For me also... I cannot see any difference between Sri Ram and Sri Krishna and the rest of the Avataras.

All are equally auspicious.

Then why is it that people could take Sri Krishna to be a Supreme God over other Avatars?

I think those who does this are missing the very important lesson Maha Vishnu is trying to teach them. No matter how many avatars He took, He is the same. Those avatars are merely "Forms" which He needs to accomplish the tasks.

Same way, no matter how many times we are born, die and reborn again, we are the same regardless of our physical differences. We could have been born as animals, plants or humans of various races. But the Soul remains the same - unchanged and eternal. No one life or form in any one life is more important than another.

This is what differentiate Christians from Hindus. Christians stuck with Jesus. They cannot think outside the "Jesus Box". Hindus should not be stuck in the same "box" as well.

SHri krishna is the original and most beautiful form of god.
He is the source of incarnations.Stop your christian example.IT doesnt come here.Im not saying that sri krishna is the only form of god..Please dont come with your short sighted views and come after some reading.
NO ones killing hinduism here.Nobody is denying god is formless.

http://vedabase.net/sb/1/3/28/en

Yes. Forget about time. That’s what I was trying to say all along. After all, time only has meaning in a material context. Even though our material consciousness is ultimately a function of God’s creative energy, I don’t think God can be understood in material terms. Causality and the irreversible passage of time, are material illusions, resulting from Maya, which hides the Absolute Truth from our human consciousness. I think, therefore, that any conception or formal description of the Absolute Truth that doesn’t depend on such material concepts, is to be preferred over a description that does. Now, allow me to (again) consider the following quotes from Prabhupada:

This concept of the Absolute Truth doesn’t involve time or any other material reference. Here Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan, clearly are simultaneous aspects of the same Absolute Truth. Therefore, I could accept this as a true statement about the Absolute Truth.

Please notice, that in the next quote, the translation of the original Sanskrit verse must actually be: “… there is no truth superior to Me. Everything is strung in Me, like pearls on a thread”; and it is obviously not: “... there is no truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread”!
This verse can once more be understood as a concept of the Absolute Truth that doesn’t involve time or causality; although ‘pearls strung on a thread’ is a ‘material’ example, it simply appears to illustrate the all pervasiveness of God, which is confirmed by Prabhupada’s purport: “... the Supreme Absolute Truth is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is all-pervading by His multi-energies, both material and spiritual”.

This is even further explained by Prabhupada in the next quote:

And once more, there is no temporal or causal implication here. Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is all-pervasive, is the ultimate concept of the Absolute Truth. And that is that.

Now, you might ask, then what exactly is the Brahman aspect of the Absolute Truth, that was mentioned in the first quote? This is explained by Prabhupada in his Purport of BG 4.24 as follows:
Again, the Absolute Truth remains non-causal. There is no mentioning of any action-reaction-like relation between Krishna and Brahman. Instead, it is stated that when the covering of Maya or material illusion is removed, everything is one in Brahman, or the Absolute Truth.

My personal conclusion from the above quotations, is that Brahman is the aspect of oneness -, and Krishna is the aspect of all-pervasiveness of the same Absolute Truth. However, Krishna is the ultimate (most complete) concept of the Absolute Truth, because all-pervasiveness (logically) implies oneness. I don’t see any other possible interpretation, and I think it is consistent and acceptable.

Consequently, I am mystified when Prabhupada translates ‘brahmano hi pratishthaham’ in BG 14.27 as: “Krishna is the basis (or source) of Brahman”. According to my earlier conclusion, he actually says: ‘all-pervasiveness’ is the basis of ‘oneness’! This doesn’t seem to make sense at all. Apart from the implied causal relation between Krishna and Brahman (which can’t be true), I don’t see how all-pervasiveness can be the basis of oneness. Especially not, when in Krishna Consciousness everything (material) dissolves into oneness or Brahman, as per Prabhupada in his Purport of BG 4.24. I therefore assume that the meaning of the original Sanskrit verse must be something like: “Krishna is the manifestation of Brahman”. But I can’t be sure..

I would very much appreciate it if you (or anyone else) could explain this, or point out the error in my argument. I hope you can see that I’m sincerely trying to understand Prabhupada’s teachings. This is not ‘nitpicking’, but really a fundamental question that I have.

At this point, however, I will just assume that the translation of the original Sanskrit verse of BG 14.27 is not correct. I don’t know if this is Prabhupada’s error or the error of one of his editors. In the Purport of BG 14.27, Prabhupada himself appears to confirm my point of view by stating: “both Paramatma and the impersonal Brahman are within the Supreme Person”. Since, per definition, the basis of something is more basic or fundamental or simple than what is based upon it, Krishna cannot be the basis of Brahman and Paramatma, because both are within him. For example, a house is build with bricks. The bricks are the basis of the house and not vice versa. And the bricks are within the house and not vice versa.

Finally, as I suggested earlier, the Sanskrit word ‘pratishtha’ in BG 14.27 doesn’t mean: ‘the basis’ or ‘the rest’; it means: ‘the manifestation’ or ‘to rest on’ or ‘to depend upon’:

You say you understood this all along yet you continued to nit pick over the unavoidable flaw in the example of the sun and sunshine. It is that nit picking that shows me you don't really understand this.


Well until you address the point of the example of the sun and sunshine, also given by Prabhupada, I have no inclination to consider your examples. Sorry but first things first.

I offered this example to show how Krishna is the basis of the Brahman.

Please address this directly or please allow me to end this particular conversation.

Hare krishna

Your answer makes me wonder.. Are you actually interested in the Truth? And if not, then what are you interested in?

Deleted

I am not interested in word games primate. I go to Prabhupada for the truth.

You still won't address the point. What is your problem.

What's the point? Really..?

reread the thread

I mean, what's your point?

Yes, YOU ARE.

Maybe, many are still attached to the process that is leading to Self Realisation.
Initially, many gets blinkered with the Form that the Lord first used to approach them to get them out of the dark well. But with time one will come to see that Ram is God, Krishna is God, God is Krishna, God is Rama.
None a lesser God.
He is one without a second, the same OLD absolute Truth.

For us the Jeevas YES.

Concerning the Bhagavan Himself, each form is tracendentally situated. Life after life, if we see it with our crooked eyes, HE has that same eternal Form.
And for us, it is different, it is always mutating, without our understanding but our Karma being the cause.
There is a difference though, but many of the Hindus, do have some of such misconceptions.
I was long time back like that. I sincerely hope, I've changed.

Where?

Amlesh :

It will not lead them anywhere. They are following the concept from Christianity (on how Jesus is called Son of God and in return, the God is replaced by the woship of the Son - alien concept to Judaism, which is why Jews have rejected Christianity, Christians and Jesus).

This people have been together with Christians so much, that the only way they could make "connection" with Christians (so they could accept this people) are by making Sri Krishna another "Son of God" like Jesus.

[QUOTE] He is one without a second, the same OLD absolute Truth. /QUOTE]

Unfortunately, I don't see it here. What I see here is threads where people debating whether Sri Krishna is better or not from Sri Rama, or Maha Vishnu is better or not from Maha Eshwara or whether this guru is right or not when compared to that guru.

You speak the Truth, yet your hearts seems to be unwilling to accept and follow. Sad ...

No ... Not Mutating, Evolution. Mutation means that change without purpose. Evolution means change WITH purpose.

If One were to study carefully the Avatars of Maha Vishnu, he could see the Evolution process which ALL life on this Planet have underwent for the past 600 Million years (and evidently, the creation of Man itself). This are not some random Mutation, but purposeful Evolution. An Intelligent Design.

Make effect to change, not wait for the change. The Seed of Change (like Enlightnment) comes from within.

Okay Theist. "One who knows God knows that the impersonal conception and personal conception are simultaneously present in everything and that there is no contradiction. Therefore Lord Caitanya established His sublime doctrine: acintya bheda-and-abheda-tattva -- simultaneous oneness and difference." (BG 7.8) God is simultaneously one with and different from His creation. In your own words, Krishna and His impersonal Brahman effulgence are simultaneously one and different. Similarly, the living beings are of equal quality to the Supreme being, but they don’t share the qualities to an infinite extent. "Qualitatively the living entity and the Supreme Lord are one, but in quantity they are different." (Madhya 6.163) The analogy often used as an explanation in this context is the relationship between the Sun and the Sunshine. (SB 4.31.16).

I have been thinking about this. Actually it is not such a bad analogy at all. The sun-light can indeed be considered non-different from the sun-sphere, because the sun-sphere is inferred from the sun-light. What we actually see are just photons. This may also be analogues to how we infer the cosmic manifestation from our (ignorant) conscious perception of reality.

My only problem is the conclusion that Krishna is 'the source or basis' of Brahman. I don’t think that’s what acintya bheda-abheda-tattva means or implies. And how can Brahman be properly described in such material terms, when Brahman is the basis of the material world and everything? I also argued (based on Prabhupada’s own general teachings), that this cannot be what Prabhupada meant to say or intended to say.

Now, can we please go back to the argument in post #65? I would appreciate it if you could comment on it..

If you cannot see how the Sun globe is the basis of the sunshine then there is nothing left to talk about. It is such a basic thing. What is the point of talking math to someone who won't accept that 1 is the basis of all other numbers?

I didn’t say that the 'sun-globe' is not the basis of the sunshine! I said Krishna is not the basis of Brahman! If you are unable to refute this, then I guess that I can safely assume that I’m correct. Which is fine with me..

You already assume you are right. Why should I disturb you?