Hindu?

[kaisersose]

1) Laws of nature, karma.
2) Karma
Ishwara does not interfere in these instances in the way that we understand the Biblical God version to interfere. He is not some guy in the sky observing and making decisions about how things will go down. The divine input is that the laws of nature and the individuals are a manifestation of a particular aspect of the Divine.

Ok. So far Ishwara is conforming to the definition of impersonal.

However, Ishwara, in the form of various avatars, takes appearance in the world for various purposes. This is when he is considered to interfere.

So if we take avatars off the table, then am I correct that there is no difference between a personal God and an impersonal God?

He also helps to fulfill certain karmas of certain individuals.

I have a problem with "certain". No offense intended to devotees, but how is this different from a mafia don? Mario Puzzo's Michael Corleone, in his capacity as a underworld don, had more power than the common man. With this power, he bestowed favors on certain people, specifically people who gave him "respect" by acknowledging him as Godfather. Others did not matter. The above defintion of a God helping out certain individuals and not others, sounds similar to this.

1) What is the criteria for help?
2) If there is a standard criteria, would it not be part of the Karma system?
3) If there is no critera (as in random), how does one know he/she has been helped?
4) If you or I saw a drowning child and if we were in a position to save it, regardless of the child giving us respect or its background or any of that, we would save it unconditionally. But the personal God let those children drown during the Tsunami without lifting a finger, though he does meddle with peoples Karmas and supposdly has the power to save drowning children. This leads one to think we humans are better than this personal God. Which raises the final question - why should we bother with such a God?

No offense to anyone, again. I am just following a line of thought.

Thanks

 

[kaisersose]

Look at all this lovely speculation. Do you have something to show us to back up your opinion?

Some of it can be inferred.

1) The Mahabharata Krishna is a serious guy, a statesman who is focused on getting the Pandavas to win. It is only in later texts like the Hari Vamsa and the Bhagavatam that a frolicky, playful Krishna emerges, with multiple wives. By the 12th century, the character Radha was created and rose to prominence to the point where many North Indian traditions today even see her as Krishna's consort instead of Lakshmi (as found in Puranas).

2) The Mahabharata itself says it was originally just 8800 verses and eventually became a hundred thousand verses. Hence, the speculation that the original may not have contained a 800 verse Gita. If you read Puranas and the MBh, it is common practice to insert prayers and theology with a situation created as a backdrop.

3) The lesser known Anu Gita is another discussion between Krishna and Arjuna. Arjuna tells Krishna that he forgot some of the Bhagavad Gita material and asks him to repeat it. However, Krishna tells him that he cannot repeat it, but has something else for him and then follows the Anu Gita.

But there is no specific evidence that the Gita was in a different form earlier. Literary evidence for the Gita (outside the Mahabharata) is not found anywhere until Shankara commented on it during the 8th century. It may therefore be argued that he was responsible for popularizing the Gita. Some scholars have speculated that he doctored the pure Sankhya text to introduce Vedanta. But again, there is no evidence for that.

 

[Madhuri]

Ok. So far Ishwara is conforming to the definition of impersonal.

That's because God is both personal and impersonal. For there to be a personal God, this god does not need to interfere in our daily lives by performing miracles and striking people with lightning.

So if we take avatars off the table, then am I correct that there is no difference between a personal God and an impersonal God?

There is a huge difference between a personal and impersonal God. But I believe that God is both personal and impersonal. This God that has both features is also different from a personal god and an impersonal God.

I have a problem with "certain". No offense intended to devotees, but how is this different from a mafia don? Mario Puzzo's Michael Corleone, in his capacity as a underworld don, had more power than the common man. With this power, he bestowed favors on certain people, specifically people who gave him "respect" by acknowledging him as Godfather. Others did not matter. The above defintion of a God helping out certain individuals and not others, sounds similar to this.

1) What is the criteria for help?
2) If there is a standard criteria, would it not be part of the Karma system?
3) If there is no critera (as in random), how does one know he/she has been helped?
4) If you or I saw a drowning child and if we were in a position to save it, regardless of the child giving us respect or its background or any of that, we would save it unconditionally. But the personal God let those children drown during the Tsunami without lifting a finger, though he does meddle with peoples Karmas and supposdly has the power to save drowning children. This leads one to think we humans are better than this personal God. Which raises the final question - why should we bother with such a God?

No offense to anyone, again. I am just following a line of thought.

Thanks

Vishnu does not bestow favours on people who do him favours. In fact, a lot of the personalities who Vishnu comes to participate with are the great 'demons' like Kamsa, Ravana, Hiranyakashipu etc. who were cursed in previous lives but with the benediction that the Lord would come to redeem them, to liberate them.

The other people who become associates of the Lord in his Earthly lila are those who are ready for liberation and those who are already liberated. For those who are not Realised, Maya prevents them from even recognising the Lord for who he is.

You said something in point 4 that is important. You said: "This leads one to think we humans are better than this personal God."

You can only say this when you forget that we are part of God. One major difference between myself and Bhagavan is that I am a conditioned soul and Bhagavan is my Source of existence. I might try to save the child from drowning because in my Maya I cannot realise that either if the child's karma is to die then it will die no matter how I attempt to interfere or that by saving the child, I am in fact fulfilling its karma to not die.
Similarly, when God appears, he is fulfilling a karma, not changing it.

I do not believe that God intervenes in our daily life. However, I do believe that he/she/it is present with ourselves and through devotional and meditative practices, we can develop a strong relationship with this personal God. What this relationship does is guide us toward Realisation, liberation from Maya and Samsara.

 

[kaisersose]

By the way, Rig Veda is very focussed on personal aspects of the Divine. It mention Vishnu, Rudra, and very importantly, Purusha.

What makes you think that the concept of personal God was not part of the very ancient Hindu religions?

I agree.

For instance, they believed Indra could play a role in the betterment of their lives and hence offered him several prayers, bulls, ghee, etc.,.

 

[Madhuri]

Some of it can be inferred.

1) The Mahabharata Krishna is a serious guy, a statesman who is focused on getting the Pandavas to win. It is only in later texts like the Hari Vamsa and the Bhagavatam that a frolicky, playful Krishna emerges, with multiple wives. By the 12th century, the character Radha was created and rose to prominence to the point where many North Indian traditions today even see her as Krishna's consort instead of Lakshmi (as found in Puranas).

2) The Mahabharata itself says it was originally just 8800 verses and eventually became a hundred thousand verses. Hence, the speculation that the original may not have contained a 800 verse Gita. If you read Puranas and the MBh, it is common practice to insert prayers and theology with a situation created as a backdrop.

3) The lesser known Anu Gita is another discussion between Krishna and Arjuna. Arjuna tells Krishna that he forgot some of the Bhagavad Gita material and asks him to repeat it. However, Krishna tells him that he cannot repeat it, but has something else for him and then follows the Anu Gita.

But there is no specific evidence that the Gita was in a different form earlier. Literary evidence for the Gita (outside the Mahabharata) is not found anywhere until Shankara commented on it during the 8th century. It may therefore be argued that he was responsible for popularizing the Gita. Some scholars have speculated that he doctored the pure Sankhya text to introduce Vedanta. But again, there is no evidence for that.

In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna is an adult, mature King. He is speaking about Truth in a very serious moment.
Something that people seem to be unaware of is that when Krishna was in Vrindavana, he was a child. He left there to take his place as prince around the age of 10. It doesn't seem weird at all to me that this Krishna is depicted as being frivolous, playful.
Radha and Krishna are considered to be Vishnu and Laksmi.

Are you saying that the character of Radha did not even exist prior to this particular date? And how do 'scholars' know these historical 'facts'? How do they know that the Mahabharata was once smaller? Do we have the original copy? I am always highly sceptical of scholarly conclusions made about Vedic philosophy, history, scriptures etc. It has been evidenced again and again that a lot of claims are speculative, bias or badly researched.

Also, I personally do not care if the Bhagavad Gita was more popular in one generation or another. It could become completely lost to society for the next thousand years and this would not change its truth imo.

 

[Onkara]

The notion of an avatar was created by the Vaishnavana cult of Krishna which arose after the death of Krishna. The historical Krishna is probably nothing like the Krishna described in Vaishnava scriptures. If we go by the Mahabharata accounts and compare and contrast with the Puranic accounts we get a completely different picture of Krishna. Nor is it likely that the Bhagvad Gita was really spoken by Krishna, but was most likely a scripture composed by a Vaishnava devotee and attributed to Krishna. This would not be the first time in the Indian tradition that an anonymous author would compose a scripture and then attribute it to a famous Indian personality(Yoga Vaisistha, Shiva Samhita etc)

The avatar concept is not to be found anywhere else in Hinduism prior to the Vaishnava cult. The Vaishnavas needed a personal god, they needed scriptures and they needed a philosophy to rationalise their worship of a personal god. It is very similar to the cult of Jesus. The cult of Jesus needed a more human personal god(Jesus Christ as the son of god) they needed scriptures(gospels) and they needed a philosophy to rationalise their worship of a human personal god(trinity)

All I can see evidence of so far for the existence of a personal god is just human construction. All the personal gods that we know from every part of the world can be traced to humans. Why unnecessarily multiply quantities? It is obvious that the god-concept comes from humans. The answer to be sought for what god is, is in human psychology. Not in some idol.

I have thought about this too. It is a logical thing to consider when we start investing our time and spirit in the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita.

My perspective is that it has come from God, or rather Krishna consciousness/Brahman. The reason I am confident to say that is that if everything is Brahman/Consciousness and not dual, then logically the teaching has its origin in Brahman/Consciousness. In fact everything has its origin in Brahman/Consciousness and so for me to doubt that it came from there is to create a new source, a source which stands apart from Brahman in its divinity or its non-divinity. This contradicts everything in the Upanishads and the premise of Vedanta that mankind is itself divine from inheritance of its creator.

The decision can be made to accept the source, albeit privately not publicly if easier, we can accept Krishna and open the doors to the teaching of the Gita. Once we understand the teaching then the words of Krishna have served their purpose and with grace there will be no doubt; similar to Arjuna by Chapter 18, all doubts have been removed.

 

[atmarama]

Thank you all for the great, informative answers! I'm not even exactly sure what I believe, it was always do what your parents said pray cause it was the right thing to do never wondered about as to what I was doing or why until recently. I hope I'm not missing the point but is it possible to have a personal and impersonal idea of god?

Most definately yes! Srila Prabhupada explains: "The Vaisnavas following Lord Caitanya stress the doctrine of acintya-bhedabheda-tattva, which states that the Supreme Lord, being the cause and effect of everything, is inconceivably, simultaneously one with His manifestations of energy and different from them. We feel Sripada Ramanuja a great support for the Vaisnava philosophical understanding and as Gaudiya Vaisnava's we follow Srila Ramanuja's philosophy almost in the same manner. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu gives the identification of jiva soul as the eternal servant of Krishna and is situated as marginal potency of the Lord based on the philosophy of acintya-bheda bheda-tattva. This is almost similar to Visistadvaita vada. It is like a combination of nyaya sruti and smrti prasthans.

In one sense jiva soul is non-different from the param brahma. But on account of the param brahma being the supreme, the biggest, and the jiva brahma being very minute, it is different from the param brahma.

The simultaneous one and different jiva brahma is simultaneously one with and different from the param brahma. Because it is appreciated simultaneously, which is very difficult to comprehend by the common man, this philosophy is called acintya-bheda bheda tattva, inconceivable. This is supported by the Katho Upanisad 2.5.13 nityo nityanam cetanas cetananam. eko bahunam yo vidadhati kaman. This is almost similar to the visista-dvaita vada. We find great shelter at the lotus feet of Sri Ramanujacarya because his lotus feet are the strongest fort to combat the mayavadi philosophy."

If we cannot understand it, that is our limitation and does not make the Scriptures false.

Well put Satsangi

I...do not care if the Bhagavad Gita was more popular in one generation or another. It could become completely lost to society for the next thousand years and this would not change its truth imo.

Agreed...

 

[atmarama]

Lord Caitanya's own words, as quoted by Sri Jiva Goswami:

"From Madhva I will take two essential teachings: his complete rejection and defeat of the Mayavadi philosophy and his service to the deity of Krishna, accepting Him as an eternal spiritual personality.

From Ramanuja, I will accept two teachings: the concept of devotional service, unpolluted by karma and jnana, and service to the devotees.

From Vishnuswami's teachings I will accept two elements: the sentiment of exclusive dependence on Krishna and the path of raga-marga, or spontaneous devotion.

From Nimbarka, I will take two very important principles: the necessity of taking shelter of Srimati Radharani and the high esteem of the gopi's love for Krishna."

 

[Surya Deva]

Madhuri,

The historical Krishna is in need of proof itself. When you are examining history you need to look for reliable sources closest to the time period they are associated with. The Mahabharata is older than the Gita and the Gita is simply an interpolation of the Mahabharata, as are other parts of it. We know from Indian tradition that the Mahabharata was not as long as it today. It has been added to by various authors. It is highly doubtful that such a discourse as recorded in the Gita would be given on a battlefield. Do you really think both armies just stood and waited for Krishna and Arjuna to finish the discourse? And who was there to record it verbatim in such immaculate details, including being able to describe the divine form of Krishna that Krishna had only given Arjuna the ability to see?

The best source for information on the historical Krishna is the Mahabharata. The Gita and the puranas are all later interpolations and are about as credible as the gospels are in locating the historical Jesus(all of which were written centuries after his death)

We should always keep a healthy amount of skepticism.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

We should always keep a healthy amount of skepticism.

What difference does it make that Krishna gave Arjuna the teaching of the Gita on the Battlefield. History will not give us the truth. At best it is all guess work. Mythology is a higher truth then History. We can experience it directly in our lives. I believe the Gita is true not because a historian tells me so. It is true because I experience it to be true.

 

[kaisersose]

What difference does it make that Krishna gave Arjuna the teaching of the Gita on the Battlefield.

One may argue that it goes to credibility. If that part was not true, then what is the case with other parts?

Does it matter if Jesus was a real person or if he was just Paul's imagination? Some will argue that his historicity is irrelevant and some others have all their beliefs pinned on it.

 

[kaisersose]

Are you saying that the character of Radha did not even exist prior to this particular date?

Yes, Radha does not exist in any of

1) Mahabharata
2) Harivamsa
3) Vishnu Purana
4) Bhagavata Purana

Big time Vaishnava Gurus like Ramanuja and Madhva never mention her once. But by the time of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, Radha had attained a level of prominence in North India. Rukmini, on the other hand is mentioned in the above sources and is commonly seen as Lakshmi.

And how do 'scholars' know these historical 'facts'? How do they know that the Mahabharata was once smaller?

Because the Mahabharata itself says so! I can find you exact verse numbers if you are interested. The 8800 verse version (Jaya) of Vyasa was increased to ~24000 verses (Bharata) by Vaisampayana and then to one hundred thousand verses (Mahabharata) by Ugrasrava. All these names and numbers come from the Mahabharata itself.

Do we have the original copy? I am always highly sceptical of scholarly conclusions made about Vedic philosophy, history, scriptures etc. It has been evidenced again and again that a lot of claims are speculative, bias or badly researched.

Considerable effort has gone into dating and identifying a critical version of the Mahabharata. It contains very old layers in archaic vedic sanskrit and newer material written in classical sanskrit. So while we may not have all the answers, it would be naive to take the position that the traditional story handed down to us is more believable than what has been found by scholars.

The 13th century Madhva writes that he has to find a correct account of the Mahabharata among much spurious material. He rejected the entire Valmiki Ramayana as an unacceptable source for the original Ramayana. In his defence, the Valmiki Ramayana that has come down to us was written as late as in the 7th century, completely in classical sanskrit*. This and several other pieces of evidence exist to prove that interpolation in scriptures is a real problem and not a British fabrication as some people like to think.

Also, I personally do not care if the Bhagavad Gita was more popular in one generation or another. It could become completely lost to society for the next thousand years and this would not change its truth imo.

Any information is only as credible as its source. If the source is dubious, it opens the possibility that the information may be dubious too.

*Classical Sanskrit is the form of sanskrit after Panini (500 BC). Archaic or Vedic sanskrit is the earlier form.

 

[bhaktajan]

Originally Posted by Madhuri
1) Laws of nature, karma.
2) Karma
Ishwara does not interfere in these instances in the way that we understand the Biblical God version to interfere. He is not some guy in the sky observing and making decisions about how things will go down. The divine input is that the laws of nature and the individuals are a manifestation of a particular aspect of the Divine.

Ok. So far Ishwara is conforming to the definition of impersonal.

What does God's Impersonal indifference have to do with anything?

An Atheist complains that his wish-list of "Stuff" is not directly awarded to him by ALMIGHTY GOD ---so that is why the atheist is an avowed atheist.

Here we have Krishna directly speaking, We have the science of Bhakti-yoga, we have all facilities ----but ya'll always sending your kids to a war or to someother God-forsaken deadend road . . . and the complaining never ends.

It's all about sheer numbers . . . hugh demographics in a world of plenty of merchants and even more consumers ---that is where the lament is derived.

Compassion for mankind is that we are all on the precipice of oblivion ---but only the mayavadi & the vaishnava can view it from an aloof stance.

 

[atmarama]

What difference does it make that Krishna gave Arjuna the teaching of the Gita on the Battlefield. History will not give us the truth. At best it is all guess work. Mythology is a higher truth then History. We can experience it directly in our lives. I believe the Gita is true not because a historian tells me so. It is true because I experience it to be true.

Well said...

Here we have Krishna directly speaking, We have the science of Bhakti-yoga, we have all facilities ----but ya'll always sending your kids to a war or to someother God-forsaken deadend road . . . and the complaining never ends.

It's all about sheer numbers . . . hugh demographics in a world of plenty of merchants and even more consumers ---that is where the lament is derived.

Compassion for mankind is that we are all on the precipice of oblivion ---but only the mayavadi & the vaishnava can view it from an aloof stance.

Kali yuga...

 

[bhaktajan]

Wherever Radha is ---Keiserose will not be there.

Lamentable? No.

 

[shankara_kalady]

I guess I'm going a bit off-topic here. But what do yo guys think of the Eknath Easwaran English translation of the Gita?

 

[Surya Deva]

Terrific Shankara kalady

 

[Surya Deva]

I believe the Gita is true not because a historian tells me so. It is true because I experience it to be true.

You cannot experience the history of something because history is something that has elapsed. The Mahabharata took place 5000 years ago. You were not there to see the Gita being spoken on the battlefield by Krishna to Arjuna, so you cannot possibly know whether this is true or not.

History demands evidence and mythology is not evidence of history, but only evidence of the popular stories that were told in a particular time frame. All cultures on the planet have mythologies, such as the story of Icarus flying to the sun, or Hanuman eating the sun, or stories of the sun and moon god fighting in heaven. The evidence we are looking for is actual textual evidence that describes events that took place and corroborating textual evidence from other sources, archeaological evidence, linguistic evidence and genetic evidence. Then we can get a more accurate view of what the history was really like

There is evidence for the historical Krishna. There are primary texts like the Mahabharata which appear to be describing real people, and corroborating evidence from other Indian texts which describe Krishna as a real person, but giving conflicting accounts. There is the archeaological evidence of discovering the submerged city of Dwarika. But this does not mean that the historical Krishna is the same as the legendary Krishna. There is likely to be a massive difference.

 

[Satsangi]

History is irrelevant- just like science is when speaking of Lord Krishna or Bhagvad Gita. The teachings in the Bhagvad Gita are eternal and true and the highest. It holds place in the Trayis with the Upanishads and the Brahm Sutras. History is also not evidence based all the time- for example, the so called history od "Aryan invasion" that we all studied. The winners and the rulers write the history for the masses.

I agree with WY that I do not need any diggings by some "experts" to "prove" Lord Krishna's existence.

Regards,

 

[Satsangi]

Yes, Radha does not exist in any of

1) Mahabharata
2) Harivamsa
3) Vishnu Purana
4) Bhagavata Purana

Big time Vaishnava Gurus like Ramanuja and Madhva never mention her once. But by the time of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, Radha had attained a level of prominence in North India. Rukmini, on the other hand is mentioned in the above sources and is commonly seen as Lakshmi. [/I]

Radhaji is mentioned in ONE Purana; I will find the name and post it.

Regards,