why does Krishna need servants?

[Aupmanyav]

त्वम भुवः प्रतिमानं पृथिव्या रष्ववीरस्य ब्रहतः पतिर्भूः |
विश्वमाप्रा अन्तरिक्षं महित्वा सत्यमद्धा नकिरन्यस्त्वावान ||
tvaṃ bhuvaḥ pratimānaṃ pṛthivyā ṛṣvavīrasya bṛhataḥ patirbhūḥ |
viśvamāprā antarikṣaṃ mahitvā satyamaddhā nakiranyastvāvān ||

Thou art the counterpart of earth, the Master of lofty heaven with all its mighty Heroes;
thou hast filled all the region with thy greatness: yea, of a truth there is none other like thee.
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda Book 1: HYMN LII. Indra. - Indra

 

[Chakra]

Where's vaikuntha word? Don't assume vaikuntha is supreme abode of Vishnu in first place.

I think you should prove Vaikuntha is the supreme abode of Vishnu rather than proving abode of Vishnu as supreme. Because I too say the ultimate goal is vishnu's highest abode.

I've already stated a reference BP 12.5.11 stating Atma/Self is the highest supreme abode ..

I'm wondering If bhagavata says jiva becomes brahman them how would vaikuntha be the supreme abode of Vishnu?

Onkar-ji,
I can't understand your position. First you say that Krishna was a Shaivite, then say that Vishnu's abode is the ultimate goal.

Now you are saying that Vaikuntha is not the supreme goal. Vaikuntha simply means "place of no anxiety". The only difference is that you believe Vaikuntha to be where atma "merges" with Brahman while I believe that the Atma resides eternally with Brahman. There is no higher abode than Vaikuntha, whether we go by your definition or mine.

I'm not sure what your main source for information is. Vedas/Upanishads or Bhagavata? AFAIK, one must interpret the Smriti without contradicting the Shruti.

Aupmanyav-ji, ?
Regards

 

[Stormcry]

Onkar-ji,
I can't understand your position. First you say that Krishna was a Shaivite, then say that Vishnu's abode is the ultimate goal.

Now you are saying that Vaikuntha is not the supreme goal. Vaikuntha simply means "place of no anxiety". The only difference is that you believe Vaikuntha to be where atma "merges" with Brahman while I believe that the Atma resides eternally with Brahman. There is no higher abode than Vaikuntha, whether we go by your definition or mine.

I'm not sure what your main source for information is. Vedas/Upanishads or Bhagavata? AFAIK, one must interpret the Smriti without contradicting the Shruti.

Aupmanyav-ji, ?
Regards

Namaste..

There's a difference between Vaikuntha and Vishnu's supreme abode . That's why shruti doesn't mention vaikuntha word while mentioning the highest abode of Vishnu.

Vishnu's Highest abode is Nirguna Brahman, the self as we can see from Bhagavad gita ' Unmanifested is my highest abode' Vaikuntha is manifested because it's a form.

So when it is said that vishnu's highest abode is the supreme goal then it's brahman beyond form where shri vishnu's real nature resides. Haven't you read my thread 'Brahman is beyond vaikuntha' wherein shruti explicitly states that ParaBramhan is beyond vaikuntha?

Narayana is the Atma of all jiva and himself is the supreme abode, not a Vaikuntha.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Mentioned only what RigVeda says in one of its 269 hymns about Indra.

 

[Draupadi]

Um guys what do you mean by 'serving as Krishna's lover'? Won't Goddess Lakshmi be angry?

 

[Madhuri]

Um guys what do you mean by 'serving as Krishna's lover'? Won't Goddess Lakshmi be angry?

A person who loves Krishna. It isn't sexual.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Um guys what do you mean by 'serving as Krishna's lover'? Won't Goddess Lakshmi be angry?

A virtuous woman who fulfills her 'dharma' (duties) is known as Lakshmi. For example - Griha-Lakshmi (a dutiful house-wife). She is also termed as 'Devi-swaroop' (an incarnation of Devi). Women are the pillars of society.

 

[Draupadi]

So according to you they are all wives of Krishna? I think the title is given to equate her goodness with that of the Goddess and not as a spouse of Vishnu.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You have answered your own question.

 

[Madhuri]

I think the title is given to equate her goodness with that of the Goddess and not as a spouse of Vishnu.

That's what he means

 

[Aupmanyav]

Lord Rama said in Valmiki Ramaana, 'Janani janmabhoomishcha swargadapi gariyasi'.
(Mother and Motherland are more important than heaven)

 

[Chakra]

Actually all of us are Lord Krishna's wives.

 

[Chakra]

Namaste..

There's a difference between Vaikuntha and Vishnu's supreme abode . That's why shruti doesn't mention vaikuntha word while mentioning the highest abode of Vishnu.

Vishnu's Highest abode is Nirguna Brahman, the self as we can see from Bhagavad gita ' Unmanifested is my highest abode' Vaikuntha is manifested because it's a form.

So when it is said that vishnu's highest abode is the supreme goal then it's brahman beyond form where shri vishnu's real nature resides. Haven't you read my thread 'Brahman is beyond vaikuntha' wherein shruti explicitly states that ParaBramhan is beyond vaikuntha?

Narayana is the Atma of all jiva and himself is the supreme abode, not a Vaikuntha.

Namaste,

1) You cannot say that Narayana is the atma of all jivas because you have already said that Krishna was a Shaivite. So which one is it? Is Shiva the atma or Narayana?

2) You are not understanding my point. You can call "Vaikuntha" whatever it is, fact is still that it is the highest abode. I think Adi Shankara even says this somewhere, but I'm not sure.

3) You are assuming that Advaita is fact. There is hardly any discussion to be had as we are coming from different perspectives.

4) In the Vedas, Narayana is never reduced to Saguna Brahman. Last time I check, there is no words like "Nirguna Brahman" and "Saguna Brahman" in Vedas.

5) Nad-bindu is a minor upanishad. I don't know if it is even authentic. Could you tell me how many Advaitins have referred to this Upanishad before 1400 AD?

5) Unmanifested does not mean that God does not have a form. It simply means that we cannot see him because his form is made of pure sattva.

Regards

 

[Stormcry]

Namaste,

1) You cannot say that Narayana is the atma of all jivas because you have already said that Krishna was a Shaivite. So which one is it? Is Shiva the atma or Narayana?

In Puranas, it is said that Vishnu is Atma of all Jivas. We don't care what dualistic Vaishnawa believe. We accept scriptures as it is.

If you ever read vishnu puruna, then you'll surely know what's real nature of Krishna. In Vishnu Purana its said that Krishna gave up his mortal body and merged himself in formless Brahman. That's where his real abode is.

2) You are not understanding my point. You can call "Vaikuntha" whatever it is, fact is still that it is the highest abode. I think Adi Shankara even says this somewhere, but I'm not sure.

Adi Shankar never said about vaikuntha. He said narayana is the Atma and the highest abode. "Self is narayana, self is shiva, self is all" This is what Shankar says.

) You are assuming that Advaita is fact.

I am not assuming. Advaita alone is the truth according to all shruti and smruti. Oneness alone is praised in our shastras. Duality is an ignorance.

In the Vedas, Narayana is never reduced to Saguna Brahman. Last time I check, there is no words like "Nirguna Brahman" and "Saguna Brahman" in Vedas.

Purana talk about nirguna and saguna Brahman and purana are fifth Veda. In fact, Shruti clearly refutes any god as brahman. She says ' That which is not thought by mind but by which mind thinks, know that alone to be Brahman, not that which is being worshipped here"

5) Nad-bindu is a minor upanishad. I don't know if it is even authentic. Could you tell me how many Advaitins have referred to this Upanishad before 1400 AD?

All 108 Upanishads are considered as authentic. There were thousands of Upanishads, not all one can comment or mention.

Unmanifested does not mean that God does not have a form. It simply means that we cannot see him because his form is made of pure sattva.

Regards

Avyakta has never form. Because it means that the thing which is smaller than the smallest and larger than the largest. And obviously vaikuntha isn't such thing.

 

[Chakra]

In Puranas, it is said that Vishnu is Atma of all Jivas. We don't care what dualistic Vaishnawa believe. We accept scriptures as it is.

If you ever read vishnu puruna, then you'll surely know what's real nature of Krishna. In Vishnu Purana its said that Krishna gave up his mortal body and merged himself in formless Brahman. That's where his real abode is.



Adi Shankar never said about vaikuntha. He said narayana is the Atma and the highest abode. "Self is narayana, self is shiva, self is all" This is what Shankar says.



I am not assuming. Advaita alone is the truth according to all shruti and smruti. Oneness alone is praised in our shastras. Duality is an ignorance.



Purana talk about nirguna and saguna Brahman and purana are fifth Veda. In fact, Shruti clearly refutes any god as brahman. She says ' That which is not thought by mind but by which mind thinks, know that alone to be Brahman, not that which is being worshipped here"



All 108 Upanishads are considered as authentic. There were thousands of Upanishads, not all one can comment or mention.



Avyakta has never form. Because it means that the thing which is smaller than the smallest and larger than the largest. And obviously vaikuntha isn't such thing.

Ok. You simply are not understanding what Vaikuntha means. The rest of your posts is simply trying to stir debate.

 

[Stormcry]

Lol. When did I ever deny this? Of course Vishnu is the atma of the jivatma. Sarira-atma bhava.

Self of Jiva is Brahman. Atma and Brahma are one. Jiva becomes brahman. This is what bhagavata says.

When Nirguna Brahman has attributes, the Nirguna Brahman becomes Saguna Brahman (Vishnu). The whole "Krishna merged with Brahman" makes no sense when Nirguna Brahman is Krishna but just without attributes.

It's meaningful. Formless Brahman accepts attributes like form-body through maya and in the end merges these attributes in eternal brahman and gets established in nirguna Brahman.

He didn't say that Krishna was a Shaivite.

Just read Mahabharata .. Krishna was topmost devotee of shiva.

Are you kidding? Shruti identifies Narayana and him alone as Brahman. Denying this is simply ignorance.

Shruti defines shiva, ganesha also as Brahman. All puranas mentions all primary gods like shiva, vishnu, ganesha, surya as Brahman. Ignorance is ignoring what one doesn't like... The belief could not be considered authentic unless it is not consistent with all purana. 'Only vishnu is brahman' is not consistent, but " vishnu is brahman, Shiva is brahman" this is consistent belief considering all purana.

Shruti says a lot of things like "He has no legs, but he is the fastest", "He has no hands, but accepts everything given to him".

These verses mean that Brahman doesn't have a material body like ours.[

Lol, what an interpretation One should have sharp intelligence to interpret shruti. 'He has no legs' means he's no form and 'he's the fastest" means he's all pervading.
Because only the thing which is all pervading can be fastest even than mind as it's already present everywhere. That thing is so fastest that it's already present there where it would have go if it actually runs.


Here Shruti have used figurative statements. Interpreting shruti isn't a game of child.

I do not know where this 108 Upanishad thing came from. Either way, it is not used in Vedantic debates. Use the 10 main upanishads which all Vedantins have accepted as authentic.

Those 10 main Upanishads too say the same thing. 'Atma is Brahman'

Vedas describe Brahman as auspicious, made of spirit, husband of Shri, etc. Can any of these qualities be used for a nirguna Brahman?

LoL,

Brahman is ' sat - Chit - Ananda ' " Sat has no form, Chit has no form , Ananda has no form "

 

[Chakra]

Namaste,

Self of Jiva is Brahman. Atma and Brahma are one. Jiva becomes brahman. This is what bhagavata says.

Okay.

Just read Mahabharata .. Krishna was topmost devotee of shiva.

Lol...you need to analyse the Mahabharata more closely. What you say completely contradicts the Gita, especially Adi Shankara's interpretation.

Shruti defines shiva, ganesha also as Brahman.

Yes, but why are assuming that those names refer to the Devas?

All puranas mentions all primary gods like shiva, vishnu, ganesha, surya as Brahman. Ignorance is ignoring what one doesn't like...

You know this contradicts the Bhagavatam right? And you need to understand the difference between Sattvic and Tamasic puranas.

The belief could not be considered authentic unless it is not consistent with all purana. 'Only vishnu is brahman' is not consistent, but " vishnu is brahman, Shiva is brahman" this is consistent belief considering all purana.

Yes, it is consistent. Show me one verse from Adi Shankara's authentic bhasyas where he says Shiva and others are Brahman. I can give you references to where the Acharya says many Devas are not Brahman.

Lol, what an interpretation One should have sharp intelligence to interpret shruti. 'He has no legs' means he's no form and 'he's the fastest" means he's all pervading.

"He has no legs" means that he has no form now? lol. Will a person who has their legs removed mean that he has no form?

The Purusha Suktam says that the Supreme is the husband of Shri and Earth. Vedas also say that Brahman is apraktric, meaning he has a spiritual body.

Because only the thing which is all pervading can be fastest even than mind as it's already present everywhere. That thing is so fastest that it's already present there where it would have go if it actually runs.

And when have I ever denied this? I don't think you understand what dualistic traditions say. Please read Sri Bhasya. It will be worthwhile.

Interpreting shruti isn't a game of child.

Yes. It is clear that you haven't understood Shruti when you go on saying that Vedas say Ganesha is Brahman as well. Ganesha is not even one of the 33 deities in the Rig Veda.

LoL,

Brahman is ' sat - Chit - Ananda ' " Sat has no form, Chit has no form , Ananda has no form "

Tell me how can a formless entity be "Ananda"?

Regards

 

[Stormcry]

Actually all of us are Lord Krishna's wives.

This is a great Joke ... This means Upanishada are fools who say Atma is neither male or female or neutral ...

This is one of the reasons why I don't consider achintya or any similar philosophy as Vaidik..

 

[Chakra]

I am going to ask mods to move this to the Same Faith Debates. If anyone doesn't agree please let me know.

 

[Chakra]

This is a great Joke ... This means Upanishada are fools who say Atma is neither male or female or neutral ...

This is one of the reasons why I don't consider achintya or any similar philosophy as Vaidik..

This is a completely asinine post.

Rukmini Ma also married Shri Krishna. Is her atma female now? I am just saying that just like a wife is faithful to her husband, we are also faithful to Lord Krishna, and thus, we are all his wives. Nowhere did I say that "Upanishada are fools who say Atma is neither male or female or neutral".

Of course, I don't expect non-Vaishnavas to understand this. I probably shouldn't have even mentioned this (to save non-Vaishnava from bhagavan aparadha if they ridicule this).

This is why Krishna is not simply named the Purusha, but also the Purushottama.

And I am simply laughing, HLK. You haven't read the Sri Bhasya, Govinda Bhasya, Vedanta Desikan's works, Jiva Goswami's works etc, yet you continue to attack these philosophies. I suggest that you read them if you want to seem credible with your posts. All you are simply doing is quoting chunks of Bhagavata Purana, and expecting me to "refute" it. Don't pick a challenge with me; I am not scholarly like you. I am a recently converted Vaishnava.

Instead, read the works of those Acharyas and then try to refute them. You should not go around criticizing other philosophies without completely understanding them. You should also read Shankara Bhasyas again, since you also do not understand Advaita (Shiva is Brahman, Agni is Brahman, Vishnu is Brahman, HLK is Brahman). You can never say that WE are Brahman, but rather, Brahman is US. There is no identity in the absolute level in Advaita.