Krishna is revealed in the Vedas

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

 

-Chandogya Upanishad (8.13.1)

syamac chabalam prapadye sabalac chyamam prapadye

 

TRANSLATION

By the worship of that Parabrahma of blackish complexion, one attains Sri Hari's divine abode, which is replete with varieties of transcendental paraphernalia and pastimes; and by reaching that variegated abode, one attains Syamasundara Sri Krsna.

 

 

- Rg Veda (1.22.164.31)

apasyam gopam anipadyama nama

 

TRANSLATION

I saw a cowherd boy, who is imperishable.

 

[Guest guest]

firstly, i must say that is a pretty long translation for such a short sentance. where did u get sri krishna from that translation. the sanskrit had no krishna in there......

 

but anyway, it doesnt surprise me since the upanishads are a later addition to the vedas, which are belived to have been orally created around 3000BC which is also the time of Krishna. it wasnt written till like 1500BC so i can see where a mention of Sri Krishna can find its way in

[Guest guest]

mentioned in the Rg veda

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

Syama can only mean Krishna

[Guest guest]

"Syama can only mean Krishna "

 

Then why is it that there's so much doubt among everyone that Krsna is mentioned in the Vedas?

 

Maybe to you syama means Krsna, but does it have other meanings? What are all the meanings of Syama?

 

Where is it said by a true guru, or a true Sanskrit scholar who is UNBIASED about the origin and name of the lord, who is not a Vaisnava necessarily, and places truth above all else, that Syama means Krsna?

 

[Guest guest]

VIII-xiii-1: From the dark I attain to the variegated from the variegated I attain to the dark. Shaking off evil as a horse his hairs, shaking off the body as the moon frees itself from the mouth of Rahu, I, having fulfilled all ends, obtain the eternal Brahman-world – yea, I obtain it.

 

 

 

Above is given the translation of full passage. Read it. If you are of open mind then you will understand, who Krishna is.

 

 

And about Rig Veda passage, read the next few lines also:

 

31 I saw the Herdsman, him who never stumbles, approaching by his pathways and departing. He, clothed with gathered and diffusive splendour, within the worlds continually travels.

 

32 He who hath made him cloth not comprehend him: from him who saw him surely is he hidden. He, yet enveloped in his Mother's bosom, source of much life, hath sunk into destruction.

 

 

Note: He, yet enveloped in his Mother's bosom, source of much life, hath sunk into destruction. He is source of life and also the destruction. And those who have clothes him, do not know Him.

 

 

And also

 

52 The Bird Celestial, vast with noble pinion, the lovely germ of plants, the germ of waters, Him who delighteth us with rain in season, Sarasvan I invoke that he may help us.

 

 

PLease know who brings us rain and life alongwith. And then the same is also the destruction.

 

 

 

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

 

Vaishnavas have said Syama means Krishna.

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

SB 11.14.3: The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: By the influence of time, the transcendental sound of Vedic knowledge was lost at the time of annihilation. Therefore, when the subsequent creation took place, I spoke the Vedic knowledge to Brahma because I Myself am the religious principles enunciated in the Vedas.

--

 

 

[Guest guest]

******** The Supreme Personality of Godhead ************

 

What is this 'Supreme Personality'?. Are there non-supreme personalities also?

 

You seem to imply that this 'Supreme Personality' and Godhead are different entities. A result of over-stressing may be.

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

 

Personal qualities. Godhead implied Supremacy.

 

Krishna is therefore the Supreme. And also has innate qualities unsurpassed within the creation. Therefore the word being used here is stressed again and again.

 

You cannot say Gods personality is different from His own person. Otherwise you cannot say Eternity exists in Godhead. God is always a person eternally. So therefore His personality and the qualities there of go with Godhead. Krishna has all the Qualities of His various expansions is compete whole. You may like to read Isopanishad.

 

http://www.krsnaconsciousness.org/Isopanisad.exe

 

This book explains very well, and is one of the oldest and most revered of the Upanishads.!

 

 

[Guest guest]

when it's not the truth? It's merely a biased interpretation? Syama evidently does NOT mean Krsna in the literal sense. Maybe Vaishnavas connect Syama to Krsna, but that does not make Syama and Krsna equivalent when actually reading the text with an unbiased perspective.

 

"Vaishnavas have said Syama means Krishna. "

 

[Guest guest]

"Are there non-supreme personalities also?"

 

me and you for example

[Guest guest]

***** "Are there non-supreme personalities also?"

 

me and you for example ***********

 

Ha Ha. So, you are a pesonality of god?

 

 

[Guest guest]

VIII-xiii-1: From the dark I attain to the variegated from the variegated I attain to the dark. Shaking off evil as a horse his hairs, shaking off the body as the moon frees itself from the mouth of Rahu, I, having fulfilled all ends, obtain the eternal Brahman-world – yea, I obtain it.

 

 

This is the translation. Others know Shyama as Kali.

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

This is a translation by a Mayavadi,.

 

The devotees of Krishna who have higher understanding..

 

Translate Syamac as krishna. We don't tend to read Mayavadi as its below us. But we understand that Sankracharya is an Acharya because in Vaishnavaisum he is accepted as the incarnation of Lord Shiva, who himself is always doing the needful service for Vishnu or Krishna.

 

I didn't come here to preach, I am merely stating the fact that in the Vedas Krishna is being stated in a mixed way, in fact throughtout the Vedas there is hidden meaning in each verses. These are so that people with no knowledge or devotion to Krishna can misrepresent them..

 

That is why the Cream of the Vedas the Vedanta-sutra in the form of Srimad Bhagavatam is accepted. I am to believe Sankracharya didn't touch Bhagavatam in any of his intrepretations, he mainly taught covered Buddisum to the people of India at that time.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

"The devotees of Krishna who have higher understanding.."

 

And what do you base this on?

 

Making statements without evidence, without support for your convictions means you have no understanding yourself and are merely a follower, not an independent thinker.

 

I'm not a mayavadi, I personally am drawn to Krsna. But I refuse to make statements such as he is the truth and all others who do not worship him are deluded souls. Such thinking is characteristic of Christianity and Islam, and it's about religious bigots.

 

Until you KNOW the truth and can verify it to others, you shouldn't be saying who's more right about their understanding of God.

 

And don't tell me proof is in scriptures or with an acharya, because there are hundreds of different scriptures, hundreds of different interpretations, hundreds of different perspectives.

 

If you haven't learned the truth yourself, and you rely on other people's versions of the truth, then you have learned nothing.

 

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

 

YOU tell me what is the truth?

 

I am trying to understand God, not your tiny mind!?

 

Your too funny. I hope you see my point, hare krsna.

[Guest guest]

Intelligent response. Very mature /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[Guest guest]

Making statements without evidence, without support for your convictions means you have no understanding yourself and are merely a follower, not an independent thinker.

 

I'm not a mayavadi, I personally am drawn to Krsna. But I refuse to make statements such as he is the truth and all others who do not worship him are deluded souls. Such thinking is characteristic of Christianity and Islam, and it's about religious bigots.

 

Until you KNOW the truth and can verify it to others, you shouldn't be saying who's more right about their understanding of God.

 

And don't tell me proof is in scriptures or with an acharya, because there are hundreds of different scriptures, hundreds of different interpretations, hundreds of different perspectives.

 

If you haven't learned the truth yourself, and you rely on other people's versions of the truth, then you have learned nothing.

 

 

 

In reply to the above : Good post. Intelligent, openminded, wise, non-dogmatic... mature /images/graemlins/smile.gif