#sanatanadharmablr

[vishnavishivaa]

My friends and I have been discussing how Sanatana Dharma, as such, is viewed in today's society- of course, we know there are a lot of skeptics and critics who mock.

But my post is not about them, not today.

It is about those who are genuine Sanatana Dharma followers, or so their bios, posts and everything else indicate: from what little I know, I believe this to be genuinely true.

However, despite all that, the kind of insensitivity I see with regards to characters from the epics is a bit insane- especially Mahabharata characters.

And even more so, Krishna.

I rarely call people out about this, as Sanatana Dharma is largely forgiving and accepting, but I also remember that we have to call out insensitive perceptions.

And it is not even about Krishna as Bhagavan- it is about understanding Krishna the human and the things He does.

The trend across social media (all platforms) is to use fictional dramatics on Krishna, and superimpose Krishna with those kind of fictional humans, without understanding Krishna, the human.

Yes, Krishna as the human is intriguing.

But to write Him as human, one does NOT need to use the randomest of TROPES and anything and everything. Krishna is not a fictional character, He is historical other than being the endless Divine.

I know everyone will say: It is our wish to write Him and represent Him as we want.

Sure, freedom of expression and all that, but is it right to take the One who is as human as He is Bhagavan, whose actions are clearly explained, and make INSENSITIVE jokes?

Well meaning jokes is common, but insensitivity? It is unfair to be insensitive about fictional characters only, let alone ACTUAL HISTORICAL CHARACTERS.

At least making jokes with care is okay, but to be insensitive to someone's actions and make it something grossly untrue? THAT IS A BIG NO.

Not with historical characters.

I don't even think it is all that fair with fictional characters, so there is that.

It is time we take action, and think before we post- is this what Krishna really did? Was this His meaning, even as a human?

This is not about Him being Paramatma as much as it is about Him being thought of as a character, as a human, and as the complete Purusha.

Krishna loves everyone, but should we not channel our love for Him to ensure that even jokes we make are respectful?

@ahamasmiyodhah @mahi-wayy @yehsahihai @theramblergal @krsnaradhika @ramayantika @achyutapriya @thegleamingmoon @nidhi-writes @houseofbreadpakoda @hum-suffer @kanhapriya @kaal-naagin @krishna-priyatama @willkatfanfromasia @celestesinsight @arachneofthoughts @idllyastuff @mahaswrites @braj-raj @krishna-sangini @krishna-premi @chaliyaaa @tripurantaka @writersiya @ambidextrousarcher @zeherili-ankhein @rang-lo @nushkiespeaks @sambaridli Let me know your thoughts, and we can have opposing views!

[vishnavishivaa]

I AM BACK!

Posts, stories, everything can be expected!

[ahamasmiyodhah]

Can't agree more. this is turning more and more bad nowadays.

My friends and I have been discussing how Sanatana Dharma, as such, is viewed in today's society- of course, we know there are a lot of skeptics and critics who mock.

But my post is not about them, not today.

It is about those who are genuine Sanatana Dharma followers, or so their bios, posts and everything else indicate: from what little I know, I believe this to be genuinely true.

However, despite all that, the kind of insensitivity I see with regards to characters from the epics is a bit insane- especially Mahabharata characters.

And even more so, Krishna.

I rarely call people out about this, as Sanatana Dharma is largely forgiving and accepting, but I also remember that we have to call out insensitive perceptions.

And it is not even about Krishna as Bhagavan- it is about understanding Krishna the human and the things He does.

The trend across social media (all platforms) is to use fictional dramatics on Krishna, and superimpose Krishna with those kind of fictional humans, without understanding Krishna, the human.

Yes, Krishna as the human is intriguing.

But to write Him as human, one does NOT need to use the randomest of TROPES and anything and everything. Krishna is not a fictional character, He is historical other than being the endless Divine.

I know everyone will say: It is our wish to write Him and represent Him as we want.

Sure, freedom of expression and all that, but is it right to take the One who is as human as He is Bhagavan, whose actions are clearly explained, and make INSENSITIVE jokes?

Well meaning jokes is common, but insensitivity? It is unfair to be insensitive about fictional characters only, let alone ACTUAL HISTORICAL CHARACTERS.

At least making jokes with care is okay, but to be insensitive to someone's actions and make it something grossly untrue? THAT IS A BIG NO.

Not with historical characters.

I don't even think it is all that fair with fictional characters, so there is that.

It is time we take action, and think before we post- is this what Krishna really did? Was this His meaning, even as a human?

This is not about Him being Paramatma as much as it is about Him being thought of as a character, as a human, and as the complete Purusha.

Krishna loves everyone, but should we not channel our love for Him to ensure that even jokes we make are respectful?

@ahamasmiyodhah @mahi-wayy @yehsahihai @theramblergal @krsnaradhika @ramayantika @achyutapriya @thegleamingmoon @nidhi-writes @houseofbreadpakoda @hum-suffer @kanhapriya @kaal-naagin @krishna-priyatama @willkatfanfromasia @celestesinsight @arachneofthoughts @idllyastuff @mahaswrites @braj-raj @krishna-sangini @krishna-premi @chaliyaaa @tripurantaka @writersiya @ambidextrousarcher @zeherili-ankhein @rang-lo @nushkiespeaks @sambaridli Let me know your thoughts, and we can have opposing views!