why Shri Krishna should be called GOD?

[Guest guest]

Mr. Ajit

 

The day you have joined this group, you are busy in insulting

Hindus. Your earlier posts talk ill of Hindus and now you are

insulting Krishna, who is GOD/Brahma himself in full incarnation.

 

Wat do you think, Sikhism is the only sane religion in world and

hindus are stupid ?

 

Kalika

[Guest guest]

hmmm that z a serious blame. Does anybody else has same reaction.

Tatwamasi, SVCS,Dr.Yadu and others, did I really insulted Krishna by

asking that question ?

 

 

 

 

, chamundakijai <no_reply> wrote:

> Mr. Ajit

[Guest guest]

Dear Kalika

 

I can understand yr sentiments about Shri Ajit's question. They r

the same as of most of us.

 

But one thing would like to say that why to take these types of

questions as an insult to ourself of God/Krishna etc.. Is Krishna not

beyond praise or insults. Does he need any type of praise by some

one or will HE be angered by any so called insult. Pl. try to understand

that it is our ego which has these types of feelings. God is beyond

all of these.

 

To me, to be a real Hindu, is not to get a wrong feeling if somebody

asks a question which, i feel, is insulting. I try to answer the

question with sincerety and with my all heart and soul.

 

There may be many more people who must be having he same feeling

about Krishna. Since Mr. Ajit is a Sikh, he is not supposed to know

the real values of Krishna. I know many Hindus, rather it has become

a general trend, particularly in young chaps, who think that by

stealings or eve teasing they are following Krishna. The job of real

Hindu is to show them the other side of coin and to make them believe

that they know very little about Krishna.

 

Pradeep

[Guest guest]

Dear Sardar Ajit Singhji,

Sat Sri Akaal,

 

I think we should really thank you for generating an interesting discussion in

the group by asking a question, which many nonbelievers have on their minds.

 

Krishna says in the Gita that there are four types of Bhaktas that worship Me

viz. 1. Arti (those who are inflicted with pain and miseries of life); 2.

Artharti (those who are desirous of wealth); 3. Jijnasu (those who are desirous

of knowing Me or seeker of knowledge); and 4. Jnani (man of wisdom). (Ch.7 V.16)

 

We should place you in the 3rd category because you are desirous of knowing the

truth about Krishna.

 

Krishna's activities are transcendental, beyond mind and intellect. Therefore He

can only be realized through love, devotion and surrender. Krishna's activities

you had sited in your earlier posting are not meant for absorption by mortals

like us, they meant for giving pleasure to those who are totally surrendered to

Him. They are not meant to be understood through logic.

 

You can be rest assured that the message of the Gita is non different from the

message of Japjisahib. The message of Guru Nanak and others in the Guru Granth

Sahib is based on Vedic knowledge, presented in a simple language for the

benefit of a section of the society who can understand Punjabi. Many of our

saints and sages have done the same and presented the same Truth in a local

language where they were born, for the benefit of that section of the society.

 

One of the greatness of Hinduism is the freedom to comment upon the scriptures.

It helps to bring the Vedic knowledge within the reach of the ordinary mortals

like us. I have a 90 minute cassette containing a wonder explanation on the Mool

Mantra of the Japjisahib, Ek Onkaar ......, by Swami Swaroopananda of Chinmaya

Mission, Bombay. This Mool Mantra summarizes the ultimate knowledge of the Truth

of the Vedas. Therefore the Gurus, the Saints and Sages and the religious

scriptures are not a property of any particular section of the society but it is

meant to benefit all.

 

"Krishnastu Bhagwan Swayam"

Krishna is God Himself.

 

Hari Om

radhakutir

 

 

-

"sardarajitsingh" <the-hermit

<>

16 October, 2003 10:52 AM

Re: why Shri Krishna should be called GOD?

 

 

> hmmm that z a serious blame. Does anybody else has same reaction.

> Tatwamasi, SVCS,Dr.Yadu and others, did I really insulted Krishna by

> asking that question ?

>

>

>

>

> , chamundakijai <no_reply> wrote:

> > Mr. Ajit

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

>

[Guest guest]

Saatsri akaal sardarji and my dear fellow sadhaks

 

I am so blessed to be part of a group filled with fellow seekers who

are true sadhaks, secure and comfortable, grounded in what they

practice, so much so, that they are able to respect questions to be

what they are without projecting their own insecurities. Thank you

_/\_, sardar saheb, Radha Kutir ji, Gautam, svcs, Pradeep and all

others. (Still waiting for Dr Yadu who seems to have vanished ) I

don't mean everyone knows everything, but that they are secure

enough that they don't get defensive when someone asks questions

about sacredly held doctrines or beliefs.

 

Unfortunately by shutting up (or putting down) those who question,

we participate in creating a community of ignorance and blind

parroting of verses and rituals, leading to defensive behaviors to

protect that ignorance. This behavior is common in our culture, with

many adults ranging from parents, to professors to so-called Gurus

to shut down any questioning! Secure individuals know that it is

perfectly alright to NOT to know everything!!!! And yes, that is

precisely why we are stuck in the cycle of births so as to be able

to totally remove that ignorance!

 

Sanatan Dharma is Eternal Truth .. no one can insult it, or destroy

Truth. It is far, far bigger than any of the real assaults that have

been made over centuries. As Radha Kutir ji has said, many Gurus

have pointed out again and again that all are on the path,

especially those who question because they are truely searching.

That is why every single individual is included in the faith, no

matter what stage of growth they are including agnostics or

atheists or just bystanders. In fact, an inherent strength of our

faith which has contributed to its variery and richness, is the

openess to introspection.

 

This question of sardar saheb, is one brought up by many seekers,

both in virtual and real groups. Personally I don't have the real

answer, but I know the answer exists in the dichotomy that exists in

the language used to explain abstract concepts in a language that

common human can identify with and therefore understand. There are

many texts on various aspects of Krishna Lila, and I am aware that

much of the information is often misinterpreted today to suit

peoples' needs. I am requesting our sadhaks and Gurus who have

delved into this topic far more than I have, to continue to

sincerely share their knowledge on this topic!

 

_/\_ Tat Twam Asi

 

Uma

 

 

, "sardarajitsingh" <the-hermit@i...>

wrote:

> Tatwamasi, SVCS,Dr.Yadu and others, did I really insulted Krishna

by asking that question ?

[Guest guest]

Sat sri akaal,

 

Pyare radhakutir, tatwamasi,svcs and pradeep. Your positive

reaction clearly indicates Chamunda's reaction is uncalled for. As

radhakutirji said this is the beauty of hinduism that we are open to

contradictions and reactions.

 

Yes Sikhism is a sane religion because it has its roots in the

Great Hinduism (As per Indian Constitution Sikhism ,Jainism and

Budhism are sects of Hindus not a different religion).

 

Why I asked this question is that we always expect certain moral

values from higher souls. We can not respect a saint/sadhu who has

moral degradation. Surprisingly these moral concepts we have made

ourselves. Like we expect a saint not to induldge in sex, drinking,

smoking or telling lies or being coward or violent. If a saint has

these vices, we normally dismiss him. Rajneesh was rejected by most

of Hindus only because he advocated sex.

 

Now if Shri Krishna did not stick to so-called moral values by

teasing Gopis or by stealing Makhan or by running away from war or by

helping in eloping girls, or by telling lies, etc etc. What exactly

he wanted to prove ? Did he mean that these man made moral values

have no place for spirituality. If Bhagwan has taken incarnation,

certainly he was aware people will follow his life style. Upto which

point we can copy him.

 

What is the place of so-callled moral values in spirituality.

Can a person who drinks or smokes or induldges in sex, be a spiritual

person ? Or a person who does not do any of these but is otherwise a

mean, dishonest fellow, or he does nothing to eleviate humanity is

nearer to God. What is it that Krishna was a GOD despite all his so-

called deeds which are forbidden for a mortal being and WHY?

 

Bole so nihaal

[Guest guest]

Dear Ajit Singhji,

 

We had two main Avatars Rama and Krishna who appear in human form from time to

time. Rama Avtara is called "Maryada Purushotam" i.e. He sets the moral

standards for the human race that can and should be followed. Krishna Avtara is

called "Lila Purushotam" i.e. His Lilas cannot and should not be put into

practice, only His message of the Gita should be practiced with utter faith

(Shardha), which can raise one's consciousness to the level that of Sri Krishna

because Krishna is non-different from the SELF. Krishna Himself says in the Gita

that, "My birth and activities are Divine". i.e. they cannot be put into

practice, if one tries to put them into practice, he is heading for destruction.

 

For certain things we have to accept the word of the scriptures at its face

value because there is no other alternative, for instance no one can give the

description of hell or heaven from their own experience, we have no choice but

to accept the description given in the scriptures and without faith in the

scriptures one cannot make any spiritual progress.

 

Consider the following two examples and decide for yourself if it is at all

practical to put the Lilas of the Lord into practice by any mortal.

 

1. Krishna was married to 16108 wives and He was the father 161080 children and

grandfather of 1610800 grand children. Yet when Gopis had to cross the flooded

Ganga, they came to Krishna and asked the means to cross the flooded Ganga.

Krishna told them that they should stand on the bank of the river and say the

following, "If Krishna is a perfect Brahmachari, please allow us to cross the

river". Upon this Ganga immediately receded and allowed the Gopis to cross the

river. Now it shall be futile to get into the hows and whys of it, if one

accepts it with faith he gets a step closer to Krishna otherwise a mile away

from Him. One has to decide what is beneficial to him or her, going into the

logic of it or merge into the bliss of it. There are many such incidents in the

scriptures.

 

2. Once Krishna and His cowboy friends had taken their calves to the forest as

usual. While they were enjoying their lunch picnic, their calves wandered away

out of their sight and the boys got a bit concerned. Krishna told them that they

should continue with their lunch and He will go in search of the calves. Having

had no success, Krishna returned to the spot where the children were having

their lunch and found that even the children were not there. Now Krishna

realized what had happened, seeing Krishna eating and playing with His friends

Brahma, the creator, got deluded and wanted to test the authenticity of Krishna

the Parabrahman, so he hid the children and the calves in a cave and put them to

sleep. Krishna manifested Himself into the calves and His friends, with all

their paraphernalia exactly as it was and they all went back to their

settlement. Next morning they shall start to the forest again as usual. It went

on for the whole one year without any one suspecting. Brahma got double confused

because when he looked down on the ground every thing was as normal but at the

same time all the calves and the children were sleeping in the cave where he had

shut them. Brahma then realized his mistake and returned the calves and the boys

and begged an apology from Krishna.

 

Therefore it not safe to imitate Krishna, Follow the message of Krishna, it the

best Sadhana.

 

Hari Om,

radhakutir.

 

PS: Below I reproduce a small write up, by Sri Swami Sivanandaji Maharaj, about

the life and Lilas of Sri Krishna:

 

Blessed Selves,

The birth of Sri Krishna on earth is of memorable importance, as this incident

goes to make up and give form to the whole of the Indian Nation. It signifies

the great event of the coming into being of the tremendous power of love and

knowledge which has integrated in itself all the hearts and minds of India. In

Sri Krishna we find the national, the political, the social, the domestic, the

individual, the universal and spiritual ideals which have been adored and

worshipped in India and which may well pave the way to world-unity, if only they

are properly understood and adopted in human life. From the very beginning of

the life of Sri Krishna we find in Him a bold champion who stood for the cause

of peace and happiness of mankind. This is indeed an occasion for us all to lift

our souls to the supreme enjoyment of the celebration of the birthday of the

great hero, the friend and the teacher of this world, who refers to himself in

His immortal Gita as the Father of this world, the Mother, the Sustainer, the

Grandfather, the supremely Pure, the Origin, the Dissolution, the Substratum,

the only thing to be known. In fact, such beings are not born or dead, but they

only become visible or invisible to the human eye and consciousness.

Sri Krishna was the statesman par-excellence, who taught through example and

precept the art of government, the way to maintain peace on earth. He was an

expert in the application of the means of Sama (persuasion and conciliation),

Dana (offering remuneration), Bheda (causing division), and Danda (punishment),

and these he used where they were absolutely necessary and where they did not go

against Dharma or the Eternal law of the universe. Sri Krishna was not merely a

statesman struggling to know what is right and wrong or good and bad to a nation

or acting according to his own whims and fancies or private conceptions of the

right and good. He was a cosmic man with a cosmic vision of things, who had no

partiality whatsoever, who loved none and hated none, but acted as a channel for

the operation of the iron hand of justice which rules the universe. Krishna

connected causes and effects and brought law and justice to play their proper

part in life not through induction or deduction, through supposition, guessing,

or imagination, through public vote, or individual influence, but through the

intuition of the essential Reality of the universe. His word was law and his act

was justice. His thoughts were the supreme peace-makers which vibrated through

every cell of the nation. Krishna commanded the love and the respect of the

people by His comprehending within Himself the universe as a whole. Sri Krishna

was a philosopher, a sage and a Yogi, who alone can be an effective statesman

worth the name. This is the lesson to be learnt from Sri Krishna, by all people,

ruling as well as ruled.

Sri Krishna lived the life of a princely householder, teaching to mankind that

the knowledge of the Absolute is not incompatible with practical activity in

life. He is the form, as it were, taken by the great Truth that the universe is

the manifestation of Brahman. The universe is the Lila of the Purushottama, and

Sri Krishna is the Lila-Purushottama, the sportive Absolute. There was no end to

the domestic troubles that Krishna had, no limit to the social and political

disturbances and threatening situations in which Krishna was involved, no bound

to his responsibility and yet there was no match to his success, no equal to his

shining example of the Life Perfect. Certainly, only an Avatara (incarnation of

God) can be such a perfect being. The man on earth, the householder, with the

weight of responsibility on his head and an environment attempting to menace and

flout him at every step, should learn the science and art of right, good and

happy life, from Sri Krishna, who combined knowledge with action with wonderful

dexterity, for the good of the universe.

The individual’s ideal is the attainment of Sri Krishna, to take Him as the

means and the end. The Bhagavad Gita is the Gospel of life, the scripture of

humanity, and the life of Sri Krishna is the great commentary on it. Every

individual should try to become the great man of knowledge, the master of Yoga,

the centre of love and the expert doer of right activity, as Sri Krishna was.

Sri Krishna’s life, when it is carefully studied, will give one a knowledge of

the synthesis of all Yogas, practised by one who, rooting himself in the

spiritual Absolute, moved on this material earth. The life and teachings of Sri

Krishna are the immortal teachers of mankind, they shall live for eternity. The

words and actions of Krishna are to be taken by all aspiring individuals as the

means and the being of Krishna as the end. This is possible only after a

thorough purging and purification of the self, which is absolutely necessary for

one’s knowing Krishna.

Sri Krishna is the universal and spiritual ideal of man. Sri Krishna was the

example of the great Superman of the East. It is towards this achievement that

humanity is slowly moving. The perfection of man lies in the realisation of God,

Nature and Man in one. Man is not a separate entity. Nature is not estranged

from God, and God is not cut off from Nature and Man. The word ‘God’ has been

misunderstood by many as merely one of the three principles in terms of which

alone man can view Reality. Truly, God means that Supreme Being in which Nature

and Man merge, as identical with His Consciousness. Sri Krishna is the

representation on earth of the Supreme Reality. Glory to Him. All adorations to

Him. Prostrations to Him.

Beloved aspirants, Strive to become, to realise, Krishna, your Great Ideal. This

you can do only after you become virtuous, good, loving and intelligent. You

should completely eradicate the animal tendencies and qualities in you, like

lust, anger and greed. You must pass through the fire of discipline and

purification; you should be burnished before you can shine as the Golden ideal

that is before you. Through service, charity, love, meditation and self-enquiry

that Goal can be reached by one and all. May blessedness attend upon your

efforts!

May the Grace of Sri Krishna be upon you all!

 

 

 

 

-

"sardarajitsingh" <the-hermit

<>

21 October, 2003 1:47 PM

Re: why Shri Krishna should be called GOD?

 

 

>

> Now if Shri Krishna did not stick to so-called moral values by

> teasing Gopis or by stealing Makhan or by running away from war or by

> helping in eloping girls, or by telling lies, etc etc. What exactly

> he wanted to prove ? Did he mean that these man made moral values

> have no place for spirituality. If Bhagwan has taken incarnation,

> certainly he was aware people will follow his life style. Upto which

> point we can copy him.

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ajit,

 

First let us see the difference between a saint and an avatar. Any

one can become a saint through serious sadhna. However one cannot

become an avatar. An avatar is just an instance of the existence of

the divine and does not have any prarabdha karma. The birth is

totally by His Will to accomplish some work.

 

A saint or a guru needs to be perfect, for if he is not, how can we

learn from such a one. If we need to learn physics, we need to learn

it from someone who knows physics and not from one who has a major in

economics. Only one who knows can teach.

 

Saints / Gurus are the ones who helps uf out of this samsara sagara

and take us to the eternal life. This is possible by controlling

ones's desires or by redirecting it to the ONE> When one talks of

control of desires, one cannot succumb to it and expect the disciples

to understand how control of desires will lead one to Salvation. Thus

a Guru needs to be perfect Himself to teach the others. I'll give a

small story on why the Guru needs to be perfect in my next post.

 

Coming to Krishna Avatar. Many people have doubts on the question

that you asked. How can Krishna, He who teased the gopis be called a

God. I'd like to tell you that one cannot look at an action

superficially and infer it to be right or wrong. The same act when

performed with different intentions, render the act to be good or

sinful. One cannot see the act alone, but also the intention behind

it.

 

For example, let us take the act of 'killing'. Let us assume that

there is a terminally ill patient, and he is suffering in great pain.

There is no hope of him surviving or alleviating his pain, and the

only way to put an end to his suffering is death. Under these

circumstances, the doctor does mercy killing with the consent of his

relatives.

The robber also kills for money. In both the cases, the act

is 'killing'. But the intentions were different. The doctor did it to

alleviate his pain, whereas the thief did it for his own pleasure.

 

One cannot view both the acts superficially, and say that both have

done the same act viz killing, and so both the doctor and the theif

need to be hanged. One must go deeper into the intentions of the doer

and see why they did what they did, and then determine the action to

be right or wrong. Similarly, the same action that Krishna did and

what we do is a lot different, even though superficially it may look

the same.

 

Krishna is the Creator, and is all that He Created. He is the trees,

plants, shrubs, skies, earth, animals, humans etc. He did tease the

gopis, but He is also the ones being teased. He is the enjoyer and

the enjoyed. He is the one who kils and the one who got killed. He

is the action and its consequence.

 

On the other hand, if a saint indulges in worldly pleasures, it is

definitely wrong, for He is talking about liberation, and cannot

himself indulge, for in this case he is the enjoyer alone and NOT the

enjoyed. He is the one who teases alone and NOT the one being teased.

 

If in a party, you tease yourself, or pull a joke on yourself, to

have fun , it's not wrong. However, if you pick on someone else just

to poke fun, it is wrong.

 

All that Krishna did, He did on Himself, and hence cannot be compared

with those of a human, where the enjoyer is different from the one

being enjoyed.

 

Lastly, but not the least, I wish to tell about the purpose of an

Avatar. Every avatar has a purpose. The purpose of Rama avatar was to

show man how to live. In Rama Avatar, He never exhibited Himself to

be God. However in Krishna avatar, He exhibited Himself as God many

times. He showed His Vishwarupa darshan even to the vile Kauravas.

The purpose of Krishna avatar was different from that of Rama Avatar.

 

In Rama Avatar, the rishis had a desire to witness His Holy game and

approached Him for the same. To them He said that He can not perform

all this in this avatar, and that to satisfy them He'll take another

avatar, which will be full of leelas. There were other rishis who

wanted to be His friend, His servant, His lover etc. He pacified them

all saying, that all their desires will be fulfilled in the next

avatar, i.e Krishna avatar. And the gopis and gopas were none other

than those Rishis, and in this birth, they all attained mukthi.

 

I wish to say that we must see the purpose behind an avatar, and

respect the purpose and follow what is meant by us to follow from

that avatar. i.e From Rama Avatar, we must follow how to live, and

from Krishna Avatar we must follow the Gita. All doubts arise only

when we extend the principles to an area where we are not supposed

to. There are a myriad purposes of Krishna Avatar, and no one can

truly know them all. However what is expected is to follow the Gita.

We cannot follow the other things, for He showed himself divine.

Obviously, we cannot exist in many forms at the same time, nor can we

lift the Govardhan, nor can we perform all the mircales that He

performed.

 

Krishna Avatar is not meant to be followed, only the Gita is. Rama

Avatar is to be followed for he showed how a man must live.

 

Hope this helps.

Hari Aum !!!

[Guest guest]

One of the members sent this to me and I'm posting it below :

 

 

 

Story of Vasudeva Krishna: Historical Perspective and Import of his

life events into Hindu Mythology

(I have tried to edit the article to make it short with a view to

highlight the issues pertinent to the ongoing discussions about

the "ethics" of Krishna, the preacher of Geeta. There are three

opinions (schools) regarding the age of Mahabharata. I have agreement

with the school, which dates it Presumably during Cirsa1000 – 1200

B.C)

Socio-political Scenario of the age of Vasudeva Krishna's birth

Indian Society In Cirsa1000 – 1200 B.C (Source- Economic History Of

Ancient India, Dr. R.S.Sharma)

Dakshin Panchal in Circa 1000 B.C

Dakshin Panchal signifies a cultivable are stretched along the

southern banks of river Yamuna extending over 200 kilometers East-

West and about 80 kilometers North-South in which Mathura (situated

on the left bank of all weather navigable riverYamuna) was a natural

prominent urban settlement and emerged as Capital of the area. The

name Dakshin Panchal was no longer retained and this area has been

referred in Puranas as "Shaka-Dveep". By this age, varrious clans

occupied vast Indo-Gangetic plains. Largely these clans did settled

agriculture, though a few clans still adhered to "Slash and Burn"

mode of growing economic crops, while some held their old "Hunters

and Food gatherers" tradition. Large population who had opted Settled

Agriculture, kept herding (mainly cow), and villages settlements and

village clusters contributed major objects in the landscape of that

age. This age is specially marked by ever increasing economic power

and value of Cow. Obviously, this was due to Urbanization, and, due

to a slow shift of state powers from Village-Community-chiefs to a

centralized Monarchy.

Kingdom of Mathura and it's surroundings

An ancient clan "Ahira", which traced their pedigree from much remote

past's "King" Yadu, habited the city Mathura; hence, they were also

called Yadavas. Without going in detail the family tree of Yadavas,

it might suffice to say that by this time these Yadavas too had

subdivided into at least six sub-clans of which "Krishna"

and "Vishni" were dominating. These sub-clans, however, were

endogamous and marriage alliance between two sub-clans was prevalent.

(Source- Ancient History of India, Dr. Romila Thaper)

There was no any borderline used to be drawn between two Sates in the

manner we see today. At that age, there was no any borderline used to

be drawn between two Sates in the manner we see today. One State from

the other was normally separated by vast forest region, or some

uncultivated expanse, or some other geographical situation, It is in

this vast "No Man's Area", other races/tribes who were Hunters, or

Food Gatherers, Traders of varrious commodities (chiefly metals, salt

and precious stones), Navigators, and the like dwelled. Existence of

such races, tribes were mutually beneficial to the States of both

sides and the race/group because they offered a buffer region on one

hand, and had clienteles of either States. One such race, then called

as "Nagas" (These Nagas are entirely different from the present day

Naga tribe). It is interesting to know that this particular Nagas (of

Mahabharata age) came into royal power in later years and the

Sanskrit/Hindi word "Nagar", meaning a "city" also they seem to be

the inventors of Sanskrit script now known as "Deva-Nagari"(Source-

Dr. D.D.Kosambi 1950). At the time under discussion, this tribe was a

Navigater-cum-Jwell Traders. They were so powerful and wealthy that

every State aspiring for weapons, Jewels had to depend on them and

could not, for political reasons, dare to annoy them. Nagas were,

however, peace-loving tribe, never wanting to form a "kingdom", and

they preferred living near navigable territories in a very close knit

way (see Ancient India by Chandragupt Vidyalankar)

Vasudeva

Mathura was an urban settlement dominated by Krishna Yadavas.

Deva Yadava was the king of this city and it's surrounding

territories. (It must be born in the mind that Statecraft of those

days was very loosely knit and usually any tribal head could call

himself a king otherwise challenge by other tribe; however,

the "king" held power to enforce the law and provided protection in

return to all who submitted to his authority.) Deva Yadava had one

daughter named Devaki and a son named Kansa. Devaki was wedded to

Vasudeva who inherited Mathura thrown from Deva. Kansa, though he

loved his sister, yet not happy of his father's decision. Kansa was

intimate friend of Jarasandh, the ruler of the modern eastern Bihar

province. The kingdom ofJarasandha, because of its geographical

situation. was much more "civilized" and economically advanced than

Mathura, Jarasandh's capital city (somewhere near modern Patna) was

accessible by large trade ships and great rivers Ganga and Sone

provided for inland trade pint in northern India. It is presumed that

due to Jarasandh's invoking to rebel against Vasudeva, Kansa

imprisoned his brother-in-law, Vasudeva along with Devaki. Vasudeva's

had family ties with Mahabharata famous Kuru clan. (I shall not go

into details--- source for the puranic pedigree kindly see

Pargiter's "Puranic History Of India" in nine volumes.)

Thus, we see a conflict in Mathura royal family. Everyone

knows the story of Krishna's birth, thus I need not to go over all

that. The point of conflict between the fact and the folklore about

it, seems to be historical fact; that Krishna might have born in a

Jail and later, considering the danger of baby's life, he was

switched with another baby (a girl-child), except the miraculous and

mystic sleep of the jail guards, automatic opening of the lock and

overnight way of switching the babies (new born Krishna and a new

born girl).

Gokula

Researchers and the scholars are unanimous about the

existence of a village "Gokula" at that age. Dr. S.N.Chaturjya writes

that the village-chief, Nanda, was a friend and relative of Vasudeva.

As pointed out earlier, the villages of the age had political and

economic autonomy (Dr. Mane 1925). Out of compassion, he discreetly

offered Vasudeva to give a girl-child in exchange of Vasudeva's

eighth baby. This secret agreement was settled before the babies were

born; and somehow was implemented. The deal was, however, disclosed

after the son of Vasudeva attained the age of 3-9 years in the care

of Nand Baba.

Krishna

The Cow Herder.

As stated above the cow occupied a prominent place in ancient Indian

economics (the Divine arrtibutes assigned to it are the reflection of

it's vital importance at that time and it continues to be so in our

present day time). Any one who knows the behavioral pattern of

Antelopes and cow family animals can attest that they are not only

domesticated, but possess instincts to recognize their masters.

Krishna expertised in making them recognize commands of the tune of a

flute. This was the Charisma of Krishna and his flute. The tune

itself might not have been so melodious, yet he could call any

individual cow, command them to folk-in or out, or to go in the left

or right directions, by merely playing some specific tune over the

flute. This is 100% possibility.

The Beloved of Gopis

Since the prime importance of the cow can nor be

overemphasized, therefore, it is implied that all household jobs of

milking, feeding and other indoor care of the cattle is handled by

the housewife, and the other female members of the household. Now

consider the value of a person like Krishna, who could maintain such

intimate contact with the cattle, from the viewpoint of a

female "country-woman" i.e. Gopis. (Another name of Krishna, Gopal,

is noteworthy). Therefore, Gopis are too fond of Krishna; even

indispensable for them.

The Teaser of Gopis

The village had to pay taxes to the King. Like any other

commodity, Milk, and Milk Products, was common exchange. Moreover,

the marketing of milk was common errand for a village woman. Krishna

was an extraordinary boy. He soon commanded love, affection, for his

skills and bravery as well from men and women alike. For womenfolk he

was extra Mathura was not only the nearest market, but also the tax

officers lived there. Dr. S.N.Chaturjya is convinced that Krishna

started sort of `Non-cooperative movement' against the ruler of

Mathura, Kans, his own maternal uncle. He asked the elders not to pay

taxes. At first Vasudeva and other seniors thought it "childish" and

the young Krishna adopted the other course. He, along with his close

friends, started looting the milk and milk products. Sometimes he

would sneak at the home of the surplus owner, but mostly he adopted

the mischievous method of breaking the earthen containers being

carried as head load by Gopis. It is to be noted that incidents like

stealing of clothes of Gopis, Bramha stealing the cows and cowboys,

imagination of a particular Gopi, Radha, are later addition (mostly

for theological purposes) , hence should be considered as fake.

Naga Subjugation

The episode of "Kaliya Mardan' seems true in this context.

Nagas, as said above, lived in the nearby territory of Mathura. They

were neutral to settled agriculturist's statecraft, and were powerful

too. The king of Mathura avoided the conflict and they lived in

mutual truce. Krishna's genius, when he resolved to start "non-

cooperation" with Mathura ruler, played shrewd diplomacy and by any

means he managed to agree the Nagas to favor him in case of a war or

anything against Mathura.

Conclusion

Saga of Krishna as told to us by Puranas should not be taken

true word by word. But all available evidences doubtlessly show that

in the said (in Puranas, specially `Srimadbhagvat') there existed

some man like Krishna, having extra-ordinary qualities in or around

1000 BC to 1500 BC. The linguistic experts have dated the date of

composition of `Srimadbhagvat' as 10th Century AD. Thus, there exists

gap of about 2000 years in the narration and real happening. Bhakti

cult and Sufism thoughts might have induced the creation of Radha and

Raaslila. In any way if the philosophers who say that God dwells in

everywhere and everything with varying degree of consciousness, then

in all human beings He is there in His full glory. In the form of a

person like Krishna He is Himself. Thus, Krishna is God.

[Guest guest]

Here is a small story taken from the Puranas to show why the Guru

must be liberated and free from desires himself, before he can help

the others.

 

There was once a king who loved to listen to stories. He hired a

pundit so he could listen to all the stories. The Pundit told him

Ramayana, Mahabharata, Shiva Puranam, Skanda Puranam, Bhagavatam etc.

He heard the story of Bhagavata, where King Parikshit attained moksha

on listening to the story of Bhagavata from Sage Suka. He wondered as

to why he didn't get Mukti on listening to the same Bhagavata, when

Parikshit could. He asked this question to his pundit. But the pundit

couldn't answer. The King said that he would give the pundit 24 hours

time to think of the answer, failing upon which he'll be beheaded.

 

The pundit was sad, as he knew that he wouldn't be able to tell the

answer the next day, and that left him just one day left to live. He

sat on the bench in his house worrying. His little 9 year old

daughter came up to him and enquired as to why he looked so sad. He

was reluctant to tell his little daughter at first, as she wouldn't

understand, but later relented as she was stubborn in knoing the

reason. When she knew the cause of his anxiety, she exclaimed, ' Oh

that's all? Is this what the king wants to know. This answer is very

simple. I'll go to the court tomorrow and tell the answer to the

king."

 

The pundit had no choice but to relent, as he was sure that his death

was near. The next day, the girl went to the court and met the king

and said that she'll answer him. She put forth his own question to

him to confirm if this is what the question is to which he required

the answer. She asked, " If Parikshit could get moksha at the end of

7 days on listening Bhagavata from Sage Suka, why is it that you did

not get Moksha on listening to the same Bhagavata. Is that right. "

The king nodded in affirmation and the girl said, ' O King, I can

answer your question, but you must agree to do whatever I say now."

The king relented. The girl asked herself to be tied in one pillar

and the king to another. The king ordered his men to do the same.

When the two were tied to pillars, the girl asked everyone to leave

the room. The king ordered so and everyone left the room. Then the

girl turned to the king and said, " O King, please come and untie the

knot and free me from this pillar." The king exclaimed, " Are you

mad? I myself am tied to a pillar. How can I free you when I myself

am tied?"

 

To this the girl replied, " So it is with the guru. Only when you are

free yourself, can you free another person. When you yourself are

bound, you cannot free another. Sage Suka was a realised soul and

free. Hence Parikshit got Moksha, whereas my father has a family and

is bound. How can he free you, when he himself is bound?"

 

------------

 

The moment we have desires we are bound. The more desires we have,

the stronger the fetters that bind us. Only he , who has no desires

is unbound and is free. Only such a one can be a guru.

 

Hari Aum !!!

[Guest guest]

Dear Respected AjitsinghJi:

 

Thank you for asking one of the piercing questions to devotees of

this group. I briefly browsed through some of replies to your post.

As already said it will take more than a lifetime to understand

Krishna as an individual. Thus by default, his millions of Leelas

will certainly take several lifetimes.

 

All of us want quick and direct answers. Answers are all there all

we need to do is find them for ourselves. Whether those answers come

from the group members of this forum or others will depend on the

individual who is trying to understand. Most of the bhaktaas accept

the word from puraNa as being absolute truths (shabda pramaaNa) and

questioning such beliefs one can easily get offended. One tend to

become defencive because it casts the doubt on personal belief.

 

In 20th Century one must look at thing objectily in proper context,

otherise rather then understanding things tend to bocome

misunderstood.

 

Confusion often gets diffused and one becomes profusely confused,

especilly, when one tries to interpret the stories from PuraNaa as

being absolutely true. Things that do not appeal to the current

accepted norms of the society or the personal frame of mind create

anxiety, as expressed by one of the replies to your question on

Krishna.

 

It looks like that there are no Jain followers because they would

have loved your question and tried to take another poke at it. Jains

do not recognize Krishna at all. They have put him in the seventh

naraka, with a qualification that he will become the next tirthankar

after pralaya. Their rational is very simple it was because of

Krishna so much life was lost and thus must suffer.

 

It is said that manuShya kurute tattuH tannashakyam suraasuraiH.

Which means - Even Gods and Daemons cannot accomplish that can be

achieved humans. That is the reason why individual personalities

who contribute beyond the realm of possibilities get a special

recognition from the society. When the contributions exceed the

localized folks and become significant to the much larger groups then

one gets reorganization as a saint. If one goes even above that

level of sainthood, then one gets acceptance as a savior as a

Godhead. Such is the case in point for Lord Krishna. I believe that

his contributions have a far reaching impact and universality and are

ubiquitously applicable.

 

Krishna was born like a human and thus also died like a human. Once

when Krishna was resting under an ashvatha tree. A paaradhi (hunter)

Jara thinking the crossed legs as a deer from a distance shot an

arrow and Krishna is said to have died from that wound.

 

Let us see why Veda Vyasa even wrote mahabhaarata:

 

striishuudradvijabandhuunaa.m trayii na shrutigocaraa . iti

bhaaratamaakhyaana.m kR^iopayaa muninaa kR^itam .. bhaagavata \(1\.4

\.25\.\) ..

 

Meaning: women, shudra (lower caste members of the society), and

Brahmins who are not conversant with the knowledge of shruti's,

mahaabharata was written by Vyasa muni (for their salvation in

mind). This was because these folks were not allowed to learn veda

and shruties. Realizing this deficiency in the system, Vyasa

composed puraNa and taught the samhita to lomaharshaNa (also known as

romaharshaNa), which then were transferred to sauti who then narrated

these puruNa to many saints and bhahmins in NaimisharaNya yaj~na.

 

This is just a preamble to the answer to your question. I would like

to call upon all the Krishna bhaktas on this forum to narrate a story

why they thing Kirshna became the Godhead.

Before we become more philosophical let us look at the lighter side

first.

 

One of such stories is already posted by respected Radhakutir.

Krishna had 16108 wives. They say that Brigham Young one of the

prophets for Morman religion had 37 wives. But he is still no match

with Krishna having 16108 wives. We have enough problems in dealing

with one wife. If someone can maintain 16108 wives happy then he

must be God. I can't think of any other attributes to depict such an

individual.

 

Once Sage Narada (a registered bachelor) asks Krishna that you have

so many wives and I have never been with a women. Why don't you give

one of them to me? Krishna immediately said sure no problem. Just

go to any of my sleeping chambers and if I am not there with the

specific wife then I declare that she is yours for good. Narada

merrily goes from palace to palace but everywhere he went Krishna was

always present. Finally, Narada gives-up.

 

Moral of the story is that God is every where.

 

Rather than making this post too long I would be posting the answer

through a series of postings on Krishna. Finally it is up to you as

an individual to realize and decide for yourself.

 

Regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

[Guest guest]

Sat sri Akaal Dr.yadu and thankyou for your logical reply. I agree

with you that life of great souls, prophets and avtaars can not be

understood easily. But what ever they do must have a sane and

logical explanation. Blind faith in any person without back-up of

logics and rational explanation will lead to Fanatism not bhakti.

 

I do not agree with SVCS when he/she said that Krishna's life is

not to be followed, whereas Rama's life can be followed. This is a

paradox. Since Rama had a clean life we should follow him and not

Krishna, because his bhaktas do not find a logical reasoning to his

deeds ? When both are avtaars of Brahma why one should be followed

and another not ? Only because no one knows here why we should not.

 

Will it not be better to be honest like Tatwa-masi who said she

did not know the reply of my querry ?

 

Had someone said - Yes we can follow the life of Krishna provided

we first take our soul to the heights where Krishna lived - would

have given me more satisfication.

 

Dr. Yadu and other friends, I have another doubt. Charity as we

know, is desireable morally and spiritually. While doing charity,

should we be careful for whom are we doing charity ? I ask this

because my gradmother used to give alms to anyone coming to our doors

even if some of them would use the money to buy alcohol, cigarettes,

or any such thing. I usually asked her that she should not give alms

to those who will misues it, but she always said " I give alms for my

satisfication if the other is not using it for good purpose that is

not my problem" IS IT THE RIGHT VIEW FOR CHARITY ?

 

Is charity not an acknowledgement and assertion of our Ego, and

looking others as inferior to us altogether ?

 

ajit

[Guest guest]

Dear Respected Ajitsingh-Ji:

 

You are two hundred percent correct that one should not have a blind

faith. It is our own duty to evaluate the validity of our own

believes. Thus the responsibility for the application of logic rests

on their individual ability and desire to accomplish this.

 

Krishna's Life is not straightforward as Rama's. Rama is predictable

at all time, but one can not say the same thing about Krishna.

Therefore to understand the attributes one must look at the context

and the possible options by walking in "HIS" specific situation.

This exercise must be carried out at all time otherwise this leads to

confusion beyond the realms of rationality and manifests itself as

blind faith. Folks who go this exercise are known as svaaddhyaauii

and our scriptures respect them almost at the same level as Gods.

Please read aanand-vallii of taittariiya upanishada. (we will

discuss it some other time).

 

Everything one knows can not necessarily be documented in written or

even verbal form. Example: try and explain sweetness of sugar to a

person who has never tasted sugar. Therefore, often people use

abstract expressions or use Guru Vaakya as PramaaNa and hope that

others can possibly relate to it. For bhakta, these deities are

everything and they therefore presume that the other person is at the

same level.

 

When you run into a friend after a long-long time no words can match

the heartfelt hug. No word can express the exact feelings of that

moment to those two individuals experienced. To comprehend what SVCS

and Radhaakutir said in their posts, one needs to be at their

respective levels.

 

Now, let me attempt to answer your question regarding alms with my

limited abilities.

 

Sikh prophets recommend Naama japo, kirata karo and vandal hako. So

your grandmother was following as what he knew from her scriptures by

sharing with whatever she would afford to donate.

 

Once the process of donation is complete then the donor has no

control over what the receiving party does it with the donation,

unless it was stipulated up-front as a contract. Research indicates

that only 10 cents of a dollar actually reaches the cause. If the

object of donation was gaining the satisfaction of having given, then

your grand mother is correct that one should not worry about what

happens to her donation. That would be kind of micro-management of

the donation in her eyes. So she moves on with her life. That means

that she was not attached to her donation.

 

Anyone who gives a donation for getting a recognization that he/she

is such a "great daataa" (givier), then one is actually creating a

attachment to that donation and that is regarded as an inferior

(petite) form of donation (kshudra daana) as per our scriptures.

 

As per our scripture, after giving daana, one is required to give a

daxina to that individual. The reasoning for such is extremely

profound. DaxiNaa after daana implies a special thank you to the

acceptor that thank you for accepting my donation. I may have

something to give but it is up to you to accept it. You can always

refuse to accept it. That is why the phrase "daan-daxiNaa" is

expresses together..

 

Hope this helps answer your question.

 

Regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

 

 

, "sardarajitsingh" <the-hermit@i...>

wrote:

 

>> Dr. Yadu and other friends, I have another doubt.

[Guest guest]

Sat sri akaal praji!!!

 

(Twannu Tatwa-masi hur tatwamasi de wich fark nahin nazar aanda ji?

Tussi zara Dr. Yadu de post saddey file section mein pad lo .. mere

khyal main aapnu samajh aa jayega!!) Please read Dr. Yadu's file on

the term tatwamasi to understand the sandhi of the word and what it

means!

 

I am surely enjoying the various responses of our sadhaks to this

interesting question. Thank you safar_x (post no 5396) for your post

on a historical perspective. From the readings I have done

especially texts by Dr. A. L. Basham, a question is even raised

whether there were in fact two Krishnas, one in the period of

Maharabharata and one in a much earlier period almost 2000 yrs

before that. The problem in trying to reconcile history is the lack

of record keeping that was typical especialy true of the Hindu

culture. A second problem is that of phenomenon that is not

available in our knowledge base today versus what was available in

days of yore!!!

 

Another big problem is understanding Symbolism in Hinduism. On one

hand it adds beauty, character, dimension and makes abstract

concepts available to those who are not ready to assimilate them, on

the other hand it can lead to confusion, and enormous contradictions

if one tries to reconcile it logicaly. But first, what is logic? It

is a process of reasoning based on available information. So what is

illogical to one group of people may be completely logical to

another, or what is logicaly impossible at one point in time may

be "totally obvious and simple" when more information becomes

available.

 

Symbolism has been used profusely in Hinduism to help break down

complex concepts into simple identifiable forms in the language of

the associated period. Lord Ganesha and how he got the elephant

head, Shakti and her numerous hands, the vehicles of the dieties,

Hanumanji as a "monkey-god", Shiva Lingam worship and its

methodology, all looked at from the logic and infomation base of

today appears strange. We have the choice to accept it as they are,

or take up deeper study, and ask (if we aren't shut down!), which

then begins to break down the symbolic meanings into present

contexts. I have seen several different sets of explanations for

same set of symbols, each made by a equally well respected

authority. This goes to show how interpretation depends on the

consciousness of the person.

 

It is interesting that most question the divinity of Lord Krishna

and not so much that of others, and difference is in the "love" play

that HE supposedly indulged in with the gopis. (Lord Shiva is also

supposed to have multiple wives .. though we don't hear much about

it!) Do we actually know what HIS relationship was with the gopis?

We have heard the use of words "flirting, teasing, wives, play,

loving, etc but do any texts say that he had a sexual relationship

with them?

 

We know that devotion, Samadhi, Spiritual ecstasy, Self-realization

and the desire/longing for these cannot be described in words, it

can only be personally experienced and any attempt to describe is

only anapproximation. What then would be the closest approximation to

these feelings to the common human mind? Would it not be the

relationship of a lover and beloved, the longing and their union,

which in human terms would translate to sexual ecstasy? Is it any

wonder that so many devotional poets, have found an outlet to their

feelings in the language of a lover to his/her beloved? Thousands

of "Wives" HE is said to have had .. what is a wife in the

traditional context? Is it not considered the most intimate

relationship in the human mind? To say Krishna had so

many "wives" .. can it not be saying that each self/lover when ready

(given up material attachments), is able to have a complete

relationship with the Self/ Beloved? So when Krishna

was 'found with each gopi at the same time' is it not a logical

human level characterization of each souls potential for Self-

realization?

 

>>"Krishna was married to 16108 wives and He was the father 161080

>>children and grandfather of 1610800 grand children. " post 5394 by

Radha Kutir ji

 

If I am not mistaken are these numbers not part of the set of sacred

numbers?? (I wish I paid more attention to my Guruji when he tells

me these things )

 

It seems to me that the symbolism in this case has been interpreted

at the at the most simplistic level, and that in todays world has

led to a misunderstanding of its true meaning.

 

While I don't have much personal interest in unravelling these

stories, understanding of symbolism is what helped me reconcile

severalpractices which make no sense in todays context, and I don't

usually take things on blind faith. This concept is very simple for

me in my mind. But look at how many words I had to use in my attempt

to explain it? My inefficient use of words may leave it still

unclear!!!!

 

Oh well .. some of my thoughts anyway!!!

 

_/\_Tat twam asi

 

Uma

[Guest guest]

Dear friends,

 

Krishna is the Only Poorna Avatar. AS I heard that even Sri Ram

Chandra is not a Poorna Avatar. I am also interested to know the

details about the Poorna Avatar.

 

Somewhere I read "Krishna was born on 20th of July, 3228 years before

Advent of Christ.It was the year Srimuka, month by the name Sravana,

fortnight by the name Bahyla and the day of Ashtami.Since Krishna was

born on Ashtami, (the eighth day of the lunar month), from the moment

of birth, He was subjected to troubles. But whoever cherished the

name of the Lord in the least, was free from bondage."

 

I shall be glad to know the correct date. As people say that the

KaliYuga started from day Krishna left his physical entity.

 

nathyogin

[Guest guest]

It is indeed a very good question.

 

I would request our respected silentsoul to write on the subject.

[Guest guest]

Yes I would also request Silentsoulji to write if he is still in this

group.

 

chandraprobha

 

, mopenheim <no_reply> wrote:

> It is indeed a very good question.

>

> I would request our respected silentsoul to write on the subject.