A Conundrum On Lord Shri Ram & Krishna: Open to All Hindus, Not Just Vaishnava-s

[Poeticus]

Is it just me or ... apart from the socio-cultural, folkish importance of Lord Shri Ram for many Hindus, particularly those in Uttar-Bharat/North India, not a lot of concentration is placed upon Lord Shri Ram ... especially not by mainstream Vaishnava-s, as per my observations. Instead, I always notice the popularity of Krishna. Why is that the case ? I have never understood and thus ... 'tis a conundrum, at least for me. But compare the following to get the gist of what I am trying to suggest:

Here is Krishna ...

And here is Lord Shri Rama ...

Just look at those aesthetics ! That sublime physique ! That awesome wielding of the bow ! That invincible control Lord Shri Rama has over Lord Varuna in order to trespass the ocean ! That raw, unforgiving, forever-conquering control of all the guNa-s ! This is the god that broke Lord Shiva's bow just because he was bored (and don't give me the overplayed he-broke-it-because-it-was-symbolic; you know he was bored to begin with, 'tis Lord Shri Rama, yo) ! And no, this isn't me hating on Krishna Bhagwan ... as a Gujarati Hindu, Shri Dwarkadheesh is very important to me, especially on a folk level, and Jai Shri Krishna is used both as a salutation and valediction (and we are the only Hindu community in India that does this socio-culturally) - which only reiterates his importance for Hindus of this particular community.

But Lord Shri Rama, though :hearts::flower2::bow:. If I was ever bhaktically inclined, it would be as a Rama-bhakta, as a devotee of the Scion of the Sun, that ever-shining beacon of the House of Surya.

 

[Red Zambala]

I agree, I like Lord Rāma better!
But Krishna is heavily promoted.
But as I understand there have been also a number of great Rāma bhaktas previously, and Mahatma Gandhi himself has been a mostly Rāma bhakta, with Rāma mantra as the chief one.

 

[Vinayaka]

I think it's just trends.

 

[Tyaga]

Bhai,comparing a teen(Gopala) to an adult warrior(Lord Rama)? -_-

Better compare that image of Sri Rama with images like this of Sri Krishna

And i personally like to believe that Krishna is more popular than Rama because of the Bhagavad Gita


And Rama is quite popular here in south as well(at least in my state) and my mother's Ishta Devata is none other than Maryada Purushottama

Anyway,as for me being a staunch proponent of ekanta vada,both Rama and Krishna are two sides of same coin.
But it is Ramayana-masa(month of Ramayana) in my state,so i'll stick with Raghuvamshi for this entire month

 

[Poeticus]

And Rama is quite popular here in south as well(at least in my state) and my mother's Ishta Devata is none other than Maryada Purushottama

Anyway,as for me being a staunch proponent of ekanta vada,both Rama and Krishna are two sides of same coin.
But it is Ramayana-masa(month of Ramayana) in my state,so i'll stick with Raghuvamshi for this entire month

Namaste, Tyagabhai:

The picture that I used of Krishna Bhagwan is of the norm, normative in the sense that Krishna is, on average, pictured as such ... whereas Ram Bhagwan is depicted as martial, on average. I can understand that it was arbitrary of me, however. BTW, in that picture, Krishna Bhagwan is going after Bhishmaji ... whereas Ram Bhagwan is going after Swayam Lord Shri Varuna.

And Vaishnava-wise, it is true that Rama and Krishna are two sides of the same coin, understandably and even generally, so to speak. But when I shout: Jai Shri Ram ! ... it has that certain ring to it. Battle-cry status; weight-lifting status; horse-archery status; House of Surya status.

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

I don't know why the difference in popularity in India but I have a guess about the difference here.

I think westerners consider Krishna to be "less complicated". Most people are very uncomfortable with moral ambiguity and Lord Ram presents westerners with complicated questions that many people just don't want to answer (Or they come to the easiest conclusions possible which for Lord Ram, are often unfavorable in the west). Lord Krishna (at least on the surface - which unfortunatly is what matters a lot in the west) is a carefree, ladies man, charmer, adviser, friend, warrior etc.

I personally am fascinated by Lord Ram which is why I'm devoting a hefty amount of my time in illustrating the Ramayana. (I made sure to ask for his blessing along with Sita Maa before starting )

And like V said, I think it can also be attributed to trends. Why are the "Big Three" of Hinduism more popular than others? (Vishnu, Siva, Durga) Well we know that in the past, Vedic deities were more prominent, (Rudra, Indra, Varuna, etc)

Gods evolve and change with people

:camp:

 

[Tyaga]

Namaste, Tyagabhai:

The picture that I used of Krishna Bhagwan is of the norm, normative in the sense that Krishna is, on average, pictured as such ... whereas Ram Bhagwan is depicted as martial, on average. I can understand that it was arbitrary of me, however.

Pranam bhai,

I think it depends.Even in my house i have more images of naughty butter stealing baby Lord Krishna rather than the teen Gopala In my state, baby Krishna(we call him as 'Kannan') is way more popular than teen or adult Krishna.

BTW, in that picture, Krishna Bhagwan is going after Bhishmaji ... whereas Ram Bhagwan is going after Swayam Lord Shri Varuna.

Hmm....this is true,but Bhishmaji himself is a spectacular personality.

when I shout: Jai Shri Ram ! ... it has that certain ring to it. Battle-cry status; weight-lifting status; horse-archery status; House of Surya status.

[/QUOTE]


True that!

 

[Jainarayan]

I don't know why the difference in popularity in India but I have a guess about the difference here.

I think westerners consider Krishna to be "less complicated". Most people are very uncomfortable with moral ambiguity and Lord Ram presents westerners with complicated questions that many people just don't want to answer (Or they come to the easiest conclusions possible which for Lord Ram, are often unfavorable in the west). Lord Krishna (at least on the surface - which unfortunatly is what matters a lot in the west) is a carefree, ladies man, charmer, adviser, friend, warrior etc.

I personally am fascinated by Lord Ram which is why I'm devoting a hefty amount of my time in illustrating the Ramayana. (I made sure to ask for his blessing along with Sita Maa before starting )

And like V said, I think it can also be attributed to trends. Why are the "Big Three" of Hinduism more popular than others? (Vishnu, Siva, Durga) Well we know that in the past, Vedic deities were more prominent, (Rudra, Indra, Varuna, etc)

Gods evolve and change with people

:camp:

I think all this. Especially that Sri Krishna has gotten more press thanks to ISKCON. All I have to do is mention Krishna to someone largely unfamiliar with Hinduism, and I get "oh, so are you a Hare Krishna?" The shaved head doesn't help my case.

 

[Red Zambala]

Yes, and when it's not Krishna, people are lost completely
People generally know only (crazy) ISKCON Krishnait's and yoga (which is considered 'irreligious' or atheistic in West)...

But if it's Divine Ma, Kālī or Shiva, some more Guru's and books, this and that - people in West are completely lost and you may have to prove that what you do is very different from ISKCON people...

 

[Vinayaka]

I think all this. Especially that Sri Krishna has gotten more press thanks to ISKCON. All I have to do is mention Krishna to someone largely unfamiliar with Hinduism, and I get "oh, so are you a Hare Krishna?" The shaved head doesn't help my case.

ISKCON is primarily a western phenomena, and not very relevant in India, although they try.

 

[Jainarayan]

That's true... the o.p. started with north India. So getting back to India... in my limited experience at temple, it seems not much emphasis is placed on Sri Rama in the south either, given that the temple is southern. In fact, not much emphasis is placed on Sri Krishna either. Both of their sanctums are quite small. Much more emphasis is placed on Lord Vishnu in his several 4-armed forms... Sri Guruvayurappan, Sri Venkateshwara, Sri Satyanarayana... rather than any of his avatars, though they are represented on the walls of the sanctums.

 

[Chakra]

Is it just me or ... apart from the socio-cultural, folkish importance of Lord Shri Ram for many Hindus, particularly those in Uttar-Bharat/North India, not a lot of concentration is placed upon Lord Shri Ram ... especially not by mainstream Vaishnava-s, as per my observations. Instead, I always notice the popularity of Krishna. Why is that the case ? I have never understood and thus ... 'tis a conundrum, at least for me. But compare the following to get the gist of what I am trying to suggest:

Here is Krishna ...

And here is Lord Shri Rama ...

Just look at those aesthetics ! That sublime physique ! That awesome wielding of the bow ! That invincible control Lord Shri Rama has over Lord Varuna in order to trespass the ocean ! That raw, unforgiving, forever-conquering control of all the guNa-s ! This is the god that broke Lord Shiva's bow just because he was bored (and don't give me the overplayed he-broke-it-because-it-was-symbolic; you know he was bored to begin with, 'tis Lord Shri Rama, yo) ! And no, this isn't me hating on Krishna Bhagwan ... as a Gujarati Hindu, Shri Dwarkadheesh is very important to me, especially on a folk level, and Jai Shri Krishna is used both as a salutation and valediction (and we are the only Hindu community in India that does this socio-culturally) - which only reiterates his importance for Hindus of this particular community.

But Lord Shri Rama, though :hearts::flower2::bow:. If I was ever bhaktically inclined, it would be as a Rama-bhakta, as a devotee of the Scion of the Sun, that ever-shining beacon of the House of Surya.

Yes, I too have seen Lord Ram having less and less concentration in at least the north, I think he's pretty popular in South India according to my friend.

To your question, here's what I can say...

If you notice, most of Lord Krishna's images are always during his pastimes where he's just enjoying himself (he's always smiling, there aren't many demons but only his friends etc) while in Lord Ram's pastimes, he is always grave, tense, etc. Not that Lord Ram isn't smiling and enjoying himself (since this is all his lila) but his pastimes are always near danger. Because Lord Krishna has these sportive and sweet pastimes, it makes him a favorite of Hindus. Again, no disrespect is meant to these 2 Avatars of Vishnu.

Lord Ram certainly has a more regal and powerful image, as compared to Lord Krishna. Either way, they are both equally powerful and equally worshiped by Vaishnavas. I think even ISKCON temples (mainly a Krishna centered Vaishnava group) has Lord Ram deities.
Regards

 

[StarryNightshade]

This might be a little off base, but I have an idea as to why Lord Krishna is popular in the west; ISKCON evangelism aside.

Westerners have a preconceived notion of what "god" is, correct? Most westerners (at least in the US) have a Christian background, and think of God in terms of incarnations and saviors to the world. When one looks at both Christianity and Gaudiya Vaishnavism, they are very similar to one another; culture and rituals aside.

- Both are monotheistic.

- Both have avatars/incarnations.

- Both believe that the current age we live in is spiritually and morally corrupt.

- Both believe in a savior for the world.

- At least in terms of Evangelical Christianity and Gaudiya, both place great emphasis on ecstatic devotion towards God.

- Both believe that God will end the world and usher in a new era of peace.

At least, that's how I understand it. Personally, I've always had more of an attraction to Sri Narasimha and Lord Rama; not Krishna.

 

[Chakra]

This might be a little off base, but I have an idea as to why Lord Krishna is popular in the west; ISKCON evangelism aside.

Westerners have a preconceived notion of what "god" is, correct? Most westerners (at least in the US) have a Christian background, and think of God in terms of incarnations and saviors to the world. When one looks at both Christianity and Gaudiya Vaishnavism, they are very similar to one another; culture and rituals aside.

- Both are monotheistic.

- Both have avatars/incarnations.

- Both believe that the current age we live in is spiritually and morally corrupt.

- Both believe in a savior for the world.

- At least in terms of Evangelical Christianity and Gaudiya, both place great emphasis on ecstatic devotion towards God.

- Both believe that God will end the world and usher in a new era of peace.

At least, that's how I understand it. Personally, I've always had more of an attraction to Sri Narasimha and Lord Rama; not Krishna.

I think that all those points can be applicable to Vaishnavism in general, not just Gaudiya. Right?
Regards

 

[Vinayaka]

Westerners have a preconceived notion of what "god" is, correct? Most westerners (at least in the US) have a Christian background, and think of God in terms of incarnations and saviors to the world. When one looks at both Christianity and Gaudiya Vaishnavism, they are very similar to one another; culture and rituals aside.

I didn't get from the OP that he was talking about 'in the west' but of all Hindus, though I could be wrong. Hindus of the west is a very small sample of Hindus in general.

 

[StarryNightshade]

I didn't get from the OP that he was talking about 'in the west' but of all Hindus, though I could be wrong. Hindus of the west is a very small sample of Hindus in general.

I didn't either, but since I know little about the major differences in deity worship in India, I stuck with what I do know.

And yes, we in the west are but a tiny blip on the Hindu radar.

 

[Haryaksha]

If you notice, most of Lord Krishna's images are always during his pastimes where he's just enjoying himself (he's always smiling, there aren't many demons but only his friends etc) while in Lord Ram's pastimes, he is always grave, tense, etc. Not that Lord Ram isn't smiling and enjoying himself (since this is all his lila) but his pastimes are always near danger. Because Lord Krishna has these sportive and sweet pastimes, it makes him a favorite of Hindus. Again, no disrespect is meant to these 2 Avatars of Vishnu.

I think those are good points. ^^^

Also, a lot of Krishna's popularity over Rama could simply be because Krishna was a more recent incarnation, and therefore he is more present in the consciousness of Hindus. Rama, in that sense, is more 'antiquated', in the same way that Vishnu's other avatars are much less worshipped. But of course Rama and all the avatars of Vishnu are eternal, and Rama's presence can still be powerfully felt through the chanting of his names.

I myself am more devoted to Rama than Krishna.

I've also heard that even Rama's servant, Hanuman, is more commonly worshipped than Rama himself.

 

[Sb1995]

Lord Ram is the most powerful. JAI SHRI RAM.

 

[Aupmanyav]

And no, this isn't me hating on Krishna Bhagwan ... as a Gujarati Hindu, Shri Dwarkadheesh is very important to me, especially on a folk level, and Jai Shri Krishna is used both as a salutation and valediction (and we are the only Hindu community in India that does this socio-culturally) - which only reiterates his importance for Hindus of this particular community.

It is your Gujarati connection that gives you this feeling. For folks in North India 'Jai Ram ji ki' (lately 'Jai Sri Ram') is a more common salutation (leaving aside Vraja and Mathura region where it is Radhe, Radhe). That is the Hindutva slogan. I think 'Sri Rama Vijayate' is the slogan of the Sri Vaishnava (Ramanuja) sampradaya (correct me if I am wrong). My first love too is for Lord Rama. Even the Gaudiya Mahamantra is

(Hare Krishna Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna Hare Hare,
Hare Rama Hare Rama, Rama Rama Hare Hare.)

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. it has that certain ring to it. Battle-cry status; weight-lifting status; horse-archery status; House of Surya status.

Right, but do not forget -