What is so great about Krishna

[guliaditya]

 

Even in the spiritual world there are divisions. Above Vaikuntha is Ayodhya. But on the topmost level is Goloka Vrindavana. So you can say both Narayana and Rama are incarnations of Krishna. But then why is Ayodhya above Vaikuntha? Why is Goloka above Ayodhya?

 

As far as bhagvatam is concerned it is not mentioned.From which scripture you have mentioned the above statements????

 

Because Krishna can incarnate as Narayana or Rama, but Narayana and Rama can't incarnate into Krishna. The same thing with Lord Siva. He is just as important an incarnation as Narayana and Rama but he cannot become Lord Krishna. Why can you not see the importance of the Lord's dear devotees? They are sometimes even higher then the Lord.

 

First canto, third chapter deals with the incarnations of Lord Narayana.It is Lord Narayana/Vishnu who incarnates as Krishna ,Ram etc...

Before appearing as Krishna to Devaki & Vasudev, He showed his four armed original swaroop.If Krishna incarnates as Lord Narayana then why he appeared with four arm???

 

Again in bhagvatam, when krishna was about to leave for his personal abode, he appeared in his original form i.e. with four arm.

 

I hope you would have read the above two instances in bhagvatam.If you consider Bhagavatam as supreme authority then it is clear that it is Lord Narayana/Vishnua who incarnates.

 

This are purely my interpretation.

 

Pranaam

[xexon]

The mental image.

 

Because it is the mind that you must control to perceive true reality, you have to give it something to focus on. Something that represents the highest idea of what humanity can aspire to.

 

All deities perform this function to their respective followers.

 

Krishna for many represents this idea. It has the advantage of being one of the oldest ideas of divinity that has survived into the modern day and this explains Krishna's widespread following.

 

Krishna is just a name. A label. But it represents an absolute spiritual truth.

 

 

 

x

[indulekhadasi]

 

 

Yes, for those who are immersed in aishwarya bhava- the mood of awe and reverence Narayana is the all in all and Krishna is his avatara. However Gaudiya Vaishnavas prefer to worship Krishna in madhurya bhava- the mood of pure loving devotional service, and since he is the only one who accepts this type of love we worship him as the Supreme. Narayana does not accept worship in this mood.

 

Whatever I wrote came from the Brihad Bhagavatamrita written by Srila Sanatana Goswami. In actuality it is a narration to King Janamejaya (son of Parikshit) by Sukadeva Goswami. Therefore it is just like the Bhagavatam, being spoken by Vyasadeva's highly exalted son. It is about a cowherd boy Gopa Kumara. When he was brought before Lord Narayana he realized something was not complete- he realized that the mood was not proper to offer love to the Lord as a friend, or as a parent. The relationship was very tight and rigid and too formal. Therefore he didnt hesitate to go to Ayodhya- but he still felt that there was too much reverence involved. He then went to Dwarika, and then Mathura and it was getting better but still there was some lack. Then finally he went to Vrindavan and he was ecstatic to see that no aishwarya bhava was present there.

 

When Lord Chaitanya incarnated, he sometimes also showed forms like Varaha etc. Therefore we can understand that when the Lord wishes to be worshipped in the mood of aishwarya he takes up such a form. Therefore there is definitely importance too the mood of awe and reverence. However we see that Lord Chaitanya was much more engaged in Radha Krishna worship and madhurya bhava.

 

It is obvious that the Lord wanted to show his oppulences to his dear parents, Devaki and Vasudeva. But since they saw that form, the relationship wasn't as sweet. They would be afraid when later on the Lord touched their feet. But we can see Nanda baba wouldn't hesitate to ask Krishna to bring his sandals. And Krishna would take those sandals on his head and give it to his father. And even when Krishna showed all the universes within his mouth, Mother Yashoda continued to believe that she was just dreaming and that Krishna was no more than her little son.

 

These are the points that I was trying to make. But Sri Vaishnavas have a different understanding and that is ok. After all, they are also very great Vaishnavas and I offer my humble obesiances to all of them, including you.

 

indulekhadasi

[guliaditya]

Respected Indulekhadasiji,

 

Thanks for your nice reply.

[LoveroftheBhagavata]

 

However Gaudiya Vaishnavas prefer to worship Krishna in madhurya bhava- the mood of pure loving devotional service, and since he is the only one who accepts this type of love we worship him as the Supreme. Narayana does not accept worship in this mood.

 

 

Sorry Induji, but this is a mistaken conception that is prevalent in the Gaudiya school. If you get the chance to go to Ayodhya, you will see that many sadhus of the Ramananda lineage (a branch of the Sri sampradaya) perform sadhana for Lord Ramachandra in the same rasika manner that you are familiar with, and they have extensive poems and literatures that detail the methodologies that they employ. Likewise, there are people who worship Lord Shiva with amorous feelings in order to obtain Him as their husband. However, in order to have this knowledge, one should refrain from studying Indic dharma with ideologically tainted glasses, and develop a more universal and ecumenical approach to religion.

 

Pranam

[Malati dasi]

Radhe Radhe

 

Lover of the Bhagavat:

Sorry Induji, but this is a mistaken conception that is prevalent in the Gaudiya school. If you get the chance to go to Ayodhya, you will see that many sadhus of the Ramananda lineage (a branch of the Sri sampradaya) perform sadhana for Lord Ramachandra in the same rasika manner that you are familiar with, and they have extensive poems and literatures that detail the methodologies that they employ. Likewise, there are people who worship Lord Shiva with amorous feelings in order to obtain Him as their husband. However, in order to have this knowledge, one should refrain from studying Indic dharma with ideologically tainted glasses, and develop a more universal and ecumenical approach to religion.

 

Hey, Loverof the bhagavat, that maybe so, that the lineages you mentioned practice also in the the same mood of madhura, but does it say anywhere in any sastras, like in Canto 10 of Srimad Bhagavatam where Krishna's rasa lila are described where he enjoys such madhura interactions with His "devotees, that Lord Ramachandra ör Shiva perform rasa lila like Krishna, with any of their "devotees"?

 

I'm not so well read in Indic literature so I would like to know.

Kind regards

 

 

 

[indulekhadasi]

 

Sorry Induji, but this is a mistaken conception that is prevalent in the Gaudiya school. If you get the chance to go to Ayodhya, you will see that many sadhus of the Ramananda lineage (a branch of the Sri sampradaya) perform sadhana for Lord Ramachandra in the same rasika manner that you are familiar with, and they have extensive poems and literatures that detail the methodologies that they employ. Likewise, there are people who worship Lord Shiva with amorous feelings in order to obtain Him as their husband. However, in order to have this knowledge, one should refrain from studying Indic dharma with ideologically tainted glasses, and develop a more universal and ecumenical approach to religion.

 

Pranam

 

I have never said that there is no madhurya bhava in Rama lila. Actually there is a good amount of it. However there is also that tinge of where people accept him as a great king with too much awe and reverence. Gopa Kumara noticed the difference when he went to Ayodhya from Vaikuntha. However I was simply citing the feelings of the young cowherd boy Gopa Kumara in Srila Sanatan Goswamis Brhad Bhagavatamrita. Sanatan Goswami was a Gaudiya Vaishnava and perhaps you may not be able to agree with him on all points. But this was actually spoken by Sukadeva Goswami to King Janamejaya, please keep that in mind.

[LoveroftheBhagavata]

Pranam Malatiji and Induji,

 

Of course, Rama-bhakti and Shiva-upasana are not identical with Krishna-bhakti in every respect. No two deities are revered in exactly the same manner. In Mathura and Dwaraka, some awe and reverence is certainly present in devotion to Lord Krishna, and this is accepted by Bengali Vaishnavas. I know that these Krishnas are considered to be prakashas of Vrindavana Krishna (well, I spent 13 years exploring the lineage of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu), but the point is that Bhakti is a vast, nay, infinite ocean, and the only point where I disagree with you two is the gradational tendency which is inherent in the religion which you follow. I'm pretty certain that not one of us feels as powerfully and as deeply for our respective Lords as Hanumanji or Tulsidasji did. The Gosvamis were certainly transcendentalists par excellence and their very fine theology (even if I no longer take it as THE final say) attests to that. I happen to own the brilliant three-set BBT edition of the Brhad-bhagavatamrta and love the book, even if I do not count myself as a votary on the path that it details.

 

As for Shiva bhaktas, if you were to study the lives and shiksha of the 63 Shaivite saints called the Naayanmaars, to name one category of devotional Shaivas, you would find much in common with the Vaishnava ideal of spiritual love of God. Check out this link http://www.shaivam.org/naayan_f.html if that says anything to you. Of course, have no expectation that what you shall find on that reference is going to be the same as what you're used to. However, in dharma, sameness is not the predominant criterion. It is the supramundane essence that really matters.

[subramanya.pavan]

hi,

 

i am new to this forum , but i know some what as per my knowledge,

Here all people are worrying about lords,

who is lord, shiva r vishnu r krishna r some x...?

lord is only 1 ,

let us take a ex: your father is there, some times he will act like a commander, some times friend, some times like mom , some times like well wisher :depends up on the situation, father playing his role.

like that god is also, depends on the situation , he changed his activites,

 

SHIVAyAH ViSHNU ROOPAYA , VISHNU Roopyah SHvahey,

SHIVASCHYA HRUDYAM VISHNU,VISHNU HRUDAYAM SHIVAHA.

 

Means shiva is nothing but vishnu.

 

Y Defferent Roopas?

ANS: the above example (father).

 

SO GOD IS ONLY ONE but having different roopas,

we only divided it,

THINK MAN , THINK , DONT BE POOR:mad2:

[LoveroftheBhagavata]

 

SHIVAyAH ViSHNU ROOPAYA , VISHNU Roopyah SHvahey,

SHIVASCHYA HRUDYAM VISHNU,VISHNU HRUDAYAM SHIVAHA.

 

Means shiva is nothing but vishnu.

 

Y Defferent Roopas?

ANS: the above example (father).

 

SO GOD IS ONLY ONE but having different roopas,

we only divided it

 

This is exactly the point that I'm trying to drive home. Otherwise, I too am quite displeased by the sectarianism that is all too prevalent on these forums.

[indulekhadasi]

 

Pranam Malatiji and Induji,

 

Of course, Rama-bhakti and Shiva-upasana are not identical with Krishna-bhakti in every respect. No two deities are revered in exactly the same manner. In Mathura and Dwaraka, some awe and reverence is certainly present in devotion to Lord Krishna, and this is accepted by Bengali Vaishnavas. I know that these Krishnas are considered to be prakashas of Vrindavana Krishna (well, I spent 13 years exploring the lineage of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu), but the point is that Bhakti is a vast, nay, infinite ocean, and the only point where I disagree with you two is the gradational tendency which is inherent in the religion which you follow. I'm pretty certain that not one of us feels as powerfully and as deeply for our respective Lords as Hanumanji or Tulsidasji did. The Gosvamis were certainly transcendentalists par excellence and their very fine theology (even if I no longer take it as THE final say) attests to that. I happen to own the brilliant three-set BBT edition of the Brhad-bhagavatamrta and love the book, even if I do not count myself as a votary on the path that it details.

 

As for Shiva bhaktas, if you were to study the lives and shiksha of the 63 Shaivite saints called the Naayanmaars, to name one category of devotional Shaivas, you would find much in common with the Vaishnava ideal of spiritual love of God. Check out this link http://www.shaivam.org/naayan_f.html if that says anything to you. Of course, have no expectation that what you shall find on that reference is going to be the same as what you're used to. However, in dharma, sameness is not the predominant criterion. It is the supramundane essence that really matters.

 

I am really not trying to put other people's faith down. Rupa and Sanatan had a younger brother named Anupama. He was supposed to be a partial incarnation of hanuman. So Rupa and Sanatan were trying to explain to Anupama to try and worship Radha Krishna. So Anupama said he would try to do it the next day. But the next day he came crying to his elder brothers and he said he couldn't do it because if he left his Rama his life would be useless. So Rupa and Sanatan were very happy. You cannot change someone's svarupa. You cannot make Hanuman into a sakhi of Radharani. Everyone has their own svarupa which they are most happy in and it is proper to leave them in the service of their chosen Lord.

[LoveroftheBhagavata]

 

I am really not trying to put other people's faith down. Rupa and Sanatan had a younger brother named Anupama. He was supposed to be a partial incarnation of hanuman. So Rupa and Sanatan were trying to explain to Anupama to try and worship Radha Krishna. So Anupama said he would try to do it the next day. But the next day he came crying to his elder brothers and he said he couldn't do it because if he left his Rama his life would be useless. So Rupa and Sanatan were very happy. You cannot change someone's svarupa. You cannot make Hanuman into a sakhi of Radharani. Everyone has their own svarupa which they are most happy in and it is proper to leave them in the service of their chosen Lord.

 

I was not referring to you in my comment to Subramanya, Indulekhaji. I know you to be a respectful and very civil young lady. Never did I insinuate that you were putting others down. You are right to be as committed on your chosen contemplative path as you are, and by condemning sectarianism, it was mainly some of the folks on "Spiritual Discussions" that I had in mind. In fact, for this reason, I hardly even go to that section now, but remain in the other divisions of Audarya where people are more open-minded.

[indulekhadasi]

 

I was not referring to you in my comment to Subramanya, Indulekhaji. I know you to be a respectful and very civil young lady. Never did I insinuate that you were putting others down. You are right to be as committed on your chosen contemplative path as you are, and by condemning sectarianism, it was mainly some of the folks on "Spiritual Discussions" that I had in mind. In fact, for this reason, I hardly even go to that section now, but remain in the other divisions of Audarya where people are more open-minded.

 

My main point was in the story of Anupam.

You can never change one's own faith or one's own swarupa.

[bhaktajan]

"God" = is the Coolest Guy ever and ever. [Got a problem with that?]

There was a person who spent all his time seeking out the extent of his own prowess.

He found that [actually he knew it instantly] he was unlimited and that there was only one of Him to be found.

He was also the only one with a personality. So he sought out the extent of his potencies and as he did this created the cosmos and thus so many living entities to play with and he's been doing this always.

He is the coolest Bon vivant, indeed he is the standard of coolness and sophistication and grace. He's also so good looking and amiable that everyone falls in love with him.

Sometimes folks ask him permission to leave his company to pursue an independent path [ie: to start his own Rock Band] where they could pretent to be him.

But then this coolest Guy is seen reflected in all things and so the Sojourner sees that wherever he goes he can't escape remembering the "Original Primeval Supreme Coolest Godhead".

And so, the Sojourner, ironically feels cheated so, out of a perverted sense of determination, he tries harder to enjoy independently until he is smashed --thus again he recalls what the good life was like when all he had to do was be part of the coolest's entourage.

Let get on the band wagon and jamb with the coolest--but remember that it takes practice, practice, practice.

ys,

bhaktajan

[sopatel]

 

hi,

 

who is lord, shiva r vishnu r krishna r some x...?

lord is only 1 ,

let us take a ex: your father is there, some times he will act like a commander, some times friend, some times like mom , some times like well wisher :depends up on the situation, father playing his role.

like that god is also, depends on the situation , he changed his activites,

 

SHIVAyAH ViSHNU ROOPAYA , VISHNU Roopyah SHvahey,

SHIVASCHYA HRUDYAM VISHNU,VISHNU HRUDAYAM SHIVAHA.

 

Means shiva is nothing but vishnu.

 

Y Defferent Roopas?

ANS: the above example (father).

 

SO GOD IS ONLY ONE but having different roopas,

we only divided it,

 

this was definitly a point worth noting...once theistji said that in the attempt to explain things to others we sometimes forget the point...which is to discuss the Lord...so thank you for your in sight and please tell us when you feel that we are missing the point.

 

nevertheless, discussion is wonderful and we have some very intelligent and knowledgable people on this forum...so welcome!

 

Jai Shri Krishna

[GODSEED]

 

 

JAY JAY SHREERÄDHÄKRSHNACHAITANYÄY NAMAH

GURU SHREECHAITANYA MAHÄPRABHAVE NAMAH

SHREE NITYÄNANDA PRABHAVE NAMAH

SHREE SHIVASHIVÄY NAMAH

 

 

in Garga Samhitä and in Padma Puräna, Bhagavän ShreeKrshna HIMSELF reveals that anyone who tries to differntiate between HIM and Bhagavän ShreeShankar surely is chasing the darkest region of hell!

 

i dont think it should be very difficult for the shuddha bhaktas of Bhagavän ShreeChaitnaya Mahäprabhujee to understand how ShreeBhagavän cannot act like a Devotee.

 

Moreover, look at the feat of Bhagavän ShreeShiva, what has HE not become just to serve the LORD...

 

>in the Däsya-bhäva, He comes as LORD Hanumänjee Mahäräja, and as Muräri Guptajee.

>In Vätsalya-bhäva, He comes as LORD Advaita Ächäryajee (ShreeChaitanya Bhägavat 3.4.466),

>and in Mädhürya-Bhäva, HE comes as ShreeShiväni Gopee (Shreemad Bhägavatam)

 

i know i'm committing a great offence, not of Bhagavän ShreeKrshna but that of ShreeShiva.

 

i hope things are better understood.

 

Shreel Bhaktisiddhänt Sarasvateejee says in a purport of Brahma-samhitä 5.45 that, 'Lord Shankar is not a separate Godhead', now this clearly means that HE is Godhead, other wise where was any necessity of writing such a line?

 

i hope i'm not confusing any reader, or else, i'm in a great danger...

 

and as Jagadguru ShreeKripälujee Mahäräja teaches, there are not too many sweet Leeläs revealed by ShreeRäma and ShreeShiva Rüpas, as compared to THE LEELÄ PURUSHOTTAM BHAGAVÄN SHREEKRSHNA!

 

but one thing that should never be simultaneously forgotten is that Bhagavän ShreeKrshna's is the ÄdiRüpa, the Original Rüpa, where as the same Bhagavän takes another (apparently different Rüpa), for different principle functions.

 

 

 

 

JAY SHREEGAURANITÄII

 

[GODSEED]

 

 

SHREERÄDHÄKRSHNACHAITANYÄY NAMAH

SHREECHAITANYA MAHÄPRABHAVE NAMAH

SHREENITYÄNANDA PRABHAVE NAMAH

SHREESHIVASHIVÄY NAMAH

 

 

 

 

For me, Shirdi Sai and Krishna are the same. We are all one with the Brahma, though our ego and ignorance prevents this perception. The great veil of Maya often tricks us into thinking of ourselves as separate from God and that is always the path of ignorance and leads us into ruin.

 

Arjun

 

i'm sorry to tell u but this is a misconception that Sai bäbä is ShreeKrshna Bhagavän.

 

We may be Brahma but under mäyä, our consciousness is perverted.

 

ShreeKrshna is not just Brahma, HE is ParaBrahma, transcendental to even Brahma, our selfishness always tricks us to thinking that we could be God. God never feels hunger, thirst, desires, dreams, etc., and we know how good we are at all those...

 

Shreel Prabhupädajee often defied such bogus claims by saying that whosoever claims to be the Bhagavän must pass at least two tests...

 

>first to show the Vishva Rüpa, the one ShreeKrshna showed to ShreeArjuna (HE also empowered his eyes to be able to see HIS divine Viräta Svarüpa) and ShreeChaitanya Mahäprabhujee showed it to ShreeAdvaita Ächäryajee

 

>and second, to show all the divine marks in the soles of HIS LotusFeet and palms of His LotusHands.

 

the pure Vaishnavas dont accept anyone as ShreeKrshna's avatars unless they're clearly revealed in the Vedas.

 

i'm sorry, but u are offending Vaishnavas by calling Sai baba, Bhagavän ShreeKrshna.

 

pls. dont do that.

 

 

 

JAY JAY SHREENITÄIIGAURA

 

[indulekhadasi]

 

 

SHREERÄDHÄKRSHNACHAITANYÄY NAMAH

 

SHREECHAITANYA MAHÄPRABHAVE NAMAH

SHREENITYÄNANDA PRABHAVE NAMAH

SHREESHIVASHIVÄY NAMAH

 

 

 

 

 

i'm sorry to tell u but this is a misconception that Sai bäbä is ShreeKrshna Bhagavän.

 

We may be Brahma but under mäyä, our consciousness is perverted.

 

ShreeKrshna is not just Brahma, HE is ParaBrahma, transcendental to even Brahma, our selfishness always tricks us to thinking that we could be God. God never feels hunger, thirst, desires, dreams, etc., and we know how good we are at all those...

 

Shreel Prabhupädajee often defied such bogus claims by saying that whosoever claims to be the Bhagavän must pass at least two tests...

 

>first to show the Vishva Rüpa, the one ShreeKrshna showed to ShreeArjuna (HE also empowered his eyes to be able to see HIS divine Viräta Svarüpa) and ShreeChaitanya Mahäprabhujee showed it to ShreeAdvaita Ächäryajee

 

>and second, to show all the divine marks in the soles of HIS LotusFeet and palms of His LotusHands.

 

the pure Vaishnavas dont accept anyone as ShreeKrshna's avatars unless they're clearly revealed in the Vedas.

 

i'm sorry, but u are offending Vaishnavas by calling Sai baba, Bhagavän ShreeKrshna.

 

pls. dont do that.

 

 

 

 

JAY JAY SHREENITÄIIGAURA

 

 

Yes, Sai Baba is no more than a yogi, and he is claiming to be the Supreme. But this is Kali yuga where there are not only cheaters but also people who want to be cheated. Oh, Nitai! Please give intelligence to these souls. Bring them under the shade of Your lotus feet- nitai pada kamala koti chandra susitala. People like me are burning in the samsara davanala- the fire of samsara. The shade of Your lotus feet are as cooling as millions of moons- koti chandra susitala. Please relieve our suffering due to our engagement in samsara and place us under the shade of Your lotus feet.

[xexon]

No more than a yogi?

 

Being a yogi is not a trivial thing. Its certainly hard to explain to others who are not.

 

Its better than being wealthy, or a leader of a country, or a TV preacher prying money out of the hands of those who can least afford it.

 

If you're burning, why not stay in the shade of those lotus feet?

 

Why leave?

 

 

x

[LoveroftheBhagavata]

Induji and xexon,

 

You are both correct if looked at from differing viewpoints, and whilst being a yogi is no small achievement, Sai Baba definitely goes over the top when he allows his gullible followers to place him on the same pedestal as God. As such, I can only endorse Indulekha's position slightly more. The greatest impersonalist of twentieth-century India, Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi, is worshipped by his disciples as a Guru and Jivan-mukta, never sAkshAd Brahma.

[Amlesh]

I really don't know from where to start. When i'm trying to construct words to describe the Supreme, I'm feeling helpless. Maybe it's due to my ignorance...

 

Anyways, a secret remains a secret, only Hari knows who can comprehend it and He Himself takes charge to reveal it.

 

Don't put us in difficulty by asking such difficult questions.

 

Thanks...

[GODSEED]

 

 

SHREERÄDHÄKRSHNACHAITANYÄY NAMAH

SHREECHAITANYA MAHÄPRABHAVE NAMAH

SHREENITYÄNANDA PRABHAVE NAMAH

SHREESHIVASHIVÄY NAMAH

JAY JAY SHREE BHAKTA VRUNDA...

 

 

 

bing a yogi is not a trivial thing. Its certainly hard to explain to others who are not.

 

 

yogees are from just another cast of athiesm, they're non-devotees, as they dont accept the innocent service to the Supreme and take to rebellious way to find eight psychic amusemnts to please gullible and greedy crowd.

 

and these eight so called siddhis are achieved by that selfish yogee only by the Supremed Grace of the Unassuming Näräyana!

 

whether it is sampragnyät or asampragnyät samädhi, or tureeya or tureeyäteeta, these bogus mental status is gotten by the Grace of that Supreme Näräyana only, but the ingratiate and thankless yogee, engrossed in revelling in those eight siddhis, never realized that Causeless Kripä!

 

as Revealed by ShreeChaitanya Mahäprabhujee, it might be better, from a nondevotee's point of view to be a yogee, but to a shuddha Vaishnava, anything else than pure devotional service is worse than hellish planets, even if it is awarded one of five liberations. Moreover, the Bhaktas, simply kick the impersonal liberation and refrain from other four Vaikuntha muktis, as they take away from them, the opportunity to Serve Their Beloved Master, ShreeKRSHNA.

 

Rämasukha däsajee has said, that a yogee, who, shoots out its präna from the Brahma-randra and gives up its body, is certainly committing a sätvic ätma-hatyä!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mahäprabhujee only knows what sai baba was, but certainly, NONE...NONE except SHREEKRSHNA is or could be BHAGAVÄN.

 

 

 

SHREENITÄIIGAURAPREMÄNANDE...SHREEGAURAHARIBOL

 

[indulekhadasi]

 

No more than a yogi?

 

Being a yogi is not a trivial thing. Its certainly hard to explain to others who are not.

 

Its better than being wealthy, or a leader of a country, or a TV preacher prying money out of the hands of those who can least afford it.

 

If you're burning, why not stay in the shade of those lotus feet?

 

Why leave?

 

 

x

 

Yes, it may be nice to be a yogi, but a yogi cannot claim to be Krishna. That is a great offense. There is a great difference between yogis and the Supreme Lord. Unless one is a bhakti yogi then what is the use? By having some mystic powers one cannot go back to Krishna.

[Gaurahari das]

In the class I gave today this very same question was asked by a lady visting many hindu temples. The essence of the answer was that only by chanting sincerely the Mahamantra can the secrete of Krishna's internal energy be unlocked and gradually realized. Otherwise these things remain a mystery and Krishna appears hidden and appears to us like a ordinary person or worse. So please chant congregationally the Hare Krishna Maha Mantra to open your divine vision and apreciation of trancendental subject matters

[indulekhadasi]

Thanks, Gaurahari prabhuji.

Yes, despite this being a common and simple question it is very esoteric- believe it or not.