Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

srikanthdk71

Members
  • Content Count

    307
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by srikanthdk71


  1.  

    Shankara was avatar --therefore he was on a mission. Learn it. Do not contradict him.

    Shankara set the standard --especially at the time of death. Learn it. Do not contradict him. Become a proper student.

     

    Please give one reference to your statement 'Shankara at the time of death' without refering the Iskcon books.

     

     

    Advaita is known perfectly by Iskcon people and thus they understand Shankara and what Shankara's philosophy is.

     

    All estudious Iskcon people know "Advaita philosophy" --which Iskcon people do you know that do not know their Advaita?

     

    First and foremost was SP who knew nothing about Advaita and termed it as Mayavaada and Advaitins with the R factor. What about others?

     

     

    why does RamanaDasi speak out both sides of her mouth?

     

    Suchandra is your Vaishnav Guru --good enough for you all --learn something for once.

     

    Are you a Iskcon Jehadi. Is this the language you speak for your brothers and sisters? People like you should be either given immediate help or thrown out of this forum.

     

     

    If you all want to state your opinion, for God's sake feel free to do so

    The above statement of yours is not an opinion. It is personal attack.

     

     

    --but please don't be so silly as to pass it off as Authentic-Bonefide-Authoritative Opinions as recorded in the recognized scholastic history book Texts.

    Real Scholars provide a list of references lest they be considered bloviators.

    Your welcomed,

    Bhaktajan

    Dear Bhaktjan, HATE BREEDS HATE. Why dont you understand this?


  2.  

    A more direct meaning with no interpretation. Adi Shankara meant Krishna.

     

    Whatever you mean, is right for you.

     

     

    If we want to extrapolate we can go even to the moon and come back and with a mind as swift as yours.. the journey might be even longer.

     

    All the best.

     

     

    ...Shankara would not have come to square zero.

     

    Whatever you mean, is right for you.


  3.  

    1.How does one properly "associate"?

     

    Once you are here, you are properly associated. We may have philosophical refutes but all here are absolute gems. Nothing personal attacks here. Only philosophical debates coz everyone is on Only one mission and that is TRUTH.

     

     

    2.How does one obtain that mentality to properly associate?

    By practice. Initially our egos feel offended. Gradually by practice, proper association can be achieved.

     

     

    3.I see devotees who are so surrendered to their Guru(s). They have near no separate interest. I want that, too, but then I'm just not strong willed enough to submit myself like those devotees, although I know that I'll be happy forever if I were to do so. How do I overcome this situation of being stuck in between a rock and a hard place?

     

    Wait till you are convinced and come out of your confusion. Once you have adopted, you have to live with it like living with a wife after marriage. But this comes with you.

     

    All I can say is 'Welcome to the endless world of Spirituality'


  4.  

    From which school of thought it is said that the Heart is the Temple of the Lord?

     

    Heart of all activities. Spiritual Heart. Not Adi Bhautika, it is Aadhyatmika.

     

     

    For him, who has studied the Bhagavadgitá even a little, who has drunk a drop of the Gañgá-water, and who has performed the worship of the Destroyer of the demon Mura (viz. Murari) at least once, there is no tiff with Yama (the lord of death).

     

    Oh yes. This was not a Tattva Bodah or Atma Bodah. Just an other Stotram. There are many more like Bhavani Ashtakam, Kanakadhara.., Shiva Manasa.. If you try to find Advaita Tattava in every work of Shankaracharya and start debating, you are mistaken.


  5.  

    i feel so useless, there ae so many thing i want to do with my life, but i can never move ahead with it, im so frustrated seeing people around me move ahead and make progresse with there live and im left there watching..................i just hate my life why did god make me like this

     

    You have moved far ahead of those around you when you have entered this forum. Look how nice are the people around here. You are making spiritual progress which comes alongwith you even after you die unlike the material progress of the ones you compare with yourself.

     

    You should indeed thank God for making you his favorite and to be in the group of like minded people who are seeking God with their own beliefs. Welcome to the spiritual party. Enjoy. Make Merry. Cheers.


  6.  

    ravindra kesavan.

    Nirvikalpa samadhi is unbreakable indeed.

    But dnt apply your brain to it.

     

    Coz.. he is going to apply his brains. Lets see whats he knows...

     

     

    Shaunaka traversed the Paravyoma(the spiritual sky beyond the mahat tattva,where is situated christ's 'kingdom of God'.),the brahmn dravya and then reached vaikuntha.

     

    Another reference of a story book.

     

     

    Do you even know what yogis have to meditate on ?

     

    The above question shows you know nothing as to who is a yogi and what meditation means. Do you know, Meditation is not something to do, it is undoing or rather doing nothing. Meditation is Not Done. It happens.

     

     

    The yoga shastra states,"The yogis should always meditate on Lord Vishnu within their hearts,or their respective goals can never be realised."

     

    Read Patanjali 'Yoga Sutra' first.


  7.  

    Kleem is a bija of Krishna. It is also bija of Kamadeva as well as godess Kameswari (one of the names of the wife of Siva ), and one of the beejas of Kali. It is technically called Kamabija in tantra sastra and supposed to fulfill all desires, provided it is initiated and practiced in proper way. Specially it causes emotitional agitation (Kshoba) of the creatures of the three worlds

     

    K.Ravindran

     

    Ravindranji, I have also heard that the Beejakshari Kleem is used as a key. We use it as 'Ham Beejam, Sham Shaktih, Kleem Keelakam'. Can you give more info?


  8.  

    Hello again Srikanth,

    Since this thread is continuing, I felt obligated to refute some of your statements. In your post # 345, you state, "Let me also tell you that without speculation, truth cannot be perceived." Do you actually believe that truth cannot reveal itself to us if it so chooses ? Is truth puny and impotent, as you suggest, or is truth able to reveal itself either directly, if it so chooses, or through acharyas who have direct perception of truth, or through scriptures such as Gita ?

     

    Truth is truth. Nothing to reveal itself. It is to us who experience differently refute, believe and argue that truth is only that which we have perceived with our experience.

     

     

     

    You also state in several posts that only experience can reveal the truth. Again, in post # 345, you state, "I believe in experience and then tally it with the scriptures." This is quite reasonable. We don't accept blind faith; faith should be reasoned and proven. If that is the case, then why not also go to your local Krishna mandir and get some experience there ? Then tally it with the scriptures. Why reject that experience ?

     

    Infact I have tried all ways even to the extent of a parivrajaka who begs and eats, lived in himalayas with loads of interesting things to carry with. Coming to the point of the Krishna Mandir, I agree that when we sing Bhajans, hear the glories of Lord, recite a mantra or a hymn, the vibrations give tremendous impetus and feeling to the mind. We repeat it again and again to gain the same experience. Imagine that if your very favorite Bhajan is made heard to you again and again, the tendency of the mind to enjoy will not grow more and more. Infact it becomes less and less. That is where the meditation comes to our help. Infact, Meditation takes you up and up every more you practice it. You will discover new energies, new way of thinking and realize the true potential of yourself. Why reject this experience? Try.

     

     

    Finally, regarding Sankaracarya's statement, "Bhaja Govindam," which Ramana dasi has also quoted, you ask "Which idiot told you this story ?" I have been looking everywhere here for my book by Sankaracharya, to attempt to verify his statement, but unfortunately I have been unable to find the book as yet. But I believe that his statement is in this book. He must have told me himself through the book, which incidentally is not a Vaishnava publication. So then, are you indirectly calling Sankaracarya a fool ? He must have had many disciples like you - brilliant men of keen mind, excellent speculative ability and tremendously eloquent and convincing in debate. The only lack they had was lack of inclination to devotion to the Personality of Godhead. He couldn't directly preach Vaishnavism to them, as they would never accept it, just as you cannot accept it now. So he preached monism, until on his deathbed he grew tired of the charade, then said "Bhaja Govindam."

    All the best.

    Regards, jeffster/AMdas

     

    To know about about Shankaracharya, read 'Sri Shankara Digvijayam' which is believed to hold the most authentic information about his time. Coming to the composition of Bhaja Govindam, the master once passed by a sanskrit scholar in Varanasi who was busy memorizing the rules of sanskrit grammar. Seeing the tension writ all over the scholar's face, Shankaracharya spontaneously composed a beautiful poem "Bhaja Govindam". If you are talking about 'Samprapte Sannihite Kaale, Nahi Nahi Rakshati Dukrinkarane..', Dukrinkarane is a part of Sanskrit Grammer. So, he said, when your end comes, these rules will not help you. I think that you have mistaken and are of the opinion that Shankaracharya himself realized on his deathbed that he had wasted all his time in writing Bhashyas in Sanskrit and had forgotton Govinda and now it was the time for him to remember Govinda atleast on his deathbed. That was not the case. Give me one instance where it say Sri Adi Shankara met his death or died in the age of 32.


  9.  

    Maya and Parambrahma are one and the same? Then why strive to escape Maya? This is a childish view of Vedanta. You should find someone to teach you the real conclusions of the Veda before you go off spouting your big ideas in forums such as this.

     

    How do you know what you have learnt is the real conclusions of Vedanta. I think you have just read loads of books with an Institutional Tag with no real experience. This debate can go on and on with no end. Generally most of them think what they know is only the truth. If I just remove all stories from your bookshelf you will be left with yourself to ponder with. Perhaps only then you can understand what I am trying to say. I have told you that I need no certificate of yours whether my beliefs are childish etc. etc. You people are busy decorating the Lord/Krishna/Shiva whatever with your hymns,bhajans etc., the original Lord can be visible only if you try and remove those decorations. Cheers.

     

     

    You remind me of the toy steam train that goes from Sealdah to Darjeeling. On your way to Darjeeling you can enjoy a nice cup of tea and a jolly conversation with your fellow travellers but all the things you are saying are just hot air coming out of your chimney.

     

    Hahahaha.. So nice.


  10.  

    Whose ideas are you repeating here? Adi Sankara's commentary to Brahma-sutra Pada 4.4 doesn't say anything in any place about "3 encasements".

     

    No ideas borrowed. If Abhaavadikaranam tells anything apart from the causal state, let me know.

     

     

    Radhika's belief about how there can be "the birth of new souls" is contrary to the teachings of the Upanishads.

     

    Nope. Thats exactly the gist of Brahmasutras.

     

     

    In the Katha Upanishad we read this:

     

    18. The knowing Self is not born; It does not die. It has not sprung from anything; nothing has sprung from it. Birthless, eternal, everlasting and ancient, It is not killed when the body is killed.

    19. If the killer thinks he kills and if the killed man thinks he is killed, neither of these apprehends aright. The Self not, nor is it killed.

    20. Atman, smaller than the small, greater than the great, is hidden in the hearts of all living creatures. A man who is free from desires beholds the majesty of the Self through tranquillity of the senses and the mind and becomes free from grief.

     

     

     

    Verses 18 and 19 are repeated word-for-word in the Gitopanshad.

     

    Radhika and Srikanth, please note the word "unborn" and contemplate its meaning. This is what the Vedas teach. The idea that the individual soul is born and then dissolves into the Brahman consiousness is opposite to the teachings of the Rishis and the Vedas.

     

    Oh yeah, "Ekam Sad Viprah Bahudhaa Vadanthi" - RgVeda. Refer to post #266 for what Vedas also say.

     

     

    When the atma attains yoga with Paramatma the atma is one with the Supreme.....

     

    That means to say, they were ONE, they became ONE.

     

     

    Please study the Vedanta with an open mind free from the prejudices of sectarianism.

     

    I am open to all thoughts. Are you? What do you mean by sectarianism? Arent you believer in the Dualist perspective? In the same way, I believe the Monoist and for my belief, I do not want the so labelled "Vaishnavas" to endorse my beliefs.


  11.  

    "only experience exists"!! Do you understand what you are talking about?

     

    Tell me you are not understanding what I am talking about.

     

     

    Experience cannot exist without an experiencer. Experience is not a material object like your computer to exist even after you leave it and go to the restroom for a bowel ablution.

     

    Thats all you know and believe.

     

     

    The rest of your analysis of death is meaningless where you say that God (knower, experiencer of all 4 states) experienced death.

     

    Read again before coming to a conclusion. Read all the 3 question and answers.

     

     

    If the only thing that exists in mukti is God as you said above, it is flawed. There is no liberation for God. Such a God who is devoid of any good qualities isn't worth pursuing.

     

    Liberation is not for god, but for the individual who was the experiencer present in the Gross,Subtle(Astral) and Causal.

     

     

    You are out of your kidney! All I said is that Sankara and Ramana were not liberated individuals. According to their own philosophy they were still in ignorance before they died.

     

    Nobody needs anybodys certificate and they do not belong to the Patent Culture like you.

     

     

    That you need to have a refresher course in Advaita.

     

    Do you know A of Advaita when you have spoken all this. It is clear who needs a course.

     

     

    The oil would still be sitting separately from water even if it is rid of its impurities. Oil is oil and water is water. The properties of oil are different than water. You may need to sit in a 2nd grade class for this is the basics they teach in primary school.

     

    How did the oil form? What is the base of that liquid?

     

     

    Now who first brought up the story of drop of water in a sea? Stories are usually given by non-dualists to bring some sense to their philosophy. Otherwise no reasonable thinking person would believe the world is an illusion.

     

    Remove all stories. There is no dualist Theory. No Shiva, Vishnu, Krishna will exist. Now Justin, what will be the base of your Arguements?

     

     

    Like I said we can put forth any number of stories, analogies and quantum theories to prove that someone saw a flying teapot. But that does not make the flying teapot a fact.

     

    Absolutely true.


  12.  

    srikantdk,

     

    Please be sure of ur beliefs,

    Its either PURE advaita as Shankaracharya taught OR it is PURE speculative tosh.

    Choose.

    If its the latter,let me tell you that speculation is consequential to the point of satisfying the self's ego.The pettyness of it all has no universal application or appeal whatsoever.

    But if you are sticking to Sri shankaracharya's philosophy alone,then you have to discard all speculation.

     

    Ranjeet, if that was the case there would not have been a single acharya after Sri Adi Shankara if it would be termed as speculative tosh. They would have stuck. Let me also tell you that without speculation, truth cannot be perceived. Theories should be true yesterday,today and tomorrow irrespective of changes with time. Now, the time has arrived to be more scientific and rational in approach where the Puranas look like story books, the Bhashyas of the acharyas are termed as individual opinions etc. I believe in experience and then tally it with the scriptures. That looks more convincing than getting lost and confused in the innumerous quotes and theories.


  13.  

    Hello Srikanth,

    Re: your post # 282 and your continued insistence that Krishna has a physical body, did I not mention previously the Ishopanishad sloka describing Him as the "veinless philosopher." A philosopher needs at least a mouth to speak philosophy, so it is proof that he has a body, and "veinless" suggests something other than a body made of the material elements.

     

    Feel free to understand the essence of Advaita than blindly refuting it as monoist. We can perhaps continue later. Truely speaking I cannot understand your language when you say 'The Lord is beyond thought, beyond limits, cannot be perceived ...' but still say it has beautiful form etc etc.

     

     

    Also, in post #324 you are requoting Ramana dasi's quote of Sankaracharya on his deathbed......

     

    Which idiot told you this story?

     

     

    Also, I use the term Vaishnava as the more or less generic term for my practice because Krishnite is not a term commonly used, and Hare Krishna in this country still more or less denotes a cult.

    Regards, jeffster/AMdas

     

    All the best.


  14.  

    Exactly my point. There is no experiencer. The person who strives for mukti does not exist per non-dualism. So God is the only one experiencing mukti. If you say the person still exists or sees others existing separate from himself then that is not non-dualism.

     

    In Mukti/Moksha experiencer does not exist. Only Experience (enormous creative power) exists. No question of 'To Whom?' coz its devoid of the experiencer.

     

     

    There sure is a flaw in the argument allright. Death of the body is a fact. Who experienced death? The person who died. What happens after death? The soul of the person still exists. Vedic texts say the soul still experiences after death. Garuda purana goes at lengths to describe the various states that soul passes through before it reaches Vaikunta.

     

    Let me try this word by word.

     

    1. Yes, Death of the body is a fact.

    2. Who experienced Death?

    A. The experiencer who stayed within the body, who is present in all the 3 states (Awakened/Dream/Deep Sleep). The knower who is present even when your mind is absent in Deep Sleep.

    3. What happens after death?

    A. Unless the experiencer is present, the experience is present.

     

     

    But in the monist conception of mukti there is no monist (as you yourself agreed). In fact the example you provided fits in with the monist conception of mukti where it says there is no experiencer.

     

    The question has already been tried to address in my first answer.

     

     

    Just like the flawed example of death not a fact because there is no one to experience it.

     

    Death is a fact to the Material body. Not to the Astral and Causal.

     

     

    It is a myth to anyone who is striving to attain mukti. Because they are not the ones attaining it. It is supposed to be God who experiences it in the final analysis. And everyone knows that God does not need mukti. So it implies there is no mukti to be experienced by either the person or God. It is a myth.

     

    Mukti is not an experience. It is a state devoid of experiencer. You are God and a subject to Creation/Sustainer/Destruction which will be your nature. There is no YOU or IT or HIM there. There IS.

     

     

    According to their own philosophy Sankara or Ramana never existed in history if they claimed they were enlightened. If in fact they were God as they declared they are, they wouldn't have preached to an audience. Or went from town to town preaching their philosophy. I think they were deluded and had hallucinations that they were God.

     

    No enlightened person stakes a claim. Neither Jesus,Muhammed,Zarathustra or any of them. I think you are too poor in History before thinking so. Infact you know nothing even about Ramana. Think, Refer and speak before coming to a conclusion. Use your own brains. Do not try to be a mouthpiece of any organisation or belief.

     

     

    The drop that fell into the sea has displaced the sea. You may not see it with your eyes but the displacement is a fact. You may have heard that an ocean is an ocean because of each drop of water that is in it.

     

    What else have you heard of?

     

     

    If you are that much into analogies see this one. Put a drop of oil in a tumbler filled with water and you can see the oil drop sitting separately from the huge mass of water.

     

    Unless the oil is devoid of impurities it sits seperate. Remove all impurities, it is water again.

     

     

    We can use a number of sensible analogies to describe anything that does not make sense. Such analogies including borrowing desperately from Quantum theories, where no parallels exist, is a sign of weakness of a philosophy.

     

    If you believe Quantum Theories can prove a philosophy, it means that the philosophy is True in all its respects. If you feel that story books are more convincing to you and the strength of your philosophy is dependent on stories, Cheers.


  15.  

    How do you know what you believe is true?

     

    Lack of proper evidence. Thats the reason I also asked you to confirm with authentic Advaitins that you know.

     

     

    And what about abhavam baadariraha hyevam in Brahma Sutra 4.4.10

     

    The meaning is clear enough. Badari says a liberated soul who has attained Brahmaloka can exist with or without a body according to his liking.

     

    What Adi Sankara said in the verse I quoted is perfectly in keeping with this statement by Badri in Brahma Sutra 4.4.10.

     

    Abhavadhikaranam tell about the causal state of the 3 encasements in our body. The above it true and correct.

     

     

    Why would a non-material mukta soul like to have a body, if it were not for doing bhakti? If a liberated soul wanted a body so he could experience matter then he would fall from mukti because of his interaction with Maya. The only reason a mukta would want to have a body is to do bhakti to Narayana. What other reason do you imagine a mukta would want a body for? Would a mukta want to have eyes and ears so he could feel pain and experience samsara? Ridiculous.

     

    First of all, hats off to your Bhakti. Nobody can refute anything against it. The questions you have posed is very valid but it is subject to a boundry of belief. Posts # 124,140,165,166,182 by Radhika has addressed it on a global note. Please go through the same. It may give you a new dimension of understanding.

     

     

    bhajagovindam bhajagovindam govindam bhaja muudhamate sampraapte sannihite kaale nahi nahi rakshati dukrijnkarane

     

    Balastavat kreedasaktah, Tarunastavat Tarunisaktah, Vriddahastavat Chaintasaktah, Parame Brahmani Kopinasaktah


  16.  

    Sri Adi Sankara Bhagavatapada wrote in his bhasya to Nrsimha-purva-tapani Upanisad....

     

    I know that this is a Vaishnava Upanishad of the Atharva Shaaka. I believe that bhashya on Nrsimhatapani is not at all the work of Sri Adi Shankara. Only the Basic Dashopanishads are believed to be authentic. You can refer to any authentic Advaitin who will agree to this or you can even refer the Wikipedia also. It may be the work of a blinder who misquoted even the basic Ganapati sloka of 'Shuklambaradharam devam...' as 'Shuklambaradharam Vishnum...' and blindly followed till date.


  17.  

    In the Bhagavad-gita (6.46–47) there is a comparative analysis of the three types ......

     

    The verses are:

     

    6.46

     

    tapasvibhyo 'dhiko yogī jñānibhyo 'pi mato 'dhikaḥ

    karmibhyaś cādhiko yogī tasmād yogī bhavārjuna

     

    6.47

     

    yoginām api sarveṣāḿ mad-gatenāntar-ātmanā

    śraddhāvān bhajate yo māḿ sa me yuktatamo mataḥ

     

    The original Shankara Bhashya goes something like this. It is a word to word bhashya and not just a culmination.

     

    46. A yogi is higher than men of austerity; he is considered higher even than men of knowledge. The yogi is also higher than men of action. Therefore, O Arjuna, do you become a yogi.

     

    A yogi is adhikah, higher; tapasvibhyah, than men of austerity; he is matah, considered; adhikah, higher than, superior to; api, even; jnanibhyah, men of knowledge. Jnana here means scriptural learning. (A yogi is superior) to even those who possess that (learning). The yogi is adhikah, higher, greater; karmibhyah, than men of action-karma means Agnihotra etc.; (greater) than those who adhere to them. Since this is so, tasmat, therefore; O Arjuna, bhava, do you become a yogi.

     

     

    47. Even among all the yogis, he who adores Me with his mind fixed on Me and with faith, he is considered by Me to be the best of the yogis.

     

    Api, even; sarvesam yoginam, among all the yogis, among those who are immersed in meditation on Rudra, Aditya, and others; yah, he who; bhajate, adores; mam, Me; antaratmana,with his mind; madgatena, fixed on Me, concentrated on Me who am Vasudeva; and sraddhavan, with faith, becoming filled with faith; sah, he; is matah, considered; me, by Me; to be yukta-tamah, the best of the yogis, engaged in Yoga most intensely. [it has been shown thus far that Karma-yoga has monasticism as its ultimate culmination. And in the course of expounding Dhyana-yoga together with its ausxiliaries, and instructing about the means to control the mind, the Lord rules out the possibility of absolute ruin for a person fallen from Yoga. He has also stated that steadfastness in Knowledge is for a man who knows the meaning of the word tvam (thou) (in 'Thou are That'). All these instructions amount to declaring that Liberation comes from the knowledge of the great Upanisadic saying, 'Thou art That.']


  18. Another belief goes that Kalki will be born in Euro-West Asia(believed to be in Iran or Turkey) as a Muslim. He will have an impression of the Conch (Shankha) in one palm and Chakra on the other. He will migrate to India at the age of 21. He will have an aid from South India. He will rule most parts of Asia for 60 years. He will possess a Horse (Ashwa) of magical power which travels in air for most of his journeys. He will not meet a natural death. A Garuda (Eagle) will descend from the sky in his last days and carry him to the heavens.


  19. Smarta beliefs pertain to Smritis and not to any particular sect. Kaisersose is correct and I too believe that the brains given to us are for our use and not to hang behind somebody elses brains and get labelled as a Shaiva or a Vaishnava. People get stuck in the barriers they have drawn for themselves and you will be killing your own conscience time and again. Sanatana Dharma as suggested by RadhaMukunda is an apt word.


  20.  

    I would like to know in which category does Sri Shuk Dev Goswami's or Vyas's philosophy falls into???Harihar

     

    Dear Harihar, based on the work of Sri Ved Vyas Maharaj, many philosophers have derived different theories out of their understanding of Vyas Maharaj's works. Take out all Vyasjis works and Sri Shuk Dev Goswami will cease to exist and will any of the philosophies or philosophers and me and you and this forum also. He is the Guru of all Gurus and so the Vyas Purnima is also termed as Guru Purnima.


  21.  

    Srikanth, in your post #264, you state:

    ""The question remains "Was Krishna referring to his gross body when he says I? Krishna doesn't have a gross body.As stated previously, His body is described as sac cid ananda vigraha, an eternal body of bliss and knowledge. He doesn't have veins as an ordinary earthly body does.

     

    Jeffster, I think you are confused between Vishnu and Krishna (thanks to SP). During Satyuga,tretayuga, nobody ever heard of the word Krishna. In Dvapara however, it is believed that Lord Vishnu came in his original form (as Krishna possessed the Sudarshana Chakra). It is also clear that even if the Lord decend on this earth he is subject to the Prakriti Dharma of this Prithivi (law of nature or natural law) ie., he has to go through the cycle of Birth and Death. This cycle did not spare even Rama or Krishna. You must be aware that Krishna meets his death when a hunter (linked to Vali of Tretayuga) kills him. That was a brief description of Krishna as gross.

     

    Now, coming to the Sat-Chit-Ananda aspect. That Sat-Chit-Ananda is the very natural nature of the Atman within you and me. Futher you say it is Vigraha, eternal body of Bliss and Knowledge etc etc. Any realized soul who possess the art of releasing his energy not from the mind is termed here. Infact Sri Krishna is one of them.

     

    The Gross Body of Sri Krishna who was in the Dvapara had the very same body that you and me have with veins etc. In the Vaishnava perspective, when the Brahman is given the form of Pundarika, it is said to be a form of Bliss Eternal.

     

     

    So here is this amazing person, appearing as 1) universal form, 2) all pervasive as Brahman, 3) localized in the heart of every jiva as Paramatma, and 4) appearing in person as Bhagavan. Then He even enters His own creation and plays a role !

     

    Bhagavan Vishnu again. Why do you call yourself a a Vaishnavite and not Krishnite? You believe that Vishnu took all avatars including that of Krishna and not the otherway round.

×
×
  • Create New...