Guest guest Posted August 16, 2004 Report Share Posted August 16, 2004 My Muslim friend asked me this question. "" why is that the Vedas spoke about the Unseen God(Formless) and The Bhagavat Gita has Krishna as God. Does this contradict."" Another question he asked: How do you know how Krishna looked, Was it drawn in the Bhagavat Gita. How can you prove that the paintings is how Krishna looked? Which verse in the Gita spoke about his Form and how the painter draws it?? Now Third question is "did the Vedas mention about the Formless God??"" Was Krishna's name in the vedas??? Or was Vishnu name mention in the vedas??? if it was mention, how do the people know how vishnu looked like. Need answers please thank you. I'm Not so well versed in Hindu scriptures. Help needed thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 16, 2004 Report Share Posted August 16, 2004 1) why is that the Vedas spoke about the Unseen God(Formless) and The Bhagavat Gita has Krishna as God. Does this contradict?"" The Vedas speak about all aspects of God - the personal, impersonal and the Supersoul...Never does the Vedas just concentrate on the impersonal aspect...Therefore there is no contradiction. 2) Question regarding Krishna's appearance: Krishna's appearance is laid down in the Mahabharata, the Brahma Samhita etc. They explicitly describe his colour of skin his looks etc. More importantly, there are specific instructions in the Vedas as to how to draw pictures of God, the dimensions needed for deities and the colours and shades needed. I don't know which part of the Vedas, but I can find out if you are really troubled by the doubt. 3) Does the Vedas mention about the formless God? Krishna mentioned in the Upanishads - which are part of the original four Vedas. Vishnu is constantly mentioned in the Upanishads. In fact the method of liberation in Satya Yuga was to meditate on form of Vishnu - so of course Vishnu was mentioned...again, Vishnu's form is described in Srimad Bhagavatam, Bhagavad Gita, various Upanishads etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 16, 2004 Report Share Posted August 16, 2004 Unless and otherwise we dont have a pictorial representation of Krishna from the time he lived any picture that we might come up as krishna might not be the same. Whatever explanation offered otherwise might seem fragile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maadhav Posted August 17, 2004 Report Share Posted August 17, 2004 i assume you are a hindu and not a muslim posing as a hindu, i give answers below. << "" why is that the Vedas spoke about the Unseen God(Formless) and The Bhagavat Gita has Krishna as God. Does this contradict."" vedas speak of both: personal and impersonal. << ow do you know how Krishna looked, >> Those who saw him, described him. all descriptions have a lot commanality. sure some may have drawn his pictures, but then othe generations sraw pictures from the old pictures, thus it keeps on changing, but the main featured so not change. e.g. krishna wears a peakock feathered mukut. he wears yellow silk dhoti, he carries a flute, his skin has olive color, etc. Now, what does it matter how exactly it looked? suppose mohammed had a very handsome look. so what, he forcibley killed or converted millions. what is good about his exact look? nothing what count is what is his message for us, and how he interacts with us. << Was it drawn in the Bhagavat Gita. >> no. << How can you prove that the paintings is how Krishna looked? >> beause all his picture have common features described above. << Which verse in the Gita spoke about his Form and how the painter draws it?? >> krishna describes his characteristics, not is form how he looks. those who saw his virat swarUp, described it. << "did the Vedas mention about the Formless God??"" >> why he asked this question when in the first questionhe said it does? the first question is a lie in his mind, considering this question showin what he knows. the answer is yes, abnd also his form. << Was Krishna's name in the vedas??? >> i think there is, but not sure, but it does not matter, the vedas do not override god himself, just as a constitution cannot override the voice of the majority people. << Or was Vishnu name mention in the vedas??? i>> yes, surely. << if it was mention, how do the people know how vishnu looked like. >> because those who saw him described him to others. -------- Now i have a request: if your friend is from bharat subcontinent, please help him understand that his ancestors were hindus who were forcibley converted. so, tell him to give up islam. bharat is for the hindus, and not invaded islam that caused many hindu genocides in bharat for 1000 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2004 Report Share Posted August 17, 2004 It seems your muslim friend has been reading his 'propaganda' websites against Hinduism. "why is that the Vedas spoke about the Unseen God(Formless) and The Bhagavat Gita has Krishna as God. Does this contradict." The formless God is in the Vedas because at that time that was the only spiritual experience the Rishis had of God. Later on after the Vedic age, certain yogic practices influenced by the yoga sutras of Patanjali allowed Hindu's to see God in form, that is God assumed forms for the devotee. Hinduism has evolved to include both concepts of God and there are many sages who have either experienced God with form, without form or both. "How do you know how Krishna looked, Was it drawn in the Bhagavat Gita. How can you prove that the paintings is how Krishna looked?" Krishna's appearence is described in the Mahbharata. He was actually dark brown, though he is now depicted blue because of some spiritual significance. The Bhagvatam adds more on the 'blue colour'. {"did the Vedas mention about the Formless God??"" Was Krishna's name in the vedas??? Or was Vishnu name mention in the vedas???} Yes the Vedas mention about the formless God. I'm not sure if Krishna is mentioned in the Vedas, but Vishnu surely was and it doesn't matter because Krishna is a later human incarnation of Vishnu, after the Vedas were revealed. Actually a division of the Yajur Veda is known as the Krishna Yajur Veda. People knew how Vishnu looked like because of spiritual practices such as Raja Yoga, when the sages went into very deep meditation they has visions of God in the form of Vishnu. So they described it afterwards and people made images and paintings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2004 Report Share Posted August 17, 2004 Maadhav: "Now, what does it matter how exactly it looked? suppose mohammed had a very handsome look. so what, he forcibley killed or converted millions. what is good about his exact look? nothing what count is what is his message for us, and how he interacts with us." Can u stop this hating of other religions? Where is your evidence that Mohammed (pbuh) forcibly killed many? Or are you under the spell of the Christian propaganda and the Hindu nationalist parties' propaganda? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2004 Report Share Posted August 17, 2004 "The formless God is in the Vedas because at that time that was the only spiritual experience the Rishis had of God" Really? Then how come people in the Satya Yuga (Millions of years ago) were meditating on a FORM OF VISHNU? There is a lot of propaganda coming from impersonalists that the original Vedas had no description of form... "Krishna was actually dark brown" Scriptural evidence please - otherwise this is just mental speculation... "it doesn't matter because Krishna is a later human incarnation of Vishnu" But Krishna himself says 'only fools think me to be human' So don't be a fool!! The point is that the descriptions of Krishna's form in the Vedas are transcendental in nature... ...therefore anybody trained in Vedic art who sincerely tries to draw a picture of Krishna, being 100% faithful to the descriptions from the Vedas, will be producing a picture that is transcendental in nature... ...Krishna's descriptions and his form is non-different. He is absolute, therefore the Vedas descriptions of his form are absolute and will produce absolutely transcendental deities and pictures etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2004 Report Share Posted August 17, 2004 {There is a lot of propaganda coming from impersonalists that the original Vedas had no description of form...} Some of you people are so paranoid it's hilarious. First of all I'm not an impersonalist. It's funny how you label anyone with a different opinion to yourself as 'an impersonalist'. Satya Yuga...please?, the ideas of yugas are from the Puranas which came AFTER the Vedas. The Puranas are inaccurate and are really mythology though people like you wouldn't like to hear that. {"Krishna was actually dark brown" Scriptural evidence please - otherwise this is just mental speculation...} Go read the Mahabharata, don't just rely on your srimad bhagvatam. In Mahabharata, Krishna wasn't a blue boy. The 'blue boy' is a puranic influence. You haven't read the Vedas you're just going by what your master told you. And watch your mouth with whom you call a fool. If you want to see a fool then go look in the mirror! This is a message board where we can discuss Hinduism, not force sectarian views on others or throw cheap insults. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2004 Report Share Posted August 18, 2004 "This is a message board where we can discuss Hinduism" put "destroy" at the place of "discuss" and we have the real purpose of your being here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2004 Report Share Posted August 18, 2004 {put "destroy" at the place of "discuss" and we have the real purpose of your being here} If you're afraid of discussion, then I wonder why you would even be a Hindu. If you think that Hinduism will be destroyed by discussion then you yet have alot to learn. Hinduism is all for discussion and debates. There has been a long tradition of debating at the holy city of Vanarasi, so it is nothing 'alien' to our culture. Hinduism shouldn't be tied down to just one sect that seeks dominance over the others. If you don't like different points of views and their respective sectarian traditions then I would say the problem lies with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maadhav Posted August 18, 2004 Report Share Posted August 18, 2004 << Can u stop this hating of other religions? Where is your evidence that Mohammed (pbuh) forcibly killed many? >> why should hindus love islam when it caused hindu genocides for 1000 years by invading india? you can stay ignorant of the history, but the hindus would not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.