Religious texts

[lightgigantic]

An avatar, though it is a 'purna-avatar' (Krshna) is in no way superior to Narayana/MahaVishnu. This is the stand of these Acharyas. What is your / hare krisha stand ?

Generally such discussions only take place between vaisnavas - if a person is not convinced about the exclusive position of visnu, trying to elaborate upon the greater/lesser distinctions between incarnations simply results in more confusion

So for current intents and purposes, in the ultimate sense, there is no difference between any of visnu's incarnations, just like there is no essential difference between a person at their workplace and a person with their family (its still the same person).

BTW - this is the view of a vaisnava, regardless of whatever sampradaya they are coming under

 

[Ayodhya]

Your ramblings resemble the power struggle of Star Wars nerds in regards to the power of Luke Skywalker versus the younger Anakin Skywalker.

I still stay Anakin would win...

 

[lightgigantic]

Your ramblings resemble the power struggle of Star Wars nerds in regards to the power of Luke Skywalker versus the younger Anakin Skywalker.

I still stay Anakin would win...

I simply view your ramblings as mental concoctions - the evidence being that you are unable to maintain any analytic discussion on the subject

 

[everneo]

I simply view your ramblings as mental concoctions - the evidence being that you are unable to maintain any analytic discussion on the subject

Comprehending ability is a pre-requirement for getting into analysis.

Your amazing comprehensive power is repeatedly displayed, a sample :

An avatar, though it is a 'purna-avatar' (Krshna) is in no way superior to Narayana/MahaVishnu. This is the stand of these Acharyas. What is your / hare krisha stand

So for current intents and purposes, in the ultimate sense, there is no difference between any of visnu's incarnations, just like there is no essential difference between a person at their workplace and a person with their family (its still the same person).

When i compared an avatar with Vishnu, you were talking about comaprision between Vishnu's avatars.

For your information, Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu, Vishnu is not an avatar of anyone. No vaishnavite acharya would agree with a concocted notion that Vishnu is an avatar.

 

[lightgigantic]

Comprehending ability is a pre-requirement for getting into analysis.

Your amazing comprehensive power is repeatedly displayed, a sample :


When i compared an avatar with Vishnu, you were talking about comaprision between Vishnu's avatars.

For your information, Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu, Vishnu is not an avatar of anyone. No vaishnavite acharya would agree with a concocted notion that Vishnu is an avatar.

given that vishnu and krsna are non different (ie they borrow from the same tattva) its not clear what the basis for your point is, since such a concept is the basis that unites all vaisnavas

 

[everneo]

given that vishnu and krsna are non different (ie they borrow from the same tattva)..

It is vishnu-tattva, not krishna-tattva. Krishna was born and died. Vishnu is not. As an avatar, Krishna did miracles and showed a way to achieve liberation. He was human in carnal aspects, had human children by human wives (in thousands). Krishna bakti movement (starting as early as with vyasa) went over the board to make him at par with Vishnu (in many times, above Vishnu).

 

[lightgigantic]

It is vishnu-tattva, not krishna-tattva. Krishna was born and died. Vishnu is not. As an avatar, Krishna did miracles and showed a way to achieve liberation. He was human in carnal aspects, had human children by human wives (in thousands). Krishna bakti movement (starting as early as with vyasa) went over the board to make him at par with Vishnu (in many times, above Vishnu).

then you have a strange view of the vedas (regarding the role srila vyasadeva), and will have great difficulty in understanding the bhagavad gita

BG 9.11: Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature as the Supreme Lord of all that be.

regarding the nature of krishna's disappearance, there is a whole chapter on it
http://srimadbhagavatam.com/11/31/en

SB 11.31.11: My dear King, you should understand that the Supreme Lord's appearance and disappearance, which resemble those of embodied conditioned souls, are actually a show enacted by His illusory energy, just like the performance of an actor. After creating this universe He enters into it, plays within it for some time, and at last winds it up. Then the Lord remains situated in His own transcendental glory, having ceased from the functions of cosmic manifestation.

SB 11.31.12: Lord Kṛṣṇa brought the son of His guru back from the planet of the lord of death in the boy's selfsame body, and as the ultimate giver of protection He saved you also when you were burned by the brahmāstra of Aśvatthāmā. He conquered in battle even Lord Śiva, who deals death to the agents of death, and He sent the hunter Jarā directly to Vaikuṇṭha in his human body. How could such a personality be unable to protect His own Self?


in fact your view is certainly unique since not even sankacharya says krishna is mundane

TEXT 1

bhajagovindam bhajagovindam
govindam bhajamuudhamate
sampraapte sannihite kaale
nahi nahi rakshati dukrijnkarane

Worship Govinda, Worship Govinda, Worship Govinda. Oh fool! Rules of Grammar will not save you at the time of your death.

basically, as long as you insist on declaring the vedas or parts of the vedas as concocted simply because it does not measure up to your standards, and remain unable to provide vedic quotes for your views, there will be great problems with your foray into the subject

 

[everneo]

then you have a strange view of the vedas (regarding the role srila vyasadeva), and will have great difficulty in understanding the bhagavad gita

BG 9.11: Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature as the Supreme Lord of all that be.

Where is the question of deriding Krishna. He is a great avatar, no doubt. But, Vishnu is original, Krishna is more perfect image. It is more foolish to deride Vishnu in favour of Krishna.

in fact your view is certainly unique since not even sankacharya says krishna is mundane

TEXT 1

bhajagovindam bhajagovindam
govindam bhajamuudhamate
sampraapte sannihite kaale
nahi nahi rakshati dukrijnkarane

Worship Govinda, Worship Govinda, Worship Govinda. Oh fool! Rules of Grammar will not save you at the time of your death.

He says, "Worship Govindha, instead of spending all the time exhibiting your literary prowess (?!) till the end".

basically, as long as you insist on declaring the vedas or parts of the vedas as concocted simply because it does not measure up to your standards, and remain unable to provide vedic quotes for your views, there will be great problems with your foray into the subject

Vedas don't concoct anything, it is your interpretation of them does.

 

[imaplanck.]

I had to vote for "The Bible was probably neither inspired by or written by God. It is a human work alone." Although it was clearly not written by god, it was most certainly inspired by god .

 

[Ayodhya]

The Vishnu/Krishna debate (or shall we say dribble?) is off-topic. Moderators?

 

[lightgigantic]

Where is the question of deriding Krishna. He is a great avatar, no doubt. But, Vishnu is original, Krishna is more perfect image. It is more foolish to deride Vishnu in favour of Krishna.

Therefore I didn't deride him - instead I said that both krishna and vishnu are composed of the same tattva

its seems from your previous post, you don't agree

Originally Posted by everneo
It is vishnu-tattva, not krishna-tattva. Krishna was born and died. Vishnu is not. As an avatar, Krishna did miracles and showed a way to achieve liberation. He was human in carnal aspects, had human children by human wives (in thousands). Krishna bakti movement (starting as early as with vyasa) went over the board to make him at par with Vishnu (in many times, above Vishnu).

He says, "Worship Govindha, instead of spending all the time exhibiting your literary prowess (?!) till the end".

and he also says

TEXT 21
bhagavad giitaa kijnchidadhiitaa
gangaa jalalava kanikaapiitaa
sakridapi yena muraari samarchaa
kriyate tasya yamena na charchaa

Let a man read but a little from the Bhagavad-Gita, drink just a drop of water from the Ganga, worship Murari (Krishna) just once. He then will have no altercation with Yama (the lord of death).

once again, your view that Krishna is some sort of carnal creature does not fall in with even sankharacarya's views

Vedas don't concoct anything, it is your interpretation of them does.

then why do you belittle the statements of the Bhagavad gita, Srimad bhagavatam and puranas in sattva guna as compilations of convenience?

 

[lightgigantic]

The Vishnu/Krishna debate (or shall we say dribble?) is off-topic. Moderators?

since the discussion is annexed by points regarding the validity of the vedas, its not clear why its off topic.........

 

[everneo]

Therefore I didn't deride him - instead I said that both krishna and vishnu are composed of the same tattva

its seems from your previous post, you don't agree

Originally Posted by everneo
It is vishnu-tattva, not krishna-tattva. Krishna was born and died. Vishnu is not. As an avatar, Krishna did miracles and showed a way to achieve liberation. He was human in carnal aspects, had human children by human wives (in thousands). Krishna bakti movement (starting as early as with vyasa) went over the board to make him at par with Vishnu (in many times, above Vishnu).

What ?

 

[lightgigantic]

What ?

if krishna was born and died in the manner you allude to, he would have no status as visnu tattva and his words spoken in BG would be just as insubstantial as the words of any other infinitesimal iving entity subject to the pushings of illusion. (so if that's teh case, its not clear why so many authoritative persons, both inside the many branches of vaisnavism and outside of them, eg adwaita vada, have commentaries on the BG by their acharyas)

 

[Vindicator]

It is intersting, this poll.

There are two options: one believes there is God as these characters saw God or one believes there is no God as these characters saw God.

If there is God as they see, one would assume that these characters who claim to have these God-inspired thoughts indeed penned something inspired by the God that exists.

The question of communication remains: is what they penned exactly what God would have wanted them to pen?

If there is no God as they see, one would think that these people penned "naturally inspired" beliefs.

Who is to say what is and what isn't?

The world changes before our eyes everyday. Facts are those which are useful for today, but the same are superstitions for tomorrow.

Everyone has the right to believe.

 

[lightgigantic]

It is intersting, this poll.

There are two options: one believes there is God as these characters saw God or one believes there is no God as these characters saw God.

If there is God as they see, one would assume that these characters who claim to have these God-inspired thoughts indeed penned something inspired by the God that exists.

The question of communication remains: is what they penned exactly what God would have wanted them to pen?

If there is no God as they see, one would think that these people penned "naturally inspired" beliefs.

Who is to say what is and what isn't?

The world changes before our eyes everyday. Facts are those which are useful for today, but the same are superstitions for tomorrow.

Everyone has the right to believe.

To further this, if they penned what god actually wanted them to pen, do you think it can be verified - in other words are words that are authorized by god symptomized by any particular quality or any particular detectable effect on the person who applies/hears the words?

 

[Vindicator]

To further this, if they penned what god actually wanted them to pen, do you think it can be verified - in other words are words that are authorized by god symptomized by any particular quality or any particular detectable effect on the person who applies/hears the words?

I have no idea - nothing I've noticed.

What I can say is that verification of anything religious lies within the individuals themselves, probably until the day they die.

After death... now that's another story...

The "religious method" is nearly the opposite of the "scientific method" of finding truth. The former relies greater upon personal acceptance, the latter more on communal acceptance.

 

[mindtrick]

I don't believe there's a god, therefore no holy texts.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

I don't believe there's a god, therefore no holy texts.

*************
M*W: Welcome to sciforums, mindtrick. That's a good assumption. I never quite thought of it like that, but you make a very good point. Those who claim god exists also claim their holy books are inspired by god. But, you're right = no god, no holy books! They are all man made and so are their books! What lies. What lies!

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

Waaaa! Waaaa!