kimfelix 0 Report post Posted April 14, 2008 The secondary gods such as Indra and Agni are named in the Vedic hymns which praise them. Avatars are mentioned briefly in the Mahabharata and more extensively in the Puranas. Ganesh is known mainly from the Puranas. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yogesh 0 Report post Posted April 14, 2008 Sandra I agree with Kulpavana, follow his advice. People who try and understand the Vedas from academic perspective are like people trying to taste honey by licking the outside of the honey jar. If you want to know "Why Krsna only" you have to study the works of those who have tasted the honey. What I mean is, If you want to know "Why Krsna Only" read the books from people who live their lives based on the Vedas. One of those book is the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam which is a personal commentation on the Vedānta-sūtra by Śrī Vyāsadeva. It was written in the maturity of his spiritual life through the mercy of Nārada. There is no question as to his authority. He is the author of all other Vedic literatures, yet he recommends the study of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam above all others. In other Purāṇas there are different methods set forth by which one can worship the demigods. But in the Bhāgavatam only the Supreme Lord is mentioned. The Supreme Lord is the total body, and the demigods are the different parts of that body. Consequently, by worshiping the Supreme Lord, one does not need to worship the demigods. The Supreme Lord becomes fixed in the heart of the devotee immediately. Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu has recommended the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam as the spotless Purāṇa and distinguishes it from all other Purāṇas.(Srimad Bhagavatam) Regarding the Indologist/Academics - The Vedic injunctions are self-authorized, and if some mundane creature adjusts the interpretations of the Vedas, he defies their authority. It is foolish to think of oneself as more intelligent than Śrīla Vyāsadeva. He has already expressed himself in his sūtras, and there is no need of help from personalities of lesser importance. His work, the Vedānta-sūtra, is as dazzling as the midday sun, and when someone tries to give his own interpretations on the self-effulgent sunlike Vedānta-sūtra, he attempts to cover this sun with the cloud of his imagination.- (Srimad Bhagavatam) But before studying the Bhagavatam & Bhagavad Gita As It IS, first follow Kulpavana's advice: I hope this helps. Hare Krsna/Krishna Jay Sirla Prabhupda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bija 0 Report post Posted April 14, 2008 Oh thanks so much, Bija. So is it reasonable to asumet that other gods are also expandsions of Krishna, and one can worship them, but not exclusively? Is this correct? Reg. Kimfelex's point that ther'es no mention of Krishna in vedas, can a connection be established between vishnu and krusnn a, becauise Vishnu is mentioned in vedas? qoute by sandra Krishna (Vasudeva) is everything. So direct worship of Krishna is like watering the roots of a tree. So the demigods are satisfied, all is satisfied by such worship. In a higher sense even religiosity and expectation of society and other 'must does' as a human being are fully satisfied by simple devotion to Krishna. By offering in pure devotion a leaf, water or fruit all is fully satisfied according to the Gita verses I gave you to read. Those who show disrespect to the demigods and other avatars are in error or ignorance. For example I worship the avatara Nrshingha and my mood is 'oh Lord Krsna you are so kind you have various forms and expansions to satisfy the internal loving moods of your devotees, your kindness is without equal'. Or when I offer respects to the demigods I remember pastimes of them with Lord GaurangaKrishna and praise their good fortune and faithful service. Those who show disrespect to any expansion of Krsna, including all souls, are not complete in love of Krsna. How can one love a part of Krsna and treat his ornament with coldness. So we have along way to learn to love Vasudeva hey:) Vishnu and Krishna are non-different as far as I understand. I accept the authority of the book Sri Brahma Samita where Krishna is explained as Adi Purusham, the original person. It is a bit odd Sandra but I will share this anyway, when I was a young man I had an NDE, it was very profound experience and personal. I asked the light who are you? It replied in a voice beyond beauty and description 'Original'. At that moment my soul rested and I was filled with unlimited bliss. Years later I accepted Krishna as the Lord of my heart. Similar to a mundane relationship Sandra, day by day we fall in love with the Lord of the heart. But the difference is the one in the heart never leaves, instead the love is positive and progressiive, ever new, and expanding. Krsna is the source of all expansion in my eyes. These are some reason why devotees chooose Krishna, he is a simple cowherd playboy. Here is some words of Lord Gauranga from his siksastaka, I am a servant of Lord Gauranga or aspiring to be. 'He may embrace me, devoted as I am to his feet, or he may torment me and break my heart by hiding from me. Being a playboy, he is free to do whatever he likes, for he alone is the Lord of my life'. Sri Siksastaka click here love and light Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theist 1 Report post Posted April 15, 2008 What a display. Thanks to those that actually acknowledged the thread starter and honored her question and to those that called for a more courtious discussion. IMO both Dark Warrior and LOB should be suspended from participating until they can grow up and learn some common manners. The seriousness at which you both take yourselves is an embarassment to behold on a public forum. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bija 0 Report post Posted April 15, 2008 Thanks to those that actually acknowledged the thread starter and honored her question and to those that called for a more courtious discussion. by theist Yes I agree the original question in the thread was a very sincere question. Any devotee or follower of the Lord would sense that sincerity of enquiry. Therefore as devotees we can serve simply by attempting so share our small realizations. I have no critique of behaviour on this forum, as my own mind can be a battle field, but I wish to express that as this is the appearance days of Sri Ram we should take the opportunity to serve and move beyond bodily consciousness and ego. Instead glorifying the Lord to the best of our ability. Ofcourse we all muck up, but if we are sincere, and humble ourselves then grace is sufficient. I come and go from this forum because of its hardness, and yesterday on Sri Rama's appearance day I again felt that desire to leave here. But in a deeper sense detachment from what is not service here, is good character building in some way. Please forgive my offences. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
raghu 2 Report post Posted April 15, 2008 Thanks for a different perspective on this. But are you saying V evolved out of semitic religions? Is there any proof for this in history, like meetings between the teachers of both schools? The principles of Vaishnava monotheism are derived from the Vedas and Upanishads and confirmed by numerous smritis. The idea that Vaishnavism could be derived from religions like Judaism and Christianity can only be described as ludicrous when one examines the numerous differences between the former and the latter. Unfortunately, some people continue to propagate this theory just to get a rise out of the more hot-headed members of this forum. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bija 0 Report post Posted April 15, 2008 The theory that Bhagavad Gita stems from christianity bought to India by St. Thomas is a only a theory. The idea was that indian sages bought out this Gita of monotheism, to keep the people from converting to christianity. The theory is wishy washy and as time has gone on most well studied scholars see it as wishy washy too. What I find more interesting is the formulation of spiritual and religious thought in human kind over many thousands of years. Parallels of human experience, of spiritual encounters, can be seen throughtout humanities development and history. The vedic thinkers say this is because all religion stemmed from an ancient vedic civilization, I dont know about that to be honest. But the viewpoint is satisfying to my soul. In Australia there is rock paintings that are thousands and thousands of years old, that have been re-painted year after year as the men came for initiation, to hear the song and the story. The vedic culture also told its stories way back, long before written text. Ancient sanskrit is full of melody and tone. The parallel encounters of God experience and how that was transmitted generation after generation, in various places all over the globe, is what interests me. And in my own tradition to see religion move from sacrifices and rigid rituals to a more intimate view of God and devotion is pleasing. And the indepth elaboration of devotion and love, stemming from the flow and pogression of vedic thought. But as you know Sandra this vedic culture is by no means simple in its totality. But maybe in essence, in the very centre of all things, including our own being, is nothing but simplicity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shivaduta 0 Report post Posted April 15, 2008 by sandrajenkins - Isn't Krishna one of the gods in the vedic pantheon..... let me give u an analogy why are "burgers joints" and "pizza places" so popular where as "Coque Au Vin" restaurents are hard to find... well a burger or a pizza can be made in 4 minutes flat by anyone having half a brain... and anyone can eat it while watching television and reading a book or working on the computer... So also krishna worship is popular cause it is simple logic and basically easy to understand... the higher philosophies in hinduism need a lot of brain power to comprehend... by sandrajenkins - Is this Supreme Deity (that you mention) found by name in the veda?... Well the "vedic" concept of supreme being is the "hiranyagarbha" or the golden egg from which the whole creation issued forth and into which the whole creation will return when the creation culminates... in the "vedantic" version i beleive the supreme being is the parabrahma the supreme consiousness who lives beyond space and time... and he creates space and time and sends fragments of his consiousness to animate this creation.... brahma, vishnu and mahesh are aspects of creation, nourishing and destruction of existance as per vedic philosophy... one is incomplete without the other two as per vedic knowledge... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
raghu 2 Report post Posted April 15, 2008 let me give u an analogywhy are "burgers joints" and "pizza places" so popular where as "Coque Au Vin" restaurents are hard to find... well a burger or a pizza can be made in 4 minutes flat by anyone having half a brain... and anyone can eat it while watching television and reading a book or working on the computer... So also krishna worship is popular cause it is simple logic and basically easy to understand... the higher philosophies in hinduism need a lot of brain power to comprehend... At the risk of, well, contradicting you, there are many more Vaishnava schools of Vedanta surviving today than there are non-Vaishnava schools. My observation, especially from forums such as these, is that the non-Vaishnava Hindu's (specifically the ones who post condescending rubbish like the above) concept of "higher philosophy" seems to involve proposing or acknowledging contradictory statements and just demanding that we accept that they are true. And if we disagree because they are illogical, then we are adherents to a simple man's philosophy. Consistency. Judicious use of logic to select the correct interpretation from a variety of potentially correct ones. Strength of evidence. Use of apaurusheya pramaanas. These are all features of a good religious philosophy. As far as the remainder of your claims, they are all bunk, lacking not only shastric support but even any hint of what exactly you claim to be valid evidence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shivaduta 0 Report post Posted April 15, 2008 blah blah blah ....there are many more Vaishnava schools of Vedanta surviving today than there are non-Vaishnava schools. blah blah blah..... Dear Friend don quixote - you do not seem to have read before charging at your windmills... is there by any chance the word "vaishnav" anywhere in my post... it may probably have slipped your mind that i may be talking of the 20-second krishna consiousness chains which have sprung up all over the place which simplify kindergarten logic and offer it to the masses... I have not talked of vaishnav vedantic schools... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
raghu 2 Report post Posted April 15, 2008 Dear Friend don quixote - you do not seem to have read before charging at your windmills... is there by any chance the word "vaishnav" anywhere in my post... it may probably have slipped your mind that i may be talking of the 20-second krishna consiousness chains which have sprung up all over the place which simplify kindergarten logic and offer it to the masses... I have not talked of vaishnav vedantic schools... You spoke of Krishna worship, which Vaishnava Vedanta schools also endorse. If you were referring to non-Vedantic Krishna worship, there is certainly nothing in your words to specifically point to that. You could have referred to non-Vedantic Hinduism in general, but you only referred to Krishna worship. Consider using more clarity in your words. Also, learning the proper use of capitalization would not hurt either. That quote again - Originally Posted by Shivadutalet me give u an analogy why are "burgers joints" and "pizza places" so popular where as "Coque Au Vin" restaurents are hard to find... well a burger or a pizza can be made in 4 minutes flat by anyone having half a brain... and anyone can eat it while watching television and reading a book or working on the computer... So also krishna worship is popular cause it is simple logic and basically easy to understand... the higher philosophies in hinduism need a lot of brain power to comprehend... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
