Krishna's Spiritual Form

[shvu]

 

Dear Sumeet,

 

I will come back to the fools issue when I find time.

 

Summet : 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)

 

shvu : There is no mention of a Transcendental form here. I would like to see some reference to some verse where Krishna or Narayana talks about him possessing a transcendetal form. Please note that nature does not mean form.

 

Cheers

[sumeet]

Dear Shivji

Accept my obeisances unto your lotus feet.

shvu : There is no mention of a Transcendental form here. I would like to see some reference to some verse where Krishna or Narayana talks about him possessing a transcendetal form. Please note that nature does not mean form.

 

True although there is no mention of Transcendental form here but my point was that since living beings in this material world or under control of material nature have material forms so why not Narayana or Krishna living in transcendental nature would have a transcendental form and not a material one. After all this material world is composed of five gross elements and so on... and it is they that makes our form. Our materila body is made up of these material elements existing in the material nature. Juist like the material world exist and is full of material forms why cannot when a transcendental world exist it can be full of transcendental forms ?

 

However for your reference there is a specific verse in Holy Gita:

" One who meditates on the omniscient, primordial, the controller, smaller than the smallest, yet the maintainer of everything, whose form is inconcievable, resplendent like the sun and totally transcendental to material nature." (BG 8.9)

 

You see this verse:

acintya-rupam aditya-varnam tamasah parastat

Focus on the word "rupam" used there. Here Sri Krishna is explicitly refering to the form of God the Supreme Person. And what he says the most appropriate word that one could ever use "acintya". This word means:

Acintya means that which is beyond this material world, that which our argument, logic and philosophical speculation cannot touch, that which is "inconceivable".

So form of God is like that. Lord Krishna continues and tells us that "aditya-varnam" meaning resplendent like sun and then continues " tamasah parastat " meaning beyond the darkness of material world or simply transcendental to material conception. Hence although it is difficult for us to imagine as indicated by the word "acintya" yet still God possesses a Transcendental form as confirmed in the verse above.

 

Hope that this meets you well.

 

With Love

Your servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

[shvu]

 

Dear Sumeet,

 

Acintya Rupam sounds interesting and also contradictory. Acintya being inconceivable, how can one meditate on that ? A person can only meditate/focus on something that can be imagined by the mind.

 

Hmm.... I need to think about that verse some more and see if I can make sense out of it. Thanks for bringing it to my notice. It is definitely interesting.

 

Dear Ggohil,

 

As I have pointed out earlier, there is no reference to Krishna in Vedic literature simply because the Vedas were around long before the time of Krishna.

 

Any literature that talks about Krishna was written after his death. The most popular one being the Bhagavata Purana. This Purana says that Krishna was one of the Avatars of Narayana. I will post the verses here as soon as I can get hold of a copy of it.

 

About the Brahma Samhita, it was written by devotees after the death of Krishna and so cannot be considered as an authority with respect to this topic.

 

Cheers

[ggohil]

Hare Krsna

 

Sri Shvu:

 

Incendently, was Bhagavata Purana written after Krsna's appearace and written by devotees. If yes, then why is considered as authority.

[ggohil]

Sri Shvu:

 

I believe:

 

Referring to any soul, who’s opinions differ, as rascal is unwarranted. This kind of implication evokes inappropriate reactions and derails rational thought process. Referring to people as bad

apples has similar effects. Why not just concentrate on the Matter at Hand and stop referring to people as bad. This just my opinion.

 

In addition to the quotes you mentioned above. “Of Adityas I am Vishnu.......” BG 10.22

 

To describe Krsna in BG 10.12 and 10.13, words like sasvatam and adi-devam are used. A. C. Prabhupada interprets these words as “Original” and “the Original Lord”. I do not know if this is a accurate

interpretation.

 

However, there is no clear evidence that Krsna is incarnation of Vishnu.

 

I understand Krsna took birth and lived for a specific period. But if he is the Supreme as he clearly show in BG, then who are we to deduce any opinion just by looking at his birth. If he is the Lord he may come and go as he sees appropriates.

 

Brahama Samita. text 1 and 41

 

isvarah--the controller; paramah--supreme; krsnah--Lord Krishna; sat--comprising eternal

existence; chit--absolute knowledge; ananda--and absolute bliss; vigrahah--whose form, anadih--

without beginning; adih--the origin; govindah--Lord Govinda; sarva-karana-karanam--the cause

of all causes.

 

alola--swinging; candraka--with a moon-locket; lasat--beautified; vana-malya--a garland of

flowers; vamsi--flute; ratna- angadam--adorned with jeweled ornaments; pranaya--of love; keli-

kala--in pastimes; vilasam--who always revels; syamam--Syamasundara; tri-bhanga--bending in

three places; lalitam--graceful; niyata--eternally; prakasam--manifest ; govindam--Govinda; adi-

purusam--the original person; tam--Him; aham--I; bhajami--worship.

 

In this translation (Not by A. C. Prabhupada) of Brahma Smahita, Krsna is referred to as the original person in many slokas, I have just mentioned two above.

 

I will look at the site you mentioned. Thanks

 

 

Sri Animeshji:

 

Thank you for the wonderful analogy.

 

I understand what you are presenting in the analogy.

 

However, I am still looking for one clear and direct evidence in the Vedic literature which clearly states that “Krsna was an avtar of Vishnu”.

 

 

Sri Viji:

 

I think you give me more credit then I deserve, if you believe that I am capable of preaching anything. It is true, what limited knowledge I possess, is obtained from the BG translated by A.C. Prabhupada. I am in processing of obtaining BG translated by other scholars.

 

You state Lord Narayana incarnated eight times before Krsna and therefore Krsna was the ninth incarnation. This in itself is a weak argument and does not support clearly that Krsna’s appearance was incarnation of Lord Naranyna.

 

As I stated above I am looking for clear evidence from Vedas of “Krsna was an avtar of Vishnu or Naranyana”.

 

[viji_53]

Dear ggohil,

Thaitria Upanishad says:

Naarayanaparam brahma tatvam Naaraayana:para

meaning Narayana is Parabrahmam, Naarayana tatvam is the one which is to be known.

Eko ha vai Narayana aaseet nabrahmo nesana: neme tyava pritvi na nakshatrani

meaning before srishti only Narayana was there, no Brahma, no Siva , there was no sky, earth or stars.

Also Nammazvar in his Thiruvaimozhi says

Enn perukku annalathu

Onn porul eeru ela

Van pugazh Naranan

thin kazhal chere.

Azhvar says the word Narayana which contains eight letters called as Ashtakshara mantra is mahamantra, moola mantra. Its full import is not possible to be presented in brief, and casual manner. Each letter is potent & conveys enormous philosophical ideas. Azhvar also says Narayana has charming form & His feet are more dear to His devotees, in order to dwell upon & serve. words in this verse emphasize His being with qualities , form feet all suitable & vital for the Bhakthi path.

Narayana has two maenings in Sanskrit: Narah ayanam; Naranam ayanam. The former means that the Lord resides in all jivas as the inner soul; the latter means that all jivas reside in HIM, have Him as basis & support.

This verse thereby the whole of ThiruvaiMozhi is said to expand the significance of Narayana. Nallayira Divyaprabandam is also one of the vedic references for Narayana being the Supreme Godhead.

Hari Bhol!

viji

[shvu]

 

Dear Ggohil,

 

Why is the Bhagavatam a better authority ?

 

Because it is said to have been composed by Vyasadeva who also recorded the Gita, which is Krishna's own words, and also the Mahabharatha. So the Bhagavatam is considered as the oldest authority on Krishna [Not the oldest on Narayana, though].

 

Note -

 

The Bhagavatam is said to have been composed by Vayasadeva for the people of Kali yuga. Post Krishna and Pre-Buddha, which makes it about 5000 years old.

 

However If I am right, the earliest known reference to the Bhagvatam is not until the 12th century. So there are some scholars who are of the opinion that the Bhagavatam was written in South India about 1000 Ad, after the time of Shankara. But that is debatable.

 

[ggohil]

Hare Krsna

 

Sri Viji:

 

Thanks for the information.

 

Sri Shvu:

 

What is the difference between Bhagavatam and Bhagavatam purana? And where they written at the same time.

 

Thanks

 

 

[shvu]

 

Dear Ggohill,

 

Yes. The Bhagavata Purana is one of the 18 Principle Puranas. It is more popularly referred to as the Srimad Bhagavatam.

 

About the Brahma Samhita, it was found by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu about 400+ years back, when he was touring South India in a temple. He attached a lot of importance to it, and it went on to become one of the important Shastras for the Gaudiya Vaishnavas.

[ggohil]

Hari Bole:

 

Sri Shvu:

 

Originally, was the Brahama Smahita written by Lord Brahama? If yes, then is the translation inaccurate?

 

Thanks

[shvu]

 

Dear Ggohil,

 

There is no evidence that the Brahma Samhita was written by Brahma. It consists of prayers to Brahma, Goddess Durga, Brahman, Vishnu etc. Samhita means collection. If it was authored by Brahma, it would have been immensely popular and would have found a place among other well known Vedic Classics. But it is not so.

 

As for the content and translation, I have not read it, and so am not in a position to comment on that.

 

Cheers

[ggohil]

Hare Krsna

 

Sri Shvu:

 

Thanks for the tips.

 

 

[shvu]

 

Dear Ggohil,

 

I strongly recommend that you talk to people who are from other Vaishnava Traditions too. Not that they are right, but it helps in the sense that you will have more information to choose from. Like Dvaita.org and ramanuja.org Get onto their mailing lists and ask questions. There are several scholars there to give you great answers.

 

You can see how the same thing is interpreted differently by different systems. In my own experience I have found that very enlightening and disillusioning too. It broadens our outlook and makes it a lot more healthier.

 

Cheers

[animesh]

Dear Sumeet ji,

 

" One who meditates on the omniscient, primordial, the controller, smaller than the smallest, yet the maintainer of everything, whose form is inconcievable, resplendent like the sun and totally transcendental to material nature." (BG 8.9)

 

This verse asks us to meditate on Supreme God. After that it talks about the qualities of Supreme God. One of these qualities is "inconcievable form". This means that the Supreme God has inconcievable form and also that we should meditate on Supreme God. But it does not mean that we should try to imagine something inconceivable when meditating. That is definitely not possible. By the very meaning of the word "inconceivable", we can not imagine that. We have to imagine something which we can conceive. But we must not think that that is the actual form of the Supreme God. As an example, suppose that I want to meditate on Krishna playing flute. What form shall I imagine? It may be a form which I have seen in a picture or on TV in some serial etc. But can I claim that this is exactly how Krishna looked? When I do meditation, then I just imagine letter "Om". Because we have to imagine something.

 

Just like the material world exist and is full of material forms why cannot when a transcendental world exist it can be full of transcendental forms ?

 

It is really a very interesting idea. I understand what you are getting at. I think you are right. Transcedental form is definitely a possiblility. We can only imagine some form which we have seen or a combination of forms which we have seen. Suppose I imagine a form in which a human being is having horns. It is true that I have not seen anybody having such a body. But I have seen human beings and I have seen many animals having horns. So, I am just imagining a combination. But transcedental form must mean something which can never be imagined using our current senses. If you describe any form to me and ask "Is this an example of transcedental form?", my answer will be "No". No matter whichever form you describe, my answer will be "No". May be we can imagine such a form only if we have divine senses. Could this be the reason that Arjuna needed divine eyes to see the universal form of Krishna?

 

Sorry for digressing from the topic, but now that I talked about universal form, I just have one question in mind. When Duryodhana wanted to captivate Krishna, then Krishna showed a form because of which the soldiers of Duryodhana could not dare touch Krishna. Was it the same universal form which Arjuna saw?

[viji_53]

Dear animesh,

The answer for your question is no. Lord Krishna showed His Visvaroopam (Big form of Lord Vishnu)to make realize all present there in the sabha that He is nobody but Narayana Himself Who came to this world to protect His devotees. The same form was showed to Kamsa & Karna also before their death. Through Arjuna he taught to the world that everything is present in Him & how can we attain HIM. To Arjuna He showed the form as described in Gita.

He also taught us we can choose one of His forms to meditate till we are able to meditate on Him as formless. It is difficult to concentrate on God with out a form. Let us choose the form we like & medidate on Him.The purpose of this life is to realize Him. Let us surrender to Him , fix our mind on Him & attain Him.

HariBhol!

viji