Can Krishna make a rock which He cannot lift?

[Subala 1]

Common thing which devotees get asked by their parents.... (like mine) I was asked this like 3 months after I started living in the temple and quite franckly I couldn't answer this Q at that time.

 

Later on I found one answer ( yes he can create a rock which He cannot lift and then He will lift it) then i heard Prabhupada giving analogy of the King. Definition ofthe King means RICH. So one may argue well King has everything but he does not have poverty.... Not valid argument. KING=RICH.

 

Does anyone has better or similar answers on this kind of questions?

[Guest guest]

the problem is that having a limited mind we do not understand the unlimited

 

more difficult also is to understand that the unlimited is constantly expanding

 

this has also to do with impersonalism: it is more easy for us to think about infinite as a fixed blue sky without variety and dinamism if not some white clouds ad some white dressed angels flying in boring Andreas Wollenveider melodies (but with a nice surround effect!!)

 

(if krsha is the most rich (bhagavan) can he create a thing that he cannot buy?..... yes... then he buy it!! :-).....

[Subala 1]

it is a good example but is not as vivid as in case of king=rich by SP.

 

 

[Guest guest]

it was not my intention to appear more vivid than srila prabhupada............ :-)

[Guest guest]

 

that is an old christian meditation, in fact the question

is based on ignorance of what god is.

 

the rock of any size, is infact comprised of God, therefore God is not actually lifting something,

only creating the illusion of lifting, being both subject and object, both are one substance, therefore on the absolute level the rock can lift god or vice versa, that is if you define God as an individual embodied person,

both the rock and 'god' are tranformations of the same

thing, God the infinite/energy/consciousness.

 

so in effect, No, god cannot create a rock to big to lift,

everything in existence exists within God as part of God,

although the illusion of God(Krsna) lifting some big

object(govardhana hill) can be created, in fact both the hill and the person are the same thing.

[Guest guest]

you are right.... it is a paradox created by srila prabhupad to answer to a challenge (maybe in india in a pandal program)

 

but we can find this in CaitanyaMahaprabhu

 

it is said that even krsna does not understand the love of RADHA and his pure devotees......... but he comes as a pure devotee (caitanya mahaprabhu..... krsna in the "skin" of radharani), he "experiment" and "understand"............ and he lifts the rock!!!

 

of course we are speaking of very esoteric subjects, any term of "material" language is inadeguate

 

(weight, rock, understand, experiment, lift, creates.. and so on)

.

.

.

.

God IS (also) an individual (spiritually) embodied (satcitananda vigraha) person!!

 

if you are a person, where have you found your personality if not in god?

 

haribol

[Raguraman 0]

Hare Krishna,

 

This is a very good question which atheists ask. The question arises because western people do not know what exactly GOD is ?

 

If one reads Upanishads then it can be explained ontologically.

 

The following points about what is GOD is important.

 

1. GOD is the only independent entity.

 

2. Matter, Jivas etc. are entities whose very existence depends on GOD. GOD is the the SELF of all these other entities. It means GOD is AdhAra(support in every sense) of all these other entities. HE pervades all these other entities.

 

3. Every other entity exists and moves, Jivas live, breathe, think, talk and do every other activity because of this entity called GOD. Even free will(to wish for something) exists because GOD allows it.

 

If the above points are clear then one can understand that there is no such rock that GOD cannot move. There is nothing outside of GOD. Everything exists, moves etc. because of GOD and not vice-versa.

[Guruvani 0]

A Godbrother once told me about the concept of UN-BONA-FIDE questions. He said that all the bona-fide questions have been asked in the shastra and that the answers to all bona-fide questions are in the shastra - especially the Srimad Bhagavatam.

There are so many stupid and ridiculous questions that could be used to pester and bother the spiritual master with, but as Prabhupada repeated time and time again "everything I have to say, I have said in my books".

 

It is actually offensive to ask silly, foolish questions to the spiritual master. He is busy with the work of preaching the absolute truth and should not be bothered with such nonsensical questions.

 

I was reading some articles on the web site devoted to Narayana Maharaja the other day and some disciple was asking him some silly question about having dreams. Narayana Maharaja was telling him that the dreams don't mean anything and have no basis in reality and that he shouldn't bother with trying to find something spiritual in the dream.

 

This is what they think it means to approach the spiritual master; that you need to ask some silly, ridiculous question and thereby try to establish some rapport with the guru.

 

These kinds of questions are a nuisance to the spiritual master. In the days when ISKCON was growing and expanding at phenomenal rates, Srila Prabhupada did not allow his translation and preaching to be interrupted with this so-called "personal connection" with the spiritual master that everybody nowadays claims is so vital.

 

The spiritual master has got better things to do than set around answering stupid questions from neophyte disciples.

Any spiritual master that don't have anything better to do than waste time answering stupid UN-BONA-FIDE questions is not a genuine spiritual master.

[Guest guest]

That was excellent Raguraman. There is one other point, however. Whatever God desires, manifests itself. So if God desires to create a rock that He cannot lift, such a rock is immediately manifested. However, if He changes His mind and decides He would like to lift it, no problem, He lifts it.

 

Whatever God decides is reality, that is reality. So your point that no such rock exists that God cannot lift, I believe not to be correct. If He wishes such a rock to exist, it is manifested, no problem. Then If He decides He wants to lift it, again no problem, He simply lifts it.

 

Just because Krishna is God, doesn't mean he cannot be bound by the ropes of Mother Yasoda, if that is what He desires.

[Raguraman 0]

Hare Krishna,

 

The question apparently may look foolish. One may wonder what good can come out to society or himself by asking such questions.

 

But before going into self-realization one has to understand through intelligence something about GOD. That is why I appreciate such questions from atheists. They dispell some of your false conceptions you have.

As for "Can Lord Krishna create a rock he cannot lift" if one answers "yes" or "no" there is a problem of questioning the OMNIPOTENCE of GOD.

 

That is why I try to understand what GOD is ontologically.

 

If somebody asks a scientist "what is outside the universe ?", he would say that UNIVERSE by its very definition includes everything.

 

In a similar fassion there is no such rock as that which GOD cannot move. You may still think that this answer shows some inability on GOD's part. My answer is definitely no.

 

Still GOD is omnipotent because whatever exists, it's very existence is dependent on GOD.

 

There is nothing outside of GOD (physically and in every sense). Please try to understand and meditate on what I am trying to say.

 

Omnipotent means all powerful. Only an independent entity as explained in Upanishads can be omnipotent.

Let me rephrase the question ?

 

Can GOD create another GOD(Different from the first GOD) that exists independently like HIMSELF ?

The atheists' question has a deeper philosophical problem.

 

The only answer I have found is in UPANISHADS. No other spiritual text is as PERFECT as the UPANISHADS.

 

Your contention that GOD can create a rock that cannot lift and later he will lift has a problem. I cannot understand your answer logically. If GOD lifts the rock then you are saying in effect that GOD cannot create a rock that he cannot lift.

[Guest guest]

Raguramam, you are trying to make God conform or be subserviant to logic. He is above logic.

[Raguraman 0]

Hare Krishna,

 

 

Raguramam, you are trying to make God conform or be subserviant to logic. He is above logic.

 

 

On the contrary, I believe in what Upanishads say again. My thoughts originate from Lord Krishna in my heart, who is the SELF as explained in the Upanishads. My logic originates from the blessings and teachings of Lord Krishna's devotees like Acarya Madhva and the great saint Sri Raghavendra Swamy.

[Guest guest]

Apparently Raguraman think she can communicate with Paramatma in the heart, considered by shastra to be the second level of realization! I'll stick with gaining my knowledge from scripture.

 

Krishna can lift a rock too heavy for Him and then not lift it. To say otherwise indicates either a lack of faith or else a willingness to try to appease others by falling to the mental platform. There will never be a materially satisfying answer. We are trying to wrap our material minds around a spiriutal concept and activities that go on in a spiritual, unlimited, realm. Then we will never be satisfied. Our limited logic has nothing to do with it, shastra does.

 

Guest 108

[Guest guest]

for me there's no harm... i am simply remembering srila prabhupada answering with an elegant paradox to a challenging speculation

[Subala 1]

Yes it is not bona-fide question to ask... Can God create rock...

 

I just remembered another answer - Krishna creates rock which he cannot lift and then Balarama comes and lifts it...

 

I think it is more comprehendable answer to the challenger... (which he cannot comprehend what i just said anyway.... because it goes right over his head)

 

Krishna makes rock he cannot lift and Balarama at a same time lifts that rock.

[Guest guest]

you miss the point of the question, it is similar to the buddhist koan, questions that are illogical on first inspection,they are not meant as question with an answer,

they are meant to be meditated on to raise your consciousness by trying to see the inner truth of the question.

 

what is the sound of one hand clapping ?

 

that is the most famous buddhist koan, the rock and god

question ,i think is an old catholic koan,

the point is to meditate on the nature of God and reality, if you say yes, god can create a rock to heavy to

lift, then that is true on one level, meditation is needed

to come to the proper conclusion, God can manifest as

a human or animal and be unable to lift a large rock,

also God exists everywhere and all things exist

as part and parcel of God, therefore on the absolute

plane nothing exists that is not comprised of God,

therefore the question has a dual meaning to meditate on, Gods ability to create the illusion of inferior

strength ,and Gods absolute nature , where all matter

in the infinite cosmos is a transformation of God,

and therefore there can be no such reality

as something larger or heavier then Gods ability,

in fact any size rock exists only as an atom within the infinite, when there is no end to a being, as in Gods case, all things relative to the infinite are no

more then infinitesimal.

[Subala 1]

it may be so,

 

I was looking into more to give simple "yes" answer to the challenge and move on. No time to meditate on the inner meanings....

[Guest guest]

Haribol, sure he can. Its called yogamaya. Yogamaya lets Mother Yasoda bind him to a mortar.

 

 

Square circles, ropes with only one end, only barbaric minds full of paradigms have problems with contradictions. Even theoretical physicists with their multiverse and string theories have conquered seeming contradictions, and they are but a spark of the splendor of the Supreme Lord. haribol, mahak

[Guest guest]

what is that ?

the dilettants method of god consciousness ?

 

no need for deep thought,just accept things at first

glance ?

 

puh-leze !

 

the catholic church has been operating at that level

for many years, the simpletons approach to self realization.

 

i've seen many posts from vaisnavas with incomplete

mis informed and polytheistic versions of god

consciousness,all due to being satisfied with

the external ego driven ideal of self sureness.

 

move on if you like, i'll take it slow.

[Raguraman 0]

Hare Krishna,

 

Shastra has to be understood through LOGIC. Otherwise each person can interpret it as he wants it. Any language by itself has to be a logical construction of words. Otherwise we cannot understand each other.

 

 

Apparently Raguraman think she can communicate with Paramatma in the heart, considered by shastra to be the second level of realization! I'll stick with gaining my knowledge from scripture.

 

 

 

Apparently you do not understand what I was trying to say. I have come to this conclusion after having understood the teachings of AchArya Madhva and AchArya RAmAnujA. I have read the ten pricipal upanishads and bhashyas of AchArYa MaDhva. Unless you think something is wrong in my interpretation according to Upanishads your statements are unfounded.

 

By the way I am not talking to Krishna in my heart, but surely He is guiding me through the teachings of HIS great devotees. That is what I meant.

 

 

Krishna can lift a rock too heavy for Him and then not lift it. To say otherwise indicates either a lack of faith or else a willingness to try to appease others by falling to the mental platform.

 

 

Know one thing. There is no such rock. Whatever exists, it's very existence depends on GOD. This is perfectly in accordance with shastra.

 

Know that Prakriti and Purusha are both beginningless; and also know that all manifestations and Gunas arise from the Prakriti. (13.19)

 

There is no nonexistence of the Sat (or Atma) and no existence of the Asat. The reality of these two is indeed certainly seen by the seers of truth. (2.16)

 

Consider the two statements from Bhagavad Gita.

 

[13:19] says that besides GOD both purusa and Prakrithi are eternal. So there are three eternal entities that always exist.

1. GOD

2. Jivas

3. Matter or Prakrithi

 

[2:16] says that SAT never becomes nonexistent and also ASAT never comes into existence. So

 

SAT = What exists eternally

 

ASAT = What does not exist

 

So the rock = ASAT.

GOD supports(AdhAra) the other two eternal entities namely Jivas and Prakrithi. Their mere existence depends on GOD.

 

Implies such a rock = ASAT

 

All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

 

As for what our GURU said, its alright. I can understand what he meant. But one should not repeat like a parrot.

[Guest guest]

We preach according time and place.

 

Sometimes quoting sastra is the best way to convey the knowledge and in most cases preaching to the atheists it is not. This is why we use anology which supports sastra.

 

Well and on a top of this - one can study sastra via logic but you can't explain who is Krishna by logic alone. Krishna surya saman, we use anology.

 

this was my point of the thread.

 

 

[vijay 0]

Ive been thinking about this qustion for some time (my mental speculation).

 

In Logic we have what you call proofs by contradiction. I studied this at degree level but forget most of it now but here a simple version.

 

a contradiction is simply any conjoined with the negation of that very same formula. So the following are all examples of contradictions

 

P & ~P

(~ = not)

 

P is say a statement the water is hot AND ~P is the water is not Hot

 

This statement can never be proven as it is a contridiction within it self.

The same can be done with the question can god create a rock which he cannot lift.

 

god = unlimited

 

contridiction would be can the unlimted be limited.

In the logical sense this question is absurd, a contridiction. Its like asking can hot be cold?

The tallest be the shortest?

 

Lets take a closer look.(I have too much time at work)

lets have our assumptions that we agree on.

 

These ar ethe attributes that make up god else he is not god.

 

1.God has full control of himself at all times (Controller).

2.God is unlimited

 

For god to create a rock is possible. He will always be able to lift it because that rock exists as a part of himself. Else we have a contridiction to definition 2.

 

If the rock is created outside himself then it defies definiton 2. god is unlimited, as it would mean the place he creates that rock he does not exist.

 

If god created a rock that he could not lift then it would contridict definition 1 god is the controller, he would not be able to control everything if the rock could not be moved.

 

Thus we have these contridictions in whichever way you look at it.

 

can the unlimited be limited

can the controller not control.

can the eternal be temporary

which is the same as saying can god not be god.

 

This statement in Logic would be seen as a contridiction and thus unprovable.

 

ie True = ~True

True = False.

 

Hope this helps, ultamately god is beyond logic some need to understand logicaly before they can take the leap.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Priitaa 0]

I remember this question from my earliest days in the ashrama. Ahtiests ask it, mayavadi's ask it, and I suppose as someone mentioned, some Christians may ask it too. Personally I was thrilled when I heard Prabhupada's answer was "Yes, and then He will lift it." /images/graemlins/smile.gif But those of little faith, they will never get it.

 

I doubt there is much you can say to 'convince' your parents other than Prabhupada's example. You must remember, most do not ask this question to try to understand Krishna, but to criticise your religion, or to try to create doubts within you. So it is a question of challenge, not one of submissive inquirey from those who merely want to know. They 'dont' want to know, and are usually trying to get those they ask it of to see how 'so-called' wrong Krishna consciousness is. Its almost humorous, as "they" are trying to enlighten 'you.' ha

 

I suspect your parents are not devotees?

 

Tho you could try replacing "Krishna" with "God," and they may accept. AFTER they accept, thats when you change it back to "Krishna." /images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

But it's also important to not let this question get us on the mental platform. That's its purpose. Let's not empoewr it by doing so.

[Kulapavana 0]

a question needs to be free of logical contradictions in order to be valid. there is no logical answer to contradicted questions. this question really translates to: can unlimited be limited? we can come up with all kinds of answers, but unless the person ASKING the question understands the error of this proposition - it is all irrelevant. the trick is to make them understand... /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Myra 0]

Wow! This is a very nice brainstorming for us so far.

 

Vijay Prabhu: This argument falls under the branch of logic called Epistemic and you define it quite fairly.

 

This Epistemic argument could only be interpreted and understand with an “implicit knowledge”. Implicit knowledge is called potential knowledge (which I believe is from God); while what a person actually knows is called his/her “explicit knowledge”(based on his/her day to day experience). The concept of implicit knowledge is used without any notion of persons/agents computing knowledge or having to answer questions based on their (person being asked) knowledge.

 

Subala Prabhu: If you will be asked with the same question again, I think the safest answer to the person is: Before I’ll answer your query, can you tell me if you have higher implicit/potential knowledge? (you can add these questions also: Do you believe that God is powerful or Do you believe that with God nothing is Impossible)?

 

If the answer is YES : then you will add that, then it’s not necessary for me to answer this since you have the potential (with God’s help) to interpret your own query, I may have ended telling you my personal interpretations which may not suffice your understanding.

 

If the answer is NO : then you can say that you will be sorry to say that you cannot continue to discuss it further because he/she don’t have the POTENTIAL do understand it anyway. It will be just resulting to an unending discussion.

 

But of course, personally I can’t answer this directly like this to my parents or else I will be in a BIGGGGG trouble. Well…just sharing what I have learned from the four corners of my classroom 5 years ago.

 

Hare Krishna!

Myra.