Slavery to Krishna?

[ratikala]

Why is existence of God necessary?

here I agree with Hinduism♥Krishna ......

Can you please stop to spam here in this Sacred Vedanta DIR?

Perhaps it is some entity from which everything arises.

here we are talking about love of God please do not call God it !

One arisen, living things have different consciousnesses, and behave differently.

yes ....in ignorance , ........ignorance of god !

Dead, they are again that entity. Out of the (dust, energy, or whatever), into the (dust, energy, or whatever). Maya.

you may speak this way only of the physical self !

MAyA is the illusion that we are the physical self .

 

[Aupmanyav]

Ratikala, Krishna was involved in so many mischiefs and you worship him. I just wrote a line in fun and you accuse me. Is that fair?

 

[psychoslice]

Sorry wrong thread

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram aupmanyav ji

Ratikala, Krishna was involved in so many mischiefs and you worship him. I just wrote a line in fun and you accuse me. Is that fair?

but ji .....Krsna's mischeif is trancendental .....meaning that it has divine purpose...meaning Krsna is in full knowledge of the implications of his actions ....

we are not in full knowledge of the implications of our actions , so should be very carefull what we do and say especialy because of the influence our words may have on others ...

any how ...I do not worship him for his mischeifs , these mischeifs are to ensnare the materialy minded ....

and since when has this life been fair ?

you think you can behave like Krsna ???

then you must expect a slap from one of Sri Radhika's Gopis

 

[agorman]

In that case, do not be a staunch bhakta of Krishna (like Chaitanya), otherwise you would be doing nothing else but chanting in the afterlife;

Hmmm I've read Krishna gives all sorts of pastimes to His devotees in Vrindavan; much more fun than just chanting. And you never come back to Earth again.

but do just enough good to enter Indra's heaven, where you have ample supply of booze and beautiful women (apsaras) performing dances for you. Of course, it would not last for an eternity. You will need to come back. Advice: Be good, but do not be too good.

Indra worship is actually much older than the one of Krishna, so who knows if we should say one is less than the other without incurring in an offense.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Indra worship is actually much older than the one of Krishna, so who knows if we should say one is less than the other without incurring in an offense.

I do not think so. These were two streams which merged later. Both old, the immigrant Vedics and indiginous. That is why there is no mention of Krishna in the Vedas.

 

[Stormcry]

That is why there is no mention of Krishna in the Vedas.

Who are अनार्य can not understand this? Vishnu is beyond kshar(jivas) and akshar(turiya). He is the embodiment of Brahman itself. No one can deny that millions of realised vaishnawas have realised Vishnu as Brahman. Adi shankara like vaishnawas realised him as Nirguna Brahman. And about Veda ! To realise Vishnu in veda, there should be perfection in veda and such perfection one gets only from realised guru, never by reading Veda. No matter how many times you read it . I teach you how veda is related to Vishnu.

The Vedas enjoins Vishnu alone in the form of Yadnya ( Ydnya is the another name of vihnu), him alone in the form of various deities like Indra, Agni, surya in Devata Kanda and whatever is super-imposed on vishnu first and then negated in Dnyana kandas is vishnu alone taking this stand on him as the cause of all causes and the highest reality, the Vedas posit (states) diversity as a mere illusion and then denying it, ultimately becomes quiet. This much is the import of all the Vedas. Understood ?

 

[Poeticus]

The Vedas enjoins Vishnu alone in the form of Yadnya ( Ydnya is the another name of vihnu)

^ Dude's got a point, Aup.

*yajna​

 

[Aupmanyav]

, I do not know which dude are you talking about. Prajapati is 'Yajna' (Orion, Mrigashiras).

"In Rig. x. 192.2, Samvatsara or the year is said to rise out of the ocean, the place where Vritra was killed (Rig. x. 68.12). Prajapati, as represented by Orion, may also be naturally supposed to commence the year when the vernal equinox was in Orion. Rudra killed Prajapati, and as I have shown before, Prajapati, Samvatsara and Yajna were convertible terms. Rudra therefore killed Prajapati or Yajna at the beginning of the year; and Yajna also meant sacrifice. Rudra was therefore naturally believed to have killed the sacrifice thus giving rise to the Puranic legends of Rudra routing the sacrifice of Daksha. At the end of the Sauptika Parva in the Mahabharata we are told that "Rudra pierced the heart of Yajna or Sacrifice with an arrow. Thus pierced the Sacrifice, with fire, fled away in the form of an antelope and having reached the sky, there shines in that form, followed Rudra." Thus it was that Rudra acquired the title of Sacrifice-breaker. In the Tandya Brahmana vii.2.1, the death of Prajapati is, however, spoken of as voluntary.

In Taitt. Br. iii. 9. 22.1, he is said to have assumed the form of Yajna and given himself up to the Devas to be sacrificed. The Devas killed him on their morning, and so every one should similarly perform the Ashvamedha sacrifice at the beginning of the year. One can now understand what the meaning of these stories is. They refer to the death of Prajapati by Rudra at the beginning of the year; and thus it was that Yajna, meaning the year was sacrificed by means of Yajna or Prajapati, Rig. x. 90.16., where we are told that Gods sacrificed Yajna by Yajna, but this (human sacrifice) was an old (out of date) practice, may also be similarly interpreted. I cannot say which of these legends is older, whether that of Prajapati sacrificing himself, or of Rudra killing him at the beginning of the year. But whichever of these be older, it does not affect our present question. Both of them indicate that Prajapati once commenced the year and that he either willingly allowed himself to be sacrificed or was killed by Rudra at that time."
"ORION or Researches into the Antiquity of Vedas" by B.G.Tilak, Chapter 6 - Orion and His Belt, Page 124 onwards.

Can we, insignificant fellows, match the effort and scholarship of Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak? How many books you find referred here? Have we read even one hundredth of what he has mentioned?
ps - The year began with Orion/Mrigashiras on the day of vernal equinox during the period 4,000 BC to 2,200 BC, when it was changed to Krittika; and later to Ashwin (followed currently) around 600 AD following Bhaskara. It needs to be corrected now as the asterism today on the day of vernal equinox is Revati (Pisces).

 

[Stormcry]

Indra worship is actually much older than the one of Krishna, so who knows if we should say one is less than the other without incurring in an offense.

Are you kidding? Worship of Indra was started in Treta Yuga where was only one Dharma- Yadnya Dharma. Before that means in Satya Yuga, there was only one Varna- Hamsa Varna, where was only Dhyana on Onkara/Om. Om is the wordly incarnation of Brahman and is indifferent from Brahman or Vishnu. Vishnu means which is all-pervading and is equivalent to Brahman which also means all-pervading.

Indra is not supreme Brahman. In Veda sometimes Indra word refers to Brahman and sometimes as a god. Though Indra is a divine king of IndraNagari, he is totally trapped in Maya ( Woman ). He has a pride of his exalted postion. Such conditions are contradictory to Brahman-Avatara or Bhagavan. Indra is not Bhagavan. He is only Devata or King of devatas whereas as Krishna is the very manifestation of Brahman itself. He's Vishnu which is all-pervading and superior than Indra.

If Indra is really a supreme, can you tell me to whome Indra gave Moksha or Which realised person/sant realised Indra as a Brahman or What's the scriptural proof supporting that worshiping Indra gives us Moksha. As far as my knowledge is considered, Indra worship is only for material gains including the highest gain- Svarga. Tho god who himself is trapped in greed, how can he release someone from Maya?

Yes, Indra worship is sanctioned by Scriptures but it should be done not for material gain. The worship should be of Vishnu alone in the form of Indra. Because there are three sacred places to worship paramatma Vishnu - 1) Brahmana 2) Devata 3) Cows

 

[agorman]

Hinduism♥Krishna, I never said Indra is the supreme one. I just said that at least according to what I've read, his worship is older.

What I knew once from a Vaishnava is that even the king of the devas is a soul like us, but much more advanced. Maybe he's in the highest state a soul can reach within a material plane.

Although the best would be entering into a trance and asking Krishna or Indra himself.