krishna - an Advaitin?

[Guest guest]

Suppose we were to throw away all the things that are beyond rational comprehension (such as Krishna holding up the Govardhana hill with the finger) as mythology and still see Krishna as a real person who existed at a time and preached to another real person Arjuna on a battlefield. Then it seems to me that Krishna, an "ordinary" human being, is one who had an extraordinary perception of His universal Identity and spoke from that standpoint to Arjuna who was deluged in individual identity.

 

This perception does not require that He is a master of modern physics and mathematics, at the level of the individual mind. Where he talks of complete knowledge, he speaks from the higher standpoint; the same is true when he speaks of being all-pervading, etc. The details he expounds as to the journey of souls could be reiterations based on the words of the Vedic Rishis, with full conviction in their validity but not personal knowledge necessarily. That is, they could be right or wrong, but that is not the essential thrust of Krishna's message, which would not be lessened were he to be ignorant of the workings of a microwave.

 

I like an analogy: the Reality is a tree; the flowers and leaves are individual manifestations. Krishna is one flower and Arjuna another, except Krishna knows His true Identity is that of the tree whereas Arjuna does not.

 

We may say for counter arguments that the flowers are non-eternal but their first roots are in eternal buds (jivatmas). That is fine (I cannot disprove it!), and we may state that both viewpoints are acceptable. The point should be clear however that to keep Krishna a reality we must afford to Arjuna the same essential reality except for degree of knowledge of truth. Krishna Himself by freely taking on the standpoint of the Tree equally validates the Advaitic viewpoint of Reality as He naturally may for other viewpoints.

 

As for Govardhana hill, setting of the sun or Vishwaroopa Darshana, bhakthas can contend to reality of all that by perhaps affording truth to the theory of Yoga, and Krishna being also a great Yogi was able to perform such feats. (This is almost Duruyodana's contention!!) But I would not strictly argue a distinct status to Krishna's reality based on such episodes. If we can free ourselves from having to accept everything or nothing, then perhaps we can save for ourselves the personality of Krishna and revere/adore/worship Him as the Greatest of Gurus. Otherwise, rationally speaking, Krishna Himself in entirety becomes imagination in the minds of great sages.

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna

 

Lord Chaitanya has said "Mayaavaada Bhasya sunneela Hobe Sarvaanaash" which means One who listens to MayaVaadi he is doomed.

 

The Mayaavadis always are offenders on the Bhagavad Gita . they want to take Lord Krishna instructions but they are not ready to believe him. even Sri Sankaracharya has said in his Gita commentary "Narayana paro vyaktad" which means Lord Visnu is different from this material world....

These advaitis want to become Krishna..but they do not realize they no one can become Lord Krishna.........If some one became God.....who was before God?

 

One should never listen to queries which say Lord Krishna preached Advaita.

 

All glories to Vaisnava Acaryas

Hare Krishna

 

[Guest guest]

Your basic assumptions and discarding of Krishna's powers because they aren't "rational" can easily lead one to believe Krishna is merely ignorant. Not of his own true Nature, but of being the authority to speak about such things when he hasn't directly experienced the Truth. By the way, many scientific experiments defy "rational" ideas, because "rationality" is a product of our limited experience of the universe. We have not even begun to test the extremes of certain conditions in science and math to see whether many of these "laws" actually hold true. In fact, many do not, and we find surprising things about them, some of them are unexplainable while others are contributed by new factors that come into play when extremes are tested.

 

In any case, even though Krishna's universal identification does not REQUIRE knowledge of science and math, there is direct yogic experience of such things although expressed in a different terminology using the words god, brahman, etc. to equate their functions with everyday reality. What we have gained through science is a manifestation of the creative spark in us, though in a far more limited sense than that of yogis. The limits of our own intelligence is far beyond our own comprehension, we just have to tap into it. Most people are fine to tap into the shallower levels as it requires less work. There's a factor of genetics (possibly a carryover from reincarnation, where past lives dealt as well with intellectual pursuits), environment, and of course the Self within, the repository of all knowledge, including knowledge of how the Universe functions, that is responsible for how much we are able to tap into this knowledge. Mathematics, science, and every other type of knowledge is an expression of one function or another of the universe. It would be folly to think that yogis did not have access to such knowledge.

 

Also, your contention that Krishna was a mere mortal espousing Vedic ideas to Arjuna, and not actually talking from direct experience would make him on equal footing with Arjuna, or possibly less, as without direct knowledge he is merely blind leading the blind. Direct knowledge is most important, it doesn't matter what scriptures say, as many of them are written by ignorant people, who can pass themselves off as enlightened when they are not.

 

I do know however, that such things as shaktipat and showing another the true Reality with simply a touch or word or whatever, is possible and true as my own aunt has experienced such a thing. In fact, Krishna even gives Arjuna a vision of his own cosmic form! If you choose to discount everything except what makes "sense" to you from the Gita, then yours is a selective interpretation not borne from understanding and wisdom, but borne from ignorance. You too can experience the Self if you did the work required. Simply reading some words on a page does not change your reality or identity with reality unless you are a fool easily deluded. You must have direct experience, put those words to the test and see their veracity.

 

Again, your argument seems to be more on the line of accept Krishna as a glorified yogi, or a glorified man who was thoroughly ordinary aside from his unusual perception of his identity with the universe, or merely a product of the sages' imaginations. Why can't people accept him as God? They don't have to buy into any of your ideas, they can simply worship Him and see Him if they are lucky enough. You like to talk as if you are enlightened through your precious rational mind, but as I have stated before "rationality" is overrated, as it is a product of your own limitations and limited experience of the universe. To many a rational mind in this world, accepted scientific facts are "irrational". The only reason they are accepted is because these facts were first theorized to explain abnormal phenomena, rigorously tested to see if the phenomena are explained through these theoretical facts, and then the theoretical facts become laws of science, or of nature. In the end, our rational minds have been subverted with the product of new experiences that have to be absorbed in our everyday consciousness, but they were never inherently rational as we do not experience these laws of nature in our everyday life. In other words, your rationality means absolutely nothing and stems from ignorance.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Despite my arguments, I do think Krishna was a great yogi, speaking from the Self to Arjuna and he actually possessed yogic powers. I also believe he was not a pure advaitin, as he did state we retain at least some separation from God, that we have our own identities, yet we are also merged in God. That we are cells of God, and we are merely limited in quantity but same in quality makes him a vishistadvaitin, not a true advaitin who argues we become completely One with God and our identity is that of God, and none other.

 

I also like to state, that Krishna was an avatar of God, that we are all avatars of God, but our ability to express our Godhood is what differentiates us from others, and nothing more.

 

AS for the idea that if a person becomes God, then who was before God, that question could easily be who was before God in the first place? What caused God to exist?

 

[Guest guest]

Friend, your statement that my rationality stems from ignorance is absolutely correct. It is complete recognition of this fact that makes me wish to validate Krishna according to the constraints placed by my mind. If I did otherwise, I would be beguiling myself.

 

I am not saying Krishna was ignorant of the English language, but he very well could have been ignorant of it.

The same applies as to what happens to the soul after one dies and so on. Perhaps the yogi knows all this, but both you and I are ignorant of whether this is the case. You in your ignorance affirm this, and I in my ignorance try to go around the issue and attempt to hit the kernel without gobbling up all the metaphysics.

 

Again, I do not say that Krishna as the Personal Godhead is false; but it is not necessary: in this world I find ordinary men and women and those who exemplify knowledge and enlightenment. I look back and see that Krishna could have been a fully enlightened person, and I try to align this perception with his words and message. He is an Advaitin par excellence if he were considered human, and a Visishtadvaitin, Advaitin, Dvaitin, etc. if we pre-identify and distinguish him as God. In the latter case, we have our standard and ancient arguments on the issue. Krishna to me becomes far more real and intimate if I could identify his personality with something I could understand: humanity. In fact, Bhakthas do this all the while: Krishna my friend, etc. Arjuna looked upon Krishna as friend; the Gopis as lover, Yashoda as child. As I have read, they did not want to think of Krishna as all-pervading Godhead. Do you see? I also don't care for this all-pervading Godhead Krishna who appears nice in books but absolutely beyond my comprehension. I may take him as Guru, friend, and He becomes at once the greatest knower and possessor of wisdom who at the same time is very similar and close to me. Moreover it frees me, for like a child might think the mother is ignorant of this and that, and yet not feel lessened in mutual love, so also I am free to revere Krishna and not feel obligated to think of Him in some unknown sense.

 

His words then indicate Advaita (due to my understanding of Him), but He remains friend and Guru. His Knowledge is not mine and the way need not necessarily be by chanting "Aham Brahmasmi". My way of worship can be in His service and devotion, as a Sishya would to a Guru (even devout disciples do not in general think of their Guru as all-pervading and all-knowing but their devotion and love and reverence need not be questioned on this account.)

 

(Well, I could have argued madly but this seems a better way things came out.)