Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 65

Thread: Did Krishna give up his body?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    June 2013
    Location
    Maharashtra
    Posts
    570
    Rep Power
    1125

    Re: Did Krishna give up his body?

    PranAm

    Quote Originally Posted by markandeya 108 dasa View Post
    Dandavat Pranams hinduism♥krishna,
    Lord Kṛṣṇa says that "The process of My birth and the process of My activities, they are all transcendental." And anyone who can understand the transcendental activities, appearance, disappearance of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, then the result is that tyaktvā dehaṁ punar janma naiti mām eti kaunteya [Bg. 4.9]. The result is that anyone who understands these transcendental activities of the Supreme Lord, tattvataḥ, in truth, the result is that he becomes a liberated person.
    Activies, appearance and disappearance are done by Maya. They're not real at all. I've already posted a verse supporting this. Remembering birth and sports of vishnu is not a only way to attain Brahman. There are three yogas through which Brahman is attained. The supremacy is like this, Dnyana > Bhakti > Karma .

    We consider everything that Krsna does is Lila, all His Lila is transcendental, his name, form and activities are transcendental beyond the scope of the senses.
    Who said they are not transcendental ? Vishnu is Known as Akarta. He doesn't act even though he acts. They are beyond the scope of the senses means one can't know how Krishna does Lila though he's completely inactive and Nirguna.


    He is the source and the master of all energies and potencies, he is nirguna Brahman and saguna Brahman simultaneously.
    Saguna Brahman is referred to Ishwara and Nirguna to the Brahman which is devoid of Guna and inactive. In fact, Brahman can not have any dualistic trait as it is known in Veda as 'Ekmeva and Advitiya'. He's alone, without a second.

    different schools of thought have developed, advaita and dvaita
    Advaita had not been developed at any time. Advaita has direct full supports from Shruti and Smruti. How can you say it had been developed?

    for me both are true, both can reflect aspects of the absolute truth.
    I think, this is none other than lack of firmness or some kind of confusions from Shastra.

    But I do find the middle view of balance more attractive and reasonable,
    It is like, a person who doesn't know anything about eclipse , at the time of eclipse, is confused thinking whether it is Sun or Moon and finally thinking over it again and again concludes that it must be something different from Moon and Sun.


    If you take that thought and then add some meditation on unlimited, then form can be unlimited.
    Form can never become unlimited. Because the essential nature of Formless is Avyakta. It is smaller than smallest and bigger than biggest. If you think whatever is outside of form is not that from, then how can you say that that form is unlimited. Because in your assumption there's something different from the form. The trait of all-pervading is contradicted here.
    Last edited by hinduism♥krishna; 14 July 2014 at 03:52 AM.

  2. #12

    Re: Did Krishna give up his body?

    Dandavat Pranams hinduism♥krishna


    Activies, appearance and disappearance are done by Maya. They're not real at all. I've already posted a verse supporting this. Remembering birth and sports of vishnu is not a only way to attain Brahman. There are three yogas through which Brahman is attained. The supremacy is like this, Dnyana > Bhakti > Karma .
    Phenomena appears and disappears, but Krsna's form even if you only accept it as some form of emanation of the formless is not a product of phenomena, so for me it is important to know the difference between matter and spirit.

    I agree that Jnana, and Karma yogas are also part of the path of transcendence but both are there to support bhakti if we are to take Gita as an authority of Sri Krsna's words. But according to vaishnava siddhanta, karma and jnana render useless if Bhakti is not the goal, again Bhakti here is referring to pure love and service.

    The debate about on the absolute being impersonal (Nirguna Brahman) or personal with attributes and form (Saguna Brahman ) is not very important to me, because sashtra is quite clear in many places that one first needs to be of that quality, it is not an intellectual or philosophical understanding which makes it clear.

    You can send me many quotations to back up your view, I can also send many verses from the same sources that will back up the Gaudiya vaishnava view point on the Supreme. The true essence of Bhakti is love, Love has attributes, personality, form. But these attributes have no trace of phenomena, the substance is Brahman, pure spirit, no creation and destruction, no birth and death, no cause and effect.

    The absolute truth in many places in shastra has concluded that it is realized in 3 forms, Brahman, Param Atma and Bhagavan All are absolute truth, its our mundane projection to see any trait of phenomena in this, you can argue the personalist with his heart tinged with love for all things has some sort of mundane projection of what is the absolute.

    Formless and form both exist in transcendence, shastra supports this, the learned devotees have concluded that there is no higher rasa, no higher taste or bliss than Prem Bhakti, nothing more sweet than spiritual relations, filled with bliss and lila.

    If you choose the formless phantasmagoria, empty of all phenomena and void of attributes and float away in waves of impersonal divine energy, forever, then fine that is your choice, if that is how you consider spiritual, its exactly the same conclusion of Islam, just the way to reach it is more sophisticated and philosophical.

    Just saying

    In peace



    Ys

    Md

  3. #13

    Re: Did Krishna give up his body?

    Prabhu

    Saguna Brahman is referred to Ishwara and Nirguna to the Brahman which is devoid of Guna and inactive. In fact, Brahman can not have any dualistic trait as it is known in Veda as 'Ekmeva and Advitiya'. He's alone, without a second.
    As far as I know Guna is mode or quality, this is tri guna, rajas, sattva and Tamas

    Your right there is no Guna in Vaikuntha, guna is phenomena, this is not enough to refute that an omnipotent force can not have an original form that is free from guna

    Dualism is the duality of phenomena, yin and yang, heat and cold ect. Phenomena has a dual nature, transcendence does not. This again is not a strong case to say that Bhagavan has no personal form or personality.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    June 2013
    Location
    Maharashtra
    Posts
    570
    Rep Power
    1125

    Re: Did Krishna give up his body?

    PranAm

    Quote Originally Posted by markandeya 108 dasa View Post

    Phenomena appears and disappears, but Krsna's form even if you only accept it as some form of emanation of the formless is not a product of phenomena
    Krishna is not emanation of the formless. Because Krishna doesn't take a birth. He doesn't do any Lila and he has not a disappearance. All things are done through his Maya but he is always completely aloof from Lilas. He's always situated in his own self. He doesn't need anything to get pleased. He's complete in himself. You should know that whatever done by maya is not as real as Brahman's reality.

    according to vaishnava siddhanta, karma and jnana render useless if Bhakti is not the goal, again Bhakti here is referring to pure love and service.
    Bhakti gained more importance in this Kaliyuga. But I agree on this quote.


    The absolute truth in many places in shastra has concluded that it is realized in 3 forms, Brahman, Param Atma and Bhagavan
    I haven't seen this in any scripture. Please give us support from Scriptures. As per my knowledge, Brahman Paramatma and Bhagavan are just three different names of the absolute truth.

    the learned devotees have concluded that there is no higher rasa, no higher taste or bliss than Prem Bhakti, nothing more sweet than spiritual relations, filled with bliss and lila.
    Upanishada mentions Brahman as tasteless ( Arasa ) and Formless ( Arupa )

    "अशब्दं अस्पर्शं अरुपं अव्ययं तथा अरसं नित्यं अगन्धं यत्
    अनादि अनन्तं महत: परं ध्रुवं निच्चाय तन्मृत्युमुखात्प्रमुच्यते ।कठोपनिषद् 1.3.15 ।

    : That which is beyond the scope of words, which is formless, without touch of the mind, without Rasa, without beginning, omnipresent, beyond Mahat and which is steady, knowing such Brahman Purusha gets rid of Death. He's not born again "


    If you choose the formless phantasmagoria, empty of all phenomena and void of attributes and float away in waves of impersonal divine energy, forever, then fine that is your choice, if that is how you consider spiritual, its exactly the same conclusion of Islam, just the way to reach it is more sophisticated and philosophical.
    I'm a follower of both Krishna-Bhakti and Advaita-Dnyana. Void is not the Brahman. Void is an intermediate state between Brahman and Maya. It is known as Pradhan Prakruti. It is that unmanifested place wherein jiva merge at the end of day of lord Brahma or after the death of Lord Brahma. [ See the references BG 8.19-20].
    There is big big difference between vedantic formless and Islamic formless. For vedantists, who's established in Brahman, for him there's not duality or even non-dualty. That place is not a form and not even a formless. Veda calls that Brahman formless just to negate form. If there's something higher that absolute joy , then that thing is Brahman for vedantists.
    Last edited by hinduism♥krishna; 14 July 2014 at 03:52 AM.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    June 2013
    Location
    Maharashtra
    Posts
    570
    Rep Power
    1125

    Re: Did Krishna give up his body?

    Quote Originally Posted by markandeya 108 dasa View Post
    Prabhu
    This again is not a strong case to say that Bhagavan has no personal form or personality.
    Then this must be a strong support to prove Bhagavan is originally formless,

    "अत: सत्सु दयां कृत्वा मा व्रज
    भक्तार्थं सगुणो जातो निराकारोऽपि चिन्मय:
    (भागवत महात्म्य पद्म पुराण तथा उद्धव गीता)

    Uddhava to Krishna: Meaning: " Dear shrikrushna, Do mercy on sages and don't leave us. Though you're originally only formless and consciousness, for devotees only you become a saguna Rupa ( Ishwara ).
    Hari On!

  6. #16
    Join Date
    December 2012
    Posts
    552
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Did Krishna give up his body?

    Quote Originally Posted by hinduism♥krishna View Post
    Then this must be a strong support to prove Bhagavan is originally formless,

    "अत: सत्सु दयां कृत्वा मा व्रज
    भक्तार्थं सगुणो जातो निराकारोऽपि चिन्मय:
    (भागवत महात्म्य पद्म पुराण तथा उद्धव गीता)

    Uddhava to Krishna: Meaning: " Dear shrikrushna, Do mercy on sages and don't leave us. Though you're originally only formless and consciousness, for devotees only you become a saguna Rupa ( Ishwara ).
    Namaste

    Where is this verse from? What is the number of this verse?


    regards

  7. #17

    Re: Did Krishna give up his body?

    Pranams hinduism♥krishna

    Thank you for your reply


    http://www.iskcondesiretree.net/grou...ta-bhakti-yoga

    Some interesting quotes from uddhava

    hinduism♥krishna

    All things are done through his Maya
    Which maya are you talking about, maha maya or yoga maya?

    You say Bhagavan is aloof from his Lila, can you quote or give any direct evidence for this, not some abstract verse than you apply, but a direct quotation, I have not come across that before.


    Quote:
    The absolute truth in many places in shastra has concluded that it is realized in 3 forms, Brahman, Param Atma and Bhagavan
    I haven't seen this in any scripture. Please give us support from Scriptures. As per my knowledge, Brahman Paramatma and Bhagavan are just three different names of the absolute truth.
    Its the same thing

    vadanti tat tattva-vidas
    tattvam yaj jnanam advayam
    brahmeti paramatmeti
    bhagavan iti sabdyate
    SYNONYMS

    vadanti -- they say; tat -- that; tattva-vidah -- the learned souls; tattvam -- the Absolute Truth; yat -- which; jnanam -- knowledge; advayam -- nondual; brahma iti -- known as Brahman; paramatma iti -- known as Paramatma; bhagavan iti -- known as Bhagavan; sabdyate -- it so sounded.
    TRANSLATION

    Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual substance Brahman, Paramatma or Bhagavan.


    My point is not to have a discussion based on comparing verses from shastra.

    The supreme absolute transcendence has both form and no form, and both of these natures or aspects are not contaminated or tinged with any phenomena or material energy.

    This is the end of sectarianism, both are right, The Supreme is diverse. The Bhaktas choose love and service and consider it supreme over the realization of nirguna brahman, which they translate as without material attribute. As a rational spirtually minded person, who accepts the Supreme beyond culture and demographics, then a truly omnipotent force can do whatever he likes, who am I to limit this, and if Shastra is our authority and Veda is written by those above human form then both form and formless exist.

    The svarupa of the Bhakta is that he lives in divine form, he is always searching for the face of Krishna, the voice of Krishna, the association of great devotee who are beyond any traits of the mundane.

    All shastra is doing is fulfilling the material and spiritual desires, I choose form and relationships.

    Ys

    Md

  8. #18
    Join Date
    June 2013
    Location
    Maharashtra
    Posts
    570
    Rep Power
    1125

    Smile Re: Did Krishna give up his body?

    Quote Originally Posted by brahma jijnasa View Post


    Namaste

    Where is this verse from? What is the number of this verse?


    regards
    That verse is a part of Bhagavata Mahatmya of Uttara Khanda of Padma Purana. In Mahatmya it is 3.58 and originally in 185th chapter of Uttara Khanda.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    December 2012
    Posts
    552
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Did Krishna give up his body?

    Namaste

    Here I'll try to give an insight on this topic from the Vaishnava point of view.
    Special note: This is not from the Advaitic point of view, but this is from that other, non-advaitic point of view.

    There are some statements in the scriptures that seem to describe as if the Lord accepts and rejects the body, or as if He has no eternal bodily form.
    One of these verses is this one, Bhagavatam 1.15.35:

    "The Supreme Lord relinquished the body which He manifested to diminish the burden of the earth. Just like a magician, He relinquishes one body to accept different ones, like the fish incarnation and others."

    Here it is said that the Lord relinquishes or abandons His body, but here this abandoning is compared with the performance or play of the magician or an actor (naṭaḥ)! Just as in the theater or in the show of a magician, the magician or an actor sometimes performs the show that seems as if he is falling dead and dies, but in reality he is not dead because it's just a show for the audience, similarly the Lord sometimes plays a role or He performs his pastimes (lilas) so that it seems as if He accepted and rejected the body.
    So, how then verse like this one may be evidence that the Lord has no eternal body? How when here it says He is like a magician!
    Does a magician really dies on the stage? Does the Lord really relinquished the body?
    How He leaves his body when He actually has an eternal body?
    Not only that but it is said in many scriptures that He has his eternal bodily form in Vaikuntha. Sometimes He descends to this material world with his eternal bodily form from Vaikuntha which is his eternal abode or the place where He dwells forever, and this descent is then called avatara.


    Now, regarding the verse from Bhagavata Mahatmya of Uttara Khanda of Padma Purana, in the Mahatmya it is verse 3.58:

    ataḥ satsu dayāṁ kṛtvā bhakta-vatsala mā vraja
    bhaktārthaṁ saguṇo jāto nirākāro 'pi cin-mayaḥ

    Supposedly 2nd line of this verse read as follows:

    "Though you're originally only formless and consciousness, for devotees only you become a saguna Rupa ( Ishwara )."

    I do not see that in this verse we have stated "Though you're originally only", but we have just saguṇo, nirākāro and cin-mayaḥ:

    - saguṇa or literally "with qualities" actually means "with spiritual qualities", ie "with qualities that are of the nature of sat cit ananda Brahman". Note here that saguṇa doesn't mean "with qualities of material nature sattva, rajas and tamas"!

    - nirākāra or literally "without form" actually means "without material form". It doesn't mean that the Lord has no form at all because it is said in the scriptures that the Lord's form is Brahman.

    - cin-maya "consisting of knowledge or consciousness", where cit "knowledge, consciousness"; maya "consisting of"

    So it says that the Lord appeared as saguṇa form "with qualities that are of the nature of sat cit ananda Brahman" and that He is nirākāra "without material form" and this appearance is cin-maya "consisting of knowledge", ie it is cit form or Brahman, it is sat cit ananda Brahman bodily form.

    It is interesting to note that this verse is from the chapter Bhagavata Mahatmya or "The glorification of Bhagavata Purana or Srimad Bhagavatam". Thus Padma Purana is celebrating one another Purana, Srimad Bhagavatam, as the most exalted among the Puranas.


    regards

  10. #20
    Join Date
    June 2013
    Location
    Maharashtra
    Posts
    570
    Rep Power
    1125

    Re: Did Krishna give up his body?

    Quote Originally Posted by brahma jijnasa View Post


    Now, regarding the verse from Bhagavata Mahatmya of Uttara Khanda of Padma Purana, in the Mahatmya it is verse 3.58:
    ataḥ satsu dayāṁ kṛtvā bhakta-vatsala mā vraja
    bhaktārthaṁ saguṇo jāto nirākāro 'pi cin-mayaḥ
    Supposedly 2nd line of this verse read as follows:
    "Though you're originally only formless and consciousness, for devotees only you become a saguna Rupa ( Ishwara )."
    I do not see that in this verse we have stated "Though you're originally only", but we have just saguṇo, nirākāro and cin-mayaḥ:
    Pranam,

    You presented your views that's fine. But here I'm seeing absurdity in your translation of Sanskrut Verse.
    "अत: सत्सु दयां कृत्वा मा व्रज
    भक्तार्थं सगुणो जातो निराकारोऽपि चिन्मय:
    (भागवत महात्म्य पद्म पुराण तथा उद्धव गीता)

    This is Sanskrut Language, one of the Indian languages, is sometimes written without words or even without verb or neglecting some words yet the meaning is revealed perfectly as much as if it would have been written by mentioning each and every word.

    That verse is a condensed form of entire meaning of the verse. Here
    ऽपि serves a purpose of 'Even Though'. In this way, ANY sanskrit master would translate this verse. [You may ask anyone]. Moreover; If there was just Saguna, Nirakara , 'Api' wouldn't had been used in the verse.

    I've looked into Gita Press' Book, All hinds consider Gita press as the most authentic non-sectarian source of translations of various Hindu scriptures. They have also translated this Verse in the same way how I've translated. And I'm very sure that those Gita Press' translations are translated by any Sanskrit Pandit, not by any newbie of Sanskrit.

    "Dear shrikrushna, Do mercy on sages and don't leave us. Though you're originally only formless and consciousness, for devotees only you become a saguna ( Ishwara )."
    Last edited by hinduism♥krishna; 10 July 2014 at 09:23 AM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Ashtanga Yogam-2 Sandilya Upanishad
    By brahman in forum Advaita
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04 July 2009, 01:23 AM
  2. Some questions on HK
    By Yogkriya in forum Hare Krishna (ISKCON)
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06 August 2007, 02:03 PM
  3. Veda
    By sarabhanga in forum Vedas & Brahmanas
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 21 January 2007, 06:42 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •