call for debate ? sadguna brahman is not eternal as per sankara

[Guest guest]

karthik and shvu - you have been holding this belief that sadguna brahman is not eternal. worst still - shvu has gone to the extent of saying krishna passes stool like we do. i would like to debate with you on this. please let me know which works of sankara you accept as authentic so that we can discuss based on that.

[karthik_v 0]

Yesterday, I also posted the words of Sankaracarya of Sringeri and all of that, apart from the works of Sankara, clearly state that only Nirguna Brahman is eternal. If you think that Sadguna Brahman, that is the form of the Lord, is also eternal and if you feel that Sankara says so, why don't you start presenting his arguments, with quotations? That would be the ideal starting point.

 

 

shvu has gone to the extent of saying krishna passes stool like we do. i would like to debate with you on this.

 

 

What is so shocking about that? I posted, a few months ago, translation of the passages from Brahma Vaivarta Purana that depicted Radha making love to Krishna very passionately and lustily, just as humans do. Atleast from the vivid descriptions given therein, there was nothing to tell that apart from human sex. He even got killed by the arrow of a hunter, just as a normal being does. So, I don't find anything shocking in what Shvu has stated.

 

 

please let me know which works of sankara you accept as authentic so that we can discuss based on that.

 

 

I already answered this in another thread.

[shvu 1]

 

 

karthik and shvu - you have been holding this belief that sadguna brahman is not eternal. worst still - shvu has gone to the extent of saying krishna passes stool like we do.

 

 

 

Is that what I said? I simply asked what the Gaudiya conception was about Krishna's body. My question was, if there is no flesh and blood what was happening to the food he ate or better still, why was he eating at all? He was born as a an infant, grew up gradually like anyone else, had skin, sense organs, hair, ate food, but had no flesh and bones? Why is that, is my question.

 

 

i would like to debate with you on this. please let me know which works of sankara you accept as authentic so that we can discuss based on that.

 

 

Simply tell me what Shankara means by referring to Krishna as maayaa ruupam in the Giita Bhaashya. I have already asked you this Q more than once and am still awaiting a reply.

 

Cheers

[Guest guest]

 

I simply asked what the Gaudiya conception was about Krishna's body. My question was, if there is no flesh and blood what was happening to the food he ate or better still, why was he eating at all? He was born as a an infant, grew up gradually like anyone else, had skin, sense organs, hair, ate food, but had no flesh and bones? Why is that, is my question.

 

 

In the Srimad Bhagavata (10.8.31), the elderly gopis complain: evam dharstyany usati kurute mehanadini vastau, "Krsna is so impudent to pass excreta in our houses." How can He excrete without material organs?

 

Also in the Bhagavata at 10.55.2 we find: krsnaviryasamudbhavah "Pradyumna came forth from Krsna's semen."

 

Bhagavatam 1.9.38. Bhishma prayed:

 

"Hit with the piercing arrows of a desparado like me and bathed in blood, and with His armour broken,

 

He Who rushed forth to kill me, disregarding the remonstrances of Arjuna, - may that Lord Mukunda (the Bestower of blessedness) be My Shelter.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 1]

 

How can He excrete without material organs?

 

 

The same way he can have unlimited universes present within His mouth. The same way he can breath out the entire material creation. The same way He can swallow a forest fire.

 

Lord Krishna manifests things for His devotees satisfaction. His mother feels joy when Krishna passes and she cleans Him.

 

As Lord Krishna states in the Gita, "Fools deride me when I descend in a human form. They do not understand my supreme nature as the Lord of everything." (Gita 9.11) Krishna is bhuta-mahesvara, and His nature is param-bhavam. If you think arrows can kill him, or that he gets indigestion, you are failing to see his param-bhavam.

[muralidhar 0]

Jndas said:

Lord Krishna states in the Gita, "Fools deride me when I descend in a human form. They do not understand my supreme nature as the Lord of everything." (Gita 9.11) Krishna is bhuta-mahesvara, and His nature is param-bhavam. If you think arrows can kill him, or that he gets indigestion, you are failing to see his param-bhavam.

<hr>

 

Hare Krishna!

 

 

[Guest guest]

Log in first if you want to post.

[shvu 1]

 

The real point is, since Krishna himself says he has descended in human form, it is only fair that he the Krishna born to Devaki, who had eyes, ears, a mouth, skin, hair, who shaved regularly, who ate and slept, had a human body made up of flesh and blood for the duration of his stay on earth, which was eventually killed by Jara, all of which was of course, part of the master plan.

 

This does mean that he was not God or does not belittle him in any way. He descended on earth as a human born to human parents and how having flesh and blood goes against his glory, is something that I don't understand.

 

Cheers

 

 

[Guest guest]

Sha, log in if you want to post. Anonymous postings by members will not be allowed, especially messages that speak about how you can not believe people's complete ignorance...

[shvu 1]

 

 

I simply can not accept the ignorance of those who believe Krishna is incapable of having a material body of flesh and bones thus limiting him according to their own mis-conception...

 

 

They do seem to accept that there was hair, external organs and skin, for he did look like a regular human being, with an Indian complexion. They however, have a problem with accepting that there were internal organs, such as a skeleton, a brain, larynx, digestive system, nervous system, etc.

 

He was only pretending to eat rice and dairy products for there was no digestive system inside, to assimilate the food. I would like to see some scriptural support to show Vishnu had only external organs and no internal organs when he took birth as Krishna.

 

Cheers

[Guest guest]

as we are analysing His body, can some one tell me the exact skin pigment that causes Him to have a dark blue colour (Krishna) and green colour (Rama). What is the racial acncestry ?

 

while i am not denying that humans have His form, His flesh, blood, excreta and genitals are not material but spiritual. So it cannot be said to be the same as what we have.

[Guest guest]

we can definitely discuss but then we have to list down the books based on which to discuss. any point that we make has to be consistent with the overall conclusions made by sankara. if karthik or you would like to reject some portions of sanakara's work, then there is no point discussing without establishing the list of books that you consider is sankara's.

[karthik_v 0]

 

His flesh, blood, excreta and genitals are not material but spiritual. So it cannot be said to be the same as what we have.

 

 

1. What is the scriptural basis for this claim?

2. Assuming such a basis exists, how does it reconcile with other descriptions in Brahma Vaivarta Purana and other references quoted above suggesting that they were material in nature?

 

 

we can definitely discuss but then we have to list down the books based on which to discuss. any point that we make has to be consistent with the overall conclusions made by sankara. if karthik or you would like to reject some portions of sanakara's work, then there is no point discussing without establishing the list of books that you consider is sankara's

 

 

Shvu has already clarified that he doesn't reject any of his works. I have already listed which ones I accept as having been authored by him. Now you have 2 options:

 

1. Start with the most acceptable list, that is the one which satisfies everyone's criteria - which means the ones I listed, and explain that quote of Shvu.

 

2. Ignore me and go ahead with what you accept as having been authored by Sankara and explain that quote. And also, using Sankara's philosophy, establish that Sadguna Brahman is eternal.

 

Either way, I guess we have spent a lot of time on this meaningless pre-amble and it is time you started quoting the references from Sankara's work to support your claims. Hoping you hear from you soon on that.

[Guest guest]

 

When Krishna has his pastimes he does not take a material body.

Although it appears to be material to those with material vision.

This is the conclusion of the shastra.

 

This does not mean that Krishna does not have skin made

of cells,or that he does not appear to be exactly like any other human.

 

What is a material body ?

 

The difference between a material body and a spiritual body is in the mind of the observer.

 

To the enlightened soul everything is comprised of

God,Krishna's body may appear to be material,but it is not.

 

Just because something is comprised of molecules doesn't mean that it is automatically a material object.

 

For example the diety form may be made of wood or marble,

but it is a spiritual object,to the mundane viewer

it is simply a mundane object,to the enlightened soul

it is a spiritual object,that doesn't mean it is not compried of molecules,just that it 's purpose is transcendental,therefore it is a spiritual thing.

 

Krishna performs seemingly mundane activities to those with mundane vision,so do the vaisnava's perform mundane activities to the mundane viewer,but to those with an enlightened vision Krishna's activities along with those of the vaisnava are in fact transcendental ,fully spiritual,

their bodies may eat and pass stool,bleed and heal,all the things any human body would do,the difference is in the perception of what is material and what is spiritual.

 

A material thing is not something comprised of matter,

it is something percieved to be seperate from God.

[sha 0]

 

He was only pretending to eat rice and dairy products for there was no digestive system inside, to assimilate the food.

 

 

<center>This reminds me a verse posted on another board from 'Sri Krishna Karnamritam' of the Rasik Mahatma of South India, Lila Suka Bilva Mangala.

Actually the Vrajavasis never paid importance to the Divine body of God nor Supreme Brahman but simply enjoyed His association and exploits in Prema Bhakti Rasa, Divine Love.

 

kailAso navanItati kSitir ayaM prAgjagdha mRlloSati

kSIrodopi nipItadugdhati lasatsmere praphulle mukhe

mAtrA 'jIrNa dhiyA dRDhaM cakitayAnaSTAsmidRSTaHkayA

"thU thU vatsaka! jIva lIva ciram" ityukto 'vatAnno hariH

 

http://rsodha.members.easyspace.com/hiyashoda.bmp

 

In the words of the Rasik Saint, Sri Bilva Mangala Thakura-

 

<font color="blue">Mother Yashoda was fondling Baby Krishna on her lap and the adorable Child was smiling with joy opening wide His lotus mouth.

Mother could not help noticing the contents of His stomach!

She was startled to see the 'Kailasa Parvata' Mountain (the snowcapped abode of Lord Shiva on top of the universe) but composed herself thinking that as the previously eaten butter by her Son.

 

At the sight of the earth planet, she thought that must be the lump of dirt her mischievous Boy was eating earlier.

 

When she visualized the Ocean of milk, she surely recognized the (undigested) milk drunk by her poor Baby during the day.

 

By now, mother Yashoda was firmly convinced herself that her precious Child must have been suffering from "indigestion" due to some envious, evil eyes around the neighborhood and by wicked spells.

 

Being a very loving and caring mother, she innocently pronounced an auspicious incantation to drive out the effects of the evil spell and relieve the distress of her Child, and blessed Him -</font>

 

<big><font color="red">"Long live, my Child, may You live long!"</big>

 

Let my Saviour be the same adorable Lord Hari Who was protected by mother Yashoda.</font>

 

Hari Bol!

[Jahnava Nitai Das 1]

 

The real point is, since Krishna himself says he has descended in human form, it is only fair that he the Krishna born to Devaki, who had eyes, ears, a mouth, skin, hair, who shaved regularly, who ate and slept, had a human body made up of flesh and blood for the duration of his stay on earth, which was eventually killed by Jara, all of which was of course, part of the master plan.

 

 

Yet the same texts that inform you that Krishna had hands, legs , hair, etc., also say he was born with a complete head of hair, a golden crown, and with four arms. On top of that he was blackish blue (the color shyama, which does not exist in any race in the world). Either you accept the Bhagavatam's account or you reject it. If you accept it, then immediately you see He is not an ordinary human. Which human had four hands at birth? Which human was born fully dressed with golden ornaments? Which human could swallow a forest fire. Don't you know chemistry? Can human skin and hair resist the heat of an inferno burning thousands of degrees? Of course not. Can human bone maintain the weight of a mountain without cracking (while Krishna lifted Govardhana hill)? Can the legs and back bones resist the fall of thousands of feet without damage when Krishna jumped off a mountain? And can someone actually die instantly by being shot in the heal with an arrow? It is very, very unlikely.

[theist 1]

JNdas,

 

My inderstanding is that Krsna will give reason for people to believe what they want about Him.If someone wants to see Him as an ordinary human,He may allow a hunters arrow to hit His foot,leave a form behind for people to cremate etc.Is this correct?

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

when shastra describes Krishna's body and his lila,

every verse has more then one meaning.

 

this many different meanings in a single verse is there to give deeper and deeper understandings as the

devotee's progress goes on.

 

The pastimes of Krishna have many levels of understanding and they are revealed as neccessary to the devotee.

 

The meditation on these things purify the heart and

bring the devotee's into the pastimes themself.

 

The details are not the point,the process of hearing the discussion of the pastimes and form of Krishna

is the important thing.

 

Realization of the truth of Krishna's pastimes

as being transcendental in whatever way they took place

can bring the devotee into the pastimes themselves.

[Guest guest]

i will take the easy route because you have not proved why you reject sanakara's works. secondly, i dont have access to all the works of sankara. if you can provide a link we can debate with your restricted list.

 

Govindashtakam, written by Sankara describes Krishna as follows : satyam jnanam anantam nityam. krishna is just a human body invoking the supreme power, then how is it that he is anantam ? he was born and died - how is he nityam ? he lied - how is he truth himself ? he is part of mayaa or ignorance - how is he jnanam ? you may say - oh! sankara taught this for fools. but where does he say that fools are to be given false information ?

 

in the gita bhashya, sankara says avyakto paro narayana. thus stating that narayana is beyond maya, which is vyakta. narayana as you know is sadguna brahman and how can some thing that is qualified be avyakta ? this proves that sankara taught a very clear understanding of lord's form. pl. dont try a trivial redefinition of narayana as you dont have sankara to justify your interpretation. so we have to take the conventional meaning of narayana meaning vishnu as he uses them interchangeably.

 

why go that far ? do we accept that brahman by definition is eternal ? as sankara refers to god(s) as sadguna brahman, it should be obvious that he considers them eternal. saying sadguna brahman = mayaa is same as saying truth = false.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bhaktajoy 0]

God is absolute.Krishna is non different from the great white light.He has no difference between his body and soul.He is all yet beyond his creation.This is his mysterious nature.

[raga 0]

 

in the gita bhashya, sankara says avyakto paro narayana. thus stating that narayana is beyond maya, which is vyakta.

 

 

I failed to locate this in his Gita Bhasya. Where is it?

 

You can conveniently view Shankara's Gita Bhasya at http://www.gitasupersite.org , both the original text and Swami Gambhirananda's English translation. You can also find a translitterated Sanskrit edition at http://www.granthamandira.org .

 

I hope this provides some basis for the discussion. I would prefer to not see a single post any longer without references from Shankara's works. Otherwise it is just so many meaningless posts, or preambles as Karthik put it.

[shvu 1]

 

You have already taken the easy route out many times. If you wish to continue, explain Maayaa ruupam from Shankara's Giita Bhaashya.

 

 

[raga 0]

Reference for mAyA rUpam please?

[raga 0]

At least in 4.9:

 

<font color="darkred">janma karma ca me divyam evaM yo vetti tattvataH |

tyaktvA dehaM punar janma naiti mAm eti so'rjuna ||9||

 

taj-janma mAyA-rUpaM, karma ca sAdhu-paritrANAdi, me mama divyam aprAkRtam aizvaram evaM yathoktaM yo vetti tattvatas tattvena yathAvat tyaktvA deham imaM punar janma punar utpattiM naiti na prApnoti, mAm ety Agacchati, sa mucyate he'rjuna ||4.9||</font color>

 

Did you mean this one?

 

 

 

[raga 0]

 

 

in the gita bhashya, sankara says avyakto paro narayana. thus stating that narayana is beyond maya, which is vyakta.

 

 

Prabhupada: That is Sankaracarya’s version. Narayana... You will find in his comment on the Bhagavad-gita. First word he writes, narayanah paro ’vyaktad: “Narayana has nothing to do with this material world.” And he accepts in his comment, sa bhagavan svayam krsnah: “That Narayana has appeared as Krsna.” And he has given specific name of His father as “the son of Devaki and Vasudeva” so that nobody can misidentify. If you have got Sankara’s bhasya, commentary on Bhagavad-gita, you bring it I shall show you.

 

============ REF. Morning Walk -- June 25, 1975, Los Angeles

 

Does anyone know where this paro 'vyaktad reference is from?