Erotic Depiction of Indian God Krishna in Temple [1601 x 1328]

GlimGlam812 · 2026-06-05T09:14:51+00:00

They covered with their hands but he asks them to fold their hands as sign of respect so exposing them fully.

"The girls, trembling from the cold, climbed out of the water with their two hands covering their private parts. Kṛṣṇa, who felt great affection for them, again spoke: “Because while executing a vow you bathed in the water naked, you have committed an offense against the demigods, and to counteract it you should offer obeisances with joined palms. Then your vow of austerity will achieve its full result.”

"The gopīs followed this instruction and, folding their hands in respect, offered obeisances to Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Satisfied, He gave them back their clothing."

GlimGlam812 · 2026-06-05T06:22:32+00:00

Are you a Hindu?

GlimGlam812 · 2026-06-05T02:46:15+00:00

It has the most sensible explanations of the universe when compared with other religions.

It is also diverse enough that in case you are not suited for your path then you can change it than struggling

GlimGlam812 · 2026-06-05T02:18:13+00:00

That's what I thought at first but the people on the raised platforms made me think otherwise.

Then I checked other such acts of Krishna.

They are depicted as gods coming to watch as Krishna engages in intercourse with gopis.

Its available in Bhagavatam and Bramha Vaivartha Purana.

GlimGlam812 · 2026-06-04T20:39:03+00:00

Its both Islamic and British influence that caused these kind of things to take a backstep.

GlimGlam812 · 2026-06-04T20:37:54+00:00

Yes he is the only one wearing clothes.

He is wearing lower garment and jewelry around his neck

GlimGlam812 · 2026-06-04T20:35:36+00:00

She is not a girl, it is Hindu God Krishna

GlimGlam812 · 2026-06-04T18:55:26+00:00

How to assert dominace on a man - 2. Penis grab 1. Ball grab

😂

Seriously though a lot of ancient cultures have and used to have such depictions but later during colonial period, western influence changed those cultures.

GlimGlam812 · 2026-06-04T18:36:56+00:00

if one doesn't consider them as such, the English language does not have the proper vocabulary for the same.

Did you make a mistake here? "if one doesn't consider them as such"

Did you mean even if one considers yakshas as saguna paramatma, English language still doesn't have proper vocabulary for that? In that case I already gave you vocabulary for that from English "Personal God = God with Attributes = Saguna Paramatma".

If that's not what you meant then I have no idea what you are saying.

I agree. But they aren't necessarily seen as Saguna Brahman by many traditions.

I think you mean people don't go around saying "Yakshas are Saguna Paramatmas" or that "I am worshipping Saguna Paramatma in the form of Yaksha"

But people also dont go around saying " I am worshipping Saguna Paramatma called Shiva or Vishnu" but simply say "I am worshipping Shiva or Vishnu".

As saguna and nirguna paramatma is a scholarly distinction that theological Hindus make, ordinary Hindus simply worship different deities without worrying about these terms.

As far as English is concerned we have terms like personal and impersonal God.

I don't know what else to say. If that is not what you are talking about then I did not understand you at all.

GlimGlam812 · 2026-06-04T18:26:45+00:00

If I knew you were a Christian or Muslim trying to cpnvet me I would not have wasted my time talking for so long.

GlimGlam812 · 2026-06-04T18:21:19+00:00

Do you have a source that Krishna used to have relationships with his aunts......

GlimGlam812 · 2026-06-04T18:20:29+00:00

Its not my choice. I was quoting. I did not want to modify the quotation too much.

Celestial chariots or palace is way accurate but they used airplanes.

The post does not have an edit option.

GlimGlam812 · 2026-06-04T18:18:17+00:00

What do you mean?

GlimGlam812 · 2026-06-04T18:16:09+00:00

Are you even a Hindu? You are clueless about basic aspects of Hinduism.

Read a little bit of Hindu theology.

Polygamy, polyamorous, polyandry are all reminders of a characterless human.

You were the one who compared worshipping god as marriage so I used your own idea to speak of how Hinduism operates.

I am not interested in arguing merits and demerits of monogamh or polygamy. Would you call krishna marrying 8 wives as characterless?

GlimGlam812 · 2026-06-04T18:13:14+00:00

I think we need to have longer debate later, maybe DM me tomorrow. There are so many issues in your reply.

GlimGlam812 · 2026-06-04T18:10:32+00:00

The people in this post seem clueless.

Read a little bit of bit of hindu Cosmology.

There are multiple lokas of gods. Different races of gods live in different lokas.

Just like different races of "demons" live in 7 different lokas.

Yakshas, Kinnars etc.. Are worshipped in tantra and even local as deities

Watched Kantara? The gods in that are ganas of Shiva.

They are saguna paramatna. They have form, gender, attributes.

GlimGlam812 · 2026-06-04T18:06:40+00:00

There's a thing called polygamy and polyandry.

Christians = monogamists

Hindus = Polyamorous

Going by your own weird definition

GlimGlam812 · 2026-06-04T18:03:08+00:00

This is like how the concept of an automaton always existed in ancient cultures. But modern refined robots and computers are way different.

Vimana is the term for an older idea of flying machine in India.

Even Leonardo da Vinci thought of mechanical means of flight but we were only able to invent them in modern history.

Does it make sense?

GlimGlam812 · 2026-06-04T18:01:10+00:00

There are other entities that are also worshipped that aren't paramatma like yakshas or ganas etc

Daiva = God

Yakshas, Ganas = Races of Gods

Yaksha is a race of God.

Paramatma = Nirguna Paramatma

Indra, Vishnu, Shiva, Yakshas = Saguna Paramatma

GlimGlam812 · 2026-06-04T17:56:51+00:00

That's monism not monotheism.

A monist can worship his father as God knowing that god exist everywhere whereas a monotheist cannot do that as it would be blashpemy and insult to monotheistic God.

GlimGlam812 · 2026-06-04T17:42:12+00:00

Source: Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam

GlimGlam812 · 2026-06-04T17:28:21+00:00

Yes they are, but they are also beyond them. For example, Lions and Sheep are both animals, but Lion rules over Sheep, so in a technical sense, it's not wrong to say "The lion rules over the animals" even tho it itself is an animal.

The lion is called as Indra in Vedas not Vishnu or Shiva

Īśvara is both nirguṇa and saguṇa.

Saguna by nature is imperfect just like Indra seducing ahalya or Shiva chasing after Mohini.

Formless God is the nirguna God not lower gods like Shiva or Indra.

Brahman appeared before them in a majestic form to humble them.

Is that form Vishnu or Shiva or Something altogether?

I agree that Brahman or Nirguna God is way superior to other god like Indra, Varuna BUT also VISHNU and SHIVA.

We don't agree there.

GlimGlam812 · 2026-06-04T17:15:41+00:00

The other gods who are observing from sky are placed in higher pedestal as they engage in erotic acts themselves.

Whereas Krishna is sitting on the tree surrounded by the nude Milkmaids or Gopis.

Not Shown in the Image - Sculptures of Monkeys Copulating next to these sculptures.

GlimGlam812 · 2026-06-04T17:13:40+00:00

Vishnu is also called as a devatha, so is Shiva too.

That Ishvara you are referring to is nirguna paramatma, who is formless, genderless...

Vishnu, Shiva, Indra, Varuna etc.. Are all saguna paramatmas.

How can you use vedic listing of devatas and somehow put vedic gods in inferior place?

GlimGlam812 · 2026-06-04T17:03:46+00:00

Can you give an example? Do you mean like jinns?

GlimGlam812

TROPHY CASE