Guest guest Posted July 16, 2005 Report Share Posted July 16, 2005 avatars or just jivas? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airicky Posted July 16, 2005 Report Share Posted July 16, 2005 Or are They eternal associates? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2005 Report Share Posted July 16, 2005 From http://www.hare-krishna.org/printthread.php?Board=HareKrishnaNews&main=2535&type=post Krishna's sons like Pradyumna and Pradyumna's sons like Aniruddha are Vishnu tattva. Krishna has relations with himself as sons but not with jivas as sons. Krsna Book ch. 61 Krsna had 16,108 wives, and in each of them He begot ten sons, all of them equal to their father in the opulences of strength, beauty, wisdom, fame, wealth and renunciation. SB 10.55.2: He took birth in the womb of Vaidarbhi from the seed of Lord Krsna and received the name Pradyumna. In no respect was He inferior to His father SB 10.61.1: Sukadeva Gosvami said: Each of Lord Krsna's wives gave birth to ten sons, who were not less than their father, having all His personal opulence SB 10.61.8-9: The first son of Queen Rukmini was Pradyumna, and also born of her were Carudesna, Sudesna and the powerful Carudeha, along with Sucaru, Carugupta, Bhadracaru, Carucandra, Vicaru and Caru, the tenth. None of these sons of Lord Hari was less than his father Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2005 Report Share Posted July 16, 2005 Associates of the Lord have power and opluence LIKE that of the Lord. Not equal to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted July 16, 2005 Report Share Posted July 16, 2005 Krishna's sons like Pradyumna and Pradyumna's sons like Aniruddha are Vishnu tattva. Krishna has relations with himself as sons but not with jivas as sons. Krsna appears as Saktyavesa avatars which are jivas. Also it should be remembered that you are quoting from Krsna -lila so naturally it is not speaking of other avatars or happenings outside that lila. Please explain further. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2005 Report Share Posted July 17, 2005 Anyone know about Luv and Kush? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2005 Report Share Posted July 17, 2005 Krsna appears as Saktyavesa avatars which are jivas. Also it should be remembered that you are quoting from Krsna -lila so naturally it is not speaking of other avatars or happenings outside that lila I'm curious. Are the offspring of Avatars outside Krsna-lila jivas? Mostly I remember the Lord taking the role of jivas' son. Like Kshyapa Muni, Ram's parents and Krishna's parents. And I don't know if being a child of the Lord is a relationship. Always open to new things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted July 17, 2005 Report Share Posted July 17, 2005 Krsna is the generating Father of all existence. So the relationship is already there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2005 Report Share Posted July 17, 2005 You are right. Krishna says so in the Gita. There is a bit more to it though. Krishna does not come into direct contact with material existence, Durga. In his capacity as Shiva he does. So Krishna in the Shiva transformation is the father of all MATERIAL existence. The father relationship does not exist in the spiritual world: Letter to Rupanuga San Francisco 3-12-1968 Prabhupada: In the spiritual world there is no such relationship as God as the father. In the material world such conception is appreciated very much. In the material world everyone wants to take from God because the conditioned soul wants to enjoy senses. And the concept of fatherhood is to drag resources from the Supreme. But in the spiritual world there is no question of drawing from the Supreme CC Madhya 21.53 Purport: The material energy is called jagal-lakshmi because she protects the bewildered conditioned souls. Goddess Durga is therefore known as the material mother, and Lord Siva, her husband, is known as the material father. Sridhara Maharaja: In the conception of God as father, we are what we are and He is supplying our food, home, and necessities in this plane. But if we truly approach Him, neglecting our wealth and achievements in this world to make a genuine heart's approach - not merely a formal approach - an exclusive approach - we shall discover what He is, as He is, and not as He is needed by us in our fallen stage From http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/siva.htm The original father, Krsna, says, aham bija-pradah pita: "I am the seed-giving father." That pita (father) is Lord Siva, Sambhu, and material nature (goddess Durga) is considered the mother. By their sexual union are all conditioned souls inserted into the material nature. The impregnation of material nature is wonderful because at one time innumerable living beings are conceived. Bhago jivah sa vijneyah sa canantyaya kalpate (Svetasvatara Upanisad 5.9). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted July 17, 2005 Report Share Posted July 17, 2005 I am merely saying that as the source of everyone's being Krsna is the Father of all. That has nothing to do with drawing necessities in this world, it is just a stark fact. Now that doesn't mean that everyone relates to Him in that fashion. I don't understand rasa or the effects of yogamaya but I accept their existence. Also my answer that the relationship is there already was in relation to this statement from guest previously " And I don't know if being a child of the Lord is a relationship." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2005 Report Share Posted July 17, 2005 Hare Krishna prabhus, This quote gives us a direct answer to the question. From Krishna Book Chapter 55: "The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna, has many grades of parts and parcels, but the quadruple expansions of Krsna--Vasudeva, Sankarsana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha--are directly in the Visnu category. Kama, or the Cupid demigod, who later on took his birth in the womb of Rukmini, was also named Pradyumna, but he cannot be the Pradyumna of the Visnu category. He belongs to the category of jiva-tattva, but for special power in the category of demigods, he was a part and parcel of the super prowess of Pradyumna. That is the verdict of the Gosvamis. Therefore, when Cupid was burned into ashes by the anger of Lord Siva, he merged into the body of Vasudeva, and in order to get his body again, he was begotten by Lord Krsna Himself; he was directly released from his body in the womb of Rukmini and was born as the son of Krsna, celebrated by the name Pradyumna. Because he was begotten by Lord Krsna directly, his qualities were most similar to those of Krsna." I'm most unqualified to comment on Srila Prabhupada's words, but I think what he meant was that the material conception on the father and son where the son asks for things from the father doesn't exist. In chapter 40 of Nectar of Devotion we find that the chapter that states the relationship of sons and other servants in the mood of reverance. It is stated in that chapter the sons of Krishna in Dwaraka had similar modes of awe and reverance to the servants. So it appears from this statement that the relationship of the sons was somewhere in between that of servant and friendship. I don't think that Srila Rupa Goswami would've put a chapter on that relationship if it didn't exist. This is as far as my little knowledge takes me. Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken and I'm sorry for any wrong information that I may give. Your servant, Abhishek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2005 Report Share Posted July 17, 2005 I don't think that Srila Rupa Goswami would've put a chapter on that relationship if it didn't exist. That relation exists between him and his Vishnu expansions. Nowhere is it stated in that chapter that Krishna's sons were jivas. If it did that would contradict Srimad Bhagavatam. Cupid was born to Rukmini to get his body back just as Shiva promised Cupid's wife Rati after burning it and giving him the name Ananga. Remember in prakata-lila, there may be some oddities which are not in aprakata-lila. Like Gopal Krishna fighting demons in the forest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted July 17, 2005 Report Share Posted July 17, 2005 But that is not the only angle. Anyway my point was too simple for all this which is over my head anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2005 Report Share Posted July 17, 2005 Hare Krishna Prabhu, I don't want to make this a debate, but if you read my quote you'll see that Srila Prabhupada explicitly said in the Krishna book that the Pradyumna of Dwaraka lila was not in the Vishnu-tattva and that he belongs in the jiva-tattva category, but has a special prowess that sets him apart from ordinary jivas. He even mentions that this is the verdict of the Goswamis. I know the verse you're referring to in the Srimad-Bhagavatam, which is 10.55.1 and I have an explanation as to how what Srila Prabhupada said doesn't contradict that at all. However, I will not mention it right now or else it'll set off some fireworks which I don't want (just like the falldown of the jiva issue). I think it's best that we ask an authortiy rather than discuss it amongst ourselves. However, I personally choose to believe what Srila Prabhupada said and that's good enough for me. Your servant, Abhishek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2005 Report Share Posted July 17, 2005 I know the verse you're referring to in the Srimad-Bhagavatam, which is 10.55.1 and I have an explanation as to how what Srila Prabhupada said doesn't contradict that at all It would be nice to see that. Please do share. The prakata/aprakata lila explanation works too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2005 Report Share Posted July 17, 2005 Hare Krishna prabhu, The reason I didn't want to get into my explanation was because it would seem as if I was correcting HH Hrdayananda Maharaja's translation of verse 10.55.1, which certainly isn't my intention. I'm only presenting how the two views would be reconciled. So before I tell my explanation, I would like to take the dust from His Holiness's lotus feet for any offense that may seem to be committed. I'm only a fallen soul hoping for his mercy. I have sent a email through HH Narasingha Maharaja's website and have asked the same question to him, and that'll be the authoratative answer. However, I will present the explanation at your request. In 10.55.1 the exact verse is śrī-śuka uvāca kāmas tu vāsudevāḿśo dagdhaḥ prāg rudra-manyunā dehopapattaye bhūyas tam eva pratyapadyata In this verse, vasudevamso is translated as expansion of Vasudeva (referring to Cupid as an expansion of Vasudeva). However, if we break down the word amso (or amsah) we find that amsah can also mean plenary portion of. For example, in the Bhagavad-Gita 15.7, we see Krishna say mamaivāḿśo. Notice the word amso in that category. However, this time it's translated as fragmental parcel, as in the living entities being parts and parcels of the Supreme Lord. So the word vaudevamso doesn't necessarily have to mean expansion of Vasudeva, it could also mean part and parcel of Vasudeva, which would put Pradyumna in Dwaraka lila in the category of jiva-tattva. And because Cupid merged into the body of Vasudeva after being burned to ashes by Lord Shiva, that would make him a plenary portion of Vaudeva and because he was begotten directly by the Lord, he would've had most similar qualities to Lord Krishna. Now I could be wrong with my explanation, so it's best to wait until an authority answers the question. I beg forgiveness for anyone I offended. Your servant, Abhishek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2005 Report Share Posted July 17, 2005 OK, I accidentally copied and pasted so it came out incorect, let me try again. The verse is... sri suka uvaca kamas tu vasudevamso dagdhah prag rudra-manyuna dehopapattaye bhuyas tam eva pratyapadyata Vasudevamso was the word I was inspecting in my explanation. The word from BG 15.7 was mamaivamso, which means My fragmental parts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted July 18, 2005 Report Share Posted July 18, 2005 you didn't offend anyone. It is frankly over my head as I said. But in a general sense since we are all fragmental sparks of the Supreme I think it could be said that we are offspring. Children are offspring. That is the limited of my understanding on this one and that I have yet to realize. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 19, 2005 Report Share Posted July 19, 2005 Cupid was born to Krishna to get his body back. Not because he was a devotee taking birth in Krishna lila like Nanda or Yashoda. 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.