Thoughts about God's Forms

[Aupmanyav]

.. maybe in my last life I was an Indian ?

Most probably you were. You still have the 'samskaras'.

 

[psychoslice]

namaskaram ji



Prabhu ji , ...I am touched by your love of Krsna , you do not have to leave , ...please stay , if you love the philosophy then by staying you will learn more , it is just that it is not so helpful for any of us to have personal opinions about the nature of Krsna , if we realy want to know Krsna we should all addopt the same humility as Arjuna displays , ...and after reading Krsnas words (eleventh chapter) we should also fall at Sri Krsna's feet and ask for just one tiniest glimpse of the divine sight Krsna granted Arjuna , .....
but if we want that divine sight we should be prepared not just to show humility by outward signs if worship , we should also give up all forms of opinion and come to the realisation that whilst blinded by Maya we canot see Krsna in his divine form , we can only follow the sages and acharyas who have this divine sight , from them we will learn that although Krsna appeared in human like form , he is infact none other than the supreme , therefore if we wish to understand the true purport of the Gita we need to put down all opinion and alow Krsna to reveal himself , if we read the Gita looking for it to confirm our beleifs we will remain stuck in the same ignorance for the entire of this life , but those like Arjuna who fall at the feet of Krsna asking him to reveal his true nature will surely come to know him .

Thank you, and beautifully said, I will take your advice.

 

[psychoslice]

Most probably you were. You still have the 'samskaras'.

Samaskaras ?, I'm not quite familiar with that word ?.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram ji

Samaskaras ?, I'm not quite familiar with that word ?.

imprints or impressions , ....both Pious acts and adherence to traditional rituals that accompany stages of life are said to have a purificatory or clensing efect on the mind prepairing it for future spiritual advancement , in Indian families ritual Samaskaras are performed throughout ones life inorder to atain blessings and aid ones progress, these actions leave imprints or impressions on the mind that we carry from life to life , thus Samaskaras performed well in pervious lives may bring spiritual advancement in this life , ....many also associate Samskars with retained memories , a sence of correctness ,

in your case you seem to have a natural attraction to Krsna , many would say that there must be some link some imprint from a previous action in this or in former lives , ....

 

[psychoslice]

namaskaram ji




imprints or impressions , ....both Pious acts and adherence to traditional rituals that accompany stages of life are said to have a purificatory or clensing efect on the mind prepairing it for future spiritual advancement , in Indian families ritual Samaskaras are performed throughout ones life inorder to atain blessings and aid ones progress, these actions leave imprints or impressions on the mind that we carry from life to life , thus Samaskaras performed well in pervious lives may bring spiritual advancement in this life , ....many also associate Samskars with retained memories , a sence of correctness ,

in your case you seem to have a natural attraction to Krsna , many would say that there must be some link some imprint from a previous action in this or in former lives , ....

I see, thanks for clarifying that for me, and I see what you mean, that could be so.

 

[4M17]

So Terese you are saying that Narayana is the same as Krishna(?) I'm fine with that. Like I said I am still learning.

I think maybr you misunderstood or get confused btween brahma & brahman..I follow gaudiya line as well basically iskcon & the teaching is Krishna is NOT brahma...Krishna/Narayana/Vishnu is the same personality addressed by different names and brahma is the first created being in the universe and he is of jiva tattva..Mahalashmi mata is the internal potency personified of Narayana (termed as the antaranga Shakti) Yet there is another Energy of the Lord called Mahamaya, the external or inferior energy(termed as bahiranga Shakti) that's Parvati/Shakti/Narayani the consort of lord Shiv..they are responsible for the material affairs of the material world under the instructions of Krishna/Narayana/Vishnu(all are subordinate to HIM)..for Mahalashmi is considered nondifferent from Narayana in a certain sense they are one but appear as two eternally for the sake of passtimes..Krishna is not lower than Narayana He is Narayana and he is not jiva or human as mentioned..BG 14.27 Krishna says that he is the basis of the brahman which is the effulgence of his body..
BG 13.13
jñeyaḿ yat tat pravakṣyāmi
yaj jñātvāmṛtam aśnute
anādi mat-paraḿ brahma
na sat tan nāsad ucyate
I shall now explain the knowable, knowing which you will taste the eternal. Brahman, the spirit, beginningless and subordinate to Me, lies beyond the cause and effect of this material world.
Ramanuja Acharya's comments also is in the same context:
I shall declare that nature of the individual self (brahman) which is the object to be known, namely, what is to be gained by means of virtues like modesty etc., by knowing which one attains to the self which is immortal, birthless, free from old age, death and such other material qualities. [The expression is split up as — Anadi = beginningless; Mat-param = having Me as the Highest.] Anadi means that which is beginningless. Indeed, there is no origination for this individual self (brahman) and for the same reason, It is endless. The Sruti also declares: ‘The wise one is not born, nor dies’ (Ka. U., 2.18). ‘Matpara’ means having Me for the Highest. Verily, it has been told: ‘Know that which is other than this (lower nature), which is the life-principle, to be the highest Prakrti of Mine’ (7.5).
(NB:its just part of his commentery bkoz its too long...lol)..I won't put in commenteries of other acharyas coz they are too long but all are in the same context

 

[Terese]

I think maybr you misunderstood or get confused btween brahma & brahman..I follow gaudiya line as well basically iskcon & the teaching is Krishna is NOT brahma...Krishna/Narayana/Vishnu is the same personality addressed by different names and brahma is the first created being in the universe and he is of jiva tattva..Mahalashmi mata is the internal potency personified of Narayana (termed as the antaranga Shakti) Yet there is another Energy of the Lord called Mahamaya, the external or inferior energy(termed as bahiranga Shakti) that's Parvati/Shakti/Narayani the consort of lord Shiv..they are responsible for the material affairs of the material world under the instructions of Krishna/Narayana/Vishnu(all are subordinate to HIM)..for Mahalashmi is considered nondifferent from Narayana in a certain sense they are one but appear as two eternally for the sake of passtimes..Krishna is not lower than Narayana He is Narayana and he is not jiva or human as mentioned..BG 14.27 Krishna says that he is the basis of the brahman which is the effulgence of his body..
BG 13.13
jñeyaḿ yat tat pravakṣyāmi
yaj jñātvāmṛtam aśnute
anādi mat-paraḿ brahma
na sat tan nāsad ucyate
I shall now explain the knowable, knowing which you will taste the eternal. Brahman, the spirit, beginningless and subordinate to Me, lies beyond the cause and effect of this material world.
Ramanuja Acharya's comments also is in the same context:
I shall declare that nature of the individual self (brahman) which is the object to be known, namely, what is to be gained by means of virtues like modesty etc., by knowing which one attains to the self which is immortal, birthless, free from old age, death and such other material qualities. [The expression is split up as — Anadi = beginningless; Mat-param = having Me as the Highest.] Anadi means that which is beginningless. Indeed, there is no origination for this individual self (brahman) and for the same reason, It is endless. The Sruti also declares: ‘The wise one is not born, nor dies’ (Ka. U., 2.18). ‘Matpara’ means having Me for the Highest. Verily, it has been told: ‘Know that which is other than this (lower nature), which is the life-principle, to be the highest Prakrti of Mine’ (7.5).
(NB:its just part of his commentery bkoz its too long...lol)..I won't put in commenteries of other acharyas coz they are too long but all are in the same context

Wonderful explanation! And thank you for quoting one of my acharyas, Sri Ramanuajcharaya

 

[Terese]

Yes, and no. Krishna is a physical manifestation of God. Krishna is fully realised, and is God himself, but he is a small portion of Narayana's power. He is human, albeit stronger than one, but still human, and cannot bring the sun to a stop, or whisk the waves of the ocean with a flick of his wrist. Narayana is Brahman itself. Its like equating a grand tree to a leaf. If Vishnu and Krishna looked at each other, they would be looking at themselves. But Vishnu is Supreme, not Krishna. I am also learning! i hope you have fun here!

This post of mine i have quoted is wholly incorrect. Do not look it as a source of information. I'll explain why, pertaining to the Sri Vaisnava view:

1: Lord Krsna is not physical, in the material sense. Lord Krsna body is transcendental, and radiates sweet spiritual bliss to all. This does not apply to Lord Krsna only. Lord Matsya, Lord Varaha, Lord Narasimha, Lord Vamana and Lord Rama are all purnavataras and have transcendental bodies, not of flesh, and are purely sattvic.
2: Lord Krsna is not a small portion of Maha-Visnu, He has all full 6 qualities, power, fame, wealth, knowledge, beauty and renunciation.
3: Lord Krsna is not human, he is the Lord Himself, to say he is human is Vaisnava aparadha.
4: All avataras of Narayana are Supreme, they are Maha-Visnu Himself.

Pranams and thank you @4M17 for bumping this thread and letting me see the mistake i had made.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The confusion arises when one does not understand the meaning of Brahman. If one accepts that Brahman is all then there is no further confusion. It is Brahman who is Narayana, it is Brahman who is Shiva, it is Brahman who is Brahma, and so on and so forth till the last virus life in the world or the last grain of sand; along with Shakti, its inseparable shadow. All that which exists is Brahman only. Where is the confusion?

 

[Vinayaka]

The confusion arises when one does not understand the meaning of Brahman. If one accepts that Brahman is all then there is no further confusion. It is Brahman who is Narayana, it is Brahman who is Shiva, it is Brahman who is Brahma, and so on and so forth till the last virus life in the world or the last grain of sand; along with Shakti, its inseparable shadow. All that which exists is Brahman only. Where is the confusion?

Monism and dualism are two different views of reality, Aup. Once you understand that there are two views, then there is no more confusion. It's the mixing of the two that gets you confused. Only my 'outsider' POV.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Avoiding an India-Pakistan situation, but I do understand that.

 

[Jainarayan]

I would say this picture represents the Gaudiya view. And plausibly, what is espoused in the Bhagavad Gita. In this view, Krishna is another name for Brahman, who manifests as Vishnu, Shiva, Devi. Vishnu in turn manifests in his avatars, one of whom is called Krishna. This is just my interpretation.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well, views, beliefs, many.

 

[निताइ dasa]

I would say this picture represents the Gaudiya view. And plausibly, what is espoused in the Bhagavad Gita. In this view, Krishna is another name for Brahman, who manifests as Vishnu, Shiva, Devi. Vishnu in turn manifests in his avatars, one of whom is called Krishna. This is just my interpretation.

Brahman is a very interesting "term". In Gaudiya Siddhanta, as I understand it, Brahman does not refer to directly Krsna at all, but rather it refers to the effulgence that comes from the body of Krsna. It is this effulgence (the energies of Krsna) that manifests the jivas. That is why the Upanishads have statements like aham brahmasmi (I Am Brahman, because according to this definition, we are fragments of the effulgence of Krsna). Krsna however, is called Bhagavan, and as Bhagavan, He has several Avataras. These Avatars are equal to Him in potency. Devi (Durga) is the energy of Krsna (Maya Shakti), although some may see Devi as the swarupa (internal pleasure potency) of Krsna, in which case She is either Radharani (hladini) or Yogamaya (samvit). Lord Shiva is an avatar of Vishnu, but in this avatar certain qualities are lost (Lord Vishnu descends into Maya to become Shiva. The union of Maya (Devi) and Shiva cause the manifestation of the material world in the form of mahat tattva (combined material energy). Everything is either a form of Krsna (Avatara) or His potency. However there are subtle differences, which is why our philosophy is called acintya bhedabheda (inconievable oneness and difference) but not advaita (oneness).

 

[निताइ dasa]

My Guru Maharaj also commented that the Brahman (i.e the Brahmajyoti or the effulgence of Lord Krsna) is the light in which the Vaikuntha Planets are 'swimming' in. As that Brahmajyoti crosses over the border between spiritual and material worlds (in a region known as the tathastha), then the jivas or souls are manifest. That effulgence also enters within this world, although we cannot see it. In light of this (pardon the pun), the upanisad statements like "sarvam idam khalu brahman" (all this is Brahman) makes sense.

There is a verse by Sridhara Swami (who was the ancient commentator of Bhagavatam) that mirrors this idea:



sada sarvatraste nanu vimalam adyam tava padam
tathapy ekam stokam na hi bhava-taroh patram abhinat
kshanam jihva-grastam tava tu bhagavan nama nikhilam
sa-mulam samsaram kasati katarat sevyam anayoh

"O Lord, is Your impersonal spiritual effulgence not always present everywhere? Even so, it has not been able to break even a single small leaf from the tree of repeated birth and death. On the other hand, the moment Your holy name is taken by the tongue it thoroughly shatters the tree of birth and death down to it’s roots. Of these two (the spiritual effulgence or the holy name), which should be serve?"

 

[Aupmanyav]

Sridhara. Do you mean the mathematician?
"However, there has been much dispute over his date and in different works the dates of the life of Sridhara have been placed from the seventh century to the eleventh century."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sridhara
That is not ancient.

 

[निताइ dasa]

Sridhara. Do you mean the mathematician?
"However, there has been much dispute over his date and in different works the dates of the life of Sridhara have been placed from the seventh century to the eleventh century."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sridhara
That is not ancient.

Sridha Swami who wrote Bhavartha Dipika