Guest guest Posted September 27, 2004 Report Share Posted September 27, 2004 are jesus and krishna the same sons of god just each followed by different religions.....ive heard or read of many similarities....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 2004 Report Share Posted September 28, 2004 doesn't mean one and only son of god. Son of God is any yogi who knows God. We are all technically sons of God supposedly, because we came FROM God. However, Krishna is not known as a Son of God, he is known as GOD himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 2004 Report Share Posted September 28, 2004 krishna is the supreme lord (the father) and jesus is one of his more important representatives Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pankaja_Dasa Posted September 28, 2004 Report Share Posted September 28, 2004 This is not about empowered Incarnations. I am sure that is different subject as well. Good place to start: __________ Bhagavad--gita 7.5 Nairobi, November 1, 1975 Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada: This is called acintya----bhedabheda philosophy, simultaneously one and different. As part of the body, the anus or the genital, it is part of the body, and the brain is also part of the body. Both of them are part of the body, but still, brain is superior than the anus and genital. So in this way, and upon this philosophy... It is called acintya----bhedabheda. Bheda means distinct, and abheda means one. We should not take one part of the philosophy, that "Everything is one." No. Everything is one, that is a fact, and still, they are different. That is explained in the Bhagavad----gita in the Thirteenth Chapter. Maya tatam idam sarvam jagad avyakta----murtina: "In My impersonal form I am all----pervading," jagad avyakta, "but," mat----sthani sarva----bhutani, "everything is maintained by Me," mat----sthani sarva----bhutani naham tesu avasthitah, "but I am not there." Just like the jail department is also part of the government, but the president does not live in the jail. Mat----sthani sarva----bhutani. If the president says that "The jail department is also my department," that does not mean that president has to live in the jail. It is a gross example. Similarly, Krsna, God, is everywhere. Not everywhere; His energy is acting everywhere. The superior energy and the inferior energy, this is the material world, combination of two energies. Just like this body, your body, my body, everyone's body. What is this? The combination of these two energies, the superior energy and the inferior energy. The inferior energy----bhumir apo 'nalo vayuh, the gross body, earth, water... This gross body means earth, water, air, and ether, and then the subtle body, mind intelligence and ego, these eight combination, so this is not actually I. I am soul. Therefore this is apara, inferior. But what I am, that is superior. That is explained here, jiva----bhuta. Beyond these two gross and subtle energies there is another, superior energy. Apareyam itas tu anyam. Anyam means another. Itas tu... Apareyam itas tu anyam prakrtim. Another prakrti, energy, is there. Viddhi me param. That is superior. What is that? Jiva----bhuta, that living being which is within the gross and subtle body, that living being. Srimad Bhagavatam 6.16.9 {vedabase.net} TRANSLATION The living entity is eternal and imperishable because he actually has no beginning and no end. He never takes birth or dies. He is the basic principle of all types of bodies, yet he does not belong to the bodily category. The living being is so sublime that he is equal in quality to the Supreme Lord. Nonetheless, because he is extremely small, he is prone to be illusioned by the external energy, and thus he creates various bodies for himself according to his different desires. PURPORT In this verse the philosophy of acintya--bhedabheda--simultaneous oneness and difference--is described. The living entity is eternal (nitya) like the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but the difference is that the Supreme Lord is the greatest, no one being equal to or greater than Him, whereas the living entity is suksma, or extremely small. The sastra describes that the magnitude of the living entity is one ten--thousandth the size of the tip of a hair. The Supreme Lord is all--pervading (andantara--stha--paramanu--cayantara--stham). Relatively, if the living entity is accepted as the smallest, there should naturally be inquiry about the greatest. The greatest is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and the smallest is the living entity. Another peculiar characteristic of the jiva is that he becomes covered by maya. Atmamaya--gunaih: he is prone to being covered by the Supreme Lord's illusory energy. The living entity is responsible for his conditional life in the material world, and therefore he is described as prabhu ("the master"). If he likes he can come to this material world, and if he likes he can return home, back to Godhead. Because he wanted to enjoy this material world, the Supreme Personality of Godhead gave him a material body through the agency of the material energy. As the Lord Himself says in Bhagavad--gita (18.61): isvarah sarva--bhutanam hrd--dese 'rjuna tisthati bhramayan sarva--bhutani yantrarudhani mayaya "The Supreme Lord is situated in everyone's heart, O Arjuna, and is directing the wanderings of all living entities, who are seated as on a machine, made of the material energy." The Supreme Lord gives the living entity a chance to enjoy in this material world as he desires, but He openly expresses His own desire that the living entity give up all material aspirations, fully surrender unto Him and return home, back to Godhead. The living entity is the smallest (suksma). Jiva Gosvami says in this connection that the living entity within the body is extremely difficult for materialistic scientists to find, although we understand from authorities that the living entity is within the body. The body is different from the living entity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 2004 Report Share Posted September 28, 2004 Jesus Christ represents a more pure representation of God than the average man- he is in Hindu terms a Mahatma or Avatar. The mission of Christ was, by his sacrifice, to free mankind of sin and show him the path to God. The intended result being to restore the order of God in mankind. Krishna i believe is a personal representation of God in his eternal completion. However one thing confuses me. God in its completion is formless so how can you personify it in the form of Krishna? Surely this alienates you from God? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 2004 Report Share Posted September 28, 2004 god is all.. god is complete.. so god is both personal and impersonal, individual and omnipervadent, with form and formless the personality of god is abslolutely not an alienation from the divinity if you study him with accuracy there's very little in common with humanity... and if we have a form, this has to be valid also for god who is the source of our existence so krsna is not a representation, krsna is the supreme personality of godhead the source of all personal and impersonal, liberated and conditionated, supreme and subordinated kinds of life Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 2004 Report Share Posted September 28, 2004 jesus said that I and my father are one.(john 10) they are the same. everything is ONE. people call IT by various names. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pankaja_Dasa Posted September 28, 2004 Report Share Posted September 28, 2004 difference. Why say 'I' and 'my' father are one. Why not me and my father? same? Does it sound the same? is that duality? You think Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 2004 Report Share Posted September 29, 2004 why not say it? we might understand the intricacy of language...same cannot be expected of others. duality and advaita. what difference does it make. when everything is ONE. expression , perception all come under the gamut of our understanding in relative planes. in the absolute when only ONE exists...what difference does it make? "Upon the Sea of Blissful Awareness waves of ecstatic love arise: Wonderful waves of sweetness of God , ever new and ever enchanting Rise on the surface , ever assuming Forms ever fresh Then once more in the Great Communion all are merged...." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pankaja_Dasa Posted September 29, 2004 Report Share Posted September 29, 2004 b41 beyond 1 to be one. To be or not to be, that is the question? I am me Krishna is Krishna. I am His servant. Rasa cannot exsist between one person, do you see? Who is Krishna with always? Radha now they are 1. Special 1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 2004 Report Share Posted September 29, 2004 duality and advaita. what difference does it make. when everything is ONE. ...... ... ......simultaneously there's also the TWO (3, 4000, 9386293.. infinite) god is me, but simultaneously he's not me god cannot miss the opportunity to have relationships, so he's me and he's he, and me is also me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 2004 Report Share Posted September 29, 2004 what is the final goal of any devotion? to attain oneness. a devotee in love with krishna yearns to become one with him...inseperable. raasa exists as a path for attainment of that final goal of oneness with god. dvaita leads to advaita. why such things? why not direct advaita? why did krishna create a relative existence , and assume myriad forms of devotees himself and love himself? ... its HIS play..lest we forget...we are only the puppets. everything is for his sweet pleasure. "o krishna ! thou art the primal supreme purusha, this universe manifest and unmanifest is thy form thou art the soul , the sense organs , the lord dwelling in the bodies of all, thou art the subtle great prakriti , thou alone art the purusha , the lord dwelling in the bodies of all." ( bhagavata 10th chapter.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 2004 Report Share Posted September 29, 2004 what is the final goal of any devotion? to attain oneness. •••wrong... to revive a relationship, love, friendship. In oneness there's no devotion. If me and you were one, no dialogue would be possible raasa exists as a path for attainment of that final goal of oneness with god. •••rasa means relationship.. relationship means at least TWO dvaita leads to advaita. ••no.. advaita and dvaita are simultaneous. I am god because nothing is outside god, but i am also not god because i am not supreme. God is everything, but he has to have also the opportunity to relationate.. so he's all.. but he's also individual... all in the realm of transcendence why such things? why not direct advaita? ••because advaita is uncomplete why did krishna create a relative existence , and assume myriad forms of devotees himself and love himself? ••in the whole there's also variety... and variety is not only in the relative but also in the absolute. The only true purpose of variety is bliss everything is for his sweet pleasure. ••of course... pleasure.... in advaita there's no pleasure Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pankaja_Dasa Posted September 30, 2004 Report Share Posted September 30, 2004 what is the final goal of any devotion? to attain oneness. == If you are saying about oneness where you see only love for God, then this is the Goal of Bhakti-Yoga to love God. Goal of life is to love God. Final goal is to love God in pure devotional service. Bhakti-yoga. a devotee in love with krishna yearns to become one with him...inseperable. raasa exists as a path for attainment of that final goal of oneness with god. == That's not true as God exsists whether we do or not. We exsist only to serve God in whatever capacity right now we are serving either Maya or Bhakti-devi. na tv evaham jatu nasam na tvam neme janadhipah na caiva na bhavisyamah sarve vayam atah param na-never; tu-but; eva-certainly; aham-I; jatu-become; na-never; asam-existed; na-it is not so; tvam-yourself; na-not; ime-all these; janadhipah-kings; na-never; ca-also; eva-certainly; na-not like that; bhavisyamah-shall exist; sarve-all of us; vayam-we; atah param-hereafter. Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be. Bhagavad-Gita Chaper 2 Text 12 So from this we conclude we are seperated parts of Krishna. By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them. Bhagavad-Gita Chaper 9 Text 4 And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me. Behold My mystic opulence! Although I am the maintainer of all living entities, and although I am everywhere, still My Self is the very source of creation. Bhagavad-Gita Chaper 9 Text 5 Any opinion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2004 Report Share Posted September 30, 2004 "wrong... to revive a relationship, love, friendship. In oneness there's no devotion. If me and you were one, no dialogue would be possible" true devotion is love for the SELF. to transcend maya and realise the oneness of all existence. "rasa means relationship.. relationship means at least TWO " relativity demands two. thats why dvaita mode comes in. but the true end is still oneness.what exists then cannot be described as speech too is relative. "no.. advaita and dvaita are simultaneous. I am god because nothing is outside god, but i am also not god because i am not supreme. God is everything, but he has to have also the opportunity to relationate.. so he's all.. but he's also individual... all in the realm of transcendence" u think u are not. once the veil of relative maya is removed u will find ur supreme. even the absolute sheds tears and exhibits anger in the meshes of maya...rama for sita, krishna in kurukshetra war where he charges at the enemy with a weapon after which he is reminded of his pledge by arjuna , buddha on the birth of rahula , jesus on the cross etc. "because advaita is uncomplete" it is the WHOLE. becoz of it everything is complete and meaningful. "in the whole there's also variety... and variety is not only in the relative but also in the absolute. The only true purpose of variety is bliss" yes...but everything does come in maya. "of course... pleasure.... in advaita there's no pleasure" whose pleasure? krishna's, lest we forget. but that doesnt mean the absolute is false. what exists in absolute cannot be described as pleasure for speech,experience,perception is relative. " nitya is complementary to leela and leela to nitya." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2004 Report Share Posted September 30, 2004 "If you are saying about oneness where you see only love for God, then this is the Goal of Bhakti-Yoga to love God. Goal of life is to love God. Final goal is to love God in pure devotional service. Bhakti-yoga." Absolutely right. but differ in the final goal. all yogas (union with god) end in oneness. finally. "That's not true as God exsists whether we do or not. We exsist only to serve God in whatever capacity right now we are serving either Maya or Bhakti-devi. " but we do exist! krishna tells this...'never was there a time etc etc.....' a simple example is...if we do take that we ARE seperate entities from krishna...existing along with him for ETERNAL TIME...how can the absolute time have relative components? either time should be relative or existence should be absolute! /images/graemlins/smile.gif and Krishna emphasises....that never was there a time etc etc...so time is absolute...so similarly our existence should also be absolute! ponder this. "Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be. Bhagavad-Gita Chaper 2 Text 12" words from the bhagvata. cannot be argued. /images/graemlins/smile.gif jai radheshyam. "By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them. Bhagavad-Gita Chaper 9 Text 4 " yes. one of the excellent words of the lord indicating towards advaita. all beings owe existence to HIM for HE IS ALL. "And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me. Behold My mystic opulence! Although I am the maintainer of all living entities, and although I am everywhere, still My Self is the very source of creation. Bhagavad-Gita Chaper 9 Text 5" I dont understand this verse. it looks contradictory to many other statements of sri krishna like " i hold the universe in an infintesmal small part of my being." (chapter 10 bhagvad gita). the meaning might be too subtle for my understanding. anyways the truth is these things are good to discuss but finally whats most important is what mode suits us best. if there is anything wrong in our endeavours to attain krishna either through bhakti or jnana the Lord himself will set right with his wisdom. jai sri krishna. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pankaja_Dasa Posted September 30, 2004 Report Share Posted September 30, 2004 "And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me. Behold My mystic opulence! Although I am the maintainer of all living entities, and although I am everywhere, still My Self is the very source of creation. Bhagavad-Gita Chaper 9 Text 5" I dont understand this verse. it looks contradictory to many other statements of sri krishna like " i hold the universe in an infintesmal small part of my being." (chapter 10 bhagvad gita). the meaning might be too subtle for my understanding. Krishna doesn't contradict Himself! If you don't understand does it not mean you and we have incomplete realization. You need to open your horizons are read Gita by somebody who has actaully seen the truth. WITHOUT any contradiction: www.asitis.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2004 Report Share Posted September 30, 2004 true devotion is love for the SELF. to transcend maya and realise the oneness of all existence ••so your kind of oneness is not simultaneous with devotion... you have said "first devotion, then transcendence, then oneness" so there's no devotion in your kind of oneness once the veil of relative maya is removed u will find ur supreme. ••the supreme is never subjected to maya.. even for a second even the absolute sheds tears and exhibits anger in the meshes of maya ••this is due our materialistic vision... the act of god and his associates are transcendental even if we wrongly compare them with the human ones... absolute in latin means "no-bounds".. so absolute is never in maya... maya is eternally subordinated to god "because advaita is uncomplete" it is the WHOLE. becoz of it everything is complete and meaningful. ••the teaching is uncomplete because he does not explains why we are subjected to maya if we are supreme and why there's activity and variety in this world and not in the transcendence what exists in absolute cannot be described as pleasure for speech,experience,perception is relative. ••describe in the way as you want..everything there's in this world is necessarily originated the absolute one nitya is complementary to leela and leela to nitya. ••complementary means simultaneous and at the same level... i agree... ONE and VARIOUS simultaneouSly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 2006 Report Share Posted July 9, 2006 are jesus and krishna the same sons of god just each followed by different religions.....ive heard or read of many similarities....... Krishna is God, Jesus is the "son" or pure representitive ov God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kripamoya Posted July 9, 2006 Report Share Posted July 9, 2006 Jesus preached the fatherhood of Godhead. The Gaudiya view of God is that he is the consort-lover. The fatherhood of Godhead is considered a very crude conception of Godhead by the Gaudiyas. God as father is simply the supplier and the maintainer. The erotic consorthood of Godhead is the most exotic conception of Godhead that there can be. In the highest realm of spirituality, the mundane conception of morality is completely non-existant and the highest manifestation of the erotic principle predominates. Jesus might be the way, the truth and the light of the fatherhood of Godhead, but the Gaudiya faith is not interested in the fatherhood of Godhead. God as lover is much more fun than God as father. That is the naked truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted July 9, 2006 Report Share Posted July 9, 2006 Yes, no need to first realize that God is Unlimited, Supreme and Independent while we are minute and totally dependent on the Lord in every circumstance. "We are not interested in this concept of Krsna as the Supreme Lord over all we are only interested in rasa-lila so we just skip realizing the first nine cantos of SB and are satisfied with the tenth only." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 2006 Report Share Posted July 9, 2006 krishna is the supreme lord (the father) and jesus is one of his more important representatives Don't get misled by terminology. Christians believe that Christ is God, one aspect of the Trinity. In rasa terms, he functions as the vishaya. 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.