ShivaFan
10 October 2012, 09:14 PM
Namaste
Firstly, from a Saiva I want to express to those devotees known as the “Gaudiyas” and the “Hare Krishnas” my heartfelt love as fellow Hindu. All Hindus are my friends forever, whether Saiva, Vaishnav or Shakta - there are so many things that tie us together, and we have much more in common than differences.
I want to have an enjoyable conversation! I mean no disrespect, and I love your Gurus - for example I love Prabhupada very much if you count Prabhupad as yours – what amazing gifts Prabhupad brought to America! And while I am interested in the views of all Gaudiyas, I thought the HK section would be the best place to ask at this time.
But I say “no disrepect” to all Vaishnavas in general, because I will state right off, I do not see the Gaudiya Teachings, revelations, mystic communions with the Divine, as what some call strictly “Vaishnava” but rather I see a great deal of monotheism in a pleasant alignment with all aspects of the Divine together, and your beloved Krishna as God of Own Right and not simply or “only an ‘incarnation’ of Vishnu”.
Now that I have been visiting the HDF for a few months, I have decided this is probably a wonderful opportunity to open a discussion on this with Gaudiyas. That is what is so wonderful about the HDF! Some of you Gaudiyas may already know my background, so you know I do not mean to be a thorn to anyone, and especially those such as yourself. Nor am I a stranger to your teachings, even though I am a very simple person and vastly ignorant, I have had the opportunity to have had wonderful things that were shared with me in the past which I am grateful for and moments that there are not words to express.
Nothing will change my current path of Hinduism, my love for Shiva and Parvati, but in some ways we do overlap, such as my devotion to Hanuman and thus the Ramayana. And of course, I love Krishna, I love Chaitanya, I know that all of these pastimes are real indeed. Just because I do not “agree” or understand everything from your view, does not mean that I do not love Krishna and Radha. You may not know of Valli and Muruga, but let it be known that Bhakti is found in many places and I believe that this form of yoga is the best path for Westerners who are now looking East. And it is a good day indeed, when travelling far from family and friends to find a Temple of Krishna listed in the phone book and nearby within driving distance when there is no other temple to be found in the city of the West, a place to take shelter in and a little peace if you will when no other peace can be found.
But I would like to ask something regarding this concept of “avatar”. Because personally, it often projects Krishna as the “lesser of Vishnu” perhaps, though not in a negative way, and Krishna seems unique to me, and serves a very special communion opportunity for humans.
This is probably going to start a fire storm, but I do not mean to be controversial, and in all truth I mean this as a discussion with the Gaudiyas and not with others who are more of the “Vaishnava” (non-Gaudiya) Sampradayas (though it won’t surprise me if some of the “Vaishnavas” chime in). I have noticed the Gaudiyas do not follow the “caste by birth” concept, and have a very different concept of defining things such as “what is a shudra?” and such, that Gaudiyas are very much open to everyone as a potential soul who can transform their gunas, and in fact even be directly transformed or saved by the Divine intervention. I notice Gaudiyas are both strict, but loving at the same instance. So I am wondering about their point of view in regards to this word “avatar” as used by some who try to put Krishna “into a box” if you will.
Gita 4:7-8 is translated by some “for the protection of the good and the destruction of the wicked, for the establishment of Dharma I am born from age to age”. Some claim this as the avatar statement, and it means incarnation, which they explain as literally meaning God in human form.
I believe Ram did come, but I believe Ram was part-Deva and part-Humanity which is not a contradiction to also say one can be “part” Deva and fully Deva at the same moment. Ram does fit this example of coming to protect the good, destroy the wicked, establish Dharma – so this makes sense to me, and that this all happened in this world, this very material place in locations in India. Rama to me is, and will be the “Perfect Man”.
Obviously since Krishna told this to Arjuna, the moment of Krishna in the role of Dharma would apply as well.
I believe Krishna did come, but my true sense of Krishna is not fully developed.
Because I am often criticized by those who generally call themselves “Vaishnavas”, without even seeking such “jalpa”, but rarely am I attacked by those who call themselves “Gaudiyas” who seem much more loving, and much more kinder and less “attack mode” if you will.
The subject matter of Krishna is too broad in so many aspects for such a thread, and that is not my intent.
My dilemma has to do with “avatar”. I do NOT see this as the same as “manifestation” (srijamy). So here is where we may have some differences, but I am interested to listen. Also, as stated, I do NOT see Krishna exactly in the same light as just an “avatar” of Vishnu. Nor, as a “temporary form” of the “Supreme Brahman”.
As far as becoming a human like form is concerned, I am actually sort of surprised at the over emphasis on this by “Vaishnavas” (not Gaudiyas). Becoming a human “form” is not difficult to do, for example by Siddha or Siddhanta yogis who can pass between ethereal form(s) to other human form(s). Such ability is not necessarily exclusive to the word “avatar”. Saints can do this, and manifestations of certain lilas can become so which have nothing to do with the so-called “dasavatars”. This is of course an outstanding and amazing ability, but in the overall context of things not exclusive to Vishnu and not the end of to be all, and the word “avatar” is not even used in most of these cases. Other words using “rupa” in the semantic are often used instead.
Basically the context of “avatar” is when the Divine transports and incarnates from the spiritual world into this current material creation and thus “avatar”. Some translate the word as “AVA” = Down, “TARA” = To Cross, e.g. to cross down.
However, the word doesn’t occur in the Vedas now that I think about it. And, reading Jayaram V’s BG, and the Sanskrit in Prabhupad’s version, I do not see the actual word “avatara” even mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita at all directly in Sanskrit. And the BG is a Sacred Text typically used as an “introduction” to Hinduism. If avatar was a key to the kingdom, why is the word not used?
In fact, it is not even used in the classic BG verse quoted above that many use to write commentary on regarding Krishna Avatara. The word does appear in puranic texts such as the Bhagavat Purana (e.g. “Dasavatara”). I do not deny the word exists, but to be honest I do not see it applicable to what Krishna taught Arjun on the battlefield.
When I read the Gita or Bhagavad Gita (part of the Mahabharata), the words of Krishna regarding His profound statements to Arjun which I treasure as does any Hindu, they seem to have nothing to do with “avatar” but rather as if the Brahman is speaking and not Vishnu as I normally know Vishnu personally, or the Cosmic Vishnu is revealed which seems different than the four-armed Vishnu.
Even saying that, I am not expressing my feeling on this very well (as if my “feelings” matter, which they do not, but I am just being honest about a perspective that personally goes back decades regarding this matter) – because the dramatic point of “revelation” comes in the form of the Vishvarupa and not Brahman.
So I am thinking, perhaps the Gaudiyas have something there. That is different from what some modern Hindus call “traditional Vaishnava” truth. I would be interested in hearing an explanation on this, from erudites such as Smaranam or others who appear to be Gaudiya and others who are HK in background. I am about listening, not arguing.
I see Krishna as one who came to humans, without question. But the Gita does not seem to support Krishna as an “avatar” of Vishnu at all. Perhaps I am wrong. Also, even the word “Brahman” is not the complete context, since it is of a different tone than the Upanishads. It seems to be inclusive of dualism and not exclusively monism.
I have no intention of “converting” from Saiva to HK, and we all know Hinduism is not about “conversions” but discovery, awaking.
We see in the Gita where Vishnu is described as having the form Vishvarupa. Some translate this as the Cosmic Form. There is even a temple in California for example that proclaims itself as the temple of Cosmic Religion. Unlike the Supreme Brahman, this Cosmic Form seems more to align with a Vedic concept of an interwoven visible (not empty) universe and ties humans and this visible Cosmic world as an interwoven cosmos. This is different than Supreme Brahman. It might be translated as “having all shapes”. It is also a name of Shiva. It appears in the Vedas as one of the seven tongues of Agni. But one can argue that, this form of Vishnu revealed to Arjun, which appears as many shapes, Gods, colors, can certainly be viewed as Brahman inspired, but it leaves room for form, and allows for the mathakash (objects) within the akash (space) which I have learned more of lately from some postings by some well-principled and jyana based members, though I do not claim to have the complete understanding they may have and their perspective may be different than yours.
In one way, I see Krishna like vibhuti. I use vibhuti, which I put on my head, such as the vibhuti powder that comes from the Siva temple. The immediate power is felt, it is an experience. I have been to Vrindavan and Mathura and visited many temples, perhaps I should share some of my photos – I even have a small bit of red rock from the Banke Bihari Temple which seems to possess a lot of power.
I think this will be a delightful conversation!
Om Namah Sivaya
Firstly, from a Saiva I want to express to those devotees known as the “Gaudiyas” and the “Hare Krishnas” my heartfelt love as fellow Hindu. All Hindus are my friends forever, whether Saiva, Vaishnav or Shakta - there are so many things that tie us together, and we have much more in common than differences.
I want to have an enjoyable conversation! I mean no disrespect, and I love your Gurus - for example I love Prabhupada very much if you count Prabhupad as yours – what amazing gifts Prabhupad brought to America! And while I am interested in the views of all Gaudiyas, I thought the HK section would be the best place to ask at this time.
But I say “no disrepect” to all Vaishnavas in general, because I will state right off, I do not see the Gaudiya Teachings, revelations, mystic communions with the Divine, as what some call strictly “Vaishnava” but rather I see a great deal of monotheism in a pleasant alignment with all aspects of the Divine together, and your beloved Krishna as God of Own Right and not simply or “only an ‘incarnation’ of Vishnu”.
Now that I have been visiting the HDF for a few months, I have decided this is probably a wonderful opportunity to open a discussion on this with Gaudiyas. That is what is so wonderful about the HDF! Some of you Gaudiyas may already know my background, so you know I do not mean to be a thorn to anyone, and especially those such as yourself. Nor am I a stranger to your teachings, even though I am a very simple person and vastly ignorant, I have had the opportunity to have had wonderful things that were shared with me in the past which I am grateful for and moments that there are not words to express.
Nothing will change my current path of Hinduism, my love for Shiva and Parvati, but in some ways we do overlap, such as my devotion to Hanuman and thus the Ramayana. And of course, I love Krishna, I love Chaitanya, I know that all of these pastimes are real indeed. Just because I do not “agree” or understand everything from your view, does not mean that I do not love Krishna and Radha. You may not know of Valli and Muruga, but let it be known that Bhakti is found in many places and I believe that this form of yoga is the best path for Westerners who are now looking East. And it is a good day indeed, when travelling far from family and friends to find a Temple of Krishna listed in the phone book and nearby within driving distance when there is no other temple to be found in the city of the West, a place to take shelter in and a little peace if you will when no other peace can be found.
But I would like to ask something regarding this concept of “avatar”. Because personally, it often projects Krishna as the “lesser of Vishnu” perhaps, though not in a negative way, and Krishna seems unique to me, and serves a very special communion opportunity for humans.
This is probably going to start a fire storm, but I do not mean to be controversial, and in all truth I mean this as a discussion with the Gaudiyas and not with others who are more of the “Vaishnava” (non-Gaudiya) Sampradayas (though it won’t surprise me if some of the “Vaishnavas” chime in). I have noticed the Gaudiyas do not follow the “caste by birth” concept, and have a very different concept of defining things such as “what is a shudra?” and such, that Gaudiyas are very much open to everyone as a potential soul who can transform their gunas, and in fact even be directly transformed or saved by the Divine intervention. I notice Gaudiyas are both strict, but loving at the same instance. So I am wondering about their point of view in regards to this word “avatar” as used by some who try to put Krishna “into a box” if you will.
Gita 4:7-8 is translated by some “for the protection of the good and the destruction of the wicked, for the establishment of Dharma I am born from age to age”. Some claim this as the avatar statement, and it means incarnation, which they explain as literally meaning God in human form.
I believe Ram did come, but I believe Ram was part-Deva and part-Humanity which is not a contradiction to also say one can be “part” Deva and fully Deva at the same moment. Ram does fit this example of coming to protect the good, destroy the wicked, establish Dharma – so this makes sense to me, and that this all happened in this world, this very material place in locations in India. Rama to me is, and will be the “Perfect Man”.
Obviously since Krishna told this to Arjuna, the moment of Krishna in the role of Dharma would apply as well.
I believe Krishna did come, but my true sense of Krishna is not fully developed.
Because I am often criticized by those who generally call themselves “Vaishnavas”, without even seeking such “jalpa”, but rarely am I attacked by those who call themselves “Gaudiyas” who seem much more loving, and much more kinder and less “attack mode” if you will.
The subject matter of Krishna is too broad in so many aspects for such a thread, and that is not my intent.
My dilemma has to do with “avatar”. I do NOT see this as the same as “manifestation” (srijamy). So here is where we may have some differences, but I am interested to listen. Also, as stated, I do NOT see Krishna exactly in the same light as just an “avatar” of Vishnu. Nor, as a “temporary form” of the “Supreme Brahman”.
As far as becoming a human like form is concerned, I am actually sort of surprised at the over emphasis on this by “Vaishnavas” (not Gaudiyas). Becoming a human “form” is not difficult to do, for example by Siddha or Siddhanta yogis who can pass between ethereal form(s) to other human form(s). Such ability is not necessarily exclusive to the word “avatar”. Saints can do this, and manifestations of certain lilas can become so which have nothing to do with the so-called “dasavatars”. This is of course an outstanding and amazing ability, but in the overall context of things not exclusive to Vishnu and not the end of to be all, and the word “avatar” is not even used in most of these cases. Other words using “rupa” in the semantic are often used instead.
Basically the context of “avatar” is when the Divine transports and incarnates from the spiritual world into this current material creation and thus “avatar”. Some translate the word as “AVA” = Down, “TARA” = To Cross, e.g. to cross down.
However, the word doesn’t occur in the Vedas now that I think about it. And, reading Jayaram V’s BG, and the Sanskrit in Prabhupad’s version, I do not see the actual word “avatara” even mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita at all directly in Sanskrit. And the BG is a Sacred Text typically used as an “introduction” to Hinduism. If avatar was a key to the kingdom, why is the word not used?
In fact, it is not even used in the classic BG verse quoted above that many use to write commentary on regarding Krishna Avatara. The word does appear in puranic texts such as the Bhagavat Purana (e.g. “Dasavatara”). I do not deny the word exists, but to be honest I do not see it applicable to what Krishna taught Arjun on the battlefield.
When I read the Gita or Bhagavad Gita (part of the Mahabharata), the words of Krishna regarding His profound statements to Arjun which I treasure as does any Hindu, they seem to have nothing to do with “avatar” but rather as if the Brahman is speaking and not Vishnu as I normally know Vishnu personally, or the Cosmic Vishnu is revealed which seems different than the four-armed Vishnu.
Even saying that, I am not expressing my feeling on this very well (as if my “feelings” matter, which they do not, but I am just being honest about a perspective that personally goes back decades regarding this matter) – because the dramatic point of “revelation” comes in the form of the Vishvarupa and not Brahman.
So I am thinking, perhaps the Gaudiyas have something there. That is different from what some modern Hindus call “traditional Vaishnava” truth. I would be interested in hearing an explanation on this, from erudites such as Smaranam or others who appear to be Gaudiya and others who are HK in background. I am about listening, not arguing.
I see Krishna as one who came to humans, without question. But the Gita does not seem to support Krishna as an “avatar” of Vishnu at all. Perhaps I am wrong. Also, even the word “Brahman” is not the complete context, since it is of a different tone than the Upanishads. It seems to be inclusive of dualism and not exclusively monism.
I have no intention of “converting” from Saiva to HK, and we all know Hinduism is not about “conversions” but discovery, awaking.
We see in the Gita where Vishnu is described as having the form Vishvarupa. Some translate this as the Cosmic Form. There is even a temple in California for example that proclaims itself as the temple of Cosmic Religion. Unlike the Supreme Brahman, this Cosmic Form seems more to align with a Vedic concept of an interwoven visible (not empty) universe and ties humans and this visible Cosmic world as an interwoven cosmos. This is different than Supreme Brahman. It might be translated as “having all shapes”. It is also a name of Shiva. It appears in the Vedas as one of the seven tongues of Agni. But one can argue that, this form of Vishnu revealed to Arjun, which appears as many shapes, Gods, colors, can certainly be viewed as Brahman inspired, but it leaves room for form, and allows for the mathakash (objects) within the akash (space) which I have learned more of lately from some postings by some well-principled and jyana based members, though I do not claim to have the complete understanding they may have and their perspective may be different than yours.
In one way, I see Krishna like vibhuti. I use vibhuti, which I put on my head, such as the vibhuti powder that comes from the Siva temple. The immediate power is felt, it is an experience. I have been to Vrindavan and Mathura and visited many temples, perhaps I should share some of my photos – I even have a small bit of red rock from the Banke Bihari Temple which seems to possess a lot of power.
I think this will be a delightful conversation!
Om Namah Sivaya