS?

No! A thousand times No. Hindus are not idol worshipers in the sense implied by Webster’s dictionary – which defines “idol” as a false God or a form or appearance visible but without substance. A sacred image used in Hindu worship represents a particular manifestation of the ultimate reality Brahman. The substance that the sacred image represents is the ultimate reality and none other. Thus, Hindus’ worship of the sacred images of God is neither a false God nor is it without substance. How can then image worship be called idol worship in the sense implied by Webster’s Dictionary? The image itself is not God, but a symbol of God. The Hindus do not worship the image as God but they worship God through an image. To worship an image as God is idolatry but to worship God through an image is a valid form of worship.

Symbolic Form of God

In every religion, God in some form is worshipped. Christians worship the crucifix as a symbol of Christ, and Muslims adore Kabba in Mecca as the most sacred symbol of God.

Other examples are Adi Granth Shrine in the Golden Temple of Amritsar, or the Arc and Torah of the Jews, the image of meditating Buddha, the totems of indigenous faiths, and the artifacts of many holy men of all religions. The examples go on and on, but the bottom line is that in every religion, God in some form is worshipped. Hinduism has the courage to admit it to the world. It is interesting to note that when sacred images are used in other religions, they are called icons and regarded as holy works of art. But when sacred images are used by Hindus, they are called idols. In the words of Dr. David Frawley, the scholar from USA, “An image of Christ as the good shepherd is called an icon and viewed with respect. An image of Krishna as the good cow herder - which is a similar image of the Divine as watching over the souls of men – is called an idol, which encourages one to look down on it. This is prejudice and negative stereotyping in language of the worst order.”

ARE HINDUS IDOL WORSHIPERS?

www.speakingtree.in

But I am deviating from the original thread. Sorry I could not refrain from such blasphemy. I am amazed that a Hindu is accusing other Hindus of being Idol-Worshipper.

Now we are getting into definitional stuff. Idol worship is not explicitly forbidden for us anywhere and rightly so. Let us not follow Abrahamic/ English definitions of idol worship - that beg the question itself by saying idol worship is worshipping a substancesless or false god. Substanceless god, false god are Abrahamic concepts - As a Hindu I see the supreme being everywhere.

 

[Vaagmi]

ARE HINDUS IDOL WORSHIPERS?

No! A thousand times No. Hindus are not idol worshipers in the sense implied by Webster’s dictionary – which defines “idol” as a false God or a form or appearance visible but without substance. A sacred image used in Hindu worship represents a particular manifestation of the ultimate reality Brahman. The substance that the sacred image represents is the ultimate reality and none other. Thus, Hindus’ worship of the sacred images of God is neither a false God nor is it without substance. How can then image worship be called idol worship in the sense implied by Webster’s Dictionary? The image itself is not God, but a symbol of God. The Hindus do not worship the image as God but they worship God through an image. To worship an image as God is idolatry but to worship God through an image is a valid form of worship.

Symbolic Form of God

In every religion, God in some form is worshipped. Christians worship the crucifix as a symbol of Christ, and Muslims adore Kabba in Mecca as the most sacred symbol of God.

Other examples are Adi Granth Shrine in the Golden Temple of Amritsar, or the Arc and Torah of the Jews, the image of meditating Buddha, the totems of indigenous faiths, and the artifacts of many holy men of all religions. The examples go on and on, but the bottom line is that in every religion, God in some form is worshipped. Hinduism has the courage to admit it to the world. It is interesting to note that when sacred images are used in other religions, they are called icons and regarded as holy works of art. But when sacred images are used by Hindus, they are called idols. In the words of Dr. David Frawley, the scholar from USA, “An image of Christ as the good shepherd is called an icon and viewed with respect. An image of Krishna as the good cow herder - which is a similar image of the Divine as watching over the souls of men – is called an idol, which encourages one to look down on it. This is prejudice and negative stereotyping in language of the worst order.”

ARE HINDUS IDOL WORSHIPERS?

www.speakingtree.in

But I am deviating from the original thread. Sorry I could not refrain from such blasphemy. I am amazed that a Hindu is accusing other Hindus of being Idol-Worshipper.

If so, the problem is with which dictionary you refer to. Oxford Dictionary gives the following as the meaning of the word Idol:
Idol n. an image worshipped as a god: an idolized person or thing.

English existed much earlier in times than Webster's or Oxford. What matters is what is conveyed by a word as it is understood by the user.

Stop refering to Webster's and start refering to Oxford Dictionary.