The idea of "limiting" God

[Kismet]

I would like to just spend a few moments explaining what I think amounts to a fallacy: the idea that by talking about God in certain concrete terms (i.e, that he has a name, "Krsna", that he engages in certain pastimes, has a body, and so on) I must, therefore, limit God in terms of his comprehensive Being.

How do I do that? God still possesses all opulences, has all auspicious and omni-maximal qualities, is infinite, surpasses all understanding, and so forth. The fact that he has certain attributes which are comprehensible is no reason to say God, taken in his entirety, must be limited. And yet this is what I keep hearing (mostly from Catholics, but also Advaitins, some Buddhists who refuse to talk about the "Absolute" in anything but negative terms).

I am not interested in theists who uphold the saguna aspect of God as jumping on the bandwagon here with me. I am interested in a genuine talk of whether or not this counts as a fallacy, as to me it does.

Hare Krsna

[kallol]

I would like to just spend a few moments explaining what I think amounts to a fallacy: the idea that by talking about God in certain concrete terms (i.e, that he has a name, "Krsna", that he engages in certain pastimes, has a body, and so on) I must, therefore, limit God in terms of his comprehensive Being.

How do I do that? God still possesses all opulences, has all auspicious and omni-maximal qualities, is infinite, surpasses all understanding, and so forth. The fact that he has certain attributes which are comprehensible is no reason to say God, taken in his entirety, must be limited. And yet this is what I keep hearing (mostly from Catholics, but also Advaitins, some Buddhists who refuse to talk about the "Absolute" in anything but negative terms).

I am not interested in theists who uphold the saguna aspect of God as jumping on the bandwagon here with me. I am interested in a genuine talk of whether or not this counts as a fallacy, as to me it does.

Hare Krsna

How would you define water in a drop and the same water in the ocean ?

Will the characteristics of water change ? If you have to do a laboratory analysis of the water in the ocean - what would you take - full ocean or few drops ?

If one understands God, then it is plain visible. If not then we get mired into the forms and shapes.

[Kismet]

How would you define water in a drop and the same water in the ocean ?

I would define water in the ocean as consciousness, as pure existence. God is not the drop. God is the ocean. But, God's topmost essence is one of personality: so it is a clear vessel, in the ocean, which partakes of the entirety of the water.


Will the characteristics of water change ? If you have to do a laboratory analysis of the water in the ocean - what would you take - full ocean or few drops ?

The problem is, you are over-simplifying. God does not need to be the ocean only. He can be the ocean, the drops, and the Supreme Person, who is the locus, the center around which this whole ocean revolves.


If one understands God, then it is plain visible. If not then we get mired into the forms and shapes.

One can understand God plainly by focusing one's self on the things of God; his pastimes, form and so on. I say they are complimentary, not exclusive. In this I do not honestly see any contradiction whatever.

[devotee]

I would like to just spend a few moments explaining what I think amounts to a fallacy: the idea that by talking about God in certain concrete terms (i.e, that he has a name, "Krsna", that he engages in certain pastimes, has a body, and so on) I must, therefore, limit God in terms of his comprehensive Being.

How do I do that? God still possesses all opulences, has all auspicious and omni-maximal qualities, is infinite, surpasses all understanding, and so forth. The fact that he has certain attributes which are comprehensible is no reason to say God, taken in his entirety, must be limited. And yet this is what I keep hearing (mostly from Catholics, but also Advaitins, some Buddhists who refuse to talk about the "Absolute" in anything but negative terms).

I am not interested in theists who uphold the saguna aspect of God as jumping on the bandwagon here with me. I am interested in a genuine talk of whether or not this counts as a fallacy, as to me it does.


God cannot be described as He/She/It is. If you describe Him, He does get limited. However, it is important to limit Him artificially so that we can connect to Him & focus on Him. Lord Krishna says it is important because we are limited by our body-mind & therefore worshiping Saguna Brahman is easier ... the Nirguna Brahman cannot be exactly perceived as It is. For connecting to anything with given mental limitations you need something concrete.

Moreover, how does it matter whether you are able to describe Him as He is or not ? A deaf and dumb person cannot describe the taste of sweets ... but he can still enjoy it. UpAsanA of God is important and not what He is like. There is nothing in this universe which is like Him & so we can never perceive what He really is ... but that is not required. Saints who have attained One-ness with God in Nirvikalpa SamAdhi cannot describe the experience ... but describing is not required ... we need to experience it.

BTW, you cannot exactly describe anything in this universe because the reality is that you don't know the exact nature of anything. Your all knowing of anything is only relative & has little value.

OM

[Kismet]

God cannot be described as He/She/It is. If you describe Him, He does get limited.

Interestingly, even if you limit yourself to "it" you do limit God by either objectifying him, or shearing him of his attributes which we can know. So, it is better to say he is all three and surpasses all three. If you want the greatest degree of Being.


However, it is important to limit Him artificially so that we can connect to Him & focus on Him. Lord Krishna says it is important because we are limited by our body-mind & therefore worshiping Saguna Brahman is easier ... the Nirguna Brahman cannot be exactly perceived as It is. For connecting to anything with given mental limitations you need something concrete.

This, for me, is something unacceptable. While in the past I could understand such a point of view, now it seems to me overwhelmingly clear that God must be fully personal, not just artificially so. You do not have to deprive him of his transcendent feature though. This is the point. God can be both perfectly absolute, and yet also personable, a Person... Where is the contradiction? You can say it is contradiction only by limiting him - to only an impersonal Absolute. The onus then falls on you my good friend. :)


Moreover, how does it matter whether you are able to describe Him as He is or not ? A deaf and dumb person cannot describe the taste of sweets ... but he can still enjoy it. UpAsanA of God is important and not what He is like. There is nothing in this universe which is like Him & so we can never perceive what He really is ... but that is not required. Saints who have attained One-ness with God in Nirvikalpa SamAdhi cannot describe the experience ... but describing is not required ... we need to experience it.

There is importance attached; namely, the glory and honor of the Supreme Being in his personal feature... You may not agree with it, but that is beside the point. If God is as he is, then his personal self cannot be neglected. It is more than our own experience which is at stake in the loving and honoring of God.


BTW, you cannot exactly describe anything in this universe because the reality is that you don't know the exact nature of anything. Your all knowing of anything is only relative & has little value.

OM

And I say, even if that is correct (which I am suspicious of; I think there ARE some things we can know exactly) our relative reality should not be neglected, especially considering if God is a person....

[devotee]

Namaste Kismet,

You say, it is not acceptable to you. Why ? OK. Try thinking of something which is really Infinite. Tell me if you are successful.

OM

[kallol]

Dear Kismet,

It does not matter what is your comfort zone in perceiving God.

Whether you want Him / Her as person, as in limited form and shape or the infinite, these all depend on your mental capability to behold.

Go ahead and enjoy the perception you have - it never matters.

Just because you aske a question - I gave an insight to my perception.

[Kismet]

Namaste Kismet,

You say, it is not acceptable to you. Why ? OK. Try thinking of something which is really Infinite. Tell me if you are successful.

OM

I don't have to be successful. That said, God is not complete in my eyes if his personal Form is neglected.

The reason it is not acceptable to me is because Reality is personal; it has the personal imprint stamped on it, or so I perceive. Hence, God, who is the source of all INCLUDING personality, must too be personal, and have all the accoutrements accompanying Personality: a Form, a Name, etc.

[Kismet]

Dear Kismet,

It does not matter what is your comfort zone in perceiving God.

It doesn't have anything to do with me.


Whether you want Him / Her as person, as in limited form and shape or the infinite, these all depend on your mental capability to behold.

It is not about what I want but what the Truth is. And that Truth, insofar as I can see, is personal.


Go ahead and enjoy the perception you have - it never matters.

That is simply your opinion. Whether I enjoy or dislike the perception, the perception is there, and that is simply the truth as I see it. I respect your view, so you should mine. I feel you are being overly dismissing toward me without grounds.


Just because you aske a question - I gave an insight to my perception.

Yes, that's very good. As long as we can both have respect for each other, that will be enough.

[wundermonk]

Although I have heard of the "limiting" God concept, I do not quite know in full details what it entails...Nonetheless I will reply based on Kismet's OP.

Let me take an example that gets asked of Hindus in various forums.

If Krishna is God, how can he die?

The answer given is usually that only his human form died. If God decides to incarnate in our human world, does he or does he not have to conform to the physical/biological laws of the universe?

[kallol]

It doesn't have anything to do with me.



It is not about what I want but what the Truth is. And that Truth, insofar as I can see, is personal.



That is simply your opinion. Whether I enjoy or dislike the perception, the perception is there, and that is simply the truth as I see it. I respect your view, so you should mine. I feel you are being overly dismissing toward me without grounds.



Yes, that's very good. As long as we can both have respect for each other, that will be enough.


Dear Kismet,

Do not get me wrong. Read the essence of the message. I consider all as unique and respect their positions.

I respect your view and position.

Thanks

[devotee]

I don't have to be successful. That said, God is not complete in my eyes if his personal Form is neglected.

The reason it is not acceptable to me is because Reality is personal; it has the personal imprint stamped on it, or so I perceive. Hence, God, who is the source of all INCLUDING personality, must too be personal, and have all the accoutrements accompanying Personality: a Form, a Name, etc.

So, you want God to conform to your own specification. That is perfectly OK. You may go ahead and create your own God.

... and if you can see what I am saying ... I am not being sarcastic.

OM

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté kismet



How do I do that? God still possesses all opulences, has all auspicious and omni-maximal qualities, is infinite, surpasses all understanding, and so forth. The fact that he has certain attributes which are comprehensible is no reason to say God, taken in his entirety, must be limited. And yet this is what I keep hearing (mostly from Catholics, but also Advaitins, some Buddhists who refuse to talk about the "Absolute" in anything but negative terms).

I am not interested in theists who uphold the saguna aspect of God as jumping on the bandwagon here with me. I am interested in a genuine talk of whether or not this counts as a fallacy, as to me it does.


Let me ask a few questions. These questions are not offered to antagonize or challange your position, yet to ferret out some additional truths that may be dormant. If that is okay with your thinking, let me offer the following:

You mention

How do I do that? God still possesses all opulences, has all auspicious and omni-maximal qualities, is infinite, surpasses all understanding, and so forth.
The ~quilities~ you offer , are they your direct personal experience or do they come to your knowledge-base from your studies or from another ? The truth is knowledge is different in different levels of consciousness. What one may experience another does not see.

When the Supreme is discussed it is difficult at best for descriptions to be accurate. It is because to offer a description or ~quality~ is to limit. Yet there are two truths that are offered in the upaniṣad-s regarding the Supreme, the Highest, the unsurpassible ( uttara & anuttara)

It is anirukta, unuttered , not articulated , unspeakable, and;
svatāsiddha, self proven, self experienced i.e. svā + ta + siddha = one's own + crossing or virtue + accomplished i.e. self-accomplishedSo when we as humans wish to talk of such a Being we are constrained; But when it is self-proven people have different experiences of this Self, Being, 'That'. In some cases they experience the Supreme in ~limits~, others may not. Yet as I understand it we may see limits ( due to the human condition) it is not so. When there is a perceived and perciever then there is 2 and there are limits. It is when one goes even beyond this and there are no limits then one can talk of the Supreme. And what is that talk ? Nothing! Because to talk of IT limits it, and hence the falicy of qualities - even saying it is infinite ~ limits~ this Being.

So the pickle begins. How do describe this Supreme in terms a human can comprehend in the field the human lives in (3 dimensional). It is from this level that the muni's try and offer some glimpse of this Supreme, hence human forms and stories come into play for our digestion.

praṇām

[Kismet]

So, you want God to conform to your own specification. That is perfectly OK. You may go ahead and create your own God.

... and if you can see what I am saying ... I am not being sarcastic.

OM

The thing is, maybe it's just my imagination, but when people say to me I am "creating" my own God, that is a real spit in the face, in my opinion. Just because I have come to a conclusion different than other people, does not mean I am "making it up." Trust me, it would be a lot simpler for me to believe in a God who is beyond description. But, I do not feel this is the case, and that is a matter of conviction, not just emotion. I can bring arguments to bear on why I think God is personal. I have done so in the past.

Here however I am only trying to reconcile God's infinite transcendence with his personableness. Thus far I do not see a clear cut contradiction.

[Kismet]

Although I have heard of the "limiting" God concept, I do not quite know in full details what it entails...Nonetheless I will reply based on Kismet's OP.

Let me take an example that gets asked of Hindus in various forums.

If Krishna is God, how can he die?

The answer given is usually that only his human form died. If God decides to incarnate in our human world, does he or does he not have to conform to the physical/biological laws of the universe?

That's actually an excellent question, I think. I'm glad you take it seriously enough to broach it.

In my view, and I know I share it with other Vaishnavas, is that God "appears" on the scene. It is not the case as if God is born like you or I, for that already supposes illusion: that one is "born." So, since it is all an act, how can God die? Can someone who is not born die? Well, this too is a matter of appearance only. So God does not really have a "human" form; he is not a human beyond the sense that he takes the appearance of a human, so as to be personable with his devotees, engage in merciful acts, and glory in his own splendor.

So, really, God, not being a member of this world, but only appearing in it, like a lotus on water, shouldn't have to abide by any of its laws. Not only do physical laws act in one accord with whatever God wills, but God has the ability to break them. Why? Because God is not in the material world, really, but operates apart from it.

[Kismet]

Dear Kismet,

Do not get me wrong. Read the essence of the message. I consider all as unique and respect their positions.

I respect your view and position.

Thanks

Fair enough. Perhaps I am being a tad defensive. I just want to make it clear that I believe God is not artificially personal, but really personal. That is what I believe.

[Kismet]

The ~quilities~ you offer , are they your direct personal experience or do they come to your knowledge-base from your studies or from another ? The truth is knowledge is different in different levels of consciousness. What one may experience another does not see.

And I say that there are qualities which God continually maintains for himself in spite of what outsiders may distinguish in him: that they are an integral and indissoluble part of himself. My conclusions stem from a number of things. One is the authority of persons who vouch, on the basis of the scriptures, that God is personal; not that we merely see him as personal. Also, given how personality is such an integral facet of our world, I reason that the source of such personality must also be personal.


When the Supreme is discussed it is difficult at best for descriptions to be accurate. It is because to offer a description or ~quality~ is to limit.

How?? One may describe a part (albeit an essential part) or facet of the Supreme, and yet remain steadfast that the core of God, the Godhead, Brahman, the ultimate Source, is unknowable, unthinkable, unsurpassed, and so on. You cannot say that to describe one aspect of the divine is to limit him. It seems to me you only assert that without backing.



Yet there are two truths that are offered in the upaniṣad-s regarding the Supreme, the Highest, the unsurpassible ( uttara & anuttara)
It is anirukta, unuttered , not articulated , unspeakable, and;
svatāsiddha, self proven, self experienced i.e. svā + ta + siddha = one's own + crossing or virtue + accomplished i.e. self-accomplished [/quote]I completely accept those facets. Yes, God is, at one point, inexpressible and unknowable. His being is unlimited profundity and power which we cannot guage. But, this does not exclude qualities.



So when we as humans wish to talk of such a Being we are constrained; But when it is self-proven people have different experiences of this Self, Being, 'That'. In some cases they experience the Supreme in ~limits~, others may not. Yet as I understand it we may see limits ( due to the human condition) it is not so. When there is a perceived and perciever then there is 2 and there are limits. It is when one goes even beyond this and there are no limits then one can talk of the Supreme. And what is that talk ? Nothing! Because to talk of IT limits it, and hence the falicy of qualities - even saying it is infinite ~ limits~ this Being.

God does not have limits. Let us agree on that. But, God's unlimited being can still have qualities, alongside his transcendent being, and that these qualities are integral in knowing God as he really is. I do not see them as limiting, but complimentary. On the other hand, to deprive God of these qualities is to really limit him. So, I can accuse you of the same exact thing.




So the pickle begins. How do describe this Supreme in terms a human can comprehend in the field the human lives in (3 dimensional). It is from this level that the muni's try and offer some glimpse of this Supreme, hence human forms and stories come into play for our digestion.

praṇām

But, I still do not see why these forms and stories (what I consider actual events) should have to obscure God's infinity, instead of enhancing it.

[Jainarayan]

If God decides to incarnate in our human world, does he or does he not have to conform to the physical/biological laws of the universe?

Just my opinions, but I don't think so, considering that it is all His creation. It seems that there were times that Sri Krishna let Himself be limited by the laws of material existence, and at other times not (did He not burst into flames at the attempt to restrain Him?). He seems not to have aged during His adulthood. God incarnates for a reason and purpose, and if that purpose is to teach something or accomplish some task, I would think He would choose not to be limited at times for the purpose of the lesson(s).

[devotee]

The thing is, maybe it's just my imagination, but when people say to me I am "creating" my own God, that is a real spit in the face, in my opinion.

I think you need a little more time to have the real feel of the thing I am trying to convey. Believe me, it is not at all a "spit in the face". There is absolutely no sarcasm in my words. .... you just need some more time. Please re-read my all posts in this thread leaving aside your rigidness.


Just because I have come to a conclusion different than other people, does not mean I am "making it up." Trust me, it would be a lot simpler for me to believe in a God who is beyond description. But, I do not feel this is the case, and that is a matter of conviction, not just emotion. I can bring arguments to bear on why I think God is personal. I have done so in the past.


The reality is that until you attain One-ness with God (I don't know whether you understand exactly what I am pointing out) ... you do play a role in creating your own description of God. God has no compulsion to conform to your logic and your specification .... He/She/It is what He/She/It is ... actually, he is beyond all your logical inferences. Why ? Because you have no absolute logical reference to rely on. Your all logical references are created by some axioms which may seem to you highly valuable but they are not only worthless but a hindrance to understand the Truth, when we talk of the Absolute, as these are true only within your mental realm ... God is beyond that.


Here however I am only trying to reconcile God's infinite transcendence with his personableness. Thus far I do not see a clear cut contradiction.

You can't reconcile that with logic. The only way to really understand God is to realise Him. If you want an unbiased understanding you will have to move away from your fixed position.

OM

[Kismet]

I think you need a little more time to have the real feel of the thing I am trying to convey. Believe me, it is not at all a "spit in the face". There is absolutely no sarcasm in my words. .... you just need some more time. Please re-read my all posts in this thread leaving aside your rigidness.

How am I being rigid? I could say the same thing of you, really. You are so rigid in your impersonalism and incapable of imagining that God has a Form. :)

I suppose you meant no ill, but it seemed as though you thought I was "making" this all up, which I'm not.


The reality is that until you attain One-ness with God (I don't know whether you understand exactly what I am pointing out) ... you do play a role in creating your own description of God. God has no compulsion to conform to your logic and your specification .... He/She/It is what He/She/It is ... actually, he is beyond all your logical inferences. Why ? Because you have no absolute logical reference to rely on. Your all logical references are created by some axioms which may seem to you highly valuable but they are not only worthless but a hindrance to understand the Truth, when we talk of the Absolute, as these are true only within your mental realm ... God is beyond that.

It seems to me that this is uncalled for. Yes, we all have biases. Yes, we do not have an entirely clear and 100% accurate view to God. However, why should it be then inferred God is not knowable in any way? It seems to me there are some things we may know about God.

This relative reality is here for a reason, I think. So, it seems to me God should have a corresponding Form even if he is also transcendent, absolute, and so on. Again, what is wrong with a complimentarity of God's transcendence and immanence inhering in the same supreme Being?


You can't reconcile that with logic. The only way to really understand God is to realise Him. If you want an unbiased understanding you will have to move away from your fixed position.

OM

Well, we all have certain convictions about who God is, and I don't think it is wise to abandon them without good cause. So far you have not demonstrated to me how I "can't" reconcile my view with logic. Again, I simply do not see the contradiction.

[devotee]

How am I being rigid? I could say the same thing of you, really. You are so rigid in your impersonalism and incapable of imagining that God has a Form. :)

You are free to assume whatever you feel like. :)

If I say :

a) God has any form whatever we may think of
b) God has no form
c) God has no form but it can't be said that he is formless either

The above is the Truth. Does it fit into your logic ?


I suppose you meant no ill, but it seemed as though you thought I was "making" this all up, which I'm not.

You have to leave aside this idea that I am suggesting anything like that. I am saying a completely different thing. God is unmanifest & infinite & yet God can manifest with the name & form that you are devoted to.

I now bow out of this thread. :)

OM

[smaranam]

Namaste everyone

Please read this VaishNav siddhanta first. (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=75364#post75364) It is just a few lines.

A dark cowherd boy exists :
There are stories of bhaktas (like MAdhavendra Puri ,Jayadev, Rupa Goswami, RaghunathDas Goswami, and numerous bhaktas including today, in this very millenium), whom a boy approached and talked with, a little girl gave a pot of milk, A boy showed directions when lost, told them where to find something hidden, etc. and disappeared. Literally vanished. He helped them PHYSICALLY with something they could never have worked around. This happens in Vraj even today, i personally know one - dear friend. With some bhaktas, they realized it was KRshNa ONLY AFTER, and it left them shaking and perspiring. They were accompanied by others and all the companions witnessed this.

Then the Banke Bihari case: (https://www.bihariji.org/may08/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=64&Itemid=86) A court case almost lost, a poor family losing all money at the hands of a secret fraudulent transaction, at the last minute a person wearing a shawl hiding face, gives witness about some secret no one else could have posibly known. Then the judge called the witness closer, he saw an astonishingly beautiful boy ! and almost fainted. The boy vanished. It was BAnke Bihari.

Did these bhaktas CREATE THEIR OWN KRSHNA ? They did not mentally concoct Him. The highest hitachintak suRhd premi radiating love.

Some may argue yogis can do what the boy did, but KRshNa is YOGESHWAR, the Ishwar of the yogis, on Whom the yogis meditated for thousands of yrs and by Whose grace they attained siddhis.

Then there is nidhivan in VRndavan where no one is allowed after dark. Monkeys and ants also come out of the van. Why ? Radha-KrshNa come there at night. If we force ourselves into Nidhivan after sunset, one can go insane. One man laughed at this and went to nidhivan. Next morning he was found paralyzed and showing a sign of "TWO" with two fingers, dazed amazed and shaking. A sadhu took him home and asked him to stay there till recovery - which was 2 months+. The 22 yr old was from Delhi.

So, then , isn't this dark beautiful cowherd ONE form of God ?
ShAstras, scriptures are saying that this is God, NArAyaN (VishNu) in His sweetest form. He is the ras of the rasik. This form is NOT MAYIC. It is not material. Appearance and disappearance of KRshNa is explained in Shrimad BhAgvat.


Now everyone is free to chose a form from ShAstra , but know what Bhagvad-tattva is, and what each tattva and form will lead to. Although several tattvas may lead to moksha as a general aggregate, the outcomes and abodes are different. The paths, moksha-mArgas are also different. Same extends to other religions.

NArAyaN is not Brahman under mAyA. Which shastra says so ? MAyA cannot even stand in front of Him for a second, and see Him in the eye. MAyA is HIS creation or HIS energy attribute.

This insistence of form = material form only, name = name of material entity only, quality = material quality only, and impersonal renunciation, may bring people out of birth-death cycles.

However, devotees are interested in sweetness of God which will be missed if they are not engaged in His bhajan before, after, and irrespective of, liberation from birth-death.

Some might say bhakti is spontaneous, but it can also be a science, shAstra. It talks of sattvik bhavas, what is anubhav, uddipana, what is prem, rag, anurag... (Bhakti RasAmRt Sindhu).


om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya

_/\_

[Kismet]

Thank you & well put Smaranam.

I will return again and again to your posts.

[rainbowlotus]

I feel as though because we are humans it is hard for us to not "limit" God. I have always seen it as it's hard to describe something infinite if we have a finite mind. That is just how I see it. I hope that made sense.

[Kismet]

I feel as though because we are humans it is hard for us to not "limit" God. I have always seen it as it's hard to describe something infinite if we have a finite mind. That is just how I see it. I hope that made sense.

Of course. Your mention of infinity is apt here. Nobody can conceptualize what "infinity" is like. Even infinite sets of numbers are circumscribed "chunks" of real infinity - which is un-circumscribed and incapable of measurement (at least, by human standards).

So, there is no question that human beings limit God by their incapacity to Know Him. But my point is directed somewhat differently. Namely, why ascribing a certain definite form to God (as well as qualities) should at all interfere or diminish His infinite, omni-maximal and mysterious essence. To me this seems not the case.

[saidevo]

namaste everyone.

Kismet's OP is a nice way to think about God, IMO. It is good and wise to be associated with all devotional traditions and philosophical streams, to first know and think about, and later experience God.

• Being a shankara-smArta-advaitin, I agree that God is both nirguNa and saguNa in a complementary way. I also believe that the sAdhana--spiritual efforts, of knowing and experiencing God through saguNa-upAsana--formful worship, and nirguNa-nididhyAsana--sustained meditation on the Self as the formless aspect of God, are complementary to each other.

• However, I would rather subscribe to the Advaita philosophy more than to the VA and Dvaita philosophy, and think that I am That, ultimately in my Self; and that KRShNa the dark boy resides in me, NarAyaNa resides inside the Nara and Shiva as ArdhanArIshvara is part of Shakti who is his saguNa aspect, although I can only see them as outside Gods in my present level of sAdhana.

It's surprising how we seek to discount different views when (we think that) they (seem to) differ radically from our own subscribed view, specifically in a friendly discussion professing mutual respect of all views.

• Even in Kismet's all-embracing way of thinking about God in the OP, a flaw can be detected as under:

When God can be both personal and impersonal, why should He/She/It be only personable, that is, pleasing in appearance with all kalyANa guNas--auspicious qualities? When everything in this world is God's lIlA--sport/play (for there is no other satisfactory explanation), why can't God be seen in the 'fisherman, Slave, gambler, cheater, thief, marauder' as shrI-rudram of the kRShNa yujur-veda sees him?

• Kallol, post #2said: The essence of water is identical in both the ocean and the drop.

But then the drop does not have the power of the ocean--at the physical level to be more precise. Yet God is in both the ocean and the drop, whichever way we would like to reconcile these two manifestations.

• Although Devotee fervently expresses his views as an Advaitin, I would say that he has arrived at the right conclusion about God in post #21, thus:

a) God has any form whatever we may think of
b) God has no form
c) God has no form but it can't be said that he is formless either

• Wundermonk raised an important question in post #10: 'If Krishna is God, how can he die?'

My simple answer would be that KRShNa died and yet lives the same way that we all do; except that we would need to be reborn whereas He can appear as a dark boy or in his full splendour as a conch-disc-holder NArAyaNa as he chooses to give his darshan.

• I would say that Yajvan is right in post #13 wherein he conveys the message that the experience of God is highly personal and that even for an accomplished yogi such experience is beyond words to describe or the mind to know about.

However, this does not invalidate the descriptions or knowledge at other 'levels of consciousness', so long as they serve as rungs in the ladder that leads to the Absolute.

• TouchedbytheLord has a point in post #18 that KRShNa can limit himself to human levels as well as transcend those levels as he chooses to reveal his divinity. This is even truer with shrI RAma.

• Smaranam has presented beautiful evidences of the eternal existence of KRShNa and NArAyaNa in humane forms; I think the right way to think about mAyA is as the shakti--consort, whoever (or whatever form) is the deity. Nevertheless, our PurANas present every deity (form) doing tapas--being in meditation, on that Absolute that unites them all.

• As Rainbowlotus puts it in post #24, infinity cannot be described by finite minds.--but the concept can always be intuited.

*****

Thus, everyone of us is right in our descriptions and thoughts of God, although none of us have experienced him as the Self. All that we need is to realize that all thoughts and relative truths fit within the framework of the Absolute--although this framework in itself is formless.

We have a beautiful word in Tamizh for God--kaDavuL: kaDa is to be transcendent and (v)uL is to be immanent. Parimelazhagar in his famous commentary on TirukkuRaL, describes the meaning of this word as under:

"One who remains transcendent beyond the mind, words and body of people and yet is immanent in them."

As a simple analogy, it helps to think about our own personableness, in the various names and forms that we take in our life, through how we appear to different groups of people we interact with, to the ultimate truth of how much a human being we are at each of our names and forms.

[NayaSurya]

What a beautiful post SD!<3<3<3

Every one of these posts, a crucial perspective of Beloved which makes a beautiful picture, full of each Portion's experience.

[smaranam]

Thank you & well put Smaranam.

At your service
In service of KRshNa

Hare KRshNa
praNAm

[smaranam]

When God can be both personal and impersonal, why should He/She/It be only personable, that is, pleasing in appearance with all kalyANa guNas--auspicious qualities? When everything in this world is God's lIlA--sport/play (for there is no other satisfactory explanation), why can't God be seen in the 'fisherman, Slave, gambler, cheater, thief, marauder' as shrI-rudram of the kRShNa yujur-veda sees him?


praNAm SaidevoJi

Thanks for the nice post.

Indeed, God is both. This is presented very well by achintya-bheda-abheda, simultaneous inconceivable oneness and difference.

We focus on and are devoted to His Personal Form, and understand His impersonal aspect as residing within and without all sthAvar-jangam (moving and stationary) , sentient and insentient.
BG 12.2śrī-bhagavān uvāca
mayy āveśya mano ye māḿ
nitya-yuktā upāsate
śraddhayā parayopetās
te me yuktatamā matāḥ

The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Those who fix their minds on My personal form and are always engaged in worshiping Me with great and transcendental faith are considered by Me to be most perfect.

BhagvAn Shri KRshNa has six oppulences in infinite amounts eternally : Knowledge Wealth strength beauty fame renunciation - Shrimad BhAgavatam : definition of God. This is pArmArthic, not vyavahAric.

SB 3.24.32 tvāḿ sūribhis tattva-bubhutsayāddhā
sadābhivādārhaṇa-pāda-pīṭham
aiśvarya-vairāgya-yaśo-'vabodha-
vīrya-śriyā pūrtam ahaḿ prapadye

My dear Lord, Your lotus feet are the reservoir that always deserves to receive worshipful homage from all great sages eager to understand the Absolute Truth. You are full in opulence, renunciation, transcendental fame, knowledge, strength and beauty, and therefore I surrender myself unto Your lotus feet.



However, is it not wrong to toss God's name and form in the same basket with worldly names and forms ? Shouldn't there be any distinction between the mundane-worldly and transcendental ?

Worldly name and form like "smaranam" "Saideo" "Kismet" and "Preeti Zinta" are products of maya. Not KRshNa NArAyaN MadhusUdan Keshav MAdhav when they qualify God. (It is another story that a child born under 3 guNas is given names like Keshav.)

The beauty of Aishwarya Rai and strength of Sachin Tendulkar are temporary transient and under the 3 guNas. Although Janardana resides in their heart and the real svarUp of Aishwarya is not being a heroine or model, these names and forms are mAyic.


Acc. to achintya-bheda-abheda, The real svarUp of Aishwarya Rai is to be a sacchidananda servant of the sacchidananda Supreme Lord NArAyaNa. Not an attributeless AtmA.
jivera svarUpa haya krishnera nitya dAs.

Contrast that with murlimanohar he shyAm giridhar namAmi KRshNam namAmi KRshNam.

Neither is KRshNa's name nor form MAyic like Aishwarya Rai and Sachin Tendulkar. He implements His internal shakti to be manifest to the world, but the external shakti causes Aishwarya Rai to exist. That is the difference.

KRshNa's form does not require the help of His material energy to exist.

KRshNa's form is sacchidanand KRshNa
KRshNa's name is sacchidanand KRshNa
KRshNa's nirguN (transcendental) qualities are sacchidanand KRshNa
KRshNa's pastimes are saccidananda KRshNa.

Wheareas

My form is not me
My legal name is not me
my manifest qualities as seen by friends family etc. are not me
my day-to-day vyavahAr actions like going to the grocery store are not me.

It is not right to say that Absolute Truth is ultimately attributeless qualitiless blank white screen.

Hare KRshNa

[devotee]

Excellent well reasoned post, Saidevo ji ! :)

Saying that God is like this and not like this ... only shows our ignorance. Kena Upanishad says rightly : Those who claim that they know ... they actually don't know.

God with any name or form and attribute is just a good image of Him and not exactly as God is. It may disturb some devotees but there is nothing to be disturbed about it. Within this body, it is very difficult to meditate on Nirguna Brahman ... so name and form of God is the vehicle. However, saying that God is only Krishna and "not Shiva or Mother Durga" or "Durga and Shiva are subservient to Krishna" is something I find is not really a Hindu concept of God which is widely embracing all names and forms of God.

OM

[saidevo]

namaste everyone.

Smaranam said in post #29:
KRshNa's form does not require the help of DurgA to exist.

Are KRShNa and KALI essentially the same or radically different? Notice that both names primarily indicate dark color. When KRShNa has so many attributive names, why should he be known overwhelmingly by this name KRShNa that primarily stands for 'black, black blue, a dark color'?

This is because both KRShNa and KALI are identical. That is, they are forms of the same source Brahman. For those who are willing to find the reconciliation, the DevI BhAgavata purANam aka MahAbhAgavata purANam narrates how Goddess KALI incarnated as KRShNa and her consort Shiva incarnated as RAdhArANI. This purANam also states that in another kalpam--one thousand yugas which is one daytime for BrahmA, the avatar KRShNa will be a pUrNAvatAram and KRShNa will be known as the Supreme God. Here are two interesting references:
http://innertraditions.blogspot.com/2011/04/devi-purana-krishnas-death-and-sati-by.html
http://www.boloji.com/index.cfm?md=Content&sd=Articles&ArticleID=1362

While achintya-bheda-abheda that gave rise to the Gaudiya VaiShNavam with KRShNa as the Supreme God is one form of reconciliation of different perceptions of God and philosophies of his ultimate nature, we should appreciate that there are other forms of reconciliation such as the one afforded by the DevI BhAgavatam, and that all such reconciliations are equally valid because of this inviolable truth: ekam sat--one is the Reality, which is spoken of in different names and forms.

[Brahmanyan]

Otherday a friend asked me " Are you sure that a God exists ?". Honestly I do not know. But I do accept that there must have been some great activating force or power behind every thing what we see around us. Then to start with we have to go into the meaning of the word "God" first. If the word means simply by its attributes only, like God is " all pervasive, Omni potent, Omnipresent and omniscient", then it becomes a Concept. an abstract idea or a mental expression. It looks too simple. No, certainly I do not want to restrict that Great Power within a mental expression. To go further we may have to browse the writings of great seekers and sages who had also done honest search to find the answer for this question, from time immemorial. We may or may not get a convincing answer . But it will certainly activate our thinking. To begin with why not we find what our own treasure trove of knowledge "Vedas" say about Creation. As you may know that the word Veda in Samskrit is coined from the root "Vid - to know". Thus "Veda" means" Knowledge". Let me quote the literal translation in English of Hymn relating to "Creation" from "The Rig Veda" as under:
==========
The Rig Veda: Book 10:HYMN CXXIX:
Creation.
------------------
1. THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it . What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?
2. Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no signwas there, the day's and night's divider. That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.
3. Darkness there was: at first cocealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos. All that existed then was void and formless: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit.
4. Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit. Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.
5. Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it? There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder.
6. Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation? The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
7. He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it, Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps, he knows not. .............

As this is a literal translation of original text in Vedic Samskrit, it may or may not convey the real thoughts of the Sages, who expounded it. But if we study this Hymn a number of times we may slowly understand the meaning better. It is my belief a seeker of truth should develop patience and our search should continue. We cannot limit this extra ordinary Power,but our understanding has to face the inherent limitations in our birth, and we cannot go beyond the capacity given to our body, mind and intellect.

Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.

[wundermonk]

:offtopic:

Dear Brahmanyan:

Are you really 80 years old as your avatar indicates?

[Brahmanyan]

:offtopic:

Dear Brahmanyan:

Are you really 80 years old as your avatar indicates?


Dear "Wundermonk",

Yes, by the blessings of God, I have completed my 80 years on August,21 this year.

Regards,
Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.

[rainbowlotus]

Of course. Your mention of infinity is apt here. Nobody can conceptualize what "infinity" is like. Even infinite sets of numbers are circumscribed "chunks" of real infinity - which is un-circumscribed and incapable of measurement (at least, by human standards).

So, there is no question that human beings limit God by their incapacity to Know Him. But my point is directed somewhat differently. Namely, why ascribing a certain definite form to God (as well as qualities) should at all interfere or diminish His infinite, omni-maximal and mysterious essence. To me this seems not the case.

That is a good question and I realize that I have wondered that question myself.

[rainbowlotus]

Dear "Wundermonk",

Yes, by the blessings of God, I have completed my 80 years on August,21 this year.

Regards,
Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.


That is wonderful! My great-grandmother turned 101 this October :).

[smaranam]

praNAm Devoteeji and Saidevoji

I have removed the word "DurgA" which caused all the havoc, my apologies. My post was not about KRshNa Vs Durga and Shiva was not even mentioned. This jIva has been blessed by KRshNa, Shiva and Ma DurgA - all three. Please let us not change the topic.

If Radha-KRshna, Lakshmi-NArAyaNa, Shiva-PArvati are the same, how does that give us license to toss their transcendental qualities out of the pArmArthic window ?

If saying "The Absolute is like this and like that" is ignorance, then saying "The Absolute has no qualities and no attributes" is also ignorance. This is the main theme here.

The theistic translation of "nirguNa" is without any blemishes, transcending material guNa. It does not imply absence of transcendental qualities (keval advaita definition).

Is saying "The Absolute Truth is beautiful and sweet" a symptom of ignorance or limitation ?
Beautiful and sweet are attributes.

Keval Advaita says : Since the Supreme cannot have any qualities/attributes, lets toss them out.

"Name, form, auspicious qualities are mere vehicles to understand NirguN (read: blank screen)" - this is a typical Kevaladvaita statement.

How many new followers of keval advaita are theists ? How many actually believe our Deities exist eternally ? I am reminded of TheOne who was like the frank child who spoke up.

That is all i wanted to say.

Hare KRshNA

[devotee]

Namaste Smaranam,



If Radha-KRshna, Lakshmi-NArAyaNa, Shiva-PArvati are the same, how does that give us license to toss their transcendental qualities out of the pArmArthic window ?
Keval Advaita says : Since the Supreme cannot have any qualities/attributes, lets toss them out.
"Name, form, auspicious qualities are mere vehicles to understand NirguN (read: blank screen)" - this is a typical Kevaladvaita statement.

Your above statements show that you have not understood Advaita Vedanta correctly. I wish you would have given some time to understand so-called Kevala Advaita (there is nothing like Kevala Advaita as ISKCON people keep saying. Shankara's Advaita is known as "Advaita Vedanta & not Kevala Advaita) !

I respect the path you have chosen ... can you extend the same courtesy to mine ?

OM

[sm78]

Saying that God is like this and not like this

Careful now!, you r beginning to challenge the fundamental pillar of religion.

[Brahmanyan]

That is wonderful! My great-grandmother turned 101 this October :).

My respectful Pranams to the Grand old Lady.
Regards,
Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.

[grames]

My dear Devotee,

'Kevala' Advaita is very much the name most of the "post" Shankaran Mata used for their philosophy and it is again not ISKCON invention. Not sure why you get offended by the mere mention of the name which in fact, describe the "Monism" of Advaita which is the central theme of "Shankara" Advaita.

Btw, Shri Shankara's Advaita is not same as some of the "Advaita" people proudly say they know or follow. I would request a learnt scholar in this forum who really can educate, share and talk about what "Shri Shankara" taught as Advaita Vedanta for the benefit of "Advaita" followers and Devotee ji, if you can do that, i will be happiest to read and learn with out questioning or arguing.

It is not enough just to say, NO YOU HAVE NOT UNDERSTOOD ADVAITA but it is also good and helpful if you can elaborate the idea of "Deities" in the eternal realm with in the scope of "Advaita" ( If that is possible with Advaita concepts kept intact). So i hope you will do that instead of loosing patience over Smaranam or assuming all problem is because of ISKCON :).

So, give us a chance to know the Advaita idea and consider the questions as questions rather verdicts.

Thank you.

[Brahmanyan]

The Shanthi Sloka of "Isavasya Upanishad" proclaimes the limitless-ness of the Brahman.

OM POORNAMADAH POORNAMIDAM
POORNAAT POORNAMUDACHYATE
POORNASYA POORNAMAADAAYA
POORNAMEVAAVASHISHYATE
OM SHANTI SHANTI SHANTIH

Om.
That (Supreme Brahman) is infinite, and this (conditioned Brahman) is infinite.
The infinite (conditioned Brahman)proceeds from the infinite (Supreme Brahman).
Realizing the infinite of the infinite(conditioned Brahman), it remains as infinite (unconditioned Brahman) alone.
Om. Peace Peace Peace.

Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.

[grames]

KadaVul can also be explained as,

When you transcend 'You', you see that Ultimate. So, that 'You', is not He or Him but inside that 'You' as an antarayami ( Paramatma ).

v(Ul) has very direct meaning which means 'inside'. ( What you 'See' inside you is none other than the Paramatma and thus You and Him are related, connected always - Kadanthu Ullay Irupavan - KadaVul)

There is another word in tamil... AaanDavan = The ONE who rules you from within.

Both words conveys the idea of Jiva being dependant on Paramatma for its functioning and existence.

Only very few translate the KadaVul as inside the Deha, Body etc. Which is not very wise understanding as per the usage this word in the Tamil shastras

[devotee]

Namaste Grames,

Please note the following :

a) What do you mean by post-Shankaran Mutt, I am not sure and I am not interested.
b) I can't make you understand as you are not interested in understanding.
c)
the idea of "Deities" in the eternal realm with in the scope of "Advaita"

===> Your "eternal" is not true eternal but relative and I am sure you can't see what really "eternal" means. As you assume that "you" are eternal therefore for "you" it is eternal but actually it is not.
d) Those who have any problem in understanding any concept of Advaita Vedanta on this forum can ask me directly and they are already doing that & I am trying to help them. They don't need a mediator called "Grames". For "Grames", please have a look at b) above.

.... and finally, please be kind enough to look at this request which you missed :



I respect the path you have chosen ... can you extend the same courtesy to mine ?

OM

[Tapasya]

Namaste,

In my humble view, the constantbickering between Advaitins and Dvaitins can do much harm (particularly) to those who are newto Hinduism. I also believe that ultimately, other than at the level of thesanyasi, the debate is not necessarily meaningful – since we are contemplatingon the Infinite from a starting point of avidya. For the vast majority ofpeople this descends to a matter of perspective.

As an example of this I offer thefollowing: Melpattur Narayana Bhattatiri was one of the great Guruvayurappabhakta’s (Bhagavan Krishna). His Narayaneeyam is considered arguably by some asthe greatest Advaita interpretation of the Bhagavata purana and by others asone of the great Bhakta works. Melpattur’s contemporary the legendary (andperhaps even greater Bhakta) Poontanam's Jnanapanna is considered atruly wonderful pure Bhakta piece – and yet we could potentially even deem thisas a masterpiece of advaita. It is all a matter of perspective.
I leave you with Sri Shankara Bhagavadpada’sNarmadaashtakam and Smt. P Leela’s version of Jnanpanna (in Malayalam – so otherthan the refrain (Krishna, Krishna Mukunda...) may mean little to non-speakers).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-57mH6lK50 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-57mH6lK50)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvRdTAib1RU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvRdTAib1RU)

(Shankaracharya Swami Brahmananda’sversion with transliteration and translation)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7-xjxFxyB8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7-xjxFxyB8)

Pranam

[smaranam]

praNAm


Let me take an example that gets asked of Hindus in various forums.

If Krishna is God, how can he die?

The answer given is usually that only his human form died. If God decides to incarnate in our human world, does he or does he not have to conform to the physical/biological laws of the universe?


My simple answer would be that KRShNa died and yet lives the same way that we all do; except that we would need to be reborn whereas He can appear as a dark boy or in his full splendour as a conch-disc-holder NArAyaNa as he chooses to give his darshan.

Actually, KRshNa never died, as He was not born.
Although avatars leave body behind and confirm to *some* laws, KRshNa did not do so. KRshNa, svayam BhagavAn, disappeared from this world in a very mystical way, as mytically as He appeared into it.

Please see this HDF page (www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=7145&page=2)
SB 11.31.6: Without employing the mystic āgneyī meditation to burn up His transcendental body, which is the all-attractive resting place of all the worlds and the object of all contemplation and meditation, Lord Kṛṣṇa entered into His own abode.

Balaram left His body behind but KRshNA did not. Why ?
SB 11.31.13: Although Lord Kṛṣṇa, being the possessor of infinite powers, is the only cause of the creation, maintenance and destruction of innumerable living beings, He simply did not desire to keep His body in this world any longer. Thus He revealed the destination of those fixed in the self and demonstrated that this mortal world is of no intrinsic value.
PURPORT: - to make sure that yogis focus on Him as the paramAtmA and not a deha. Traditionally, the yogis meditated on His paramAtmA form as chaturbhuja NArAyaNa in the heart-lotus, holding shankha chakra gadA padma (conch disc mace lotus respectively).

Also, one acharya writes: Yogis burn up their bodies before exiting but KRshNa's body is transcendental not material, and He is the very agni (fire) used to burn "things", so what is the point of agni "burning" the most transcentental agni ?

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya

[smaranam]

praNAm

I think the purport of my posts on this thread have been misunderstood, and there has been distraction from the main point. Thank you so much Gramesji for bringing the perspective back. There was no need for Devoteeji to digress to this KRshNa-Shiva-Durga topic, which was non-existent here, and although he thinks it is related to the subject, i do not think so.

Of Course Shiva and Devi Maa are KRshNa in other costumes. I am not saying this from scriptures or rationality, but from what prANanAth has conveyed internally a few years ago.

1. Acc. to monists, saying God has a form is so Kindergartenish, but it does not have to be.

2. God's form is KRshNa does not imply it is not Shiva.

3. All these different and sahastra other forms cannot have a "source" that is attributeless, qualityless, and impersonal. The biggest clue to that is VishNusahastranAma. It gives a good glimpse into VishNu tattva. Although the tattva is very subtle (sUkshma) It is certainly not empty. We can safely say that the infinite VishNu-Tattva is Absolute. And that points to person-ness. Personality. Personableness of God.

4. "What can I do if upanishads speak advaita" is a casual statement making assumptions. Upanishads speak what they speak. What one comprehends is their perspective, as Tapasya put it. Beyond that, it is actually a choice.

5. Monists choose Brahman-sAyujja (blending into impersonal aspect of Brahman) while pure-bhaktas choose Ishvar sAnidhya.

6. Another assumption by the monists is that Adi Shankara's definition of pArmArthic is to be universally accepted. Who can define what is pArmArthic ? ParmArtha for the bhagvad-bhakta is different from parmArtha for a monist.

Moreover, Adi Shankara left it open for his followers to discover what lies ahead in parmArtha. He did not want to give guidelines, unlike VedavyAsa (in the bhAgvat and other puranas), Ramanuja, Vishnuswami/Vallabhacharya, Nimbarka and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.

What he calls vyAvahAric is within the boundaries of dharma artha and kAma. This includes karma-kAnda and worship with a desire to gain something. Pure bhakti excludes both, and is indeed parmArtha.

So, it is incorrect to say that Bhagvad-tattva, BhagavAn and His eternal transcendental leelas are "relatively real only and not actually eternal" This state is all-pArmArthic. Not a spec of vyavahAr. BhagvAn and His hlAdini are in perpetual parmArtha at all times. It is not one-time or ad-hoc, and it is not vyavahAr, like creation and dissolution.

Hare KRshNa

[smaranam]

continued...


Your "eternal" is not true eternal but relative and I am sure you can't see what really "eternal" means. As you assume that "you" are eternal therefore for "you" it is eternal but actually it is not.

Eternal
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/eternal
e&#183;ter&#183;nal   [ih-tur-nl]
adjective
1.without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing ( opposed to temporal): eternal life.
2.perpetual; ceaseless; endless: eternal quarreling; eternal chatter.
3.enduring; immutable: eternal principles.
4.Metaphysics . existing outside all relations of time; not subject to change.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eternal
1eter&#183;nal adj \i-ˈtər-nəl\
Definition of ETERNAL
1a : having infinite duration : everlasting
b : of or relating to eternity
c : characterized by abiding fellowship with God <good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life? — Mark 10:17(Revised Standard Version)>
2 a : continued without intermission : perpetual <an eternal flame>
b : seemingly endless <eternal delays>
3 archaic : infernal <some eternal villain … devised this slander — Shakespeare>
4 : valid or existing at all times : timeless <eternal verities>


om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya

[Divine Kala]

If Krishna is God, how can he die?

If it is Christians asking this then the question can be turned back on them with 'If Jesus is the Son of God, (or, depending on denomination, God) how could he die?'. Often times they will try to explain it in some convoluted way.

As for Krishna dying, I believe his body disappeared when he 'died'. And his 'death' was because he was obliging a devotee (I believe she was a devotee) who had cursed him to suffer as she had.

[kallol]

Please do not leave the judgements to "beliefs". These create dangerous precedents and hardend followers.

Rather get to the roots and understand what is "physical body" and how it is related to God.

No body has life by itself. You have to take the physical body and break down in layers. Body consists of organs and cells, organs consist of cells, etc.

Life is brought into a body (human or organ or cell) through minds at various levels. Cell has its own mind, organ its own and human its own. All minds are working towards the higher level. All creation contribute towards the whole system (God)

So without mind the bodies are lifeless (we can break it down to atoms and sub atoms).

Any system (whatever we can perceive and define ) consists of basically two part - one is a dependent part and another is independent. The dependent part is matter and independent part is consciousness. We can only perceive matter (from energy to gross matter) directly and not consciousness. This system is, what we know as Brahman.

Again if we see what is the common denominator of all matters. It is Brahman. So any matter whether gross or subtle is only a change of form of the permanent Brahman. It is like wood taking various shapes to be furnitures, sofa, table, cupboards, etc.

Even if the furniture is gone the wood remains. So nothing was newly created or destroyed. It is only change in form and name.

Krishna body was a temporary form of Bramhan taken up for a particular cause. The cause was over and it went back to the permanent Brahman.

Where is the death in this ? Do "I" die ? "I" remains through sleep, dreams, unconsciousness and death. It remains in the mind which moves from body to body or remains free.

So where is the question of death ? Rather what is death ? Death is the incident of seperation of mind and body.

Mind does not die and body never had life by itself !!!

[grames]

If the 'Mind" being a matter has 'consciousness', it should be a special class of "matter".

The conscious entity that moves the body or matter is clearly 'identified' as Atman by the scriptures and our material science do not have any direct mean of 'accepting' this living force as the current state of affairs in science is limited only to research and know the "matter".

With out this "Atman", the matter has no more life and it is not same as saying "Mindless" body is lifeless.

So "Death" is the separation of the "Atman" from the Physical enclosure of Matter for human and other forms of life. Here, two distinct principle are intact with each other and the life principle utilize the matter for its functioning ( Karma).

For Bhagavan, this is not the case and Bhagavan is life principle in purest form and for His functioning He does not require a Matter enclosure or material body. His form, body are His own Sudda Sattva and He and His form are homogenous and absolute which are not subjected any material forces of time, space etc. So, understanding the transcendental departure as mere "Death" in human terms is only "ignorance".

avyaktam vyaktim apannam
manyante mam abuddhayah
param bhavam ajananto
mamavyayam anuttamam BG 7.24

So for an unmanifest, which will never associate or engulfed by His own Prakriti there is no "death" and it is meaningless to even assume or address the trancedental departure as "death".