The Birth of Lord Krishna (moral, Earth, worship, sex)

[Pariah]

This quote from Aupmanyav, in the Vedanta thread, stirred my interest:

Originally Posted by Aupmanyav

If you take a literal meaning [to Scripture] then it will say that Vasudeva's sperm and Devaki's ovum merged to form the cell which developed into Lord Krishna. Would you like your Purushottam Parabrahman to be born like that?

Aupmanyav assumes that a human birth would be degrading to God (but it could be argued that literal interpretation of Scripture proves that Krishna was of immaculate conception).

Here is my answer to that question:

I would actually prefer Lord Krishna to be born like that. To me, to say that Krishna was human and still did all that he did proves much more valuable to me than to say simply that he was born with whatever talent he had. It means he had to strive and struggle and eventually succeeded, which seems more triumphant than having his powers handed to him, right?

[celina]

Originally Posted by Pariah

This quote from Aupmanyav, in the Vedanta thread, stirred my interest:


Aupmanyav assumes that a human birth would be degrading to God (but it could be argued that literal interpretation of Scripture proves that Krishna was of immaculate conception).

Here is my answer to that question:

I would actually prefer Lord Krishna to be born like that. To me, to say that Krishna was human and still did all that he did proves much more valuable to me than to say simply that he was born with whatever talent he had. It means he had to strive and struggle and eventually succeeded, which seems more triumphant than having his powers handed to him, right?

I agree. I saw something a while back on tv(Lou Dobbs show), about this subject. It was a book about religion, written by Christopher Hitchens. Talking about major deities of the worlds religions, who had a "immaculate conception". Also talking about how religion views a women's birth canal, as unholy, or unclean. So something divine/holy would have to be born a "different" way etc.. Pretty interesting stuff.

[Hema]

So what if Krishna was born like that? That's the way that most of us were born and we are all manifestations of God. Sex is part of life and it's how God designed us to make offspring. Aren't we all Brahman as Aupmanyav says? Brahman was never born and will never die. Brahman is whole and even if part is taken from that whole it is still whole.

[Don Penguinoini]

There is Brahman, nirakar, formless. When it lets maya affect it it becomes Ishwar (Bramha, Vishnu, Mahesh) When it incarnates on earth as a human, its called bhagawan (what we worship) TO be recognised as human it needs to actually be human. Human conception and birth.

[mahesh]

You are wrong. Brahman is never affected by Maya, hes content in his own bliss. Also It is Parbrahman who incarnates on the earth not brahman When Brahman incarnates on the earth they are Mukts in human terms. Realesed souls. Also these Mukts in the abode of God are not formless they have divine Bodies (Bhagwati Tanu). Also the Nirakar brahm you talk about is Akshar who serves Bhagwan Purshottam in four ways. Once with Bhagwati tanu engrossed in service in the abode. secondly as the divine formless light of the abode which you talk of.Thirdly when God comes on the earth Akshar comes with Him (Sadguru Gopalanand Swami in Bhagwan Swaminarayans time) and fourthly as the supporter of all the universes (Brahmand Dhaarak).

[Don Penguinoini]

Brahma LETS maya affect him, read, then post. Im simply saying what irt says in the gitA.

[Don Penguinoini]

It wasn't Gopaland Swami, it was Gunatitanand Swami.

[mahesh]

In Sadguru Nirgun Swami vaato 60.

Shriji Maharaj Shri Gadhpur madhe viraajman hata. Potani aaghar sadhu harijan ni sabha bethi hati. Eh samay Shriji raaji thay ne Gunatitanand Swami pratye bolya ke “aah haar pehro ane aajthi tame jirangadh (Junagadh) na Mahant”. Gunatitanand Swami kahe “nah Maharaj mare mahantay noh haar pehrvo nathi”. Chahta Maharaj kahe “pehro”.

Maharaj no gano agrah joi ne Gunatitanand Swami bolya ke “ah Gopalanand Swami prativarsh ek maas mane bhagvad katha kehva jirangadh padhaare toh haar pehrvu”. Eh saambhri Maharaj Gopalanand Swami ne puchyu “Kem Gopalanand Swami, Gunatitanand Swami ne bhagvad katha prativarsh tame Junagadh jasho?” Gopalanand Swami kahe “Maharaj, aap jem agna karsho tem karish”. Etle Maharaje Gunatitanand Swamine kahyu ke “Gopalanand Swami Junagadh avvani haa pade che. Maate tame haar pehro”.

Pachi Gunatitanand Swami haar pehryo ne mahant thaya. Tyathi Gopalanand swami pan pote pruthvi upar rahya sudhi Bhagwanni vato kehva prativarsh Junagadh Padharta hata; ane koi varas na javaay to bije varase jaine beh maas rehta hata.

108-109 it states:

Potane deh mukva aada paanch divas rahya hata tyare Shriji Maharaj ardhi raatre bolya ke "amari pase kaun che?" etle kahyu ke "Mulji Brahmchari, Shukmuni, tatha Ratanjibhai tran jan che". Sambhri Shriji Maharaj Bolya ke "Ek Muktanand Swami pan bolvavi laavo pan bija koi nahi".

Pachi Ratanjibhai Muktanand Swami ne bolaavi lavya ane teh avi ne Maharaj paase betha. Maharaje temne puchyu ke "amaro vishvaas che?" temre kahyu ke "amare tamro sampurna vishvaas che". Pachi Shriji Maharaj kahyu ke "Tame sarvo Gopalanand Swami ni agna ma rehjo, Akshardhaam ma pan teh sarvane vartaave che. Ane Jeh Mool Akshar che tej eh che".

Muktanand Swami bolya ke "Maharaj, eh toh mota che!" Pan atla divas eh vaat amne kem na kahi?" tyare shriji bolya ke "atla divas na kahi, teh toh ketlak juna ne theek na pade teh mate na kahi pan have emni agna mah rehjo". Etle Muktanand Swami bolya ke, Maharaj ame nischay emni agna mah rehshu". Em kahi ne vandan karya.

There is much more about Gopalanand Swamis talks about teaching Gunatitanand Swami about his Bahayvrutti being siddh hence he has vikshep in samadhi. So Gopalanand swami taught Gunatitanand Swami over the how to meditate without being troubled by Vikshep.


THIS ALONG WITH MANY OTHER SCRIPTURES INCLUDIND THE UNEDITED GUNATITANAND SWAMI STATES CLEARLY IT WAS SADGURU GOPALANAND SWAMI WHO WAS AKSHAR INCARNATE.

[mahesh]

Originally Posted by penguino

Brahma LETS maya affect him, read, then post. Im simply saying what irt says in the gitA.

First of all do you mean Brahmaji? Or Brahm? As your spelling in you above post states Brahma as if you mean Brahm then....

COULD YOU GET ME THE QUOTE FROM THE SHRI GITA ? AS I HAVE NOT YET COME ACROSS THIS EVEN THOUGH IVE READ IT 4 TIMES OVER.

I would also like to mention that if you read the Vachnamrut on how the Brahmand was created you will also realise that Maha Maya does not prove to be a hinderence for Brahm Nor does He wish to enjoy with Maha Maya who is Jadchidatmak..

Jai Swaminarayan

[Don Penguinoini]

Im beginning think you are making things up. I doubt you have read it 4 times, with all these other scriptures you have claimed to read, but then again...