Lord Krishna Forum - Krishna Talk

AhimsaJack · Joined: 06 Mar 2007 Posts: 6 Location: New york state

What do you think? Are Krishna and Jesus equally divine?

Bhakta Omer · Joined: 10 Apr 2007 Posts: 15

The only one who should worry about being judged is the one who knows he is guilty.

As far as I know, Jesus never claimed to be God and referred to God as his father.
Is it disrespectful toward Jesus if we say that he is not God but only a devotee of God?
Let's put it this way:
Is it disrespectful toward Srila Prabhupada if we say that he is not God but only a devotee of God?

Bhakta Omer · Joined: 10 Apr 2007 Posts: 15

The advaita interpretation of the Vedas, that claim that all is one, is not the only interpretation to the Vedas. Sri Ramanujacharya explained how the individual soul (Jiva) can not be completely the same as God. God in his impersonal form (Brahman) is indeed "everything". But not in his original personal form (Bhagavan). Just like the singer is in his music and "is" his music, but not personally become it. If We are God and Maya makes us not realize that we are God, that leads us to an illogical conclusion that Maya is above God. Therefore: we are NOT God. That is Ramanuja's argument.
In "Atman" the scriptures can refer to ether Param-Atman or Jiva-Atman.
devotee wrote: I am the "Atman" in everyone's heart
That would be Bhagavad-Gita 7.21. In this quote Lord Krishna refers to the Param-Atman.
The Param-Atman ("supreme being") is God, while Jiva-atman (the soul, the self) is his servant. The Vedas compares the Jiva-Atman and the Param-Atman to two birds who are sitting on the same tree (the tree is, of course, the body).
That dualism is eternal, as Lord Krishna states:
"There was never a time when these monarchs, you, or I did not exist, nor shall we ever cease to exist in the future." (Bhagavad-Gita 2.12)
Therefore, the jiva is forever an individual.

Bhakta Omer · Joined: 10 Apr 2007 Posts: 15

devotee wrote: Here the perishable is the form. The Jivaatma has been referred to as the imperishable .... but that is within Duality. There is an option to stay in that state .... " Those who come to me/ my abode .... do not return to this world again". In fact, if you examine clsoely, there is still someone who resides in God's abode .... so the individuality is still there in this stage. When this individuality falls apart, then there is no-one separate from God .... there is nothing to exist or even non-exist. This stage is beyond existence or non-existence .... and there is only ONE at that stage.
Again, that is just the Advaita interpretation.
In verse 14.27 the lord says: "I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman". And in verse 7.7: "there is no Truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread."
And in Brahma-Samhita 5.40: "I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, whose effulgence is the source of the nondifferentiated Brahman."
Therefore:
God (Parabrahman) is a person. God is the source of the impersonal Brahman. The impersonal Brahman is the opulence of that person, just like the singer and his song. Those who are deluded by Maya cant see God's personal form and therefore say that there is no god or that is God is abstract and impersonal. That is what Krishna states in the verse "naham prakasya sarvasya, yogamaya samavritam".
devotee wrote: Aham = I, Atma = Ataman
And Atman can refer to either Jiva-Atman or Param-Atman. Since in this verse Krishna says "I am the atman", and since Krishna is Vishnu-Tatva, not Jiva-Tatva, then it refers to Param-Atman. So what Krishna is saying here is that he is residing in the hart of every living entity along side the Jiva-Atma. God is not the Jiva, If the Jiva is God, How can it be deluded?

Bhakta Omer · Joined: 10 Apr 2007 Posts: 15

devotee wrote:
Yada bhutprithakbhavameksthamanupasyati !
Tat eva cha vistaram brahama sampadyate tada !! (Gita-13/31)

==> When one actually perceives the expansion & diversity of all life forms as situated in just ONE, at that time itself the (Ultimate) Brahman is attained.

Of course. No one is saying that there is no impersonal Brahman, just that the personal Bhagavan is it's source and basis. That particular verse is talking about the Brahman state. (the verse actually says brahma sampadyate – "attains Brahman". Not "attains ultimate Brahman"). In the Brahman state everything is relatively one in sense that they are eka-stham, situated in one. Of course, that oneness is relative. The lord states in 2.21 that there never has been a state when the jiva didn't exist and also that there never WILL be such a state: na caiva na bhavisyamah (na--never; ca--also; eva--certainly; na--not like that; bhavisyamah--shall exist;)

devotee wrote:
Avibhaktam cha bhuteshu vibhaktamiva cha sthitam !
Bhutbhartri cha tajgyeyam grashishnu cha prabhavishnu cha !! ( Gita-13/17)

That ( Atman) is indivisible & yet appears to be divided among all the various living beings & is known as the preserver of all living beings & destroyer & also the creator.

And since Krishna stated that the Jiva-Atman is forever an individual, the Atman in this verse is clearly the Param-Atman.

devotee wrote:
I don't say that Lord Krishna is not the Ultimate. I only add that it is ONLY HIM. Whatever else we see is just ignorance due to our conditioning.
But if we ARE God, how can we be ignorant or conditioned?

Bhakta Omer · Joined: 10 Apr 2007 Posts: 15

devotee wrote: Bhakta Omer wrote:
But if we ARE God, how can we be ignorant or conditioned?

That is a million-dollar question ! :)

.... because of "our" attachment to "we" aka "My attachment to "I" & "My""!! :)
But "I" is God.
So in other words: God's attachment to "I" and "mine".
God is attached?
God is deluded?
God is wrong?

Bhakta Omer · Joined: 10 Apr 2007 Posts: 15

devotee wrote: No. "I" is the problem .... the "I" has to dissolve. Then all your questions will be answered ! :)
So in other words: God has a problem. He is ignorant to his original condition and has a false conception of "I".
Still: God has a false conception?

Bhakta Omer · Joined: 10 Apr 2007 Posts: 15

Well. I can't really see what tone you actually mean, but the only thing I suggest is that you'll explain your last claim, for it wasn't so clear. I think my sincere questions deserve an answer.
And no, you haven't hurt me. Though I hope you can respect my legitimate questions with an answer.

Bhakta Omer · Joined: 10 Apr 2007 Posts: 15

I'm glad we're back on track.
devotee wrote: If you are really asking sincerely then why are you changing "I" with God ? Did I ever say that "I" was God?"
Well, you've never said it wasn't. If you see you are not understood, try to explain.
Still, if there is no I, who is attached? Who is deluded? How can their be a delusion when there is no one to be deluded?

devotee wrote: What do you think "I" is or "You" are ? Try locating it in your body/mind. Be ruthless. Just blast off what you are not. Go in meditative state (but not in oblivion) & keep asking "Who am I ?". Are you Bhakta Omer ? But that is just a label ! Are you your limbs ? No. Are you the face people recognise you with ? No. Keep subtracting from you what you-are-not. Are you the mind ? Then what is mind ? .... If there is "I" somewhere in mind ... it must know itself .... Focus on the point from where the "I" thought arises .... Just go after any thought ... even the thought of thoughtlessness. Be fully aware .... keep awake ..... you will come to a point where there is no "I-thought". There is just choiceless awareness. There is no observer. That is the point of nothingness .... which is just awareness but there is none who is aware!".
Of course you can't locate the I. An eye is located in a room. It looks at a chair, a table, a wall, Flour, the whole room. Where is the observer? Finally it concludes that the observer is not in the room. How can an I see itself? It can't. But from the fact it can see it can conclude that the observer is their. Just as the self can conclude it exist.

devotee wrote: remember Lord Krishna's words, "Actually, all the actions are performed by the three gunas but the man under the influence of his ego thinks that "he is the doer"".
Becous in his case, the gunas are in fact the doer. He confuses between his attractions and himself. If he is a slave to his lusts, they are the doers, not the self. Unlike the one who is not under the control of the gunas.

devotee wrote: See the above with Gita-4/33 to 4/37 & try to meditate upon what is means.
And indeed I see here the lord states: "And when you have thus learned the truth, you will know that all living beings are but part of Me--and that they are in Me, and are Mine."., Which is the impersonal Brahman level, which it's existence I never denied. It is also explained in verses like Tat-Tvam-Asi – "Thaou Art That". But as the scriptures also states, there is a higher Brahman which is the source of the impersonal. If you take a close look at the scriptures, such as Katha-Upanishad and Bhagavad-Purana, you'll see that it clearly states that the Purusha, the personal God, is in fact the source of the impersonal Brahman. It also states that the Brahman is everything, including the self, which is not a contradiction. God is personal and in the same time impersonal. In all and yet separated from all, as stated in Isa-Upanishad.
It is also stated in the Gita that the self will forever exist. Not temporarily in the a so called temporary state of duality, but forever. That is my conclusion when it states: "their never will be a time when you, me and all of those kings shell not be." So the self is real, at least if you consider those scriptures as an authority.
Yet sometimes it states Atman is the self and some time it states Atman is God. How can it be? Do the scriptures contradict theirselves? Not if you understand that there are two Atmas: Param-Atma and Jiva Atma. Whenever the scriptures say "Atma is the self" – That is Jiva-Atma. Whenever it says "Atma is God" – That is Param-Atma. It's the only explanation I can think of that consider the supremacy of the personal God and the individuality of the self, and thoes doesn't consider the Vedas to be inconsistent.

Bhakta Omer · Joined: 10 Apr 2007 Posts: 15

devotee wrote: None. It is only Maya .... all creation of Maya. There is no bondage ..... & there is no liberation. Unless the "I" falls, it all appears logical & real ..... but everything is relative to "I". Once this "I" falls, there is "nothing".
Since there is a Maya there must me an I. If there is delusion there is a deluded one. Even if you claim the reality presented by the delusion, still, the delusion itself exist. I cannot see a situation where there is delusion but no deluded.

devotee wrote: With what you have written yourself above, how can you separate the TWO ? There is no higher or lower ..... Brahman is what It is. This illusion also comes from Brahman .... like the illusion of a wave in an ocean. The wave thinks that it has a separate identity but the reality is that it has no existence ..... it is just a creation from the nature of the Ocean which finally goes into the Ocean .... finally there is nothing but the Infinite Ocean !
Interesting an idea as it may be, the Vedas states that the personal is superior over the personal. In a general sense there is only one, but when you look closer you see that there is a deviation within the one. The material energy (Maya), the spiritual energy (Vishnu tatva) and the one who is like the Vishnu tatva, yet is it's servent (Jiva Tatva). The supreme is one, yet is perceived in so many different forms and names: Krishna, Vishnu, Alla, Jahova. And also, perceived in three different levels: Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan. And Bhagavan is the supreme. Yet it's all one. Separate, but one. "Tad-Ajati, Tad-Naijati" (Iso-Upanishad) – walks yet do not walks, in all yet separated from all. This is from the Upanishads. It's a paradox, but God is above all, so he can be so.

devotee wrote: ====> If that is true then that would mean that God never created anything ..... because it was ALWAYS ETERNALLY THERE.
Eternally there, yet flows from the grate supreme, regardless of time and space.

devotee wrote: "At the end of the Kalpa, all the Bhutas dissolve in my Nature & in the begining of the Kalpas, I create them again." ??
At the end of the Kalpa, all living entities (the ones who are still in material existence) flows back into Ksherodakshay-Vishnu. And then, in time of creation, flows back into the universes into the bodily forms which are re created for them. "Create them" – the animals, trees, plants, fish, birds, humans, devas. The souls then reside in them, until again the kalpa ends, or until they brake free from material existence.

Bhakta Omer · Joined: 10 Apr 2007 Posts: 15

devotee wrote: Ever thought : Atma word is used for our true-self & the same word is used for Param-Atma .... when Atma literally means "SELF". Why the wise ones used this word for God which means "SELF" ?
Like many other saskrit words, like "dharma" or "Brahman", Atman also does not have a direct translation in other language. The translation as "self" is not entirely true. But the point is that God, as well as us are a self, as in a someone, an entity.
The symptom of the existence of the self is consciousness. I can't see why this symptom is a thought. I think it's quite obvious it's not a thought but the observer of the thoughts. So if you search for the self as if it were a thought, you obviously won't find it, for it's the wrong symptom you're relating to.
The way I see it, "ego" would be the attempt to become God. The desire to become God's servant (which must include duality) seems to me not as ego, but as humility. Perhaps at the moment I'm not developed or not intelligent enough to see it the other way around, but please try to understand that until that day I'm obliged to accept the conclusion of valid arguments and faith is not a valid one.
Thank you for your explanation.

judas · Joined: 08 Apr 2006 Posts: 16

Sripad Shankacharya's non-dual conclusion is totally bogus, and is actually against the true Vedantic Truth. Lord Siva says .."In Kali Yuga I will appear as Shankacharya and spread the false doctrine of non-dualism."
No-one who is a follower of Lord Krsna accepts this so-called philosophy. It is offensive to the internal potency of the Lord ..Sri Laksmidevi, and was only spread by Sri Shankacharya to lead the people of Bharata Varsa away from the athiestic teachings of Lord Buddha and prepare them for the teachings of Sri Ramanujacharya, Sripad Madhavacharya and finally Sri Chaitanyadeva. Sri Gauranga's philosophy of simultaneous oneness and difference (Achintya bheda bheda tattva) is the correct Vedic conclusion. Unless one accepts this truth he is to be considered an atheist and certainly NOT a devotee of Lord Krsna.
Jaya Sri Sri Guru & Gauranga.

Ratnesh · Joined: 06 Sep 2007 Posts: 8

No. Jesus is considered to be son of God. Remember Jesus is not God. Jesus always said that he is not God.

Then where is the question of equality or equally divine?