Ravindran Kesavan Posted September 25, 2008 Report Share Posted September 25, 2008 I had an interesting Discussion this week with some of my friends. One of them was discussion something about Ram's death. Another challenged him by asking where in Ramayana it is stated or described that Ram died. He continued : Did Matcha avadar die? did kurma die, Did narshima die? . And his theory is that even Krishna didnot die (as against the popular view that he was killed by an arrow of a hunter) . According to him , it was just a small accident and when the hunter realised his mistake and pleaded for forgiveness krishna consoled him and him and took leave of him by declaring that his task is finished and he is going. God knows what he ment by the words that his task is finished , and where he was going . Krishna may have just ment that his purpose of comming to forest is over and he is going back to his house (or somewhere else). His theory is that actually no awatars ever died. They cannot die as they were not ordinary mortals. They were God. His theory make sense. But is it true? What is the scriptual evidence? Is there any direct statement (Not indirect implication) or explicit discription in Purana or Itikasa that Krishna and Rama died actually? Can someone - who has read the actual itikasas in its original form - answer this question? K.Ravindran Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaisersose Posted September 25, 2008 Report Share Posted September 25, 2008 I had an interesting Discussion this week with some of my friends. One of them was discussion something about Ram's death. Another challenged him by asking where in Ramayana it is stated or described that Ram died. He continued : Did Matcha avadar die? did kurma die, Did narshima die? . And his theory is that even Krishna didnot die (as against the popular view that he was killed by an arrow of a hunter) . According to him , it was just a small accident and when the hunter realised his mistake and pleaded for forgiveness krishna consoled him and him and took leave of him by declaring that his task is finished and he is going. God knows what he ment by the words that his task is finished , and where he was going . Krishna may have just ment that his purpose of comming to forest is over and he is going back to his house (or somewhere else). His theory is that actually no awatars ever died. They cannot die as they were not ordinary mortals. They were God. His theory make sense. But is it true? What is the scriptual evidence? Is there any direct statement (Not indirect implication) or explicit discription in Purana or Itikasa that Krishna and Rama died actually? Can someone - who has read the actual itikasas in its original form - answer this question? K.Ravindran If your friend will accept the Bhagavatam as an authority on Krishna, then the arrow-in-the-foot episode is nothing like what he describes. In the Bhagavatam it is clear that is how Krishna dies. I do not have an exact reference, but I clearly remember a version of Ramayana where Rama & Lakshmana eneded their lives on earth through jala-samadhi. Forget Rama and Krishna, deaths of personalities like Shankara and Madhva are not recorded. It appears to have been the trend to avoid writing about death of avatars. Shankara disappeared somewhere, Madhva disappeared from the middle of a crowd...this is what their biographies have to say. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shivaduta Posted September 25, 2008 Report Share Posted September 25, 2008 In the mortal world the rule is "that which is born shall die"... So when god puts himself in the mortal world and walks as a mortal amongst mortals he chooses not to make an exception of his own rule to suit himself... least a entity like ravan quote his breaking of the rule as a precedent to demand immortality... So the mortal physical body of any avtaar which was born has to die... (The rule may not necessirily apply to a kritya which isnt a physical body. but then another set of rules apply to krityas) the soul which animates the avtaar hasnt been born and can never die... i think all this is directly or indirectly explained in the "srimad bhagwat gita" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kulapavana Posted September 26, 2008 Report Share Posted September 26, 2008 Bhagavad Gita 4.9 "One who knows the transcendental nature of My appearance (janma) and activities does not, upon leaving the body, take his birth again in this material world, but attains My eternal abode" Both appearance and disappearance of the Lord are divine and transcendental. Krsna is like an actor putting on a show for us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishadi Posted September 26, 2008 Report Share Posted September 26, 2008 since we all can recognize the material is not the living but the energy upon mass is ie.... a physically dead body is the same mass, but the state of life (energy) is gone (bury the body) but is Krishna dead? We still talking about his energy, his contributions, what he left upon this material world; His contributions to existence live in us all. He lives in what He left for us all! That is what differentiates the living from the dead; by what they do, during the period of choice (material life).... this is true Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
binaya_r Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 Didnt Krishna say in geeta tht one who takes birth in this world has to die one day? and abt narsimha he decided to go to param dham when requested by Bhakt Pralhad, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyros Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 SB 11.30.33: Just then a hunter named Jarā, who had approached the place, mistook the Lord's foot for a deer's face. Thinking he had found his prey, Jarā pierced the foot with his arrow, which he had fashioned from the remaining iron fragment of Sāmba's club. However, Lord Krsna's actual disappearance is described in Srimad Bhagavatam 11.31.* Here's the verse that specifies that Lord Krsna does not die like ordinary people. SB 11.31.11: My dear King, you should understand that the Supreme Lord's appearance and disappearance, which resemble those of embodied conditioned souls, are actually a show enacted by His illusory energy, just like the performance of an actor. After creating this universe He enters into it, plays within it for some time, and at last winds it up. Then the Lord remains situated in His own transcendental glory, having ceased from the functions of cosmic manifestation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hindustani Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 yes yes you are on dot I agree,why I even whole universe agree with your line. In the mortal world the rule is "that which is born shall die"... So when god puts himself in the mortal world and walks as a mortal amongst mortals he chooses not to make an exception of his own rule to suit himself... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonic Yogi Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 There is no difference between the Lord's Self and the Lord's transcendental body. The expansions execute differential activities. When the Lord, however, appears in His person as Lord Sri Krsna, His other plenary portions also join in Him by His inconceivable potency called yogamaya, and thus the Lord Krsna of Vrndavana is different from the Lord Krsna of Mathura or the Lord Krsna of Dvaraka. The virat-rupa of Lord Krsna is also different from Him, by His inconceivable potency. The virat-rupa exhibited on the Battlefield of Kuruksetra is the material conception of His form. Therefore it should be understood that when Lord Krsna was apparently killed by the bow and arrow of the hunter, the Lord left His so-called material body in the material world. The Lord is kaivalya, and for Him there is no difference between matter and spirit because everything is created from Him. Therefore His quitting one sort of body or accepting another body does not mean that He is like the ordinary living being. All such activities are simultaneously one and different by His inconceivable potency. When Maharaja Yudhisthira was lamenting the possibility of His disappearance, it was just in pursuance of a custom of lamenting the disappearance of a great friend, but factually the Lord never quits His transcendental body, as is misconceived by less intelligent persons. Such less intelligent persons have been condemned by the Lord Himself in Bhagavad-gita, and they are known as the mudhas. That the Lord left His body means that He left again His plenary portions in the respective dhamas (transcendental abodes), as He left His virat-rupa in the material world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonic Yogi Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 So, Krishna's body is all spiritual and transcendental, but when he comes to the material world he accepts a material aspect of the form so that even asuras and enemies can see what would ordinarily not be visible to their eyes. The so-called death of Krishna is simply his leaving behind the material outer covering of his spiritual form. But, he did not die as we die losing all recollection of our past lives and deeds. He simply shed his material form that he accepted to demonstrate his pastimes on Earth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kulapavana Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 He simply shed his material form that he accepted to demonstrate his pastimes on Earth. There was no 'material form' accepted by Krsna. That form was spiritual, and ever-fresh (nava-yauvana). At the end of the pastimes that form simply moved away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranjeetmore Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 forget all the veda sastras. Tulsidas says,"Cidanand deha tumhari" Sri Rama ! Your body is Sat.Chit.Anand. Now.Everyone knows the Jeevatma CANNOT die.Why ? He is Chit svarupa.An entire mountain may get destroyed.Why ? It is made up of MAya. But Sri Krsna/Sri Rama ?? Their bodies are sat.Chit.Ananda. Ishvara paramah Krshna Sat.Chit.Ananda Vigraha. Vigraha means body.If Sri Krshna died then even JEEVATMA SHALL DIE. Just as absurd as that sounds,imagine how foolish it is to say that Purna Brahm Sri Krsna 'Left' His body. Sri Krsna manifests Himself on the earth,but to jeevatmas under maya,He is seen as an ordinary cowherd boy.That is due to the veil of Yogamaya.She reveals His original form to those who have attained bhakti,while she manifests an ordinary form to those who are under maya. Understand YOGA-MAYA. She performs purely spiritual feats(YOGA) and yet it appears as MAYA.Hence the apparent 'thought' that sri Krsna died. Please abandon such offensive thoughts henceforth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primate Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 According to Prabhupada, Christ Jesus was an avatar of God, i.e., God’s representative, or one of His human manifestations on Earth. He regarded Jesus as his guru and stated that Krishna (Krista) and Christ (Kristos) are two of the many different names of the same supreme personal God. Prabhupada saw no difference between Christ and Krishna. God is one, portrayed differently in different cultures by his different names and pastimes. It can now be speculated that the Christian account of the appearance of Christ on Earth, bears relevance to understanding the appearance of Krishna as Vishnu’s avatar on Earth as described in the Vedic literature. Importantly, Christ assured his followers that He had a body of flesh and blood, just like them. And in the end, he suffered and died on the cross. Although his body resurrected three days later, Jesus died like an ordinary human being. Moreover, it’s a central theme in Christianity that through His suffering and death, Christ took upon himself the sins of the world. And as a result of this sacrifice, humanity is freed from the bondage of care, strife and sin. This Christian believe is highly reminiscent of the Vedic notion of karma and karmic reactions, according to which the overall balance between positive and negative karma is subject to change as a consequence of collective material suffering and enjoyment experienced by all human beings. In conclusion: Christ had a material body and died a material death on Earth (although His spirit ultimately reunited with God the Father). His material suffering even may have caused a strong positive karmic reaction to free all of humanity. So if Krishna and Christ are both avatars of the same God (Vishnu), then it seems most likely that Krishna also had a material body and died a material death.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonic Yogi Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 There was no 'material form' accepted by Krsna. That form was spiritual, and ever-fresh (nava-yauvana). At the end of the pastimes that form simply moved away. SB 1. 14. 8 purport: Therefore it should be understood that when Lord Kṛṣṇa was apparently killed by the bow and arrow of the hunter, the Lord left His so-called material body in the material world. Do your thing Kulapavana and challenge Srila Prabhupada like you do quite often. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonic Yogi Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 SB 1.9.34 purport: Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura, a great ācārya and devotee in the humor of conjugal love with the Lord, remarks very saliently in this regard. He says that the wounds created on the body of the Lord by the sharpened arrows of Bhīṣmadeva were as pleasing to the Lord as the biting of a fiancee who bites the body of the Lord directed by a strong sense of sex desire. Such biting by the opposite sex is never taken as a sign of enmity, even if there is a wound on the body. Therefore, the fighting as an exchange of transcendental pleasure between the Lord and His pure devotee, Śrī Bhīṣmadeva, was not at all mundane. Besides that, since the Lord's body and the Lord are identical, there was no possibility of wounds in the absolute body. The apparent wounds caused by the sharpened arrows are misleading to the common man, but one who has a little absolute knowledge can understand the transcendental exchange in the chivalrous relation. The Lord was perfectly happy with the wounds caused by the sharpened arrows of Bhīṣmadeva. The word vibhidyamāna is significant because the Lord's skin is not different from the Lord. Because our skin is different from our soul, in our case the word vibhidyamāna, or being bruised and cut, would have been quite suitable. Transcendental bliss is of different varieties, and the variety of activities in the mundane world is but a perverted reflection of transcendental bliss. Because everything in the mundane world is qualitatively mundane, it is full of inebrieties, whereas in the absolute realm, because everything is of the same absolute nature, there are varieties of enjoyment without inebriety. The Lord enjoyed the wounds created by His great devotee Bhīṣmadeva, and because Bhīṣmadeva is a devotee in the chivalrous relation, he fixes up his mind on Kṛṣṇa in that wounded condition. There can be no injury or bleeding to the absolute form of Krishna. The bleeding and injuries were inflicted upon the material form of Krishna which was non-different than a spiritual form because it is accepted by the absolute Sri Krishna. Even if Krishna accepts a body of matter, that body acts spiritually and is non-different than the spiritual form of the Lord. To say that Krishna cannot accept a material body is also a conditioned mentality of trying to limit the options of the Lord. He can accept a material body and still be as spiritual as always. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kulapavana Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 Bhagavad Gita maintains that Krishna body is not material. BG 4.6: Although I am unborn and My transcendental body never deteriorates, and although I am the Lord of all living entities, I still appear in every millennium in My original transcendental form. BG 7.24: Unintelligent men, who do not know Me perfectly, think that I, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa, was impersonal before and have now assumed this personality. Due to their small knowledge, they do not know My higher nature, which is imperishable and supreme. BG 7.25: I am never manifest to the foolish and unintelligent. For them I am covered by My internal potency, and therefore they do not know that I am unborn and infallible. BG 9.11: Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature as the Supreme Lord of all that be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kulapavana Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 Do your thing Kulapavana and challenge Srila Prabhupada like you do quite often. I challenge the understanding of his disciples about what he said. You find a passing reference from Prabhupada such a this: Quote: <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0>Therefore it should be understood that when Lord Kṛṣṇa was apparently killed by the bow and arrow of the hunter, the Lord left His so-called material body in the material world. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> and all of a sudden some of his disciples think that Bhagavad gita and Vaishnava siddhanta have been ammended or corrected by such a remark just like there are some of his disciples who think they are actually asleep in the Vaikunthas because of their interpretation of what their guru said. The Lord could have left behind ANYTHING after He moved on to a new leela. Still that does not mean that he accepted a material body for the sake of this leela. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kulapavana Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 "Mayavadi means one who thinks Krsna is also in maya. That is called Mayavadi. "Krsna's body is also maya." They are called Mayavadi." Srimad-Bhagavatam 3.26.30 Bombay, January 7, 1975 Prabhupada: "Yes. That is the way. That is real understanding of Krsna. Hare Krsna. As soon as the Mayavadi thinks that Krsna also accepts a material body... Therefore they are called Mayavadi. They are called Mayavadi because they think Krsna's body is also maya. Therefore they are known as Mayavadis. "Morning Walk, September 30, 1975, Bombay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy108 Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 Krsna's body was, and always is, fully spiritual. His Yogamaya potency arranged that a facsimile or "so-called material body" was left behind for the benefit of those who desired to see Lord Krsna as a material being with a material body. His Yogamaya potency does things like this. As soon as Krsna left the scene, there was a body left there. Factually that body is sacidananda vigraha yet appeared by Yogamaya's potency to be cast off and just laying there inert. Thus a "so-called material body" was left behind in the material world. There is no contradiction. Unless you are looking for an argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kulapavana Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 There can be no injury or bleeding to the absolute form of Krishna. (...) When various incarnations of the Lord fight demons they sometimes make a display of bleeding to make it more real. The Lord does not need a material body to bleed. Govardhan Hill can bleed. Lord Varaha fought Hiranyaksa for 1000 years and He was displaying bleeding from His wounds. Was Lord Varaha's body material too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kulapavana Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 There is no contradiction. There is no contradiction because Krsna never has a material body. What is produced at the end of the pastime - be it a flash of light, a pile of ash, or anything else, is just part of the show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suchandra Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 According to Prabhupada, Christ Jesus was an avatar of God, i.e., God’s representative, or one of His human manifestations on Earth. He regarded Jesus as his guru and stated that Krishna (Krista) and Christ (Kristos) are two of the many different names of the same supreme personal God. Prabhupada saw no difference between Christ and Krishna. God is one, portrayed differently in different cultures by his different names and pastimes. It can now be speculated that the Christian account of the appearance of Christ on Earth, bears relevance to understanding the appearance of Krishna as Vishnu’s avatar on Earth as described in the Vedic literature. Importantly, Christ assured his followers that He had a body of flesh and blood, just like them. And in the end, he suffered and died on the cross. Although his body resurrected three days later, Jesus died like an ordinary human being. Moreover, it’s a central theme in Christianity that through His suffering and death, Christ took upon himself the sins of the world. And as a result of this sacrifice, humanity is freed from the bondage of care, strife and sin. This Christian believe is highly reminiscent of the Vedic notion of karma and karmic reactions, according to which the overall balance between positive and negative karma is subject to change as a consequence of collective material suffering and enjoyment experienced by all human beings. In conclusion: Christ had a material body and died a material death on Earth (although His spirit ultimately reunited with God the Father). His material suffering even may have caused a strong positive karmic reaction to free all of humanity. So if Krishna and Christ are both avatars of the same God (Vishnu), then it seems most likely that Krishna also had a material body and died a material death.. Material or spiritual - this rather depends upon the realization of the contemplator. At least people used to have style. St.Peter was crucified upside down after he reputedly stated that he was not worthy to die as Jesus did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy108 Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 There is no contradiction because Krsna never has a material body. What is produced at the end of the pastime - be it a flash of light, a pile of ash, or anything else, is just part of the show. Very true. It seems that the use of the description "so called material body" leads people to speculate and play with the idea that Krsna can accept a material body yet because he takes it, it is actually spiritual. Since Krsna himself says that he permeates the Mahat Tattva, but simultaneously remains aloof, that tells me that He Himself, as the Original Visnu Tattva, simply expands his own transcendental body to appear as a dead body. If he was ever in that form, it was never made of material elements, as if he could put a cloak of material stuff around his essence and allow that stuff to remain material until he drops it. Even though material things are his energy, we are discussing a fine point of philosophy where we must make a distinction. Any bodily form that Krsna animates in a display of pastimes simply cannot be made of his temporary material energy. I do not believe saying so limits Krsna in any way. There is no conceivable reason why he would NEED to do such a thing. It would serve no purpose. And if there were a purpose to be served by such an act, one of the Goswamis or some Acarya would have delineated this ability in the course of glorifying his opulences. Until I hear it from some authority like that.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonic Yogi Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 11.31.20 rāma-patnyaś ca tad-deham upaguhyāgnim āviśan vasudeva-patnyas tad-gātraḿ pradyumnādīn hareḥ snuṣāḥ kṛṣṇa-patnyo 'viśann agniḿ rukmiṇy-ādyās tad-ātmikāḥ SYNONYMS rāma-patnyaḥ — the wives of Lord Balarāma; ca — and; tat-deham — His body; upaguhya — embracing; agnim — the fire; āviśan — entered; vasudeva-patnyaḥ — the wives of Vasudeva; tat-gātram — his body; pradyumna-ādīn — Pradyumna and the others; hareḥ — of Lord Hari; snuṣāḥ — the daughters-in-law; kṛṣṇa-patnyaḥ — the wives of Lord Kṛṣṇa; aviśan — entered; agnim — the fire; rukmiṇī-ādyāḥ — led by Queen Rukmiṇī; tat-ātmikāḥ — whose consciousness was completely absorbed in Him. TRANSLATION The wives of Lord Balarāma also entered the fire and embraced His body, and Vasudeva's wives entered his fire and embraced his body. The daughters-in-law of Lord Hari entered the funeral fires of their respective husbands, headed by Pradyumna. And Rukmiṇī and the other wives of Lord Kṛṣṇa — whose hearts were completely absorbed in Him — entered His fire. PURPORT It is understood that the anguished scene described here is a display of the Lord's illusory potency, adding a final dramatic note to Lord Kṛṣṇa's pastimes on the earth. In reality, Lord Kṛṣṇa returned to His eternal abode in His original body, and His eternal associates returned with Him. This final heartbreaking scene of the Lord's pastimes is a creation of the Lord's internal potency that brings the Lord's manifest pastimes to a perfect dramatic end. Is Srimad Bhagavatam authority enough? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy108 Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 Is Srimad Bhagavatam authority enough? Where does that say that when here in the material world, Krsna's personal body was a material one? I read it 3 times, and can't find it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.