the highest morality

[Guest guest]

Some may protest that Krsna incited Arjuna to fight, which is immoral, but

the reality of the situation is clearly stated: Bhagavad-gita is the supreme

instruction in morality. The supreme instruction of morality is stated in

the Ninth Chapter, in the thirty-fourth verse: man-mana bhava mad-bhaktah.

One must become a devotee of Krsna, and the essence of all religion is to

surrender unto Krsna (sarva-dharman parityajya mam ekam saranam vraja). The

instructions of Bhagavad-gita constitute the supreme process of religion and

of morality.

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Bg 18.78

[Guest guest]

achintya, "Bhakti Vikasa Swami"

<Bhakti.Vikasa.Swami@p...> wrote:

> Some may protest that Krsna incited Arjuna to fight, which is

immoral,

 

It seems like there are so many "immoral" situations in which Lord

Krishna or His family members find themselves. If one wanted to do a

character assasination on Lord Krishna, it would not be hard to pull

things from the Bhaagavatam out of context.

 

Everyone knows about the raasa-liila (dancing with other men's wives)

for example. But His Mathura- and Dvaaraka-liila are full of even

more "juicy" activites. For example:

 

His intimate dealings with Trivakraa, the hunchback woman.

 

His killing of the elephant Kuvalyaapiida, even though the elephant

was simply being goaded on by its trainer (what would the PETA crowd

think?)

 

His abandonment of the gopiikas who dedicated their lives to Him.

 

Akruuraa and Kritavarmaa, both close associates of the Lord, incited

Shatadhanvaa to murder one of Krishna's fathers-in-law (Satraajit)

and steal his Syamantaka jewel.

 

Lord Balaraama killed Rukmii simply because the latter cheated Him in

a game of dice. Not only that, but He proceeded to kill all the other

kings present who laughed at Him.

 

Krishna killed Paundraka for trying to imitate Him, and made his

wives into widows.

 

Krishna, via His Sudarshana Chakra, burned the city of Vaaranaasi to

the ground because of the attempt by Paundraka's son to destroy

Dwaaraka.

 

Krishna's son Saamba stole Duryodhana's daughter Lakshmanaa in the

raakshasa style of marriage - he was apprehended but the Kauravas

were forced to release him and allow the marriage due to Balaraama's

anger with them.

---

 

And the list goes on and on. How many here feel a twinge of

resentment or embarassment upon hearing our worshipable Lord, the

Supreme Personality of Godhead, being involved in such activites? Are

they not against the standard of dharma? Perhaps we made a mistake

surrendering to Him, eh?

 

But on the other hand, why should such things upset anyone? If it is

all mythology anyway, then there is no reason to get upset that

Krishna did so many "immoral things." After all, if it is all false,

then the wrongdoings are false. It makes no sense to label it all as

mythology while simultaneously criticizing a Krishna who never

existed for doing things which never happened.

 

And if we accept that these things are real, then still one wonders

why they should upset us. Is He not, the Supreme Personality of

Godhead, who can do whatever He wants to whomever He wants, whenever

He wants? Isn't the sickness really in us, for getting upset that He

can enjoy in so many ways while we are punished by the laws of karma

for doing anything similar?

 

In other words, is it not a fact that our resentment of

these "immoral" activites of Krishna, has less to do with our

concerns about the immorality, and more to do with our being just

frankly envious of Him?

 

This is the feeling I get when I hear of people criticizing Krishna

(for example) for having 16,108 wives. But these same individuals

would themselves love to have multiple wives. Krishna's pastimes seem

to hammer home this point - that He is indeed the supreme enjoyer,

and yet in spite of this He is completely detached. Yet we try to

enjoy just a little bit, and we become bound by the laws of karma and

fall down.

 

One cannot help but laugh at the hypocrisy. We criticize Krishna's

enjoyment, yet we try to enjoy like Him. But we fall down while

Krishna remains ever transcendental.

 

Bhaagavatam 10.60 is a nice chapter to read. Perhaps realizing all of

this, Krishna criticizes Himself and urges Rukminii to take another

husband instead of Him. Rukminii on the other hand, responds with

some powerful philosophy that defeats all of these mundane

criticisms. A nice perspective to get for those who seem more

interested in absorbing themselves with the Lord's alleged "vices."

 

yours,

 

K

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna,

 

 

And if we accept that these things are real, then still one wonders why they

should upset us. Is He not, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who can do

whatever He wants to whomever He wants, whenever He wants? Isn't the sickness

really in us, for getting upset that He

can enjoy in so many ways while we are punished by the laws of karma for doing

anything similar?

 

>>>It does matter, because these actions of the Lord contradict what He Himself

says in the Gita about Him following prescribed duties, thus setting an example

and not confusing the living entities,

 

BG 3.22: O son of Pr#803;th#257;, there is no work prescribed for Me within all

the three planetary systems. Nor am I in want of anything, nor have I a need to

obtain anything — and yet I am engaged in prescribed duties.

 

BG 3.23: For if I ever failed to engage in carefully performing prescribed

duties, O P#257;rtha, certainly all men would follow My path.

 

BG 3.24: If I did not perform prescribed duties, all these worlds would be put

to ruination. I would be the cause of creating unwanted population, and I would

thereby destroy the peace of all living beings.

 

BG 3.25: As the ignorant perform their duties with attachment to results, the

learned may similarly act, but without attachment, for the sake of leading

people on the right path.

 

The activities that you have mentioned, can they be called prescribed duties,

according to the definition of the Lord Himself? No, certainly not. And, they do

confuse the living entities - here, I'm talking about those sincere souls who

sincerely wish to understand the activities of the Supreme Lord and try to

reconcile the contradictions - not the envious kind that you have laughed at.

So, the explanation that you have provided, IMHO is simplistic and does not

really provide any answers. There are two possibilities: either the stories are

interpolated or there is a completely different reasoning behind these

activities, which the Lord may choose to reveal based on our degree of

surrender.

 

 

In other words, is it not a fact that our resentment of

these "immoral" activites of Krishna, has less to do with our concerns about the

immorality, and more to do with our being just frankly envious of Him?

 

>>> Not necessary - one need not be envious, but still be confused. The Lord

Himself directs us to *understand* His activities to escape birth and death.

 

Pls correct me if my understanding is wrong!

 

in your service,

 

Aravind.

 

 

 

 

Aravind Mohanram

Ph.D. Candidate

Dept. of Mat Sci and Engg.,

Penn State University,

University Park, PA 16801

www.personal.psu.edu/aum105

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New and Improved Mail - Send 10MB messages!

 

 

[Guest guest]

One very important point in all of this for the bhakta is to remember that

whatever Krsna does is out of compassion and love for the living being: those

killed on the battlefield are actually awarded liberation. Whether one is loved,

cheated or bewildered by Krsna or even (apparently) hated receives the highest

benefits from His association. Therefore, there is only affection and the

ultimate possible benefit in any dealing with Krsna.

 

RV

-

krishna_susarla

achintya

Saturday, August 14, 2004 11:21 AM

Re: the highest morality

 

 

achintya, "Bhakti Vikasa Swami"

<Bhakti.Vikasa.Swami@p...> wrote:

> Some may protest that Krsna incited Arjuna to fight, which is

immoral,

 

It seems like there are so many "immoral" situations in which Lord

Krishna or His family members find themselves. If one wanted to do a

character assasination on Lord Krishna, it would not be hard to pull

things from the Bhaagavatam out of context.

 

Everyone knows about the raasa-liila (dancing with other men's wives)

for example. But His Mathura- and Dvaaraka-liila are full of even

more "juicy" activites. For example:

 

His intimate dealings with Trivakraa, the hunchback woman.

 

His killing of the elephant Kuvalyaapiida, even though the elephant

was simply being goaded on by its trainer (what would the PETA crowd

think?)

 

His abandonment of the gopiikas who dedicated their lives to Him.

 

Akruuraa and Kritavarmaa, both close associates of the Lord, incited

Shatadhanvaa to murder one of Krishna's fathers-in-law (Satraajit)

and steal his Syamantaka jewel.

 

Lord Balaraama killed Rukmii simply because the latter cheated Him in

a game of dice. Not only that, but He proceeded to kill all the other

kings present who laughed at Him.

 

Krishna killed Paundraka for trying to imitate Him, and made his

wives into widows.

 

Krishna, via His Sudarshana Chakra, burned the city of Vaaranaasi to

the ground because of the attempt by Paundraka's son to destroy

Dwaaraka.

 

Krishna's son Saamba stole Duryodhana's daughter Lakshmanaa in the

raakshasa style of marriage - he was apprehended but the Kauravas

were forced to release him and allow the marriage due to Balaraama's

anger with them.

---

 

And the list goes on and on. How many here feel a twinge of

resentment or embarassment upon hearing our worshipable Lord, the

Supreme Personality of Godhead, being involved in such activites? Are

they not against the standard of dharma? Perhaps we made a mistake

surrendering to Him, eh?

 

But on the other hand, why should such things upset anyone? If it is

all mythology anyway, then there is no reason to get upset that

Krishna did so many "immoral things." After all, if it is all false,

then the wrongdoings are false. It makes no sense to label it all as

mythology while simultaneously criticizing a Krishna who never

existed for doing things which never happened.

 

And if we accept that these things are real, then still one wonders

why they should upset us. Is He not, the Supreme Personality of

Godhead, who can do whatever He wants to whomever He wants, whenever

He wants? Isn't the sickness really in us, for getting upset that He

can enjoy in so many ways while we are punished by the laws of karma

for doing anything similar?

 

In other words, is it not a fact that our resentment of

these "immoral" activites of Krishna, has less to do with our

concerns about the immorality, and more to do with our being just

frankly envious of Him?

 

This is the feeling I get when I hear of people criticizing Krishna

(for example) for having 16,108 wives. But these same individuals

would themselves love to have multiple wives. Krishna's pastimes seem

to hammer home this point - that He is indeed the supreme enjoyer,

and yet in spite of this He is completely detached. Yet we try to

enjoy just a little bit, and we become bound by the laws of karma and

fall down.

 

One cannot help but laugh at the hypocrisy. We criticize Krishna's

enjoyment, yet we try to enjoy like Him. But we fall down while

Krishna remains ever transcendental.

 

Bhaagavatam 10.60 is a nice chapter to read. Perhaps realizing all of

this, Krishna criticizes Himself and urges Rukminii to take another

husband instead of Him. Rukminii on the other hand, responds with

some powerful philosophy that defeats all of these mundane

criticisms. A nice perspective to get for those who seem more

interested in absorbing themselves with the Lord's alleged "vices."

 

yours,

 

K

 

 

 

 

 

Achintya Homepage: achintya

 

DISCLAIMER: All postings appearing on Achintya are the property of their

authors, and they may not be cross-posted to other forums without prior approval

by said authors. Views expressed in Achintya postings are those of their authors

only, and are not necessarily endorsed by the moderator or spiritual leaders of

the Gaudiiya school.

 

 

achintya/

 

b..

achintya

 

c..