Ram and Krushna & Ramayan & Mahabharat-Comparison

rajnish kumar

@_rajnish_

Inactive

19

Posted: 16 years ago

#41

Originally posted by: coolpurvi

Living and teaching others- Ram lived it Himself But Krushna Besides living it Himself.. this proposition is not clear to meHe taught it to others-Hence the quote goes Krushna vande Jagatgurum (Salutation O Lord Krushna, the teacher of the universe')

This means Ram lived it himself for other to understand his teaching, through his doings and leading his own life in the way which can be called ideal and other may get direction and teaching from this, like how should an ideal son should be, he himself proved it by behaving like andideal son and left it to other to understand
But krishna beside living it himelf also spoke in various occasions, the most remarkable is gita itself. he is the greatest philosopher and and spoke the teaching to others. The life he led could not be followed be others ( different from life of ram ) so he spoke his teachings in various occations.
hope now this proposition is clear

Reply

Quote

*king*

@*king*

Dazzler

22

Posted: 16 years ago

#42

Originally posted by: rajnish_here

😲 ops then i made mistake by posting similar topic, I worked really very hard for this topic and what these information is posted earliyer😲, OK then Its time for revision 😆

its ok dear. the kig's post wasnot as eloborate as yous. thak u 4 ur post.

*king*

Reply

Quote

bharat9

@bharat9

Dazzler

21

Posted: 16 years ago

#43

Originally posted by: *king*

its ok dear. the kig's post wasnot as eloborate as yous. thak u 4 ur post.

*king*

welcome bk king!

errm...where were you?

thought that you would be staying here but only after spending couple of days you just disappeared????!!!

Reply

Quote

rajnish kumar

@_rajnish_

Inactive

19

Posted: 16 years ago

#44

First of all thanks a lot for writing original verse from valmiki Ramayan😛, i always love these verses soooo much, i respect your opinion through these verses too but here i want to clarify few things. My apologies if i am wrong couz i don't have as much knowledge as you and many others but i wand to put forward few belif why i used these comaprison😊

Originally posted by: rajnish_here
Ram-They were reserved, Krushna- They were open, free

Originally posted by: coolpurvi

I think reserved word is not apt for Lord Ram. He was very friendly towards all. He nature was very pleasant. One can say He was more straight forward than Lord Krishna. Whereas Lord krishna was more diplomatic than Lord Ram. But Ram use to hide his sorrow or anger. He conquered them. He was not straightforward here

sa cha nityaM prashaantaatmaa mR^idupuurvaM tu bhaashhate |
uchyamaano.api parushhaM nottaraM pratipadyate || 2-1-10
That Rama was always peaceful in mind and spoke softly. He did not react to the hard words spoken by others.

saanukrosho jitakrodho braahmaNapratipuujakaH |
diinaanukampii dharmajJno nityaM pragrahavaan shuchiH || 2-1-15
He had compassion. He conquered anger. He used to be receptive and worshipful to the wise. He had mercy towards the meek. He knew what was to be done. He had always self-control. He was clean (in conduct).

kalyaaNaabhijanaH saadhuradiinaH satyavaagR^ijuH |
vR^iddhairabhiviniitashcha dvijairdharmaarthadarshibhiH || 2-1-21
Rama, having born in a good clan, was gentle minded. He was not feeble. He spoke truth. He was straightforward. He was properly trained by elderly wise men that knew righteousness.

nibhR^itaH saMvR^itaakaaro guptamantraH sahaayavaan |
amoghakrodhaharshhashcha tyaagasaMyamakaalavit || 2-1-23
Rama was humble. He did not let his feelings appear outwardly. He kept his thoughts to himself. He helped others. His anger and pleasure were not wasteful. He knew when to give and when not to give.--I think this quality is something
common in both of them

These comparisons are coparitive not absolute, I said ram was reserved and Krishna was open. we must need to look at the nature of two to come to our jugemen.
Why this is so?
Because, Rama came ,down to earth to prove himself to be an ideal, sober, serene, serious person in various roles as son, husband, brother, father, disciple etc. His Avatara was to show how humans WOULD behave when confronted with problems and more importantly how they SHOULD behave. In setting an example, he seems to have raised the bar of rectitude too high to common folk and he alone could rise to meet the dizzy levels he had set for himself.
But, Krishna conjures up the picture of a merry, mirthful lad full of pranks, well meant jokes but with better end-products. Naturally, his appeal is irresistible for us ordinary folks much like the innocent Gopis.
The reason why the Lord is called "Krishna" and 'Rama" is explained in a book known as the Sri Caitanya Upanishad, which is connected with the Atharva-veda. In verse twelve it is explained: "These three names of the Supreme Lord (Hari, Krishna and Rama) may be explained in the following way: (1) 'Hari' means 'He who unties [harati] the knot of material desire in the hearts of the living entities'; (2) 'Krishna' is divided into two syllables 'krish' and 'na'. 'Krish' means 'He who attracts the minds of all living entities', and 'na' means 'the supreme transcendental pleasure'. These two syllables combine to become the name 'Krishna'; and (3) 'Rama' means 'He who delights [ramayati] all living entities', and it also means 'He who is full of transcendental bliss'. here we can see the simailrity and also it reflect the nature of rama as explined from verses of ramayana mentioned by you but we must also bear in mind the difference of nature of the two god in accordance to mission of there appearance.
Rama was a Prince, son of a great Emperor, Dasaratha. He was eventually destined to become a powerful monarch himself ruling over realms and regions. His very royalty and regal demeanor forbid our getting too close to him. At best, they would allow us to ogle ,His Majesty, only from a respectable distance, with awe and wonder.
But, Krishna, the mischievous lad is as endearing as our own boy and at that an eternal playboy . He seems to be more intimate and egalitarian and enchants us with his gregarious propensities from the way he rubbed shoulders with the simple, bucolic folk of Vrindavan. Can we imagine such closeness with Rama? But here again i want to say this camparison is comparative not absolute.

Originally posted by: rajnish_here

C. Feeling of the common man for Him- Ram- Respect, Krushna- love.

Originally posted by: coolpurvi

Here too I disagree

na chaanR^itakatho vidvaan vR^iddhaanaaM pratipuujakaH |
anuraktaH prajaabhishcha prajaashchaapyanurajyate || 2-1-14
He (Ram) did not speak untruth. He was all knowing. He used to be receptive and worshipful to the elders. People used to love him and he used to love the people.

sa tu sreshhThairguNairyuktaH prajaanaaM paarthivaatmajaH |
bahishchara iva praaNo babhuuva guNataH priyaH || 2-1-19
People loved the virtuous prince Rama and treated him as their spirit moving outside.

saMgraamaatpunaraagamya kuN^jareNa rathena vaa || 2-2-37
pauraan svajanavannityam kushalaM paripR^ichchhati |
putreshhvagnishhu daareshhu preshhyashishhyagaNeshhu cha || 2-2-38
nikhilenaanupuurvyaachcha pitaa putraanivaurasaan |
After returning from battle, Rama goes to citizens on an elephant or a chariot and inquires about their well being as though they were his own kinsmen, like a father does to his sons. He asks about their wives and children, about the sacred fires, about their servants and students, always completely as per the due order

Here again I want to say comparison was comparative not absolute. Comparatively Krishna was more close to people and feeling of love for him was more in heart of people than sri ram, for sri Ram its feeling of respect which predominates than love, the reason being the nature of Ram is itself defined as DHEER,VEER,GAMBHEER, who is reserverd and in other word BAJRADAPI KATHORANI KUSUMANI KOMALANI CHA means hard from outside but calm from inside, I don't disagree ram is loved by people but krishna is loved more than Ram as feeling of Respect for Ram as he was ideal king , was more there in people then feeling of love. If one has feeling of respect for someone then he also love and regard him, and if one has feeling of love for someone he also respect him. the thing here is which feeling predominates more! Ram was king and not open to people comparitevely as krishna so feeling of love here predominates more then love and as krishna was not king but NATKHAT nandlal the feeling of love predominates over Respect. The raasleela is best example of this. But i never disagree here that people loved Ram and respected Krishna. Please read earliyer post where i explined these two relation.

Edited by rajnish_here - 16 years ago

Reply

Quote

rajnish kumar

@_rajnish_

Inactive

19

Posted: 16 years ago

#45

Originally posted by: *king*

its ok dear. the kig's post wasnot as eloborate as yous. thak u 4 ur post.

*king*

Thanks and welcome😊 your post has also a lot of information so i am adding link here
connections b/w ramayan n mahabharat
URL:https://india-forums.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1100232

Reply

Quote

sanatansanstha

@sanatansanstha

Beginner

0

Posted: 16 years ago

#46

Shri rajnish_here

the original source of this article is from hindujagruti.org

As a new comer here I am not allowed to post links.

Please attribute the hard work of others before you post their work by providing the original source of article

Best wishes,

Sanatansanstha/hindujagruti.org

Reply

Quote

rajnish kumar

@_rajnish_

Inactive

19

Posted: 16 years ago

#47

Originally posted by: sanatansanstha
Shri rajnish_here
the original source of this article is from hindujagruti.org

As a new comer here I am not allowed to post links.

Please attribute the hard work of others before you post their work by providing the original source of article

Best wishes,

Sanatansanstha/hindujagruti.org

hi and welcome to the Ramayan forum,

first my appologies for editing and modifiying the orginal article, this i did to make the language more appeling to people. but i kept the spelling and content unchanged.

secondly in the fifth post i mentioned about the source and added the link in the second post. Thanks to sanathansanshtha for providing such great article, we wish you stay here and discuss with us of various aspect of hinduism and provide information.

If I am correct are you MANDAR?

best wishes,

Rajnish

Edited by rajnish_here - 16 years ago

Reply

Quote

Ram and Krushna & Ramayan & Mahabharat-Comparison - Page 5

Related Topics

Explore Topics