Guest guest Posted October 4, 2006 Report Share Posted October 4, 2006 We have been through the discussion of the ISCKON philosophy several times and have had heated discussions over it. We condemned fanatism in other religions and agreed that Hinduism is also not free of it. This is an example of existance of fanatism in Hindu culture. [Fanatism is saying that the form of GOD worshipped by that group is the only form of GOD]. I think there is no point arguing over it all over again. I would kindly request learned members of this group to ignore it. There is just one Supreme Godhead of reality as ISKCON calls it. But we call that reality in different names. ISKCON calls it as Krishna, Vaishnavaites call as Narayana, Shaivaites as Shiva, Shaktas as Devi, etc. No matter what form we give to the reality, there is JUST ONE SUPREME REALITY. The example that is often cited is of a mother having the picture of her son to remember him while he is away. There many be many pictures of him in different attires. He is still her son and all the pictures of the son reminds her of him. But when the son returns back, the picture is of no use. She can directly see the son and hence what is the use of the picture. In a similar way, thinking of God in name and form is till we cannot have a direct perception of DIVINITY. For a realized soul, pictures and names are of no use. To realize God we need to go beyond name and form. Bhagavat Gita has been written by Sage Vyasa, who has also written so many Puranas. Each purana praises the one diety and pulls down the other. Bhagavat Gita as written by Vyasa, is a condensation of the Upanishad teaching. So it should be read not just as a dialogue between a person Arjuna and Krishna, rather as a dialogue between jeevatma and Paramatma. Surely, BG has to be read as it is. Nobody wants to modify it. But interpretations are different, depending on the philosophy preached by the commentator. Interestingly, the BG commentary by Sri Paramahamsa Yogananda, beautifully describes, each personality in the war as qualities in us, which have to lose or win before we attain realization. I would kindly request everyone to read the following from the website for profvk, who is also a member from our group. We are fortunate to have him in our group. They are excellent write ups on several topics on Hinduism. One of them [the link below], about the concept of GOD as seen by people of different beliefs. It is a good one and must read. http://www.geocities.com/profvk/VK2/ConceptofGOD.html guruvayur , GANAPATHY RAMAN <agraman62 wrote: > > It is a great phenomenon that only Krishna shuld be considered as the Godhead > perhaps,we all belong to the Guruvayur Group and neglecting other faiths is not in a good sense.Krishnadaya has pointed out her version which may or may not be appreciable.It is some sort of euologising Krishna as the only God who created the whole Universe with the authority of Bhagavat Gita which itself can be disputed as it sayssome teachings and nobody knows who said all those teachings.Containing the all pervading God to a particular form is obnioxious and unpalatable.Then what abt the other Deities worshipped by millions.Why this partiality?God ,nobody can define in what form He or She or It so long as one has realised the Supreme.Under such circustances it is not a topic for assimilation whether Krishna or Vishnu is the primal Deity when we accept the theory that God is formless and all pervading and this discussion carries away from the real objective. > No doubt ISCKON praises Krishna as the Lord of all.How many people will accept in the whole world when even Hindus form a minority?I had been to Mayapuri the HO office of Krishna Conscious centre and they give some mala and ask to chant Hare Krishna mantra and that will take you to Vaikuntam.How many people they hv sent to Vaikuntam in this way?Does not that look ridiculous.It is ok to hv bhakthy of Krishna and what He is supposed to hv stated > in Gita.But what is the proof that He has stated all those sermons esp. in a battle field covering so many things like the Duty,Yoga,Devotees and all such things.Why can't the same be coming out of the mouth of somebody else?Arjuna was a devotee of Krishna and obedient to Krishna.He could hv accepted whatever Krishna said and if Krishna commanded arjuna to fight despite his wavering mind arjuna would hv done the same.There was no necessity for Krishna to preach him in 700 verses to fight.It must be remembered the same was said in a battle field and not in a lecture hall in which case Gita won't hv any effect.The simple thing was Krishna though dubbed as an avatar wanted a name and used arjuna as a weapon for his thoughts.These thoughts anybody can hv and if the thoughts come from people of other religions will we accept? > Quoting anything and everything from Gita is superfluous and goes against the > principle of Oneness of God.Still nobody has stated who the God or Brahman is?That can't be explained but to be experienced the Oneness as Yogananda > Paramahansa experienced in samathy bliss .There was no Krishna,Rama,Allah, > Jesus but the state of blissness only and the 'I' ness everywhere.Then why we harp on this avatara or that avatara which are only mythological stories. > > This is not to mean that I am talking abt the beliefs of Hinduism but that alone will carry us anywhere?I know this will raise controversies but on deep thinking the same will be accepted.The so called Realised Souls hv stated that the Creator can be realised only thru raising the power within us viz.Kundalini power and passing thru various phlexes ultimately merged in the Sahasrarara and all become One and there is no Krishna or any avatars.It is SAT CHIT ANANDA. > Pure Bliss.This is what I hv learnt from contact with certain Realised souls. > There is no Krishna,Siva,Devi and all such things which are all man created . > This is a highly controversial subject which can be explained only by Realised Souls and they hv never said anything except the same had to be experienced by one's own efforts.This is what Yogananda,Vivekananda,Ramakrishna Paramahamsa and all the Realised souls experienced.So whether Vishnu had 10 avatars and who are they go out of the purview.Then what abt Siva,Devi and other Deities and shuld they be considered lesser than Vishnu. > > Argumets for argument's sake carry one nowhere unless they hv real experience or contact with Great Souls who hv realised.If a person believes Krishna let him or her do that or for that matter any Deity and it is not correct that only such and such Deity is the primal energy as nobody knows what the same is and what way It works and whether the same is He or She.So too much importance need not be given to avataras they are like fairy tales came out of the people like the > novels of Shakespeare or for that matter from the imagination of any novelists. > If this is understood clearly and with pragmatism then there won't be any arguments.Loving a God is ok but that need not be construed as the only One and others are not.That shows some type of peevish mentality. > > I am sure in this Group there are more learned persons who remain incognito for their own reasons and if they come out well with their opinions the same will be good.Will they?What abt Subbu,Narasimhan and others who hv very good knowledge on this why can't they come out of their shell and share the thoughts. > I am not interested in provoking anybody with my comments and I hv stated only what I feel.Rest better persons will handle,I hope.So the argument of Krishnadaya that Krishna is the supreme reality carries no weight unless she/he has become one with Krishna and in that state there can't be any distinction.Scriptures may say so many things just to guide people in path of devotion and when one realises the Reality then there is no necessity to bank on scriptures as the person will become Himself/Herself the Reality and there can be only one and no second.This will take take time and in the present mind set it is difficult to understand.So let the caravan moves on with their own notions and ideas.This need not be construed I am an anti Hindu but I say the > real facts which intelligent people can understand.This need not be taken as a part of arrogancy and if I am ignorant I can be corrected but not with the quotes from scriptures but if anybody has real experience.I am sure 2 or 3 persons hv got that capacity in a better way.But to bring them to come out with thier views is the problem as I am not able to see them taking any part in this discussion. > > Anyways it is a good topic for discussion and the doubts can be cleared in a better way if those persons also participate.I am not at loggerheads with Krishnadaya but only expressed my views as this is a forum for discussion and > all need not necessarily to one's concepts as Balagopal pointed out knowledge improves with more thoughts and Sreenivas claimed that nobody objects to the views but only accepting.So let us hv a friendly discussion.No animosity ,I hv against anybody but I hv expressed what I felt. > > > agraman. > > . > > Krishnadaya <krishnadaya wrote: > Hare Krishna ! > > In my humble opinion, Sri Krishna and Maha-Vishnu are non- different . In Guruvayoor temple , the Deity is Maha-Vishnu who is worshipped as Sri Krishna . Same is the case with many other Vedic Krishna temples which were consecrated by the Devatas. In Vishnu Sahasranamam and Narayaneeyam, Bhagavan Krishna is repeatedly addressed as Maha-Vishnu . > > A Bhakta should be aware that, Sri Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead . Otherwise , he will be deluded by `Maya' (illusion) and can't attain proper `Saranaagati' at the lotus feet of Bhagavan . Sri Krishna says in Gita ( 10.7) " He who knows in truth My opulence and yogic power , has firm bhakti in Me. There is no doubt about this " . > > The Braj vasis were `Rsis' in their previous birth ; and as a result of their accumulated `punya' , they could afford to take liberties with Bhagavan . However , ordinary mortals like us who are severely hampered by the sinful reactions of previous births , need to be extra vigilant to escape from the destructive influence of `false ego' caused by Maya . Therefore, we the eternal servants of Bhagavan Krishna must surrender unconditionally to Bhagavan Sri Krishna and take refuge at HIS lotus feet . > > As Suneetaji pointed out the other day , Arjuna was a great vedic scholar ; and he was taught by none other than Dronacharya , the incarnation of Brihaspathi (Deva-Guru) . However, in the war field Kurukshetra , when he came face to face with the hard realities of life , Arjuna was overcome by `Maya' . He forgot all the transcendental knowledge he had acquired till then ; and started behaving like a novice . Then Bhagavan Krishna asked Arjuna to surrender to HIM ( the Supreme God) in order to be qualified to receive the supreme transcendental knowledge in the form of `Bhagavad Gita' . We must remember that even top Devatas such as Lord Indra , Lord Brahma and Lord Shiva failed miserably when they were challenged by the Maya-sakti , the powerful illusionary energy controlled by Maha-Vishnu . > > When King Mucukunda asked Sri Krishna, " Who are You " ? > > SB 10.51.23 – 30 : As he gazed at the Lord, King Mucukunda saw that He was dark blue like a cloud, had four arms, and wore a yellow silk garment . On His chest He bore the Srivatsa mark and on His neck the brilliantly glowing Kaustubha gem . Adorned with a Vaijayanti garland, the Lord displayed His handsome, peaceful face, which attracts the eyes of all mankind with its shark-shaped earrings and affectionately smiling glance. The beauty of His youthful form was unexcelled, and He moved with the nobility of an angry lion. The highly intelligent King was overwhelmed by the Lord's effulgence, which showed Him to be invincible. Expressing his uncertainty, Mucukunda hesitantly questioned Lord Krishna as follows. > > Sri Mucukunda asked : > · Who are You who have come to this mountain cave in the forest, having walked on the thorny ground with feet as soft as lotus petals? > · Perhaps You are the potency of all potent beings. Or maybe You are the powerful god of fire, or the sun-god, the moon- god, the King of heaven or the ruling demigod of some other planet . I think You are the Supreme Personality among the three chief gods, since You drive away the darkness of this cave as a lamp dispels darkness with its light. > · O best among men, if You like, please truly describe Your birth, activities and lineage to us, who are eager to hear. > > SB 10.51.23 – 30 : Thus addressed by the King, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, origin of all creation, smiled and then replied to him in a voice as deep as the rumbling of clouds. > > The Supreme Lord said : > · My dear friend, I have taken thousands of births, lived thousands of lives and accepted thousands of names . In fact My births, activities and names are limitless, and thus even I cannot count them. > · After many lifetimes someone might count the dust particles on the earth, but no one can ever finish counting My qualities, activities, names and births. > · O King, the greatest sages enumerate My births and activities, which take place throughout the three phases of time, but never do they reach the end of them . > · Nonetheless, O friend, I will tell you about My current birth, name and activities. Kindly hear. Some time ago, Lord Brahma requested Me to protect religious principles and destroy the demons who were burdening the earth . Thus I descended in the Yadu dynasty, in the home of Anakadundubhi . Indeed, because I am the son of Vasudeva people call Me Vasudeva . > · I have killed Kalanemi , reborn as Kamsa, as well as Pralamba and other enemies of the pious. And now, O King, this barbarian has been burnt to ashes by your piercing glance. > · Since in the past you repeatedly prayed to Me, I have personally come to this cave to show you mercy, for I am affectionately inclined to My devotees. > > Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya!!! > Krishnadaya > > > K.V.Gopalakrishna wrote….. > Dear all, > Radhe Krishna! > > Our Sarojamji is 100% right, as it goes well with the quotation from the Upanishad. To reckon divinity with our system of arithmetic is wrong. This is the mistake I committed when I said that if Balarama and Krishna were avataras of the Lord, and the avataras were simultaneous, one cannot be a complete avatara. (Poornavatara. ), although, in many places, we have seen Krishna being mentioned as Poorna-punyavataram . In fact, something also was in my mind, that when I was reading Bhagavatam last week, I read in many places as Krishna being mentioned as " Amsam " of the Lord. This was also puzzling to me. I shall quote chapter and verse later, as a rejoinder to this. I have myself written in many places in the Narayaneeyam commentary that Krishna is the only Poornavatara. In other words, I was trying to say that Balarama, as considered by many people as an avatara of Vishnu may not be right, as Balarama (as Lakshmana was in the Ramavathara) , is considered to be an > avatara of Adisesha.. > > These doubts are never-ending. That is why I put a lid to it saying that everything is an aspect of Vishnu anyway, as " Sarvam Vishnumayam Jagat " > > But coming back to the logic pointed out by Smt. Sarojamji, and considering the truth of the Upanishadic verdict, one has to admit that the Lord's ways are inscrutable and beyond human comprehension. > > Love > KVG > - -------------------- > sarojram18 wrote : > This question has comup already in thegroup and has been dscussed in deail. I am reproducing What I wrote then,Moreover SRt KVG ha also quoted from Bhagavath etc to provre this but I don't underatand why he has said that if alarama is also an avathara then Krushna cannot be > poornAvathAra. The upanishad says Poornamadhah poornamidham poornAth pornamudhachyathE poorNasta poorNam AdhAya poorNmva avasishyathE. > That is poorna(meaning Brahman , synonymous wuth Narayana of Visishtadhvaitha. )THias is poorna (Meaning the manifestation of God in the world as avathara or even as the world.)This poorna comes from that poorna. Taking away poorna from poorna what remains is also > poorna. > Lord Narayana is said to have manifested as Rama ,Krishna etc. That does not mean that the HIs natural abode, say vaikunta or the world as awhole or the cave of the heart as the antharyamin, has become empty. He is srvavyApee sarvabhoothAntharAt hma says upanishad.The avathara are said to be his amsa in the sense that a quarter of a circle is said to be the amsa of the whole. > The smrthi says, 'yadha yadha hi dharmasya glanirbhavathi bharatha abhyutthanam adhrmasya thqdhathmanam srjamyaham.' Yhat is wherever there is adharma aHe will create HImself.Rama or Krishna are not born in the natural course. The Lord has manifested Himself as such.So is > Narasimha,varaha etc.The one who has createdeveryhting and he indweller of all is He not able to create a form for Himself and come in the world as such? > Krishna using the first person singular inGita talks as the supreme self, the paramathman. THat is not decrying His avathara as DEvakisutha. All are avatharas as God is the indweller and the Self of all and the real meaning of " I " is the real self only.But only in certain places the divinity shine forth in its full splendour. > Regading the concept of ISKCON that Krishan alone is the supreme self and not an avathara, sure He is and so is Rama Narasimha even Siva Or Devi,because supremeself is Brahman whose manifestations are all.Ithihasa and puraNa e4xisted earlier than all oher schools of > thought and what is said there has to be taken as authority. Finally saying Krishan is an avathara does not ah nyway undermine His being the supreme godhead because He is that. > > Regarding Dasavathara our earliest scriptural authority is srimadbhagavatha and vishnupurana according to which Krishna is definitely an avathar. I have not read Prabhupada's bhagavatha but > if Krishna is not an avathar how is the birth of Ksrishna as the son of vasudeva and devaki is explained?As for Jayadeva the reason he has not mentioned Krishnavathara is not because he considered Him as Supreme soul, whcih nodubt He is, not only as Krishna but also as > Narsimha ,Rama or any of His manifestations as mentioned clearly in Ramayana and Bhagavatha, but Jayadeva was addressing Krishna in his ashtapadi, 'Pralaya payOdhijale' and hence he mentioned Krishna as the one who had been taking all the avatharas. as nNarayana bhattadri did in Narayaneeyam. He must have included Buddha for sankhyaApooraNam, that is to complete the number to ten, perhaps by that time Buddha has come to be accepted by the people as the tenth avathara of Vishnu. That is only by popular belief and not authorised by scriptures.in fact Bhagavatha mentions buddha indirectly saying that the Lord has taken the form of one who created illusion in the minds of those who misconstrued vedic injunctions and proceeded towards the forbidden path and Rshabha and Kapila, the founders of Jainism and sankhya have been mentioned directly as the avathatras of Vishnu though not included in the prime ten.Bhagavatha says the Lord took 24 avatharas of which buddha is also one > besides numerous avatharas He took in order to save the world. (Ref.Bhagvath a-2nd skandha-chapter 7) From time immemorial devotees of Lord Narayana considered te ten avathars of the Lord as invluding Krishna excluding Buddha . Inthe vaishanvite tradition, I mean the followeers of Ramanuja , after whom the vaishnavite religion started to flourish, though it was Sankara who formulated the six mathams of worship including that of Vishnu, all the vaishnavite acharyas like Desika have extolled only the ten avatharas, namely, matsya,kurma, varaha,nrsimha, vamana,parasuram a,rama,balarama, krishna and kalki.Morover the aim of the incarnation has been set out in the Gita as 'parithranaya sadhunam vinasayacha dushkrtham' which point out > only to these ten as avatharas. > -------------------------------- ------------------------ > > krishnadasa77 @ wrote …. > > Gopalakrishnaji - Shree Guruvayurappa Sharanam! > > I agree with you that a bhakta should not be too much bothered about the details about whether Krishna is Bhagavan or not, as the Braj vasis (residents of Vrindavan) did not really care whether Krishna was Bhagavan or not but were just engrossed in loving Him :-) > > But initially for a devotee whose faith is not that strong one has to understand the statements such as: > > *** > ete camsa kala pumsah krsnas tu bhagavan swayam > indrari vyakumlam lokam mrdayanti yuge yuge > > All of the above-mentioned incarnations are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord Shree Krishna is the original Personality of Godhead. All of them appear on planets whenever there is a disturbance created by the atheists. The Lord incarnates to protect the theists. – > > http://srimadbhagav atam.com/ 1/3/28/en > *** > > And the statement from Brahma-samhita saying that: > > *** > isvarah paramah krsnah saccidananda vigraha > anadir adir govinda sarva karana karanam > > Krishna who is known as Govinda is the Supreme Godhead. He has an eternal blissful spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin and He is the prime cause of all causes. – > > http://brahmasamhit a.com/5/1/ en > *** > > And, of course Krishna's own statement in Bhagavad-Gita saying that: > > *** > mattah parataram nanyat kincid asti dhananjaya > mayi sarvam idam proktam sutre mani gana iva > > " O conqueror of wealth [Arjuna], there is no Truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread. " – > > http://www.asitis. com/7/7.html > *** > > Apologies if I have stated something wrong here. > > ~Krishnadasa. > > All-new Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. > > > > > > Find out what India is talking about on - Answers India > Send FREE SMS to your friend's mobile from Messenger Version 8. Get it NOW > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.