dogsgod
Well-Known Member
Namaste dogsgod
Again, as per my understanding, Krishna when taken as a mere historical figure is a mistake based on a limited view -- on account of several reasons. And no doubt such a view, as per me, is a myth (mithya). For saying this, I will be kicked in my community. But I persevere and point out that as per Krishna, who says "kalosmi" ("I am Time"), Krishna was not a mere physical entity. Does Time have any physicality? Krishna also says "I am the Self". Being Self everywhere and at all times, a localised picture of Krishna is a notion only that has only faith as its basis. The notion has its use for the faithful but is also the reason of much bigotry. I have seen similar statements in Bible that indicates Jesus being the manifest time. So, as per me, those who ascribe historical time constrained and space constrained existence to Krishna are not consistent with the teaching of Krishna Himself. Krishna's teachings and his persona are called smriti - remembrance. The personality and the teachings comes to us via some minds. In Gita, it is Sanjaya who sees the whole thing and someone else (Vyasa) writes it down.
On the other hand, the word that Krishna (or Christ) represents, is true with minor cultural variations, in our awareness.
This is me and my understanding (opinion) only. My english language skill may be found wanting and I apologise in advance.
Om Shanti
m:
That's interesting because Philo, writing just prior to the earliest Christian writings, describes the first born Son of God:
The Logos (Word) is thus more than a quality, power, or characteristic of God; it is an entity eternally generated as an extension, to which Philo ascribes many names and functions.
The Logos is the first-begotten Son of the Uncreated Father: “For the Father of the universe has caused him to spring up as the eldest son, whom, in another passage, he [Moses] calls the first-born; and he who is thus born, imitating the ways of his father, has formed such and such species, looking to his archetypal patterns.”
The last of the four gospels was written in the second century yet we can see Philo's influence:
1In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it.
6There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.
10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent,[c] nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[d] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
15John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' " 16From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. 17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,[e][f]who is at the Father's side, has made him known.
I see what you mean, Krishna and Christ are similar in that they are understood to have always been.
Thank you atanu, you're English is very good.
Last edited:
