krishnas relations immoral?

[Guest guest]

Guest ji

 

 

***** Oh.. so you think this fool called rajashekar is a realized soul. **********

 

Where did I say this. Knowing something is not realization. You know it and I also know it.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

Where did I say this. Knowing something is not realization. You know it and I also know it.

 

 

I don't know how can one know without knowing. Either one knows or simply pretends to know.

[Guest guest]

******* I don't know how can one know without knowing. Either one knows or simply pretends to know. **********

 

One can know through scriptures and sat-sanga.

 

But then:

 

Br. Up.

 

Knowing this let one meditate.

 

 

Just knowing is not realization. Knowing is with mind.

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

 

Namaskar Atanu

 

Re

(I do not know. I think that the puranas as they exist are true and pure but cryptic to some extent. And since nothing happens without the sanction of Niyati (I believe), nothing is impure.)

 

Your belief is perfect how can I forget the meaning of Niyati.

I have always been of the opinion that what ever happens is for the best, but that does not mean we do not distinguish between good and bad. People do come up with different opinion unraveling the cryptic.

 

Re

(It is the ego that gives the quality. Impurity lies in the wrong "i" thought, which further ramifies into "i do this" or that" and further. )

 

prakrteh kriyamanani

gunaih karmani sarvasah

ahankara-vimudhatma

kartaham iti manyate

 

 

All works are being done by the Gunas (or the energy and power) of nature, but due to delusion of ego people assume themselves to be the doer. (See also 5.09, 13.29, and 14.19) (3.27)

 

Re

(When it is realised that Lord is the doer then impurity vanishes.)

 

The Lord neither creates the urge for action nor the feeling of doership nor the attachment to the results of action in people. All these are done by the (Gunas of) nature. (5.14)

 

 

 

Re

(Rig Veda is clear. What is ONE, sages call by different name.)

 

If only this is understood by all, unfortunately it is not to be, mine is better then yours attitude prevails in this age of hypocrisy.

 

 

 

Siva as incarnated Vamadeva or Sankara worships Vishnu as the Self. Similarly, Vishnu as Parashurama, Rama, Nara Narayan, or Krishna worships Siva as the Self.

 

 

Re

(There is no contradiction. But ego would not easily like to belittle its own love of preferences. So, ego begins to compare the infinite to infinite. Ego is born to enjoy the preferences but becomes martyr by the same preferences. It does not react in same fashion to heat and cold and joy and sorrow.)

 

So this debate rages on and on and on.

 

Re

(Puranas do not make short work of Shiva or Vishnu but

Puranas make short work of this ego.

Anyone who is led to study Vedas and Upanishads soon learn through sage Yajnavalkya or sage Gautama that there are no 33 gods. All the 33 gods are powers of one Self which is also the life in all.

The Lord alone has the power to say "I". You may fervently search for ages but you will fail to find that which says "I" in you. Wherefrom the "I" is coming?)

 

I and mine is root of the problem, but if not for i who is to be known who is to be understood who is to be searched?

 

Re

(Have you killed two birds with one stone here? You are surely deeper than what I and others percieve. My regards.)

 

Only thing I need to kill is my ego but you are doing a fine job of massaging it.

 

 

Om Namah Sivayya

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[Guest guest]

***** Only thing I need to kill is my ego but you are doing a fine job of massaging it. ***********

 

Brought a laugh to me.

 

 

****** The Lord neither creates the urge for action nor the feeling of doership nor the attachment to the results of action in people. All these are done by the (Gunas of) nature. (5.14)**********

 

 

This truth. But Samkhya truth. Are the Gunas different from Lord?

 

 

Does not Lord Krishna also say "I am the doer and I am the enjoyer".

 

 

It is the acchedyo atma ('yam) to which the following applies.

 

The Lord neither creates the urge for action nor the feeling of doership nor the attachment to the results of action in people. All these are done by the (Gunas of) nature. (5.14)

 

 

And this verse is the ultimate but make many lose interest in non-interested atma.

 

 

[Rajashekhar 0]

[Rig Veda states that Rudra is the only self dependent god. And it also states that Rama (son of Dasharatha) will be known as parabrahman. Yajur Veda and many upanishads state that Rudra has...]

 

This is not accurate at all. No part of Rig Veda states that Rama will be known as Parabrahman. Do you have references? If not, your statement will be just another opinion.

 

[That is what Madhava (in this site) also says. But truly, the sense "I have to do this" or "I have done this", will defeat the purpose. What is wrong and what is right? Who has to decide? What your mind says to be wrong will be proclaimed as correct by another mind. Who is wrong and who is correct?]

 

What you are saying is what Jehovah's Witnesses say. They tell me that if they see a murder happening, they just run away.

 

You along with 850 million other Hindus are afraid of thinking about Rama's character primarily because you are conditioned to think that Rama can do no wrong. I have said before and I will say it again: Rama and Krishna were both humans; they aged (did not stop aging at 26, whatever staunch Hare Krishna people like Govindram say) and they died. Between their births and deaths, they lived the lives of humans which includes occasional mistakes. They were great men; but no gods.

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Raju

 

Rama was the Supreme Self. He was never subject to joy or sorrow, birth or death, pleasure or pain. But, throughout his life, Sri Rama behaved like an ordinary man only. He had to do that, because Ravana had a boon that he could not be killed by Devas, Asuras, Rakshasas, Yakshas, serpents, bears, etc. Ravana, in his pride, had belittled the strength of man and Ravana could be killed only by a man. So Sri Rama had to show that he was an ordinary man only. Otherwise, if Rama had exhibited himself to be a god, according to the boon of Brahma, he would have been disqualified for destroying Ravana.

 

Regarding rasalila, what was the age of Lord Krishna at that time? Was He not a boy of seven? Can there be a tinge of passion in Him? Who can understand the secret of Rasa Lila and Madhurya Bhav, the culmination of the highest Bhakti, Atmanivedan or total surrender to the Lord? It is only Narada, Suka Deva, Chaitanya, Mira, Hafiz, Ramananda and the Sakhis or Gopis that can understand the secret of Rasa Lila. The Sakhis only are qualified for this. Did He not play miracles when he was a boy? Did He not show that He was the Avatara of Lord Hari? Did He not show Virat Darshan to His mother when He was a baby? Did He not kill the Kaliya serpent by standing on its hood? Did He not multiply Himself as countless Krishnas? Who were the Gopis? Were they not God-intoxicated beings who saw Krishna alone everywhere, who saw themselves also as Krishna? The sound of the Murali could throw them into a state of divine ecstasy or holy communion. They were above body consciousness.

 

You cannot entirely separate Bhakti from Jnana. When Bhakti matures, it becomes transmuted into Jnana. A real Jnani is a devotee of Lord Hari, Lord Krishna, Lord Rama, Lord Siva, Durga, Sarasvati, Lakshmi, Lord Jesus and Buddha. He is a Samarasa Bhakta. Some ignorant people think that a Jnani is a dry man and has no devotion. This is a sad mistake. A Jnani has a very, very large heart. Go through the hymns of Sri Sankaracharya and try to gauge the depth of his devotion. Go through the writings of Sri Appayya Dikshitar and measure the magnanimous depths of his unbounded devotion. Jnana intensifies Bhakti. He who has a knowledge of Vedanta is well established in his devotion. He is steady and firm. Some ignorant people say that if a Bhakta studies Vedanta, he will lose his devotion. This is wrong. Study of Vedanta is an auxiliary to increase and develop one’s devotion.

 

J. Kasare

[Guest guest]

******** Rig Veda states that Rudra is the only self dependent god. And it also states that Rama (son of Dasharatha) will be known as parabrahman. Yajur Veda and many upanishads state that Rudra has...]

 

This is not accurate at all. No part of Rig Veda states that Rama will be known as Parabrahman. Do you have references? If not, your statement will be just another opinion. **********

 

 

I will bring the reference. It will take some time as I am occupied with something else now,

 

But I promise.

 

******* What you are saying is what Jehovah's Witnesses say. They tell me that if they see a murder happening, they just run away. **********

 

 

That I did not say. Impelled by Gunas one will do something and I assure you that most will run away only.

 

What I said was, 'give up the idea of doership' -- if you are interested in spirituality.

 

 

****** You along with 850 million other Hindus are afraid of thinking about Rama's character primarily because you are conditioned to think that Rama can do no wrong. I have said before and I will say it again: Rama and Krishna were both humans; they aged (did not stop aging at 26, whatever staunch Hare Krishna people like Govindram say) and they died. Between their births and deaths, they lived the lives of humans which includes occasional mistakes. They were great men; but no gods. ***********

 

 

I respect you for your conviction and certain truths that you fearlessly bring out.

 

Every being is adi daivam. One who has truly given up desires of one's ego or has vanquished the ego, is fit to be called God.

 

True Self Realised Gurus also fall in this category. But Govind Ram ji and a few others apply different rules for their own preferences and just abuse others feelings. As far as you know at present, you are not contradicting Vedas. But I promise, I will show you the reference.

 

It is also true that certain overzealous people have even modified Bala Kanda of Valmiki Ramayana to show what is not there in Vedas.

 

Om Namh Sivayya.

 

And I repeat. Happenings are not controlled by the small self.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Mata Durge Sharanam Namah

 

 

Vedavedye pare pumsi jate Dasarathatmaje Vedah Pracetasadasitssaksadramayanatmana

 

"Vedavedye"=one who is to be known by the Vedas. Who is he? "Pare pumsi"=the Supreme Being. The Supreme being to be known by the Vedas descended to earth as Dasarathatmaje.

 

 

This was quoted by Kanchi Paramacarya in one of his work. Still need to find out the source -- vedas, upanishads, or Ramayana or some other?

 

 

Can some one help?

[Guest guest]

Can anyone find out the source of this

 

Vedavedye pare pumsi jate Dasarathatmaje Vedah Pracetasadasitssaksadramayanatmana

 

"Vedavedye"=one who is to be known by the Vedas. Who is he? "Pare pumsi"=the Supreme Being. The Supreme being to be known by the Vedas descended to earth as Dasarathatmaje.

 

 

This was quoted by Kanchi Paramacarya in one of his work. Still need to find out the source -- vedas, upanishads, or Ramayana or some other?

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

Know the context properly before you come to a conclusion.

When Krishna defeated one of the asuras he rescued 16000 women/ladies kidnapped by this asura. Imagine you are talking about Dwapar Yug and in those days a woemn kept by someone else even if forcefully will not be taken in by anybody as a wife? Such was the social stigma. Would you take a women as your wife if she was kidnapped by a criminal and kept for many days? These 16000 women knowing fully that their return to any family life was impossible prayed to SriKrishna that He take all of them with Him. He agreed inspite of an Avataar and Lord Vishnu Humsalf he agrred to take all those women as his family and only a God can do it because he is Extremely Kind and Kripalu. He didnot marry them for the sake of physical desires.

 

Even today how many men have guts to take a kidnapped women as a wife?

 

 

[Guest guest]

But is Rudra of the Vedas the same God as Shiva? That's what we've been led to believe, but is it really so? It could be that later Shiva and Rudra were combined to be Shiva of the Puranas. I always wondered that even though Shiva is a popular God in Hinduism, why his name is not mentioned in the Rig Veda? And why was he Rudra? Why the name-change?

 

I also read a book that said Shiva was Indra of the Rig Veda and Vishnu was identified with the sun. What's going on? In the Gita it says there are 11 Rudra's. Then which one is Shiva and who are the others? Why can't Hindus be clear on these things. Is it because they don't really know and guess most of the time?

 

Hinduism can be so contradictory and confusing, it's off-puttin!

[Guest guest]

Hi guest 2. Good to see you are still there, if you get my drift. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

 

From historical point of view Harrapan deity Pasupati was the first Shiva like figure.He has a tiger skin and sits in yoga position. The vedic god Rudra and this Pasupati seem to have merged.

 

Why can't Hindus be clear on these things. Is it because they don't really know and guess most of the time?

 

 

 

Easy. Many stories are contradicting. That is something everybody in all honesty has to admitt. Who will deny this is just not fair.

 

One story says deva A is greater, another says deva B. Another says they are the same and another one says there is a small or even big difference.

 

Because of the this different stories we have different streams. Or...even better..we have different stories because we have different streams. Can you follow ?

 

[..Hinduism can be so contradictory and confusing, it's off-puttin!]

 

 

 

Look at the bright side /images/graemlins/laugh.gif Picture this: less confusing and frustrating if one understands that many stories are not written by one and the same.They reflect different views and different sympathies of people.Less confusing now?

 

Others will give you other explanations ofcourse but this is the a more rational one. But don't see it as a put off, some stories are good and contain wisdom. But it takes some cristalising.

 

Gr.

[Guest guest]

youare missing an important point... that the transcendental activities of deities or devotees can be understood only through spiritual realization

 

a neophite's mind will surely find discrepances... even if there aren't

 

religion is not only culture, but to increase the understanding's capacity from subhuman to human to superhuman

[Guest guest]

Thnx for replying. If you put a initial, name or number instead or after the word guest you are distinguisheble from others.

 

Kee now...ready?

 

youare missing an important point... that the transcendental activities of deities or devotees can be understood only through spiritual realization

 

a neophite's mind will surely find discrepances... even if there aren't

 

religion is not only culture, but to increase the understanding's capacity from subhuman to human to superhuman

 

 

 

How about YOU are missing an important point now and having a neophyte mind. What if you lack understanding and realisation?

 

you've commented about human capacity. Nice to see you believe in human capacity !

 

Let me start from an easy understandle point now..Look around you my friend

 

Televisions, cars, computers,mathematics, microwaves, telephones etc. Products of human capacity and creativity.

 

You need more human creativity ?

 

Movies, ever saw spiderman, godfather or Lord of the Rings ? Wow, these hobbits must exist. We can even see them on screen. This must be real /images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

Computer games. They will almost feel like your actually IN the game huh?Look at the fictional worlds and creatures! /images/graemlins/shocked.gif Human creativity.

 

Music and poetry. Nices thing huh? human capacity and creativity.

 

Stories and novels, never read Umberto Eco, Jules verne or Tolkien? Good stories my friend and its man made.

 

Fables ( no not them )I mean stories about talking animals. Nice stories and there is a message and philosopy inserted in it too but..I DO hope you don't believe in talking rabbits and lions. /images/graemlins/grin.gif Human capacity.

 

Anyway, I am not the one that has underestimated the human creativity to create the most fantastic stories. Looks like you have /images/graemlins/grin.gif.

 

But..if you can come up with other arguments like " only advanced souls will understand" or "we don't have the

capacity to understand blabla" we can discuss further.

 

If you cannot not...well, read some nice story.

 

[Guest guest]

Nice to see you believe in human capacity !

--i believe in the human capacity to understand something, and to recognize the need of increase our intelligence to try understand something that now is impossible even to imagine.

 

It happens every day in any science, art or work.

 

doing them you acquire gradually the skills that you need to progress in understanding---

 

So.. to think that it is possible to understand the falsity or the autenticity of scriptures or part of them without accepting a spiritual process is a nonsense

[Guest guest]

GuestM

 

Thanks for that.

 

{From historical point of view Harrapan deity Pasupati was the first Shiva like figure.He has a tiger skin and sits in yoga position. The vedic god Rudra and this Pasupati seem to have merged.}

 

I've always thought something like that. But then again some believe that Indra and Rudra were older gods than Shiva, then you have the argument with what truly is 'vedic' and what is Harrapan.

I can't take Hindu mythology seriously anyway as the stories are so contadictory and some border on the ridiculous, maybe they are not to be taken seriously. Even though the 18 puranas are contradictory, they are attibuted to the same author Vyasa - but as Vyasa simply means complier there could have been any number of Vyasa' who wrote them.

 

Some hindus are saying the devas are different forms of the one Brahman and others say the devas are more like angels who give blessings and God is above and beyond them.

[Guest guest]

Hi unknown guest. Topic has changed a bit Btw Anyway..since nobody objects...

 

I believe in the human capacity to understand something, and to recognize the need of increase our intelligence to try understand something that now is impossible even to imagine.

 

 

 

 

Like I said before..Same old childish arguments : " we cannot understand unless we are devotees blabla ". You think this is an intelligent answer? well...now, let us see if you like the same logic in this example :

 

"some eternal teachings of Koran can only be understood if we are becoming true followers of the prophet. Kafir-minds ( unbelievers )cannot understand because their eyes are not cleared yet.If we think we see contradictions or "illogical " teachings in the koran than we must understand that these teachings are beyond the capacity of our human little minds. Only allah knows and it is allah who will remove the dust out of our eyes if we become true moslems." The nessacity of destroying Idols is not understandeble for everyone but when we become true moslems we will be given the necessarily intelligence.

 

Liked it ? Reckonized your simple way of arguments ? Come on please...try something new.

[Guest guest]

Like I said before..Same old childish arguments : " we cannot understand unless we are devotees blabla ".

••it is childish to think at religion as a simple culture, notions to learn and understand with simple human mind.. otherwise why religions propose prayers, mantras, rites and so on?

 

some eternal teachings of Koran can only be understood if we are becoming true followers of the prophet. Kafir-minds ( unbelievers )cannot understand because their eyes are not cleared yet.

••it is partially true... partially because the fundamental religion's principles are the same everywhere . If you are a perfect vedic practitioneer and realized spiritualist, you undestand also other religions and you can discriminate what, in such religions, is spiritualism and what's materialism.

But if you simply judge religions from an intellectual point of view, you won't understand.. so fanatical integralists will try to break murtis, you fanatical anti religious will try to break religious principles saying that transcendence does not exist, that religion does not make us increase our intelligence and so on..

 

Liked it ? Reckonized your simple way of arguments ?

••you are weak as religious man, weaker as intellectual

 

 

[Guest guest]

it is childish to think at religion as a simple culture, notions to learn and understand with simple human mind..

 

 

 

 

Funny, the more you reply , the more you prove my earlier point. " only devotees understand.." or "our minds are to little..". Same old arguments.

 

Don't underestimate human creativity to create myths , fables , religions and philosophies. Many hindus don't even believe in the true existence of 50 headed beeings with 100 legs and animal features. They don 't believe in the real existence of oceans made of juice and cow-milk. They take some things as a metaphor or antropomorphic representation of the power of nature.

 

You simply believe everything you read in books. If is written that the moon is made of cheese and is inhabited by gigantic invisible birds you would probably believe it too would'nt you ? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

Men can create books. Books can't create men.

 

[Guest guest]

Funny, the more you reply , the more you prove my earlier point. " only devotees understand.." or "our minds are to little..". Same old arguments.

--i have no intention to disprove such point... because it is truth. Religion is only marginally a culture, religion is a practice. If we do not practice it is impossible to understand. Like sports, music, drama, medicine..

 

Don't underestimate human creativity to create myths , fables , religions and philosophies.

--no objection

 

You simply believe everything you read in books

--you simply believe that religion is only reading a book

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Ignorance is one's biggest enemy!

 

Nobody is justifying when one defends of Krishna having 16,000 wives...he declared that to save the gopis, freed from the clutches of demons, as the gopis would have had the ill-reputation and a question of their being chaste after being in the captivity of the demon. Krsna declares it at an age of 5, where is the question of sex involved in it ????? Don't simply jump on to conclusion before looking at all the aspects.....Krsna didn't want the gopis to go through the tragedy that Sita suffered when she was held captive by Ravana.....

 

Coming to Rama...if you, or I, say that we would not have thrown our wife on some baseless allegations, please consider this...you and i are not Rama...it would hardly cause even a ripple to the general public, the society or the nation when compared to the position Rama was in...

 

Here the common people, who revere Rama as the incarnation of Vishnu, the people's King, the Noblest of all of the Bharat Varsh, has started talking about the purity of his wife i.e., their very own Queen, Sita. It was no doubt the work of evil-minded people who had spread this misinformation. Rama had foreseen this and hence he had asked Sita to give the 'Agni-Pariksha' to prove her purity, so that the matter never come up.... but you cannot stop evil minded people from spreading false information and slowly people started talking and believing in it…..Rama did not ask Sita to leave the very next day he heard of such rumour talk amongst his citizens, but it had spread to such an extent that it was out of his control to stop each and every man from talking or discussing it.....The affect was so enormous that people started showing their dislike openly towards their King for being ruled by a Queen whose purity was doubtful….this was detrimental to the kingdom, and the evils almost succeeded in their attempt, because when people lose faith in their leader there would be no unity and no trust amongst people……in such an extreme situation he consulted all his senior ministers, elders and teachers, who left him with the choice of taking a decision as to his or the nation’s betterment. Finally, after considering all the pros and cons he chose to abandon Sita,,,,,this is not cruelty, this is sacrificing one’s love for the nation and its people….this can only be understood by a person who is such hugely revered and has great responsibility and who is looked upon to deliver and sacrifice for the people and the followers whom he stands for and in doing that take care that the common people are not misled into their own doom even if it meant sacrificing his own life, loved ones or liking…….the effect of this was that the rumour ended and the tension eased up and a possible revolt by the evil minded people by support of the common citizens on false allegation was ended once and for all.

[Guest guest]

I can't take Hindu mythology seriously anyway as the stories are so contadictory and some border on the ridiculous, maybe they are not to be taken seriously. Even though the 18 puranas are contradictory, they are attibuted to the same author Vyasa - but as Vyasa simply means complier there could have been any number of Vyasa' who wrote them.

 

 

 

Right about that.Many don't take them literally. Most manuscripts are quit recent too so that explains some. But still there are some nice stories though.

 

Gr. M

 

The thread is getting back to the original topic, i've noticed

[jayan008 0]

Coming back to Krsna....his ‘Ras-Leela’ and love for Radha.

 

There is no such thing as romance between Radha and Krishna... It is known that Krsna left brindavan to slay Kamsa at the age of 10, while Radha who was elder to Krsna and was 16 at that time, so where is the question of a romance, it was purely friendship. If there was something, then how could Krsna, being the Lord, do such a thing like betraying someone whom he was romantically involved.

 

This is all a misleading concept….there is nothing such a ‘Radha-Krishna Romance’ and ‘Ras-Leela’…..it is all made up by none other than the Brahmins and high priests themselves to cover up their mistakes and past misdeeds.

 

It is a fact that Krsna’s birth was kept a secret and he spent his childhood staying with Yashoda and growing up with the Yadavas. Not even the religious priests of Kamsa’s kingdom knew about it initially. Hence, when little Krsna’s deeds slowly started spreading amongst people far and wide, they could not stand this. They reasoned how could a child amongst the Yadavs (one of the low caste) could do mystical things?? This was never heard of. Initially, even though they tried to ignored it, they got scared when Krsna’s deeds started fast spreading to all parts of the kingdom. This could spell disaster to their own clan, b’coz people will start worshipping and idolising Krsna, a yadav, and the brahmins and their temple of worship would be ignored…. much the same way, later, how the religious priests feared about their existence and faith when Christ started preaching and performed miracles...The brahmins then tried ways and means to curb Krsna,,,,,One of the ways, is said to be, was trying to hold back the yamuna water temporarily by poisoning it, so that the people on the banks, the yadavas, would starve....when it didn’t work, as Krsna slayed the snake demon who was used for poisoning the water, they used Krsna’s friendship with gopis. They questioned his actions, by spreading false allegations of Krsna being flirtatious with gopis, who steals their clothes when they bathed (infact, just one of the pranks a little child played out of innocence) and he was romantically involved with one of the gopi – Radha…….however, none of their tricks worked. Finally when they realised who Krsna was, after he slayed Kamsa, they started chanting his praises.

 

However, when people, inside the religious circle and some outside of it, who were not so impressed by Krsna and his sudden success started digging up old grave and darted back the same questions to the brahmins, who had used it initially, of Krsna’s alleged involvement with gopis and Radha, thus questioning their ultimate faith in Krsna. The brahmins stumbled, they were caught unawares. There was danger lurking, as the existence of a religious institution on its faith, was in question. Something had to be done sooner. This was a tough time for the brahmins, they had to prove that their ultimate faith – Krsna, was pure of all evils...Finally when they could not justify, they came up with the idea of glorifying it…..thus they glorified the romance as a divine example for all to follow and started singing hymns on divinity and purity of the Radha-Krishna relation, and dramatising the simple pranks he played as a child with the gopis as 'Ras-Leela', thus putting the critics to rest, while unashamedly hiding their own mistakes committed before. Infact Krishna-Radha relation should have been good example of a childhood friendship like that of Krsna-Sudama...