Question on Brahman and its form

[Guest guest]

SrImAn Anand,

Let me paraphrase what you said and then ask you a

question.

 

You said:

Brahman (with or without form) is nArAyaNa. However,

when He needs to take an avatAra, he takes a form such

as krishna and rAma, which represent nArAyaNa Himself

but with a shuddha-satva form. Even in vaikuntham,

the Lord has taken an eternal shuddha-satva form that

is perceived by the observer as para-vAsudEva.

 

My Questions:

Q1: Is nArAyaNa knowable *only* with a form? True,

in this material world, great yOgis have experienced

Him as one with an effulgent form with His Conch,

Wheel, Mace etc. What about in vaikuntham, though?

Since the jIva's dbj has been fully expanded to the

omniscient state and has *no* semblence of aj~nAna

associated with it, will the jIva then perceive

nArAyaNa as His " ontological original " entity of

swaroopa jnana, the substratum? Please note that it

is obvious that the jIva will see Him in paravAsudEva

form.

 

Q2: The Lord's form is made up of suddha satva, an

insentient albeit spiritual entity. The Lord behind

this form is the ontological nArAyaNa, who is the true

Lord of the world, not the form, which happens to be

insentient. So, when we pray to Krishna and

experience his bluish black tirumEni, should our

anubhavam not just stop at His tirumEni, but go right

upto the owner of the tirumEni. See my point? The

tirumEni is achEtana and the sAstrAs say " kAraNantu

dhyEyah. " So, would it be a bhagawad-apachAram to

conclude our prayers by just worshiping the Lord's

form?

 

|| sarvam srI krishnArpaNamastu ||

 

-- aDiyen, murali kadambi

 

 

 

 

Talk to your friends online and get email alerts with Messenger.

http://im./