Before samsara

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste ShivaFan

Is there a door to Vrindavan that says you cannot come into that place if you are a demon? As a location, perhaps you can. But as a consciousness, perhaps you cannot. Then I wonder, is there a door to Vaikuntha that says you cannot come in if you are a demon? As a location, perhaps you can. But as a consciousness, perhaps you might not?

There is a story in Srimad Bhagavatam about Jaya and Vijaya, two guards at the gate in Vaikuntha. So it seems that there is an entry in the Vaikuntha as a physical place.
See this: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/31266083
http://api.ning.com/files/jPBOUaOQTl...461&height=600

As regards the possibility of entering into Vaikuntha, no one can enter there if he has no merits.

can a demon enter Vaikuntha as a location but perhaps not in consciousness
...
anyone who passes through this Vaikuntha Dwara gate on Vaikuntha Ekadashi is guaranteed entrance to Vaikuntha. That might include a demon. Or even a mouse who circumstantially observed ekadashi, fasting due to a famine of grains for example.

I doubt that a demon can enter Vaikuntha.
You know, these things do not work that way. A religious observance for which the promise is given that allows a person entry into Vaikuntha produces a result just to the person who is pious. A person must be pious and knowingly (consciously) engage in certain religious observance to get pious merit.
I doubt that the mouse or a demon can knowingly (consciously) and piously participate in any religious observance, be it passing through a temple gate or observed ekadashi.
But even if there are some exceptions to this rule, it just depends on the will of the Lord. The Lord can grant mukti even to the mouse if He wants to.

Do you fall from Vaikuntha like you fall from a cliff? What is falling? Is it a movement, from one location to another, or is the consciousness taking a different state? Just curious about this.

There is no possibility of falling due to some kind of chance, accident, bad luck, or karma, or even because of maya because such things do not exist in Vaikuntha.
For this reason it is said that "no one falls from Vaikuntha". So we did not fall from Vaikuntha in this sense. Srila Prabhupada explained that we fell because of our own choice. We have tried to imitate God, we have tried to become enjoyers separated from God, then we have forgotten that we need to serve God. Then God has put us in this material world in which we can try to enjoy separate from God.
So it is not about accident. There is no risk of falling!

There is another reason why there is no risk of falling from Vaikuntha. It is because in Vaikuntha souls are protected by the Lord.
In Vaikuntha souls are protected by the Lord, but the souls always have the ability to choose what they want to do. If they want to separate from the Lord and leave Him, the Lord will enable them to do this.
Technically speaking it is not called "fall from Vaikuntha". You could call it a "decision to abandon the Lord".

"Is it a movement, from one location to another, or is the consciousness taking a different state?"
It seems that it is both. Vaikuntha is abode, residence, place from where you go and come to this world or place.
The description of Vaikuntha is given in the Bhagavatam: http://vedabase.net/sb/3/15/en

Consciousness of the soul in Vaikuntha is certainly different from the consciousness of the soul in the material world. There the souls are aware of their spiritual identity, and are aware of their relationship with the Lord. As soon as the soul begins with material life in this world, awareness becomes shrink, reduced in amount and value. The soul forgets himself, forgets his true identity as a spirit soul, forgets his spiritual identity and his relationship with the Lord. The soul starts to think "I'm this material body", "This material body is my true self". This state of forgetfulness of his true identity as a spirit soul is compared with the state of sleep. Just as a person who falls asleep forgets himself as a person from the world of wakefulness and starts to think of himself in a fictional way in dreams. The state of consciousness of the soul in Vaikuntha is compared with wakefulness, while the state of consciousness of the soul in the material world is compared with a dream.

I have a question for Gaudiyas - whatever happened to Goloka Vrindavan? I was told this is a place or location with its own identity, regardless whether it is a park in Vaikuntha or its own loka, it is distinct and going to Vaikuntha does not necessarily mean you have gone to Goloka Vrindavan.

Vaikuntha is a spiritual sky where there are countless planets (lokas, Vaikunthalokas). Goloka is said to be the highest loka in Vaikuntha. Vrindavana is one place in Goloka.
Vrindavana which appears in this world is said to be a replica of Goloka Vrindavana. To know that we are talking about Vrindavana which appears in this world it is not called Goloka but Gokula.

I do not know about Jatayu, but it is possible that some soul come from Vaikuntha not to forget himself and his relationship with the Lord but on purpose.

regards

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

In bhagavat purana , It is written Krishnastu bhagavan swayam .This doesn't mean krishna is not the avatar. It is used because Krishna is the eighth poorna avatar of maha vishnu or poorna bramhavatar.So he is identified as bhagavan . Because , In the same BP, at the end, It is written that Krishna is the avatara of mahavishnu.

It's great that you have picked differences between Iskcon and sanatana vedik dharma.

Understanding of the Gaudiya vaishnavas is different.
There can be two forms of Lord Krishna mentioned in Bhagavatam. One of them is an avatara of Lord Vishnu, the second is the original Lord who is even a source of Lord Vishnu.
Not only is He the source of Lord Vishnu, but He is the source of all forms of Lord Vishnu (Narayana, Maha Vishnu, Rama, Sankarshana, Narasimha, ... etc), all spiritual and material worlds, all living beings and all that exists.

regards

[ShivaFan]

Namaste Brahma jijnasa

I can see you are both a Vaishnava scholar and a gentleman. Thank you for taking the time for such answers.

Can I ask one more? Is Ravana considered once a Doorkeeper to one of these Lokas? (see below)

Vaikuntha is a spiritual sky where there are countless planets (lokas, Vaikunthalokas). Goloka is said to be the highest loka in Vaikuntha. Vrindavana is one place in Goloka.
Vrindavana which appears in this world is said to be a replica of Goloka Vrindavana. To know that we are talking about Vrindavana which appears in this world it is not called Goloka but Gokula.

Now that makes sense, it clarifies things in one concise paragraph the actual Gaudiya understanding. I always thought Goloka Vrindavan was exactly what Prabhupad was saying, and now it connects regarding the term now popular in the west and that being "spiritual sky" which is not one loka but many planets (I recall the popular book in the 60s "Easy Journey to Other Planets". Very nice of you again to respond, it is appreciated.

Om Namah Sivaya

[hinduism♥krishna]

Namaste


Understanding of the Gaudiya vaishnavas is different.
There can be two forms of Lord Krishna mentioned in Bhagavatam. One of them is an avatara of Lord Vishnu, the second is the original Lord who is even a source of Lord Vishnu.
Not only is He the source of Lord Vishnu, but He is the source of all forms of Lord Vishnu (Narayana, Maha Vishnu, Rama, Sankarshana, Narasimha, ... etc), all spiritual and material worlds, all living beings and all that exists.

regards

Namaste Bramha jijnasu,

Krishna is not avatar, is bengal vaishnaw's belief. But our scriptures say something different .

In BP, it is stated that all avataras are manifested from mahavishnu. Mahavishnu is said to lie in the causal ocean or the Karanodak. In bhagavta purana, krishna is described among Vishnu's various avataras.
In 11 skandha also , When vasudev asked to describe bhagavan's avatar ,Sage narada mentions Krishna among Vishnu's avatara . He also mentioned Krishna as avatar in human form .

As Krishna is the manifestation of mool narayan himself , so he is called as adi purusha, narayana, vishnu etc . Krishna is very special avatar of Vishnu .He represented all the 16 kalas as poornavatar of mahavishnu or of bramhan .

But it doesn't matter who is the manifestation of whom as long as we know bramhan ! The only thing we can say confidentiality is that the one who says there is difference between krishna and mahavishnu , certainly doesn't know bramhan nor vishnu .

Dhanyavad !

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste ShivaFan

Is Ravana considered once a Doorkeeper to one of these Lokas? (see below)

Remember I mentioned Jaya and Vijaya.
It seems that Jaya has become Ravana. A detailed answer you can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaya-Vijaya

regards

[kriyarameeshh]

Namaste Bramha jijnasu,

The only thing we can say confidentiality is that the one who says there is difference between krishna and mahavishnu , certainly doesn't know bramhan nor vishnu .

Dhanyavad !

Sri Matre Namaha,

well said. Those who differentiate between Krishna and Vishnu or Krishna and Siva can never realize the true tattva of Sri Krishna.

Regards,
Rameeshh

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

Understanding of the Gaudiya vaishnavas is different.
There can be two forms of Lord Krishna mentioned in Bhagavatam. One of them is an avatara of Lord Vishnu, the second is the original Lord who is even a source of Lord Vishnu.
Not only is He the source of Lord Vishnu, but He is the source of all forms of Lord Vishnu (Narayana, Maha Vishnu, Rama, Sankarshana, Narasimha, ... etc), all spiritual and material worlds, all living beings and all that exists.

Krishna is not avatar, is bengal vaishnaw's belief. But our scriptures say something different

Lord Krishna is nobody's avatara. He is a source of all forms of Lord Vishnu (including Maha Vishnu, Narayana, Rama, ... etc.), of all living beings, of all the worlds, everything spiritual and material, everything that exists. All this is confirmed in the scriptures. It is not just a belief of some sect. It is fully supported by the statements of the scriptures. In the 16th century Jiva Gosvami wrote an entire book that discusses these issues.

Long ago we had a discussion about that in "Re: LORd SIVA : A Gaudiya Vaisnava Perspective" thread. It is in the "Hare Krishna (ISKCON)" forum.

regards

[hinduism♥krishna]

Namaste


Lord Krishna is nobody's avatara. He is a source of all forms of Lord Vishnu (including Maha Vishnu, Narayana, Rama, ... etc.), of all living beings, of all the worlds, everything spiritual and material, everything that exists. All this is confirmed in the scriptures. It is not just a belief of some sect. It is fully supported by the statements of the scriptures. In the 16th century Jiva Gosvami wrote an entire book that discusses these issues.

Long ago we had a discussion about that in "Re: LORd SIVA : A Gaudiya Vaisnava Perspective" thread. It is in the "Hare Krishna (ISKCON)" forum.

regards

Namaste, bramha jijnasa.

Yes, you are right. The parabramhan krishna is source of all spiritual and material worlds. However narayana or mahavishnu is source of all, is also mentioned in Upanishads. Vishnu is the source of all, is also mentioned . This, in this ways, doesn't prove that only krishna is the source of everything. It is vishnu too, it is mahavishnu too . So we can't say krishna is the origin of vishNu or mahavishnu.

In bhagavat purana, sage narad mentioned krishna as avatara in 11 canto .

Please read this thread :

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...rishna+avatara

Thank you. Jai shri hari

[kallol]

If I replace Brahman with Krishna i.e. if I state Brahman as Krishna - you will get what ISCKON says.

Do names matter ? No - The knowledge only matters.

The problem arises when ISCKON followers get limited by the Krishna in physical sense.

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

So we can't say krishna is the origin of vishNu or mahavishnu.

In bhagavat purana, sage narad mentioned krishna as avatara in 11 canto .

Please read this thread :
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...rishna+avatara

Scriptures teach two opposing views on the position of Lord Krishna. I've already mentioned, have you noticed?

There can be two forms of Lord Krishna mentioned in Bhagavatam. One of them is an avatara of Lord Vishnu, the second is the original Lord who is even a source of Lord Vishnu.
Not only is He the source of Lord Vishnu, but He is the source of all forms of Lord Vishnu (Narayana, Maha Vishnu, Rama, Sankarshana, Narasimha, ... etc), all spiritual and material worlds, all living beings and all that exists.
...
Lord Krishna is nobody's avatara. He is a source of all forms of Lord Vishnu (including Maha Vishnu, Narayana, Rama, ... etc.), of all living beings, of all the worlds, everything spiritual and material, everything that exists. All this is confirmed in the scriptures. It is not just a belief of some sect. It is fully supported by the statements of the scriptures. In the 16th century Jiva Gosvami wrote an entire book that discusses these issues.

Long ago we had a discussion about that in "Re: LORd SIVA : A Gaudiya Vaisnava Perspective" thread. It is in the "Hare Krishna (ISKCON)" forum.

From the thread that you mentioned see also post #9 by kimtadbrahma:

Orlando, as you point out there are innumerable quotations from the Vaishnava Puranas and the Mahabharata that indicate that Krishna is an avatar of Narayana. However, Gaudiya and Pushti Marg theology is quite complex on this issue. As I recall and understand it, they contend that Krishna who restores dharma to earth by destroying asuras and bringing about the triumph of the Pandavas is a descent of Narayana, but Krishna in his Vrindavan identity is the Supreme God. They claim that the Supreme Deity merely enjoys lila with his bhaktas, as Krishna does in Vraja, and that he adopts the identity of Narayana in order to fulfil various functions in relation to this world. In other words when there is work to do like creating and maintaining this world.

In this way it is argued that Krishna has a dual identity and this explains the references such as those you have cited for his being a descent of Vishnu. However, they point to the ete chamsa kalah sloka to argue for the position that Vrindaban Krishna is the ultimate Supreme Deity. I am not saying that I agree with this position at all, but it is quite widely held in North India by a number of Vaishnava sampradayas.

As you can see in this post by kimtadbrahma he also draws attention to the two opposing views on the position of Lord Krishna in the scriptures! Note here that I made one view underlined, and the other view I made bold.

In Gaudiya vaishnava tradition Jiva Gosvami explained that these two views are not contradictory if properly understood.
Jiva Gosvami explained that Lord Krishna who appeared in this world outside of Vrindavan is an avatara of Lord Vishnu.
However Jiva Gosvami also explained that Lord Krishna who appeared in Vrindavan is original form of the Lord. Vrindavan Lord Krishna is nobody's avatara. He is the source of all forms of Lord Vishnu (including Maha Vishnu, Narayana, Rama, ... etc). He is the source of all avataras.
All this is confirmed in the scriptures such as Garga samhita. A few days ago I mentioned this in a discussion with ShivaFan: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...327#post110327

There is ample evidence that Lord Krishna is the most complete form of the Lord and as such the source of all forms of Lord Vishnu. We had a discussion about that in "Re: LORd SIVA : A Gaudiya Vaisnava Perspective" thread starting from above mentioned post about Garga samhita and forward: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...7144#post97144

regards