Why Krishna Only?

[sandrajenkins]

Isn't Krishna one of the gods in the vedic pantheon> Why do some people advocate exclusive worship to him, and ignore other gods? my firstpost here, so I am a little confused. thanks.

[eshwaar101]

Isn't Krishna one of the gods in the vedic pantheon> Why do some people advocate exclusive worship to him, and ignore other gods? my firstpost here, so I am a little confused. thanks.

well it is understood tha shree krishna is the supreme peronality god head.....he is the most personal form of the lord.....it is also undertood that lord vishnu is also an expansion of shree krishna....in the gita it says that foolish people worship the devas...only intelligent men worship me exclusively.....worshippers of the devas only want material benifit......people who worship me will attain liberation

[kimfelix]

Krishna is not one of the Vedic pantheon. He is not mentioned at all in the Veda. The worship of Krishna represents one of the strands of Hindu monotheism. Although it has a very different external form, the Vaishnava theology is very similar in many ways to Christian ideas of monotheism. Perhaps the main difference lies in the intensity of the love for Krishna that is advocated and in the idea that the world is a part of God and not just his creation.

[Dark Warrior]

 

Krishna is not one of the Vedic pantheon. He is not mentioned at all in the Veda. The worship of Krishna represents one of the strands of Hindu monotheism. Although it has a very different external form, the Vaishnava theology is very similar in many ways to Christian ideas of monotheism. Perhaps the main difference lies in the intensity of the love for Krishna that is advocated and in the idea that the world is a part of God and not just his creation.

 

It would be appreciated if you could keep your ignorance to yourself. Thx.

 

Krishna is the Supreme Lord, above all Devas. He is that Brahman, as described by the Vedas.

 

The reason why the Vedas do not describe the Lord's avatars is because the sastras are divided into many sections based on function - The function of the Vedas is to describe who Brahman is (Vishnu-Narayana) and the different Devas, along with propitiatory hymns. The function of Upanishads is to describe Brahman's relation to Atman and creation. The functions of Smriti are to highlight the lilas of the Lord.

 

In any case, the myth that Krishna is not a 'Vedic God' is blown away by the Mahanarayana Upanishad (part of the canonical Upanishads) which says:

 

"Brahmanyo Devaki Putro Brahmanyo Madhusoodhanaha".

 

Krishna avatara takes place every Yuga, in which He is born as the Son of Devaki and the Slayer of Madhu everytime.

 

The reason why Veda befuddle people is because they are unlike man-made scriptures which say, 'There is a God. Worship Him'. Sri Hari deludes some people based on Karma, and He requires people to approach Him by an intelligent perusal of the sastras.

 

And I am not going to address the ridiculous Christianity-Vaishnavism comparsion. Its been done to death.

[LoveroftheBhagavata]

The Narayana Upanishad, like most Vaishnava-oriented Upanishads, is a relatively recent creation, and was developed with very evident sectarian concerns in mind. Just grab any academic work on the matter, and this should be plain to you. The Gopala-tapani, for instance, is a mere 700 years old, approximately. Kimfelix is right, Vaishnavism is akin to Christianity and even Islam in many respects, and a fair amount of scholarly work has been conducted on that. You may want to check what the experts have to say on all this.

[LoveroftheBhagavata]

The Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas and other categories of scriptures definitely do not pertain to the same epoch of history, and were not addressed to the same persons and time periods. For this reason, their particular contents are widely at variance, and the Vaishnava tendency to syncretise it all into one artificially cohesive whole is wrong, it is as simple as that. Again, much scholastic work exists to support this view. Nevertheless, having seen the bellicose belligerence with which you defend your touchingly pious beliefs, I am confident that you shall dismiss the opinions of the academicians and stick to your believer's myths. Suit yourself, my friend.

[Dark Warrior]

 

The Narayana Upanishad, like most Vaishnava-oriented Upanishads, is a relatively recent creation, and was developed with very evident sectarian concerns in mind. Just grab any academic work on the matter, and this should be plain to you. The Gopala-tapani, for instance, is a mere 700 years old, approximately. Kimfelix is right, Vaishnavism is akin to Christianity and even Islam in many respects, and a fair amount of scholarly work has been conducted on that. You may want to check what the experts have to say on all this.

 

Your ignorance is remarkable. You have quoted so much nonsense already about Hari's supremacy not being provable in the Vedas, and that Krishna was 'cremated', with Rukmini commiting 'Sati', that I do not know why I waste my energy trying to answer you.

 

First check what Vaishnavas have to say about this. Idiotic scholars who couldn't even comprehend Gita properly cannot compare this.

 

NarayanaUpanishad is part of Tattiriya Upanishad. It is called as an 'Upanishad' unto itself because it contains the famed Narayana Suktam.

 

Only two sections of the taittirIya are commented upon by Sri Sankaracharya, but he and his school also refer to the third section. This section contains many mantras used primarily for ritual, so it is known as 'yAjnikI', pertaining to the yajna. There are also many philosophical portions, including the famed 'nArAyaNa sUkta', the jnAna-yajna, and the second anuvAka of the purusha-sUkta. Consequently, this section, also known as the mahAnArAyaNa upanishad, is also of significance, and is sometimes reckoned a separate upanishad by itself.

 

So tell me, which school does not accept the portion of the Upanishads containing the Narayana Suktam? Sri Ramanujar and Sri Madhvar have quoted this portion.

 

I don't accept Gopala Tapani either. That is why I did not mention it.

 

As for Christianity, except for its devotion, it lacks everything that is needed for moksha - Knowledge of God, Knowledge of Soul, Acharya Bhakti, Significance of OM, Different Brahma Vidyas, etc. Just because the word 'Surrender' and 'Devotion' occur in a religion does not make it authentic.

 

OK, chew on this. Just because of linguistic differences, the Vedas and Upanishads are found to belong to different time periods. But amazingly, their philosophies mesh together.

 

Which view is then correct - The view that says that all texts can be unified, or the view that says that all texts are contradictory, based on superficial evidence? We have managed to unify all texts. Upanishads themselves say that Ithihasas and Puranas are Panchama Veda, and this is proven by their (Ithihasas and Puranas) deep meanings.

 

You don't even have the jnana to understand how Hari's supremacy is proven and now you come talking about scholarly census. First learn to stop quoting useless texts like ganguli's (which you did in that cremation thread).

[Dark Warrior]

I think a clarification on Upanishads is needed:

 

Of the hundreds of texts today bearing the name 'upanishad', only a

handful are universally accepted by orthodox Vedantins. The principal

Upanishads can be roughly identified by analyzing their style and

investigating whether there are any references to them in early

literature. The Brahma-Sutras, the aphorisms whose purpose is to

codify the philosophy of the Upanishads, refer to nine or ten of these

texts according to the earliest commentators. We also have a 'muktaka'

(stray) sloka which refers to 10 of these Upanishads as being the

most important. They are, in order of their mention:

 

(1) ISa

(2) kena

(3) kaTha

(4) praSna

(5) muNDaka

(6) mANdUkya

(7) aitareya

(8) taittirIya

(9) bRhadAraNyaka

(10) chAndogya

 

Of these ten, together known as 'daSopanishad', the mANDUkya receives no mention

in the Brahma-Sutras.

 

Sri Adi Sankaracharya commented on these ten and no other.

A commentary on the SvetASvatara upanishad is sometimes attributed

to him, but quite clearly it is a work by a later, inferior writer.

 

In addition to these ten, a few others are referred to by the early

commentators and are considered ancient and consequently are accepted by

all Vedantins. They are:

 

(11) SvetASvatara

(12) kauSItaki

(13) maitrAyaNIya or maitrI

 

Only two sections of the taittirIya are commented upon by Sri Sankaracharya,

but he and his school also refer to the third section. This section

contains many mantras used primarily for ritual, so it is known as 'yAjnikI',

pertaining to the yajna. There are also many philosophical portions, including

the famed 'nArAyaNa sUkta', the jnAna-yajna, and the second anuvAka of the

purusha-sUkta. Consequently, this section, also known as the mahAnArAyaNa

upanishad, is also of significance, and is sometimes reckoned a separate

upanishad by itself:

 

(14) mahAnArAyaNa

 

There is also the subAla upanishad, which, while not directly referred

to by Sri Sankaracharya, is hinted at in his commentary on the brhadAraNyaka

upanishad (maitreyi brAhmaNa) and which is mentioned by his immediate

disciple Suresvara. The subAla is of fundamental importance to Sri Ramanuja

so we also include it here:

 

(15) subAla

 

While the ancient commentators may mention a few other Upanishads here

and there, by and large, the 15 above are the fundamental ones and are

acknowledged as being the true sourcebooks of Vedanta.

[sandrajenkins]

 

The Narayana Upanishad, like most Vaishnava-oriented Upanishads, is a relatively recent creation, and was developed with very evident sectarian concerns in mind. Just grab any academic work on the matter, and this should be plain to you. The Gopala-tapani, for instance, is a mere 700 years old, approximately. Kimfelix is right, Vaishnavism is akin to Christianity and even Islam in many respects, and a fair amount of scholarly work has been conducted on that. You may want to check what the experts have to say on all this.

 

Thanks for a different perspective on this. But are you saying V evolved out of semitic religions? Is there any proof for this in history, like meetings between the teachers of both schools?

[LoveroftheBhagavata]

The Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas and other categories of scriptures definitely do not pertain to the same epoch of history, and were not addressed to the same persons and time periods. For this reason, their particular contents are widely at variance, and the Vaishnava tendency to syncretise it all into one artificially cohesive whole is wrong, it is as simple as that. Again, much scholastic work exists to support this view. Nevertheless, having seen the bellicose belligerence with which you defend your touchingly pious beliefs, I am confident that you shall dismiss the opinions of the academicians and stick to your believer's myths. Suit yourself, my friend.

[LoveroftheBhagavata]

 

Nevertheless, having seen the bellicose belligerence with which you defend your touchingly pious beliefs, I am confident that you shall dismiss the opinions of the academicians and stick to your believer's myths. Suit yourself, my friend.[/QUOTE]

 

This merits reposting, in my opinion. You're a Vaishnava Nazi, Dark Warrior, unfit to hold discourse in public. Go back to your temples.

[LoveroftheBhagavata]

 

Your ignorance is remarkable. You have quoted so much nonsense already about Hari's supremacy not being provable in the Vedas, and that Krishna was 'cremated', with Rukmini commiting 'Sati', that I do not know why I waste my energy trying to answer you.

 

 

I'd be willing to have our IQs compared anyday, Govi. Tell me when and where, and we'll arrange that. I'm all game.

[Dark Warrior]

 

The Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas and other categories of scriptures definitely do not pertain to the same epoch of history, and were not addressed to the same persons and time periods. For this reason, their particular contents are widely at variance, and the Vaishnava tendency to syncretise it all into one artificially cohesive whole is wrong, it is as simple as that. Again, much scholastic work exists to support this view. Nevertheless, having seen the bellicose belligerence with which you defend your touchingly pious beliefs, I am confident that you shall dismiss the opinions of the academicians and stick to your believer's myths. Suit yourself, my friend.

 

'Pious Beliefs'?

 

First, you haven't been able to answer my questions. Then you simply parrot out the same idiocy you have been spreading all over the forums.

 

Let me show you a few examples of your scholars' expertise:

 

1) Max Muller, the famous indologist, is unable to interpret Paramahamsa properly. He calls it a 'Great Swan'.

 

2) A.L. Basham, who thinks the Gita is a work of 3 persons, says that is so because of one line which says 'The Self is the highest realisation', which negates any conception of God as being higher than the Self. But the fool is unable to realise the concept of Kaivalya, ie, blissful enjoyment of the Self. Thus, there are no contradictions.

 

3) Brahma Sutras are dated to be post buddhistic because they refer to Buddhism and Jainism. But this is negated by the fact that Sutras can be interpreted in such a way that they do not refer to Buddhism and Jainism at all.

 

4) Puranas are considered to have emerged in the 1st Century AD. But the Upanishads, as well as the Vedas make many references to Puranas and Ithihasas.

 

Your 'scholars' are just like you...dimwitted.

 

 

 

I'd be willing to have our IQs compared anyday, Govi. Tell me when and where, and we'll arrange that. I'm all game.

 

OK, how about now? Try to bring your pathetic refutations.

[LoveroftheBhagavata]

 

But amazingly, their philosophies mesh together.

 

 

One more Vishnu-centred fairy tale. To any reasonably intelligent observer, there is little in between the different groupings of texts that matches. Only religious fundamentalists try to find loose ends to tie together within the broad array of scriptures. Then again, arguing with a Vaishnava is akin to trying to get a jackass to eat jam. I give up. You have the last word, Dark Warrior.

 

 

Thanks for a different perspective on this. But are you saying V evolved out of semitic religions? Is there any proof for this in history, like meetings between the teachers of both schools?

 

No, that is not what I am saying. However, the similarities between the stories of Christ and Krishna are way too striking to be coincidental. Theologically as well, numerous correspondences have been found. This is a very wide theme, though, and I just do not have the time or patience to deal with this here.

[LoveroftheBhagavata]

 

3) Brahma Sutras are dated to be post buddhistic because they refer to Buddhism and Jainism. But this is negated by the fact that Sutras can be interpreted in such a way that they do not refer to Buddhism and Jainism at all.

 

4) Puranas are considered to have emerged in the 1st Century AD. But the Upanishads, as well as the Vedas make many references to Puranas and Ithihasas.

 

Just more myths, and blind faith. Have you heard of something called interpolation? And sorry, time is too precious to be frittered in conversation with a pea-brained nincompoop such as you. I've got far too many more urgent tasks to attend to. What is your IQ by the way?

 

Just lastly, try responding to my question on the Vedic universe thread. What do you make of Ugrasena's 30 trillion bodyguards?

[Dark Warrior]

 

Just more myths, and blind faith. What is your IQ by the way?

 

Your moronic ideas are reflective of your complete inability to comprehend things.

 

The Brahma Sutras talk about general atheism at points. This can be interpreted to Buddhism and Jainism. But any references to Buddhism and Jainism can also be completely removed by a different interpretation. This leads to two conclusions:

 

1) The Brahma Sutras refute general ideas of atheism.

 

2) Buddhism and Jainism existed long before Mahavira and Gautama Buddha. This view is supported by both Jains and Buddhists. Rishabhadeva, the first Jain guru, even finds mention in the Rig Veda.

 

And the Chandogya Upanishad clearly says, 'Puranas and Ithihasas are Panchama Veda'. The vedas also mention how Ithihasas and Puranas manifested from Brahman. The indologists skirt these quotes and make assumptions based on their own biases.

 

 

Have you heard of something called interpolation? And sorry, time is too precious to be frittered in conversation with a pea-brained nincompoop such as you. I've got far too many more urgent tasks to attend to. What is your IQ by the way?

 

Idiot. If there are interpolations, they would contradict the theme of the text, and hence, can be detected.

 

That is what our acharyas did. Sri Madhva Himself was able to identify many spurious versions of the Mahabharata. Are you questioning his capability?

 

Your indiologists see contradictions where contradictions do not exist and hence, they call even genuine verses as interpolation.

 

 

Just lastly, try responding to my question on the Vedic universe thread. What do you make of Ugrasena's 30 trillion bodyguards?

 

I don't spend my time searching out your pea brained questions. post it here if you want a reply.

[LoveroftheBhagavata]

I'm well aware of all these laughable points that you make. After all, I spent nearly 15 years in Gaudiya Vaishnavism. The fact is, I would trust the professional opinions of people who have spent lifetimes studying the texts rather than fall for the humorous ramblings of a believer like yourself, whose sole objective is to engage in religious apologetics. Good bye, loser!

[Dark Warrior]

 

I'm well aware of all these laughable points that you make. After all, I spent nearly 15 years in Gaudiya Vaishnavism. The fact is, I would trust the professional opinions of people who have spent lifetimes studying the texts rather than fall for the humorous ramblings of a believer like yourself, whose sole objective is to engage in religious apologetics. Good bye, loser!

 

 

1) I am not a Gaudiya Vaishnava. I know that there are sectarian texts like Brahma Samhita and Gopala Tapani in that Sampradaya.

 

2) Sri Vaishnavas and even Madhva Vaishnavas base their philosophy only on the principal Upanishads and texts.

 

3) Your 'indologists' have brought up bizarre ideas of contradictions in Gita, when our acharyas saw absolutely no contradictions.

 

4) Your indologists claims of dating texts is based on unfounded evidence.

 

Tell me, exactly how does your indologists say the Puranas are recent?

 

1) Upanishads make a reference to Puranas.

 

2) It can be argued that these are not the existing Puranas. But it has been proven that both Vishnu Purana and Bhagavatam echo the message of the Vedas. So that argument is defeated.

 

It is idiots like you, who do not possess a lick of sense, yet see it fit to act scholarly about Vaishnavism, that are ruining our culture. Steer clear of our sampradaya if you want to maintain your dignity.

 

EDIT: In case your brain damaged way of thinking perceives me as someone who is quoting without authority, let me say that all indologists opinions have been defeated by scholars. Indology is nothing more than speculation.

[LoveroftheBhagavata]

Acharyas all had their own axes to grind, hence I rarely assign much credibility to their lucubrations. Whether Ramanuja or Madhva or even Shankara, no rational person can afford to stomach their biases in toto. Those who do not want to think for themselves and need to rely on disciplic authority can freely indulge themselves. I prefer to side with the Rationalists, with a capital R.

[bija]

Thanks for a different perspective on this. But are you saying V evolved out of semitic religions? Is there any proof for this in history, like meetings between the teachers of both schools? quote by sandra

There are some proofs in the sacred texts of meetings between muslim and followers of vedic tradition (16th century), but they may be descriptive from the vedic viewpoint. There may be other history books available with a more objective view, I dont know.

Modern scholars views do differ from more traditional views. I am not well read on these subjects as I am a very simple bhakti yogin. I follow Sri Krsna Caitanya who started a spiritual reform movement in the 16th century Bengal.

 

At the time this part of India was under repressive Islamic rule, and local people were restricted in some ways from expressing their devotion freely. Sri Caitanya inagurated public chanting of the Lord's Holy Names - Sankirtana.

 

Some of Sri Caitanya's most respected disciples were either muslim born, such as the famous saint Haridas Thakura, or were serving the muslim government - Sanatana and Rupa Goswami. These two men elaborated deeply the message of love of Krsna as visioned by Sri Caitanya.

 

Sri Caitanya's followers are called Gaudiya Vaisnava's. They accept pure devotion to Sri Krsna as the goal of life. Suddha bhakti.

 

Some modern scholars say Sri Caitanya was possibly influenced by Islamic traders who shared sufi concepts which came through trade routes. Which enabled a unified expression of worship which was accesible for the people and the environment of Bengal at the time. Which broke free of rigid caste system and other cultural beleifs of the area.

 

Gaudiya Vaisnavas do not accept the modern scholars interpretations on such things. Some of us in the west, who have been born into a modern scholastic system have chosen to pursue the essence of the beautiful spirituality of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. So personally scholasticism is a little dry for me. I have a more mystical leaning in my personality and nature. And devotion is most pleasing to my heart.

 

So I leave the debates up to others in regards to all this. But ofcourse a reasonable person will study all points of view, so as to not be in ignorance,

and the individuals spiritual feelings will guide him or her in time.

 

I have tasted a very sweet fruit in my personal spiritual life and awakening, by simple chanting the Holy Names of Sri CaitanyaKrishna, and aspiring each day to mold my life in simplicity and devotion.

 

In this forum you will find many people with various views, and many heated debates. Its ok here...

 

love and light to you....

 

At the bottom of my post is Nitaai Veda, the biggest free compilation of Gaudiya litereature in one place on the net. It is downloadable too, for your pleasure.

[LoveroftheBhagavata]

 

It is idiots like you, who do not possess a lick of sense, yet see it fit to act scholarly about Vaishnavism, that are ruining our culture. Steer clear of our sampradaya if you want to maintain your dignity.

 

Again, what is your IQ? Oh let me take a guess - 65? It can't be much too far from that, I bet!

[LoveroftheBhagavata]

 

1) I am not a Gaudiya Vaishnava. I know that there are sectarian texts like Brahma Samhita and Gopala Tapani in that Sampradaya.

 

Where did I say you were a GV? Funny how idiotic you are, you BELIEVER, HEHEHE!

[kimfelix]

Dark Warrior, do you have a reference for the quotation from the Maha Narayana Upanishad? There is another mention of Devaki Putra in the Chandogya Upanishad, but it does not suggest that this person is divine. Krishna is not one of the Vedic pantheon, which is what the original questioner asked, and none of the Vedic hymns address Krishna. I can't see why such an obvious answer would make you so cross.

 

And just as a point of clarification, when you say 'keep your ignorance to yourself', does that mean that I should not post on here if my opinion is not the same as yours?

[Dark Warrior]

 

Acharyas all had their own axes to grind, hence I rarely assign much credibility to their lucubrations. Whether Ramanuja or Madhva or even Shankara, no rational person can afford to stomach their biases in toto. Those who do not want to think for themselves and need to rely on disciplic authority can freely indulge themselves. I prefer to side with the Rationalists, with a capital R.

Only when it came to philosophy did the acharyas differ. But you honestly think they weren't capable of determining which texts ae authentic and which are not?

 

Your stupidity amazes me. Max Muller is more of a Vedantin than Madhvacharya or Ramanujacharya? Good Lord.

 

Your indologists wanted to show that the Veda is full of contradictions in order to convert people to christianity. Nowadays, mordern scholars do not hold that position, but due to the fact that these biased fools founded indology, their opinions still carry weight due to respect.

 

And its fools like you who fail to understand.

 

 

do you have a reference for the quotation from the Maha Narayana Upanishad? There is another mention of Devaki Putra in the Chandogya Upanishad, but it does not suggest that this person is divine. Krishna is not one of the Vedic pantheon, which is what the original questioner asked, and none of the Vedic hymns address Krishna. I can't see why such an obvious answer would make you so cross.

Kimfelix, you obviously lack a knowledge of the Vedas, so I don't hold you at fault. With due respect, back off.

 

The Chandogya Upanishad is talking about some Krishna who isn't Vasudeva. It is true. But the Narayana Upanishad mentions Brahman to be the son of Devaki. And the fact that Bhagavatalover denies this Upanishad to be canonical is indicative of the height of ignorance he possesses. And yet, claims to have studied Vaishnavism for 15 years.

 

It is moronic to assume Krishna is different from Vishnu.

[LoveroftheBhagavata]

 

And just as a point of clarification, when you say 'keep your ignorance to yourself', does that mean that I should not post on here if my opinion is not the same as yours?

 

That is exactly what this pathetic believer with his subhuman intelligence means. He thinks that he is the only one who is familiar with the customary Hindu rhetoric with regards to academic studies of Indian religions. The amusing thing is, he takes himself seriously and considers that the rest of us should bow down to his ridiculous mythologies. What a sad, semi-literate git! I'm off talking with this gibbon. I'd give birth before being able to make this ape view things sans his sectarian lenses! Taraar!