Jahnava Nitai Das Posted October 30, 2000 Report Share Posted October 30, 2000 Question: "I have seen many scholars and devotees of Krsna suggest that the Lord does not have any form. They suggest that 5000 years ago the Lord incarnated as Krsna, however, this form of Krsna is not the original form of the Lord. The Lord does not have any definite form." Answer: This debate has gone on from time immemorial, as to whether the absolute truth is formless or whether He possesses an eternal spiritual form. The root of this doubt comes from the envy within the hearts of the conditioned living entity. Ultimately it is the living entity refusing to accept that we are subserviant to the Lord, and trying to establish ourselves as the same one supreme absolute. The Vedic texts state in very clear terms the supreme position of Lord Krishna and the eternality of His spiritual form. In the Gopala Tapani Upanishad we find the following verse: tam ekam govindam sac-cid-ananda-vigraham "Govinda is the one Absolute Truth. He possesses a spiritual body composed of eternality, knowledge and bliss." Elsewhere it is stated: om sac-cid-ananda rupaya krishnaya namah "I offer my obeisances unto Lord Krishna who possesses a spiritual form of eternality, knowledge and bliss." The Upanishad goes on to clearly describe the transcendental form of the Lord. In the Sri Brahma Samhita a similar verse is found: isvarah paramah krsnah sac-cid-ananda-vigrahah anadir adir govindah 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." In the Srimad Bhagavatam we learn that the Absolute Truth possesses three features: vadanti tat tattva-vidas tattvam yaj jnanam advayam brahmeti paramatmeti bhagavan iti sabdyate "The Absolute Truth is realized in three phases of understanding by the knower of the Absolute Truth, and all of them are identical. Such phases of the Absolute Truth are expressed as Brahman, Paramatma, and Bhagavan." The impersonal, all-pervasive aspect of the Absolute Truth is the brahma-jyoti. One who realizes this feature of the Lord experiences the quality of eternality (sat). The localized presence of the Lord within the hearts of all living entities is the Paramatma. The yogis who realize this form of the Lord experience the qualities of eternality and knowledge (sat and cit). The personalized form of the Lord in the spiritual abode of Vaikuntha is the Bhagavan feature.. The devotees who realize this form of the Lord experience the qualities of eternality, knowledge and bliss (sat, cit and ananda). The complete understanding of the Absolute Truth entails comprehension of all three aspects of the Lord. In the Bhagavad Gita (14.27) the Lord declares Himself to be the source of the impersonal Brahman: brahmano hi pratisthaham "I am the foundation of the impersonal brahman." It is not that Krishna is manifesting from the impersonal, but the impersonal brahmajyoti is manifesting from Lord Krishna. Elsewhere in the Gita Krishna firmly establishes the spirituality of His form. avajananti mam mudha manusim tanum asritam param bhavam ajananto mama bhuta-mahesvaram "Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature as the Supreme Lord of all that be." The impersonalists fail to comprehend the existence of spiritual form. Their experience of material form has led them to believe form is the cause of material suffering. Having seen that form has brought them so much suffering, they are eager to become free from all forms and designations. As such they cannot accept that the Absolute also possesses a form. But the form of the Lord is transcendental to this mundane existence and is not limiting as our own material forms are. This is why Lord Krishna describes Himself as follows: janma karma ca me divyam "My birth and activities are transcendental." In the Brahma Samhita we find the following statement: advaitam acyutam anadim ananta-rupam "The Lord possesses unlimited spiritual forms, all of which are beginingless." The Lord's forms are anadih, without any beginging. It is not that the Lord assumes a form. These forms are eternally existing in the spiritual realm. In the Gita Krishna confirms this: na tv evaham jatu nasam na tvam neme janadhipah na caiva na bhavisyamah sarve vayam atah param "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." Here Lord Krishna establishes the eternality of each and every individual. If they were all parts of the nondual absolute, Krishna could simply have said, "Never was there a time when I did not exist." But he says, "Nor you, nor all these kings." And in the future non of them shall cease to be. Their individuality is eternal. Never was there a time when Lord Krishna did not exist, nor in the future will He cease to be. Lord Krishna's personality is eternal, as confirmed throughout the Vedic texts. There is no truth higher than Lord Krishna. Lord Krishna is not manifesting from some higher impersonal truth. Krishna is the Absolute Truth, as He Himself says: mattah parataram nanyat kincid asti dhananjaya mayi sarvam idam protam sutre mani-gana iva "O conqueror of wealth, there is no truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread." Throughout the Bhagavad Gita Krishna repeatedly uses the words "Me" and "I". He says "surrender to Me", "worship Me", "I am the source of everything", "I am the supreme truth", etc. We don't find him saying, "Surrender to the unmanifested truth within Me, from which I came, into which I will go, the formless, tasteless, deaf, dumb, and lame brahman within my kidney." And on practically every page of the Gita we find the phrase "sri bhagavan uvaca" -"The Supreme Personality of Godhead said". It is Bhagavan who is speaking, the personal form of the Lord. So when he says surrender to Me, the direct meaning is surrender to Bhagavan, the supreme person. And this is how Arjuna understood it, because he says it himself: param brahma param dhama pavitram paramam bhavan purusam sasvatam divyam adi-devam ajam vibhum ahus tvam rsayah sarve devarsir naradas tatha asito devalo vyasah svayam caiva bravisi me "Arjuna said: You are the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the ultimate abode, the purest, the Absolute Truth. You are the eternal, transcendental, original person, the unborn, the greatest. All the great sages such as Narada, Asita, Devala and Vyasa confirm this truth about You, and now You Yourself are declaring it to me." This is Arjuna's conclusion as to who is Krishna. He begins by saying Krishna is param brahma - the Supreme Absolute Truth. The Vedic texts state that everything is brahman - sarvam khalv idam brahma. Everything is ultimately belonging to the spiritual nature on the absolute platform, because it is all an emanation from the Absolute. Though they are all brahman (spiritual in nature), there is a difference between the emanation and the source. Therefore Arjuna uses the words param brahma. If there is only nonduality, where is the question of qualifying it with the word "supreme" (param)? Good, better and best can only be used when there is variety. Otherwise one can refer to the same supreme brahman as the worst brahman. For nonduality, both statements are equally meaningless. Arjuna refers to Krishna as param dhama, the supreme abode. In the Gita Krishna says "Everything is resting on Me as pearls are strung on a thread." Krishna is then described as pavitram paramam, or supremely pure. This confirms that Lord Krishna's body was spiritual and not the manifestation of the sattva-guna, as claimed by impersonalists. The Lord is nirguna, not contaminated by the modes of material nature (sattva, rajas and tamas). His body is completely spiritual and transcendental to this material realm. Then Arjuna uses the words purusham shashvatam divyam. This is as clear as it could possibly be. "You are the eternal transcendental person." The Lord's personality is eternal and spiritual. And this is not just Arjuna's conclusion, but that of all the great sages such as Narada, Asita, Devala and Sri Vyasadeva, the compiler of all Vedic knowledge. Ultimately one can understand Krishna only through devotion, as stated in the Gita: bhaktya mam abhijanati yavan yas casmi tattvatah "One can understand Me as I am, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, only by devotional service." By denying the supremacy of Lord Krishna's personality, the impersonalists lose the ability to perform true devotion to the Lord. Lacking devotion, they fail to understand Krishna in truth, and take shelter of speculative thoughts and philosophies which further deny His personality. Thus they are unable to understand the Absolute Truth in three features, and are ultimately bewildered into considering themselves as the supreme. This is the last snare of maya which catches the spiritualist on the path of self realization. In attempting to become free from the conditionings of ahankara (false ego), they have expanded their false identification to the superlative degree. The Bhagavad Gita describes this: ahankara-vimudhatma kartaham iti manyate "Being bewildered by ahankara, the foolish soul thinks 'I am the cause'." What is ahankara? The conception that "I am (aham) the cause (kara)" Thus when the transcendentalist comes to the point of 'kartaham iti manyate', thinking, "Ultimately I am the cause of all causes," he is factually on the platform of 'ahankara-vimudhatma', a foolish soul completely bewildered by ahankara. -------- Question: "Are there any clear and definite references in the Vedic literature which can clearly show that Krsna is the original form of the Lord and that the Lord does have a personal form eg dark blue colour, has flute, and carries a peacock feather on his head etc." Answer: There are countless verses which describe the appearance of the Lord. All ready this is quite long, so I will avoid listing many quotes and just quote one line: yam shyamasundaram acintya-guna-svarupam "The Lord's original form is a beautiful dark blue color and He possesses unlimited wonderful qualities." ----- Question: "In Bhagavad Gita is Sri Krishna asking Arjun to focus on Sri Krsna's personal form?" Answer: Krishna is asking Arjuna to focus his mind on His own form, His sva-rupa, which was standing there before Arjuna. It is impossible to perform anusmaranam on something that possesses no qualities. To think of the nonexistent or that which is beyond qualities is impossible. You can confirm this yourself by trying it. Think of something which doesn't exist. Now analyse that thought in terms of its individual qualities. Every single individual quality is already existing. You have only combined many existing entities together, you have not thought of something that does not exist. You may think of a gold mountain, but gold exists, as do mountains. It is impossible to think of something that does not exist. Now try to think of something without qualities. How is it visualized in your mind? What is it that creates a thought? A combination of qualities is the basis of a thought. It is simple to make a statement like "meditate on the unmanifested within your heart", but it is impossible to accomplish. You can simply meditate on what the unmanifested is not, not what it is. Thus the Upanishads utilize the 'neti' process. "It is not this, it is not that." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggohil Posted October 30, 2000 Report Share Posted October 30, 2000 Hari Bole Dear jndas. Thank you very very much for ansering my questions. Hare Krsna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted October 30, 2000 Report Share Posted October 30, 2000 The intent of this posting is to point out that nowhere in the Gita does Krishna insist that he has some kind of a permanent, transcendental form. People who may think otherwise can refute my posting with proper quotes and comments. Quotes should be from statements made by Krishna and not some devotee. I will only address the quotes from the Gita, which are statements made by Krishna himself. All the other quotes are from works that were written after the time of Krishna and so naturally talk about Krishna as the ultimate God with a form. --------- brahmano hi pratisthaham "I am the foundation of the impersonal brahman." It is not that Krishna is manifesting from the impersonal, but the impersonal brahmajyoti is manifesting from Lord Krishna. ------------- shvu - The tranlsation should be "I am the foundation of Brahman". There is no sanskrit word there for impersonal. Krishna was a human being who was born and who died, just like everybody else. Krishna was one of the avatars, through whom the eternal Principle giave a message to Humankind. So Brahman and Krishna, Rama, Jesus, etc ALL emerge from that Principle. Nothing about having a form here. ---------- "Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature as the Supreme Lord of all that be." ---------- shvu - Clearly Krishna says he is more than the body here. So that "I" is not the human Krishna. It is the eternal principle. Why give it the name of Krishna then ? Nothing about having a form here. -------------- "O conqueror of wealth, there is no truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread." Throughout the Bhagavad Gita Krishna repeatedly uses the words "Me" and "I". He says "surrender to Me", "worship Me", "I am the source of everything", "I am the supreme truth", etc. ---------------- shvu - The "I" and "me" are the eternal rpinciple giving a mesage through the avatar of Krishna. It has been give nbefore by several other avatars, and does not mean the Physical Krishna as pointed out earlier. ------------ We don't find him saying, "Surrender to the unmanifested truth within Me, from which I came, into which I will go, the formless, tasteless, deaf, dumb, and lame brahman within my kidney." ------------ shvu - He says exactly that in the 12th chapter. But he goes on to say that it is harder. That does mean that it is false. ---------- "One can understand Me as I am, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, only by devotional service." ----------- shvu - That is not true. Because Krishna gives four different paths to Realization of which Bhakti is only one. -------- By denying the supremacy of Lord Krishna's personality, the impersonalists lose the ability to perform true devotion to the Lord. -------- shvu - Not true. Impersonalists do not deny the Lord and in no way lack in true devotion. The impersonalist view maintains that there is no division, and that divison occurs through Maya. But the path to realize the truth is that of devotion only. How can that be false ? Without even probably knowing what advaita has to say, some dualists are of the opinion that Advaitins are ego-centric, and atheists incapable of true devotion. No learned Dvatin scholar will make such a statement. It is born out of the narrow-minded, ignorant views of some 'Partial scholars'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted October 30, 2000 Report Share Posted October 30, 2000 There was a typo in this part, so I am posting the corrected version. ------------ We don't find him saying, "Surrender to the unmanifested truth within Me, from which I came, into which I will go, the formless, tasteless, deaf, dumb, and lame brahman within my kidney." ------------ shvu - He says exactly that in the 12th chapter, of course minus the kidney part. He says that it is harder than worshipping the physical form. That does not mean that it is false. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gauracandra Posted October 30, 2000 Report Share Posted October 30, 2000 Jndas, As usual you have given a very lucid analysis. I have read in the past a number of articles by Professors of Indology which have shown the development of the impersonalistic view of the Bhagavad Gita and other Vedantic texts as essentially deriving from Mahayana Buddhism. Essentially, after Buddhism swept across India as a reform movement, the Vedic philosophy practically became extinct. It was within this environment that scholars like Shankara reinterpreted the Vedic texts to make them more acceptable to the Buddhist majority. I have read a number of scholars that have criticized this revision of Vedic texts as essentially "me-too-buddhism". Again, you have given a very lucid answer regarding the original Vedic view of a personal God. Gauracandra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viji_53 Posted October 31, 2000 Report Share Posted October 31, 2000 Maha Vishnu (Narayana) took the avatar as Krishna. Vishnu took the human form for the sake of His devotees. He also showed ,every one who is born has to die one day by dying Himself at the age of 125 yrs. Also when Krishna showed His Visvaroopa He showed the form of Vishnu with everything in Him. So Krishna is one of the forms of Vishnu( Narayana) Who has Form & is formless. Narayana is the Paramodevata whether ISKCON people agree or not. Krishna is one of the avatars of Lord Vishnu. He is one of the forms of Vishnu. Krishna surely had a form as Krishna. Krishna was born from the womb of Devaki & died like other human being. It is Vishnu's lila which revealed Krishna's form & through Him we are fortunate to get Gita. It is therefore Narayana is the Ultimate God & Krishna is one forms of Narayana. Hari Bhol! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted October 31, 2000 Report Share Posted October 31, 2000 Dear Viji, You are right. The Bhagavatam clearly says that Lord Narayana incarnated on earth as Krishna to vanquish demons and to restore Dharma. Just like he incarnated as Rama, Narasimha, etc earlier. There are a lot of people who worship Rama and Narasimha. Are they lacking in devotion ? This misconception has arisen because one group of devotees wanted to glorify their idol as Superior. So their Gurus cleverly avoid all references to Narayana. Consequently I wouldn't be surprised if there are a lot of western devotees, who have never heard of Lord Narayana. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggohil Posted November 1, 2000 Report Share Posted November 1, 2000 Hare Krsna Dear Shvu Would you be kind enough to provide me with translation of following chapters from the Gita translated by Swami Vireshwarananda. 10.8, 5.29, and 7.06 Additionally, you state "The Bhagavatam clearly says that Lord Narayana incarnated on earth as Krishna to .........." will provide me with reference on this. Thank you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted November 1, 2000 Report Share Posted November 1, 2000 Hello ggohill, My copies of the Gita and the Bhagavatam are back in India. So it will be a few days before I can come up with the translations. Sorry about that. Meanwhile if someone else here has the Gita by Swami Vireshwarananda, please post them here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggohil Posted November 1, 2000 Report Share Posted November 1, 2000 Jai Sri Krsna Dear Viji_53 You state "Maha Vishnu (Narayana) took the avatar as Krishna. Vishnu took the human form for the sake of His devotees" Can you please provide me with vedic reference. Thank you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viji_53 Posted November 2, 2000 Report Share Posted November 2, 2000 Dear ggohil, Srimad Bhagavatam is the proof or Vedic reference for the avatar of krishna. Lord Narayana took 10 main avatars to protect His devotees(Dushta nigraham & shishta paripalanam). 9th avatar is Krishna. To kill Kamsa & Sisupala Narayana took the avatar of Krishna. After killing Kamsa & sisupala also He was protecting His devotees. Even today He is protecting His devotees. As Shvu pointed out Incarnations of Lord Vishnu other than Krishna are not inferior. Rama, Narasimha, Vamana , or Hari or Krishna, He is the same supreme God. Which ever form you like you worship Him in that form. Do not force anybody to accept your form. Hindu religion is against compulsions. Hari Bhol! viji Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted November 2, 2000 Report Share Posted November 2, 2000 Dear ggohill, Here are the translations of the verses that you required. The translations are by Swami Vireshwarananda. I will post the Bhagavatam verses on Avatars soon. ----------------- I am the source of all, everything is produced out of Me, knowing thus the wise worship Me with devotion. 10.8 Knowing Me, the enjoyer of all sacrifices and ascetism, the great Lord of all the worlds and the well-wisher of all beings, one attains peace. 5.29 Know that all beings have these two of their origin; I am the origin of the entire universe as also its destroyer. 7.6 ---------------- Dear Animesh, What you have written is perfectly in accordance with the Shastras. Like I said before, God is not exclusive to people who worship one particular form. All Paths lead to him. It is the intensity of devotion that matters and nothing else. A perfect example for devotion in recent times is Sri Ramakrishna. He saw God everywhere, in everyone. And that is what Krishna preached too. Dear Viji, There are bound to be bad apples everywhere. Some people dislike tolerating or acknowledging other beliefs. Like the frog that lived in a well, and thought that the well was the whole world, and nothing beyond. But there are also people like Ggohill, who are keen to know more. The least that we can do is provide them with any information we have that they may find useful. A belief is a powerful thing. We get conditioned to it over time, and it takes firm hold in us. After taking something as true for granted, and nurturing it for a number of years, it is extremely difficult for people to see otherwise. The most natural reaction will be anger and irritation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viji_53 Posted November 3, 2000 Report Share Posted November 3, 2000 If Education or devotion does not make a person polite, such education or devotion is waste. May God shower His grace on us to be polite. HariBhol! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggohil Posted November 3, 2000 Report Share Posted November 3, 2000 Hare Krsna Dear Viji, Shvu and Jayasriradhey Thank you for your replys. (Just for the record, my participation in these discussion is nothing but a quest for knowledge) Dear Viji: I was hoping that you could provide me with specific references on "Vishnu incarnated as Krsna in a Human form" in Vedas which I could look up or you could quote. I was not aware that by asking questions on impersonal, personal or the original form of the Lord (if any), was forcing anybody to accept any particular form of the Lord. Dear Shvu: Regarding your comment as "Bad Apples". Everybody does their best to understand the real knowledge. Difference of opinions will occur. Freedom of choice is grace of God. Disagreeing with people is appropriate, however classifying people as "Bad Apples" (just because their opinions differ), is not. Perhaps, the judgement of “Good apples and Bad apples” should be left to the one who knows everything. Based on all the translations I see that when Krsna says I and Me, he is referring to himself as Krsna and not as Vishnu. The translation clearly shows that Krsna (not Vishnu) presents himself as the Lord. Now, are there reference in Vedas that clearly shows that Krsna was incarnation of Vishnu. Dear Jayassriradhey: Thank you for the translation. I inclined to agree with you that the ultimate point in Gita is unconditional Bhakti. But, ignorant people like me need knowledge before we can come to the stage of pure devotion. Hari Bole Girish N. Gohil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggohil Posted November 3, 2000 Report Share Posted November 3, 2000 Jai Sri Krsna Dear Shvu: I have ordered a copy of Gita translated by Swami Vireshwaranada. Thanks for the information Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted November 3, 2000 Report Share Posted November 3, 2000 Dear ggohil, About the bad apples, There are some people who without having proper knwledge or attempting to find out the truth, decide that their belief is the only true one, and everything else is false and worthless. I dont' know if you have come across such people, but I have. Listening to them talk, will give a person who may not know otherwise, a totally wrong picture. They are the bad apples I was referring to. To add further, I do not consider people who do not agree with my views as bad apples and all those who agree as good apples. If I thought so, I would be calling them rascals and would not have tried to explain things. Why I say that the "I" and "me" in the Gita refers to the eternal Principle [Vishnu, Narayana] is because Krishna says elsewhere that, ----------- There never was a time when I was not... Fools think that I am this body... I am the source of all... Among Vrishnis, I am Vasudeva... [Vrishnis was the race to which Krishna belonged to. Vasudeva is another name for Krishna] ----------- Krishna was a human born on July 27, 3227 BC and lived for 125 years. This is the date that we get from the Puranas. According to the Puranas, several devotees lived long before the time of Krishna. They used to worship Narayana. Prahalada is one example. Hanuman was yet another Great Devotee who worshipped Rama. Like I have said in my earlier postings, if we read only the Gita and ISKCON literature, we will arrive at the conclusion that Krishna was the original. SP says in one of his purports that Narayana is a form of Krishna. I don't know where he got this secret piece of Information from. Most of his disciples read only his literature and so are not in a position to find faults. I am no scholar, but I know enough to say that such statements are misleading. And if you talk to scholars of other Vaishnava Systems , they will tell you pretty much what I have told you and more. Try dvaita.org or advaita.org And did you read the 'interesting statements by SP' thread ? Check that out too. I will post relevant verses from the Bhagavatam as soon as I can get hold of a copy. That should make things clear and give a complete picture. I hope you find Swami Vireshwarananda's Translation informative. Good luck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animesh Posted November 4, 2000 Report Share Posted November 4, 2000 Dear Girish ji, I would like to explain something using an analogy. Imagine that in your previous birth you were a very brave and high ranking officer in army. You fought many wars and won many accolades. Also imagine that you remember your previous birth. Sometimes you may tell to your friends how you fought all those wars etc. etc. In telling these stories, you will use the words "I", "me", "my", "mine" etc. at no. of places. But it is obvious that you are not saying that you fought those wars in the same bodily form which you have got in this birth. The bodies are entirely different. Only the soul is the same. Similary, when Krishna presents himself as the Supreme God and tells about many things he did in the past (eg. explaining Gita to Vivaswan), then he is not saying that he did all those things in the same bodily form which he was having when he was explaining Gita to Arjuna. He says these because he remembers all his previous births. He says this in a shloka (I will translate that into English): "Many a births both you and I have taken. I remember them all but you do not." So, if you consider Krishna as the Supreme God because of the same soul, then you are right. But you will also be right if you say that Narasimha, Rama etc. are Supreme, because all of them are previous briths of Krishna. But it is wrong to assume that the two handed form of Krishna is the original form of the Supreme God. Just like Rama and many other avatars, Krishna was an avatar of Vishnu. He took brith as son of Devaki like any other human being. But he was not an ordinary human being, he was an avatar of Supreme God or, in other words, Supreme God himself. Similarly, all other avatars of Vishnu were not ordinary human beings but Supreme Gods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viji_53 Posted November 5, 2000 Report Share Posted November 5, 2000 Dear ggohil, Krishna avatar is 9th avatar of Narayana. Narayana had already taken as Matsa, Koorma, Varaha, Narisimha, Vamana, Parusurama & Rama avatars before Krishna. Do you agree or not? As animesh said Krishna remembers His birth & we donot as Krishna is Lord Narayana who has taken birth to kill Kamsa& Sisupala & to protect His devotees. I will soon post quotes from Bhagavatam for you for reference.Nobody is saying that Krishna is not God. All of us are His devotees. All we say is do not preach only what SP said , read all the books written by all the scholors. Let the western people get the correct knowledge of hinduism. Then only it will remain for ever , otherwise it will perish once you stop preaching like other religions. No body has any hatred for ISKCON.As long as we understand the essence of Gita that is enough. Let us all shed our ego of what I say is correct or what my guru is only correct , let us drink the essence of Gita ,relish it & please God by following Gita. If we do not do that , it means that we have not understood Gita. Hari Bhol! viji Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sumeet Posted November 5, 2000 Report Share Posted November 5, 2000 Hare Krishna Everyone. Kindly accept the company of this most fallen soul so that I can recieve blessings from the sublime presence of the devotees of God. Accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet and kindly provide me with some place at your lotus feet so that I can relish the nectar of God's glory along with the other great devotees. I'm a follower of Lord Chaitanya and Brahma Madhva Gaudiya Vaishnava Parampara so naturally my knowledge will be from the unlimited knowledge present in the Vedic literature based on acintya bhedha-abheda. As a Gaudiya Vaishnava or follower of Lord Chaitanya I simply follow His teachings in Siksastaka where it is explicitly mentioned: " One should chant the holy name of the Lord in a humble state of mind, thinking oneself lower than the straw in the street; one should be more tolerant than a tree, devoid of all sense of false prestige, and should be ready to offer all respect to others. In such a state of mind one can chant the holy name of the Lord constantly. " (Siksastaka 3) I would urge that all devotees here should also make this line a principle of their life irrespective of their religious affiliations. In one of my friends post I came across the statement--- " shvu - The tranlsation should be "I am the foundation of Brahman". There is no sanskrit word there for impersonal. Krishna was a human being who was born and who died, just like everybody else. Krishna was one of the avatars, through whom the eternal Principle gave a message to Humankind. So Brahman and Krishna, Rama, Jesus, etc ALL emerge from that Principle. " My dear friend shivji this fool wants to know from you what is the "eternal principle" what is it's description as per great vedic sages and the Vedic literature. What is the Vedic conception of eternal principle ? With Love Your Servant Always OM TAT SAT Sumeet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted November 6, 2000 Report Share Posted November 6, 2000 Dear Sumeet, Q : What is the Vedic conception of eternal principle ? shvu : To put the answer in a very simple form, the answer is Narayana, the source of everything. I have a question for you, Why are you calling yourself a fool ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sumeet Posted November 6, 2000 Report Share Posted November 6, 2000 Hare krishna My dear friend Shivji thanks a lot. I always consider myself a fool because I being a simple human being is always in ignorance but by unlimited mercy of Sri Sri Radha-Krishna I have some knowledge about God. So although some knowledge has been imparted to me by their causeless mercy still I in myself is a ignorant person who if at all can exhibit any illumination it's due to their grace only. i was a fool and i shall remain the same always. it's out of causeless mercy of Sri Sri Radha-Krishna that i have some idea about God but in myself i'm only a fool. I have heard that many great sages of recent times saying that God as presented in Vedas is formless, unmanifested absolute imperceptible to material senses. But if Narayana is that self same ultimate God then Narayana possesses a beautiful four-hand form which is transcendental to material modes. So how can these sages call God ultimately formless. In many commentaries(based on Advaita Vedanta) I have seen that vishnu or narayana is considered to be but one aspect of Supreme which is unmanifest formless absolute. So how can this Narayana be source of everything when it is only an aspect of the great supreme formless God. Shoudn't that Supreme formless entity be the eternal principle. Kindly explain all this to me. With Love Your Servant Always OM TAT SAT Sumeet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted November 6, 2000 Report Share Posted November 6, 2000 Dear Sumeet, Sumeet : ...a simple human being is always in ignorance... shvu : A fool is someone who is incapable of knowing. An ignorant person is someone who does not know. There is a difference. So 'ignorant' is more appropriate. Since all human beings are in ignorance, we don't have to specifically call ourselves as ignorant, do we ? It would be misleading. Sumeet : I have heard that many great sages of recent times saying that God as presented in Vedas is formless, unmanifested absolute imperceptible to material senses. shvu: Can you provide Vedic references to these statements made by recent Sages? Sumeet : But if Narayana is that self same ultimate God then Narayana possesses a beautiful four-hand form which is transcendental to material modes. shvu : A beautiful four-handed form is something that can be imagined by you and me. So it is not transcendental. Transcendental is something that is beyond the mind and senses. So we cannot talk about it. To repeat again, there can be no such thing as a 'transcendental form'. The two words contradict each other. Sumeet : So how can these sages call God ultimately formless. In many commentaries(based on Advaita Vedanta) I have seen that vishnu or narayana is considered to be but one aspect of Supreme which is unmanifest formless absolute. shvu : I would like to see refernces to scriptures which call Narayana as an aspect of the formless. Sumeet : So how can this Narayana be source of everything when it is only an aspect of the great supreme formless God. Shoudn't that Supreme formless entity be the eternal principle ? shvu : Narayana is the source of everything. If some people are debating that the source is formless, then I would like to see references. That will make things clear. Cheers, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sumeet Posted November 6, 2000 Report Share Posted November 6, 2000 Dear Shivji Hare Krishna Accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet. "shvu : A fool is someone who is incapable of knowing." Sumeet: Who is capable of knowing the infinite by His own efforts. Who Himsef posseses the capability to do this. If the Infinite, Krishna doesn't wish to tell one anything about Himself then one won't be able to know anything about Him irrespective of one's capability. Dear to know the infinite none has that capability. No one has. If someone you know then let me know. So actually this capability to understand the infinite is only bestowed upon us. It is bestowed upon he who can please the infinite. And it is bestowed by the Infinite itself. It's not our own capability. Therefore one should think himself always a fool because he by himself lacks the capability of knowing the infinite. Only because infinite gave us the capability we can know Him. So this capability is certainly not ours. It has been granted to us in the form of the unalloyed devotional service which proves the causeless mercy of the Supreme Being. So one must always think himself to be a fool because this capability to know the Supreme has been bestowed on us by Him only. And in this way we should avoid thinking with pride that Oh I'm capable of renedering devotional service unto the Supreme and I possess the capability to understand Him. About the Advaitic concept I shall let you know it a little later since I have to get the books from the library and write from their and also give some websites you might be interested to look into. You said that Narayana's form is not Transcendental ? Then is it material. Is it made up of material elements. Do you consider Narayana Saguna Brahman ie Nirguna Brahman with attributes and hence one of the five deities or Personal God or Ishta Devta as considered by the Advaita school. My dear friend you wrote: " A beautiful four-handed form is something that can be imagined by you and me. So it is not transcendental. Transcendental is something that is beyond the mind and senses." Kindly refer to this verse of Holy Gita: " But another unmanifest which is eternal of a Superior nature than the unmanifest of Brahma that is never destroyed when the all the living entities perish."(BG 8.20) "That unmanifest is described as imperishable and proclaimed to be Supreme goal having reached, one never returns to this material existence; that is my Supreme abode."(BG 8.21) Also see: " That abode of Mine is not illumined by the sun or moon, nor by fire. One who reaches it never returns to this material world. " (BG 15.6) Seeing this description of Narayana's abode it seems to be transcendental and impersihable. It is certainly beyond matter as indicated by the word avyakta as Sri Krishna says. So if this abode of such a transcendental nature exist then why cannot Narayana who inhabits this abode have a Transcendental form ? Do think that Narayana existing in such a abode will be having a material body covering ? And if He doesn't have a Transcendental form and also doesn;'t ahev a material body then what is His form composed of ? Kindly enlighten this fool. With Love Your Servant Always OM TAT SAT Sumeet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viji_53 Posted November 7, 2000 Report Share Posted November 7, 2000 Narayana is the Supreme God. when light has both wave nature & particle nature Can't God Narayana have both form & formless; two hands & 4 hands? Narayana is the supreme God & is acknowledged or approved by Lord Krishna Himself when Bheeshma recites Vishnu Sahasranama to Udhishtira in front of Krishna in the battle field before he dies. When Bheeshma talks about 1000 names of Lord Vishnu(Sahasra nama) Krishna nods His head in approval. That is why people say Vishnu Sahasranama is great! Vishnu sahasranama can be found in MahaBharatam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sumeet Posted November 7, 2000 Report Share Posted November 7, 2000 Hare Krishna Accept Obesiances unto your lotus feet. My point is not that whether Naryana has a fomr or not. Whether He is formless or with a form or not. My point is that Narayana's body is transcendental to materail nature and is without a tinge of Material contamination. I fully know that Narayana being unlimited can be both formless and with a form simultaneously. But my question I'm slowly coming towards it is Narayana's form is not made up of materila elements His form is transcendental. And neither Krishna or Ramacandra or any one from Vishnu-tattva has a material form. My whole point of discussion is that God is ultimately a Supreme Person and He possesses a superexcelently beautiful form which is not material. No one can deny it. I wish to discuss this transcendental nature of God's form with all of us here. One should never think that God posseses material form. I'm convinced that Narayana is God so kindly don't think that I'm arguing against His Supremacy. My point is that Narayana's form is not material He is transcendental to material manifestation. With Love Your Servant Always OM TAT SAT Sumeet. 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.