Krishna and Maya

[Sirona]

Last week I attended my first Hare Krishna program in 7 months. and we were told you could serve either Krishna or Maya, but not both at the same time. This seems to be one of Prabhupada's oversimplifications (" That is not possible"), but then have found representations on internet like this one:

Krishna-Kali | West Bengal, Calcutta | The Metropolitan Museum of Art

[ Swann Galleries, Inc. , sale, March 21 1985, (part of a bound album, later binding); [ Paul F. Walter , New York, by 2005; to Pal]; [ Christie's, New York , sale, The Scholar's Vision: Pal Family Collection, 20 March 20, 2008]; [ Christie's, New York , sale, Indian and Southeast Asian Art...

www.metmuseum.org

which is also said to be from Bengal.

Beyond that I don't know anything about the background of this picture, but I find it interesting. I have read "The Sword and the Flute" by David R. Kinsley, but he emphasizes the differences of the two deities rather than their similarities.

Now I would like to ask your opinion: to worship Krishna and Maya at the same time, is it "possible", " recommendable" or a "heresy" according to your belief?

 

[SalixIncendium]

What I get from what was said about either worshipping Krishna or Maya is that you can either walk the path of devotion or you can walk the path of attachment and desire to worldly things, and that you cannot walk both paths at the same time.

If I'm interpreting what was said correctly, I agree fully with this idea.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Now I would like to ask your opinion: to worship Krishna and Maya at the same time, is it "possible", " recommendable" or a "heresy" according to your belief?

What I get from what was said about either worshiping Krishna or Maya is that you can either walk the path of devotion or you can walk the path of attachment and desire to worldly things, and that you cannot walk both paths at the same time.

Possible, I find nothing against it. We are in Vyavaharika. We are in multiplicity. We participate in 'maya'. We are also worshiping our various chosen deities. Krishna said 'perform your duties without any attachment'. With that, there is no loss. We are doing both the things. Doing just one thing will put us out of balance. Even Mahabharata was 'maya'.

"nehābhikrama-nāśo’sti. pratyavāyo na vidyate;
sv-alpam apy asya dharmasya. trāyate mahato bhayāt." BG 2.40

na — there is not; iha — in this yoga; abhikrama — in endeavoring; nāśaḥ — loss; asti — there is; pratyavāyaḥ — diminution; na — never; vidyate — there is; su-alpam — a little; api — although; asya — of this; dharmasya — occupation; trāyate — releases; mahataḥ — from very great; bhayāt — danger.

(In such an endavor there is no loss or diminution; even a little done towards your duty, relesses you from a great danger.)

Secondly (this is the Advaita view), why do people consider Krishna or Kali, or Shiva or Lakshmi as different. That is multiplicity. 'What exists' is
''one. Krishna is Brahman. Shiva is Brahman. Sirona or Salix; are they any other than Brahman? There is no second.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Salix is right. It simply means making a choice between chasing material goals vs. spiritual.

I don't think it is as simple as the Hare Krishnas make it out to be. For most people, it is necessary to be doing both.

I heard this line over the weekend - everyone wants to go to heaven, but no one wants to die.

 

[ajay0]

Now I would like to ask your opinion: to worship Krishna and Maya at the same time, is it "possible", " recommendable" or a "heresy" according to your belief?

Worshipping Krishna is to worship the Self or pure consciousness within, as per the advaitan perspective.

Worshipping Maya then is to be inordinately attached to the temporary sensory objects of the world due to the transient sensory pleasure associated with them. This creates strong desires in the form of cravings, which if uncontrolled, leads to vice and crime. One also gets attached to sensory objects and sensory pain one is averse to, constantly thinking about them, and this in turn creates strong desires in the form of aversion.

Cravings and aversions, also known as raag-dvesh, anchors one in samsara , resulting in forgetfulness of the personal God or the impersonal Self within. Such strong desires lead to incessant thinking and emoting of the sensory objects associated with pleasure or pain, thereby resulting in forgetfulness of Krishna or the Self.

As per Ramakrishna, the true hero or heroine is one whose mind is fixed on God while engaging in the duties of the material world, because it is a very difficult feat, and it is such a one who attains the supreme prize of enlightenment, which is endless joy of an eternal nature.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Peaceniks say 'Let Atik live'.

 

[Jainarayan]

The westernized version is "You cannot serve God and mammon". Sometimes it's "You cannot serve God and money", but mammon is all worldliness, i.e. wealth, greed, lust, possessions. While it's true that this is a no-brainer idea, I believe Prabhupada used crypto-Christianity as bait to attract westerners. The verse is from Matthew 6.24 “No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." This is the fine line that as embodied beings we walk, regardless of ones path ... bhakti marga, jnana marga, etc. We try to follow our paths but we do live in a material world. Unless we can all become renunciates and ascetics it will take many lifetimes to chip away at our attachments. I call myself a Krishna bhakta but I'm far from it. I'm caught up in the trappings of the world ... what do I make for dinner, do I have enough to pay the bills, the truck needs work, that ***** across the street is pissing me off with her dog crapping on my lawn. The list goes on. Even living in an ISKCON ashram we're not going to exhibit the unconditional love and compassion of Krishna. This is an ideal that is very difficult to achieve. It's what we strive for.

 

[sayak83]

Last week I attended my first Hare Krishna program in 7 months. and we were told you could serve either Krishna or Maya, but not both at the same time. This seems to be one of Prabhupada's oversimplifications (" That is not possible"), but then have found representations on internet like this one:

Krishna-Kali | West Bengal, Calcutta | The Metropolitan Museum of Art

[ Swann Galleries, Inc. , sale, March 21 1985, (part of a bound album, later binding); [ Paul F. Walter , New York, by 2005; to Pal]; [ Christie's, New York , sale, The Scholar's Vision: Pal Family Collection, 20 March 20, 2008]; [ Christie's, New York , sale, Indian and Southeast Asian Art...

www.metmuseum.org

which is also said to be from Bengal.

Beyond that I don't know anything about the background of this picture, but I find it interesting. I have read "The Sword and the Flute" by David R. Kinsley, but he emphasizes the differences of the two deities rather than their similarities.

Now I would like to ask your opinion: to worship Krishna and Maya at the same time, is it "possible", " recommendable" or a "heresy" according to your belief?

What has Maya to do with Goddess Kali. Devi is considered both the creator of and destroyer of Maya, just like Krishna himself is. So the role of Krishna in Vaishnava tradition is almost the same as the role of Goddess Kali in Sakta tradition.
The next problem with Prabhupada's dictum is Maya itself is Krishna misidentified as something other than Krishna (or Kali or Brahman .. depending on your taste). While I understand the sentiment, I remain unhappy with the dualist "fallen world of Maya" vs "God" themes that Hare Krishna had imported from Christian theology.

 

[Jainarayan]

I remain unhappy with the dualist "fallen world of Maya" vs "God" themes that Hare Krishna had imported from Christian theology.

Just as a side note, it looks like we're of the same opinion. I dislike dualism however it's shrouded.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Which means consider yourself as Krishna. (So aham).