fascist_crusader
Member
I know that Krishna is a Hindu god, and that Hare Krishnas praise him, but are Hare Krishnas considered to be Hindus, or an offshoot of Hinduism? How do they differ from traditional Hinduism, if at all?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A question for Hindus
- Thread starter fascist_crusader
- Start date
They're one sect in Hinduism. They don't really consider Hinduism to be a religion. They do consider themselves apart of Sanatana Dharma.
The word Hinduism is a misnomer. It doesn't refer to one religion, but many.
Vaishnavism and Shavism are different religions, but they're all categorized as apart of Hinduism.
Saivism(Shiva worship) is a predomenently South Indian faith.
Vaishnavism, (Vishnu worship[or any of the nine avatar]) mostly North India faith. Responsible for Bhagavat Gita, Srimad Bhagavatam, Mahabharata, Ramayana etc... In Vaishnavism there are hundreds of sects Iskcon, Swaminarayan Sampradaya, Sri Vaishnava, Gaudiya Vaishnavism, being only some of many. Vedanta philosophy has many schools and sub-branches that each Vaishnava sect falls under.
ISKCON is a traditional Gaudiya Vaishnava sect. The do follow Vaishnava scriptures, so they can be considered followers of traditional Hinduism.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
You need to ask the person. Hare-Krishna's are traditionally a sect of Hinduism, followers of one of the five great Vaishnava (those who worship Vishnu and His incarnations) teachers in Hinduism, Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. His philosophy is 'Achintya Bheda-Abheda' (Do not worry about whether you and God are same or different, just love him). But the exported variety is taken differently by different people.
Ram, your division of Vaishnavism for North India and Shaivism for South India is not correct. You are forgetting Kashmir Shaivism. All great Vaishnava teachers, Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Madhva, and Vallabha, except for Chaitanya Mahaprabhu who was from Bengal, were from South India. South India has a great tradition of Vaishnava Azhavar saints as well as those of great Shiva saints known as Nayanars. If you have the Vaishnava Dwarika (most holy place for pilgrimage) in Gujarat, you also have Shaiva Somnath and Nageshwara too in Gujarat. If you have SriRangapattanam (Vaishnava) in South India, you also have Thanjavvur (Shaiva) in South India.
Hema
Sweet n Spicy
Very good question. First, I noticed you mentioned "Hindu God". Actually, Hindus believe in only one God who is called by different names and who manifests as avatars to reinforce righteousness on earth. 
Also, God is not Hindu, nor does he/she belong to any religion.
To me, Hare-Krishnas focus mainly on Krishna. Other Hindus worship various deities. Deities are just off-shoots of the same one Divine being. Me, I worship God as the formless being that he/she is but I am close to one Deity in particular, whose name is Hanuman.
In addition, Hare-Krishnas focus mainly on the sacred text - the Bhagvad Gita. Other Hindus draw from various texts eg. the holy Ramayan etc.
Also, God is not Hindu, nor does he/she belong to any religion. To me, Hare-Krishnas focus mainly on Krishna. Other Hindus worship various deities. Deities are just off-shoots of the same one Divine being. Me, I worship God as the formless being that he/she is but I am close to one Deity in particular, whose name is Hanuman.
In addition, Hare-Krishnas focus mainly on the sacred text - the Bhagvad Gita. Other Hindus draw from various texts eg. the holy Ramayan etc.
Alan Young
Member
Do the all images of hindu gods display 6 limbs 4 arms and two legs I'm just intrested in the numbers....Art as clues hinden behind them...How many different images of god are there in total...
Not all images . Krishna, Shiva, Rama, Ganesha, Kartikeya all do not have more than 2 arms.
There are many different images of the gods, who as the vedas say, all spring from the one impersonal supreme Lord Brahman.
Here is a link on the cause of intolerance in certain religions according to the yogic perspective....
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=50064
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
While as my co-religionists, Hema and Niranjan, point out that hindus may consider various Gods and Godesses to be aspects of one supreme; it is imagery and there is no end to it.
The avataras of Vishnu - Vamana (the Dwarf), Parashurama, Rama, Krishna, and Buddha - were in human form, so they would be depicted as humans. Others Gods and Godesses may be depicted more colorfully. The norm is four arms (to differentiate from humans). Brahma (the creative aspect) is depicted with four heads signifying four directions. Shiva (the destroying aspect) is also depicted with five heads (Panchamukha), He may be shown with two or four arms. Vishnu (the sustainer) is shown with four arms.
Kartikeya, the leader of the army of Gods and son of Shiva and Parvati (the universal mother), is depicted with six heads (Shanmukha). Another son, Ganesha, the Lord of Auspiciousness, as perhaps you know, is depicted with an elephant's head. Lakshmi, Lord Vishnu's consort and the Godess of Wealth; and Saraswati, the Godess of Learning, are depicted with four arms.
The 'power' principle of the Supreme (or many times independent in her own right), is depicted as a Godess Durga. Since She is considered to be the representation of power, she may be depicted as having four, eight, or even sixteen arms. Hundreds of different mother Godesses worshipped all over India are supposed to be aspects of one Supreme God Mother. God and Godesses come in various hues, fair (Saraswati), dusky (Parvati), or dark (Kali). Dark is not always equated with bad or cruel.
These Gods and Godesses are shown riding various animal. Vishnu has his eagle, Shiva has his bull, Kartikeya has his peacock, Ganesha has his mouse, Saraswati has her swan, Lakshmi has her owl, Parvati has her tiger, Durga has her lion.
The postures of these Gods and Godesses, the gesture of their hands, and the things that they are shown as holding in their hands has their own symbolism. For example, the Nataraja (universal dancer) depiction of Shiva holds a deer in his hands representing his control over all animals (including humans). He is shown as trodding over a demon. Brahma and Saraswati hold books in their hands, Brahma holds the four Vedas, and Saraswati holds learning.
This is how most hindus worship God, though some worship God without these forms (Nirguna - without attributes). There are also streams in hinduism which do not consider God and man to be different and some who do not feel to worship God for that reason. Hinduism has never fettered the imagination of people about God or no God. I hope the description above will be interesting to you.
The avataras of Vishnu - Vamana (the Dwarf), Parashurama, Rama, Krishna, and Buddha - were in human form, so they would be depicted as humans. Others Gods and Godesses may be depicted more colorfully. The norm is four arms (to differentiate from humans). Brahma (the creative aspect) is depicted with four heads signifying four directions. Shiva (the destroying aspect) is also depicted with five heads (Panchamukha), He may be shown with two or four arms. Vishnu (the sustainer) is shown with four arms.
Kartikeya, the leader of the army of Gods and son of Shiva and Parvati (the universal mother), is depicted with six heads (Shanmukha). Another son, Ganesha, the Lord of Auspiciousness, as perhaps you know, is depicted with an elephant's head. Lakshmi, Lord Vishnu's consort and the Godess of Wealth; and Saraswati, the Godess of Learning, are depicted with four arms.
The 'power' principle of the Supreme (or many times independent in her own right), is depicted as a Godess Durga. Since She is considered to be the representation of power, she may be depicted as having four, eight, or even sixteen arms. Hundreds of different mother Godesses worshipped all over India are supposed to be aspects of one Supreme God Mother. God and Godesses come in various hues, fair (Saraswati), dusky (Parvati), or dark (Kali). Dark is not always equated with bad or cruel.
These Gods and Godesses are shown riding various animal. Vishnu has his eagle, Shiva has his bull, Kartikeya has his peacock, Ganesha has his mouse, Saraswati has her swan, Lakshmi has her owl, Parvati has her tiger, Durga has her lion.
The postures of these Gods and Godesses, the gesture of their hands, and the things that they are shown as holding in their hands has their own symbolism. For example, the Nataraja (universal dancer) depiction of Shiva holds a deer in his hands representing his control over all animals (including humans). He is shown as trodding over a demon. Brahma and Saraswati hold books in their hands, Brahma holds the four Vedas, and Saraswati holds learning.
This is how most hindus worship God, though some worship God without these forms (Nirguna - without attributes). There are also streams in hinduism which do not consider God and man to be different and some who do not feel to worship God for that reason. Hinduism has never fettered the imagination of people about God or no God. I hope the description above will be interesting to you.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Here is the image of the the latest Indian godess which was visualised by Indians during there freedom struggle against the British, Bharat Mata (personification of Motherland). Thousands of freedom fighters (hindus and muslims) willingly gave their life in her name.
Bharat Mata is commemorated in the Indian national song 'Vande Mataram' (Salutation to the mother). Here is the translation of the song and its MP3 rendition.
Vande Mataram!
Sujalam, suphalam, malayaja ****alam,
Shasyashyamalam, Mataram!
Shubhrajyotsna pulakitayaminim,
Phullakusumita drumadala shobhinim,
Suhasinim sumadhura bhashinim,
Sukhadam varadam, Mataram
The English translation of the stanza rendered by Sri Aurobindo:
I bow to thee, Mother,
richly-watered, richly-fruited, cool with the winds of the south,
dark with the crops of the harvests, the Mother,
Her nights rejoicing in the glory of the moonlight,
her lands clothed beautifully with trees in flowering bloom,
sweet of laughter, sweet of speech,
giver of bliss, giver of boons, the Mother.
Listen to a 1998 rendering of the song:
http://www.youtube.com/v/BJ399KOoNRA
Bharat Mata is commemorated in the Indian national song 'Vande Mataram' (Salutation to the mother). Here is the translation of the song and its MP3 rendition.
Vande Mataram!
Sujalam, suphalam, malayaja ****alam,
Shasyashyamalam, Mataram!
Shubhrajyotsna pulakitayaminim,
Phullakusumita drumadala shobhinim,
Suhasinim sumadhura bhashinim,
Sukhadam varadam, Mataram
The English translation of the stanza rendered by Sri Aurobindo:
I bow to thee, Mother,
richly-watered, richly-fruited, cool with the winds of the south,
dark with the crops of the harvests, the Mother,
Her nights rejoicing in the glory of the moonlight,
her lands clothed beautifully with trees in flowering bloom,
sweet of laughter, sweet of speech,
giver of bliss, giver of boons, the Mother.
Listen to a 1998 rendering of the song:
http://www.youtube.com/v/BJ399KOoNRA
Very good question. First, I noticed you mentioned "Hindu God". Actually, Hindus believe in only one God who is called by different names and who manifests as avatars to reinforce righteousness on earth.
To me, Hare-Krishnas focus mainly on Krishna. Other Hindus worship various deities. Deities are just off-shoots of the same one Divine being. Me, I worship God as the formless being that he/she is but I am close to one Deity in particular, whose name is Hanuman.
In addition, Hare-Krishnas focus mainly on the sacred text - the Bhagvad Gita. Other Hindus draw from various texts eg. the holy Ramayan etc.
Although we glean mostly from Bhagavad Gita and Bhagavata Purana (Srimad Bhagavatam) because the Gita is considered the 'milk' of Vedic teachings and Bhagavatam is the 'cream of the Vedas', we also glean from other Vedic shastras such as the Garuda Purana, Isha Upanishad, and also from Ramayana. My love, who is a devout follower of Krishna Consciousness, had Ramayana read to him as a bedtime story.
We, as Gaudiya Vaishnavas, have our own sacred texts, such as Caitanya-Caritamrta (teachings and pastimes of Lord Caitanya), Brahma-Samhita (Praises of Lord Brahma of Krishna as Parameshvara), Upadeshamrta (translated as "Nectar of Instruction"), Bhakti-Rasamrta-Sindhu ("Nectar of Devotion"), and others.
Hare Krishnas, as a nickname, are technically Gaudiya Vaishnavas who believe that Krishna/Vishnu is Supreme Lord (Bhagavan). We are Dvaitic, or more accurately, Gaudiya Siddhanta is Acintya-Bheda-Abheda tattva. All others, like Ganesh, Kali, Shiva, Brahma, etc. are considered demigods and although we honour and revere them, they are not adored as much as Krishna/Vishnu. Krishna (or Vishnu) is Supreme Lord and the Supreme Father, while the demigods are controllers in certain 'departments' of the universe.
Sort of like a president, and the president has many people hired to control and regulate certain governmental departments. They can also be compared to the Abrahamic idea of angels as opposed to God Himself - not exactly the same concept, but similar.
Last edited:
Don Penguinoini
Modi.
Hare Krishna followers are Hindus, whether they agree with the rest of Hinduism or not is a different story. But they do focus (as Hema said) on the Bhagwad Gita, which is a central Hindu text.
Would not be surprised if in the future they boke oway from mainstream hinduism.
Would not be surprised if in the future they boke oway from mainstream hinduism.
Well, we will never break away from 'Sanatana Dharma' but we were never part of mainstream 'Hinduism' which is largely Advaitic.
We will mostly agree with Vaishnava Hindus, whether they are Sri, Pushtimargi, Nimbarki, etc. We are Vaishnavas, not Advaitists.
And it is not only the Gita, but also Srimad Bhagavatam. As I said, Gita is the milk of the Vedas, and Srimad Bhagavatam is considered the essence, the cream of Vedic teachings. I understand that Gita is considered a Hindu text, but Hare Krishnas focus mainly on (and not just) a) Gita, b) Srimad Bhagavatam / Bhagavata Purana, c) Caitanya-Caritamrta, d) Brahma-Samhita, and then you have Upadeshamrta, Bhakti-Rasamrta-Sindhu, etc.
zenzero
Its only a Label
Friend Krishnaroa,
Enlighetened people never use the words *WE* as a word limited to only a part of humanity.
Simply because an enlightened person knows that all forms & no-forms are one and the same. He may practice and preach about certain aspcets which he is comfortable with, that is all. It is not that he does not beleive that the other ways/paths/etc are wrong, it is simply not suitable for him.
Am sure you get the point that am trying to point at.
Love & rgds
Enlighetened people never use the words *WE* as a word limited to only a part of humanity.
Simply because an enlightened person knows that all forms & no-forms are one and the same. He may practice and preach about certain aspcets which he is comfortable with, that is all. It is not that he does not beleive that the other ways/paths/etc are wrong, it is simply not suitable for him.
Am sure you get the point that am trying to point at.
Love & rgds
Surya Deva
Well-Known Member
I was reading on some of the most famous Bhakti saints, most of which belonged to Dvatia tradition. It made sense to me that they would have to accept a dual perspective, because without the dual perspective, they cannot justify devotion and love towards an external entity. If you had a non-dual perspective, you cannot externalise love, you have to internalise it, which basically becomes love of Self. However this self is an abstract and formless entity that we cannot make an object of our understanding, and only those who have an abstract-bent, would enjoy the process of trying to know it(jnana) but for most people who do not have an abstract-bent , the only way to worship it by externalising it as an image and form a relationship with it. It appeals to our human character, even I think it is a more powerful form of connecting to god.
The only problem with this kind of worship is that we end up worshipping a mental image and form that supreme being into our image. When he manifests to us he will manifest as that form to us as an external image. This is still Maya. We are still conditioning that supreme being to fit our beliefs and it still breeds the illusion of separateness. The greatest realisation comes when we realise that there is no separateness, that there is no 'I' there is only that supreme being who is the doer and enjoyer of all and it is indeed iwho we really are. That is when one becomes self-empowered and shines in their own self.
The only problem with this kind of worship is that we end up worshipping a mental image and form that supreme being into our image. When he manifests to us he will manifest as that form to us as an external image. This is still Maya. We are still conditioning that supreme being to fit our beliefs and it still breeds the illusion of separateness. The greatest realisation comes when we realise that there is no separateness, that there is no 'I' there is only that supreme being who is the doer and enjoyer of all and it is indeed iwho we really are. That is when one becomes self-empowered and shines in their own self.
Last edited by a moderator:
zenzero
Its only a Label
Friend Suraj,
Here would like to repeat the story of Ramakrishna Paramhansa who was mainly a Kali devotee and was still attached to the Kali form. It was Totapuri who had to come to detach that Kali fixation so that he finally could be totally free with no-forms.
Similarly am sure all Krishna devotees will reach that point as you too mention.
Love & rgds
Sorry could not frubal you again due to the system requirement for that understanding.
Here would like to repeat the story of Ramakrishna Paramhansa who was mainly a Kali devotee and was still attached to the Kali form. It was Totapuri who had to come to detach that Kali fixation so that he finally could be totally free with no-forms.
Similarly am sure all Krishna devotees will reach that point as you too mention.
Love & rgds
Haribol!
When I use the word 'we', please understand that I mean it according to my limited understanding of Gaudiya Vedanta. But we simply disagree with most non-Vaishnavas in that God having a personal form is most conducive and realisation of the Absolute Truth, described as Brahman, Paramatma, and Bhagavan (in reference to Krishna/Vishnu).
"After many births and deaths, he who is actually in knowledge surrenders unto Me, knowing Me to be the cause of all causes and all that is. Such a great soul is very rare." BG 7:19.
We take the verse "Vasudevah sarvam iti" to its literal meaning, that Vasudeva is the Source of Everything. You can also see BG 11:40.
Even in Ramananda Prasad, who is not (from what I know) a Gaudiya Vaishnava, says in his Gita 7:24 "The ignorant think of Me, the Para-Brahman, as having no form or personality and I can take (any physical) form; because (these) people are not being able to comprehend My supreme imperishable and incomparable existence." He writes: "The word 'Avyakta' has been used in verses 2.25, 2.28, 7.24, 8.18, 8.20, 8.21, 9.04, 12.01, 12.03, 12.05, and 13.05. It takes different meaning according to the context. Avyakta does not mean formless; it means unmanifest or a transcendental form that is invisible to our physical eyes. It is used in the sense of unmanifest Prakriti, and also in the sense of Para-Brahman. The Para-Brahman or absolute consciousness is higher than both Brahman and the unmanifest Prakriti. Para-Brahman (or Krishna) is imperishable, without any origin and end. Para-Brahman is not formless. It has Divya Roopa, a transcendental form and Supreme Personality. The ignorant think of the Lord as formless because He is not visible."
We'll have to agree to disagree.
Anyways, Radhe Radhe!
Last edited:
Well, Lord Chaitanya founded the Scripture, Brahma-Samhita that describes who Krishna, as the Supreme Lord, is, and Krishna has been authoritatively described as either the Supreme Lord, or the Best Incarnation for worship by many Vaishnava philosopher-saints.
You are quite right that a dualistic perspective inescapably necessitates bhakti, but from our point of view, it is boring to think of 'merging into Brahman,' which we consider to be on a basic platform of spiritual realisation. The higher bhakta, or devotee, wishes not to merge into this One formlessness, but to serve Krishna in the spiritual world, to play with Him as a gopa, serve Him as a gopi, or to take care of Him as a parent. To serve Krishna and love Krishna eternally is the perfection of life and of the afterlife. We are not God, but we are part of the spiritual body of God, maintaining our distinct, individual spirit souls.
But bhakti-marga is both for the philosopher and for the commonfolk. It is for everyone to take, and I do personally feel that there is more bhakti in loving God for eternity than to merge into a formless existence. In the former, there is spontaneous love that exists not from a material external, but as a verifiable and original symptom of the soul.
Hare Krishna!
Krishnano (Esperanto for 'Follower of Krishna')
Last edited:
zenzero
Its only a Label
Friend Krishnarao,
Whether one agrees or disagrees ; finally what is important is that you have realised the self and become enlightened by following a PATH / WAY.
Buddha / Lao Tsu never spoke about any God and as had mentioned that even Ramakrishna Paramhansa a kali bhakta had to detach himself with the kali form.
One has to transcend the mind and till it is attached to even an iota of thoughts the barrier will exists.
So, you are free to use *WE* in the context of your ISKON community but here keep killing the buddha every moment, being a free individual.
Love & rgds
Whether one agrees or disagrees ; finally what is important is that you have realised the self and become enlightened by following a PATH / WAY.
Buddha / Lao Tsu never spoke about any God and as had mentioned that even Ramakrishna Paramhansa a kali bhakta had to detach himself with the kali form.
One has to transcend the mind and till it is attached to even an iota of thoughts the barrier will exists.
So, you are free to use *WE* in the context of your ISKON community but here keep killing the buddha every moment, being a free individual.
Love & rgds
zenzero
Its only a Label
Friend Krishnarao,
Whether one agrees or disagrees ; finally what is important is that you have realised the self and become enlightened by following a PATH / WAY.
Buddha / Lao Tsu never spoke about any God and as had mentioned that even Ramakrishna Paramhansa a kali bhakta had to detach himself with the kali form.
One has to transcend the mind and till it is attached to even an iota of thoughts the barrier will exists.
So, you are free to use *WE* in the context of your ISKON community but here keep killing the buddha every moment, being a free individual.
Love & rgds
Whether one agrees or disagrees ; finally what is important is that you have realised the self and become enlightened by following a PATH / WAY.
Buddha / Lao Tsu never spoke about any God and as had mentioned that even Ramakrishna Paramhansa a kali bhakta had to detach himself with the kali form.
One has to transcend the mind and till it is attached to even an iota of thoughts the barrier will exists.
So, you are free to use *WE* in the context of your ISKON community but here keep killing the buddha every moment, being a free individual.
Love & rgds
I'm not just talking of ISKCON, but of the whole Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaya, and even in a vague manner, of Vaishnavism. Gaudiya Vaishnavism has many groups and organisations; ISKCON incidentally is only the biggest. But I know that Vaishnava dharma is liberal because it is the very essence of the soul - it is the true position of every spiritual, individualised soul upon this cosmic, universal manifestation. We all shall eventually realise that we are spirit souls, eternal, never slain, and full of eternality, cognisance and bliss, and that the Supreme Self, God, is always with us even to the end of Time.
I am attached to the Supreme Self, the Supersoul, the Parameshvara and Parambrahman, Vasudeva, and through that attachment, I pray to become purified from all material designations and reach the platform in understanding Krishna as He is.
Haribol!
PS:
I'm not "Krishnarao" but "Krishnano (KRISHNANO), with two 'n's; Krishnano means 'follower of Krishna' in the Esperanto language
Last edited: