Shree Hari Ram Ram
This brings a closure to this question. thank you all!
Gita Talk Moderators, Ram Ram
==========================================
Dear Guruji,
We know that Dharma protects those who protect Dharma.
Applying that principle on Krishna, doesn't justify why he met a terrible end
where he had to see his sons going into adharma of killing each other?
Isn't it said that if we do corruption, we get corrupted progeny too?
Why someone who uplifts Dharma always get such sons like Krishna who die
fighting each other?
regds,
rakesh
----------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for answers from all who responded.
My intention is not to shake people's belief but to rationalize my own thoughts. Probably I need some more time with myself to get the correct perspective.
regds,
rakesh
----------------------------------------------------
Dear Ones, Namaste!
With due respect to RakeshJi's questions, I want to share point or two in a bit unconventional way. This is an open forum welcoming all views and questions seemingly in opposition at first. The more we remain open, loving and respectful of questions/views, more it will lead us to live a meaningful, peaceful and happy life!
We are blessed with Scriptures of Eternal wisdom, Teaching of Swamiji and Saints/Sages, and yet, we need to go deep within ourselves to see what they have described in words. Words including that of Vedas too convey Apara Vidya(In-direct knowledge), conceptual knowledge, and hence requires us to directly experience(beyond senses and mind) and verify through this Aparoksha Anubhuti! We should remain Open to all possibilities to get there!
Having said this, let us come to RakeshJi's original question!
"Dharma protects those who protect Dharma".
It is not a conditional statement. Those who live righteously all their lives are already protecting Dharma and meet any fate while doing so regardless of what happens to their personal lives even if they have to sacrifice it. It is never a "terrible end" that Krishna, while upholding Dharma, met in dying and in his sons going to adharma killing each other. It is the mind that asks such questions by connecting two separate independent events in Life based on some expectations. In such a scenario, no answer will satisfy this mind. In all humility I may point out that such a mind wants gratification rather than Real Freedom that comes when instead of answer just accepting the fact of what has happened already.
To me, just to think of Krishna as Liberating wisdom of Bhagwat Gita, not necessarily a historical Krishna portrayed in epic, is enough in itself, to drop all such questions leading nowhere!
Actually when one takes Krishna as Human being of such Intelligence and Realization, it inspires us more to Realize ourselves than to take Him as an Avatar and say "oh He is God, He can do it but not us"! We need to demystify God bring Him to our immediate Life!
Even though corrupt life of parents results in corrupt children generally turns out to be true, is not necessarily so. It only means that we as parents live a life of Dharma unconditionally, that's all we can and must do!
If Krishna had known this in advance He wouldn't have done any different.
Once again I respect/welcome RakeshJi's questions and subsequent posts as coming from genuine concerns on this apparent contradictions due to interpretations. If and when Bhagwat Gita goes through someone, (not that someone goes through Bhagwat Gita), hopefully with the help of live Teacher or friend, Mind will find all answers. One such answer, and powerful at that, may be of that question itself is of no relevance in one's Life of Spiritual Sadhana!
Namaskar...........Pratap Bhatt
----------------------------------------------------
ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURES THERE HAVE BEEN TWENTY THREE AVATARS OF GOD. HOW CAN WE DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN THEM? WHATEVER IS SAID ABOUT KRISHNA, IT ALL MUST BE TRUE WITH REMAINING TWENTY TWO AVATARS ALSO OR THEY WEREN'T AVATARS OF GOD AT ALL.
HUMBLY,
SAADHAKA.
---------------------------------------------------
bhagwan ram had taken ''jal samadhi'' in saryu .all the GODs when they had birth lie other human beings they had their own sorrows and happiness similarly bhagwan krishna had to die with the arrow of a baheliya ---it is all destiny --things take their shape as destined only by their means .if we consider them gods then they have themselves planned all this --if we take them as humans then --also destiny comes to dictate --ajanma --are brahma -vishnu --mahesh .we do not come across such stories about them --so no questioning on their lives --it is my humble submission --jai shree krishna
Chaman Nigam
----------------------------------------------------------
The problem is that learned people do not believe Mahabharta to be real, historical event, as for instance one Sadhak below questions why the epic ends this way or that way. Colonial missionary propaganda has enslaved the Hindu mind into believing the epics as mere poems written by sages. To my mind these things happened in a time when non-violence was not the loftiest of Dharma's. There were still the Rakshass people who were simply cannibals otherwise normal humans. So in that setting violence was part of life. Kashatriyas fought as part of their life style. What is wrong with Krishna's sons fighting valiantly in that time and dying on battlefields. Their Dharma was as such. It was a different time. In fact all this proves that mahabharat was real, things happened erroneously just as they do now in our own lives. Gita was what Bhagwan Krishna spoke and it is real not just some poets musings. This question is nonsensical save our learned Hindus who judge everything according to buddhi, intellect, but not reality.
Anil Bhanot
-----------------------------------------------------
krishnawtar is said to a PURNAWATAR ---as he did all surts of leelas
--makhan chori --[childish-naughtiness ]ras leela --[enjoying and made
gopis enjoy ]--protector of art forms [playing -flute] prtecting
people from indra [goverdhan -leela ] advised arjun to fight for the
right cause [guru --shishaste ham pahi mam ]non of these things for
himself ---for the people society COW gau mata and in the process he
took some political decisions which suited PANDVAS like he being with
arjun and gave his army to duryodhan .---so krishna is krishna ---in
whatever form you want to pray him just pray him --as a friend to
sudama .i feel if krishna had not been there hindi litrature would
have been reduced to less than half ..
my humble submission
jai shree krishna
------------------------------------------
Dhanyavadji
Bhagaiah
-------------------------------------------
Obscurity in the end of KrishNa and his off-springs in MahaaBhaarata …
The question raised here cannot be answered on sociological and pathological grounds because they always corrupt everything with personal vested interests - blind knowledge riding a crippled belief. Let us address this from spiritual symbolism instead. Mahaabhaarata is the greatest spiritual piece ever. Every character - its inception, its existence as well as its demise - has specific meaning for internal spiritual observation and practice. From this perspective … so is KrishNa as well as his off-springs.
Out of the four quarters of inherent individual - Manas, Chitta, Ahankaara and Buddhi - the innate wisdom (Buddhi or Viveka) remains most oblivious in its inception. Parents really do not have any role to conceive this in their physiological dominion! It is the most dormant of all at one's inception and yet it plays all wonders in one's life all through.
This Viveka is the most fundamental element that steers one's very personality toward one's very destiny. The Charioteer has no egotic symbiosis … Buddhi remains independent in itself and never takes any decisive role on its own in spite of being with its cousins Mana, Chitta and Ahankaara. It is there to help and guide them irrespective of the intrinsic tendencies one is born with and one continues to nurture. It is the embodiment of THE TRUTH within and remains truthful as ever.
If one treats that as just a charioteer, a slave, like DhritaraashTra and his gang did to Vidura … its influence over life is stunted … Vidura tries his best to teach his cousin DhritaraashTra … the blind fellow continues in its blindened persuit as ever!
On the other hand, the same vigilant discrimination within is empowered and worshipped with reverence by their nemesis, PaanDavas. KrishNa (Buddhi), a distant cousin, becomes Paartha Saarathi leading YudhishThira (Ahamkaara), Bheema (Chitta) and Arjuna (Manas) toward one's very emancipation!!
Then, wonder strikes … why such a great character that was adored and worshipped all through was given such an obscure end in this epic?! …
One has to appreciate Shikhidhwaja's story from Yoga VaasishTha in depth to understand the obscure end given to the character KrishNa, the greatest hero of all epics, in Mahaabhaarata, the greatest of all epics. KrishNa's role is a terminator's role … to terminate the very individuality that is the most inherent seed that germinates into each existential tree spreading across its roots, stem and branches. Buddhi remains the deepest indicator to this seed - individuality. The very worship retains the the individual forte one holds. As one merges with THE SELF within, the buddhi ought to be the first in the line … it has remained closest to THE TRUTH all through the life one treads upon!
How can The Buddhi ever retire if its off-springs in terms of ideas and ideologies remain active and furtile? It has to let the very ideas and ideologies it generated in the war before to fight amongst themselves for their own absolute resolution. Only in their absolute termination, it can enable itself to exit itself first from the game. Only then, its cousins - mind, volition & ego - are empowered to seek their very freedom … THE MOKSHA …
Aham nirvikalpam niraakaara roopam vibhurvyapya sarvatra sarvendriyaaNaam |
Sadaa me samattvam na muktirna bandhah chidaananda roopaah shivoham shivoham ||
wherein, there is no more existential bondage, not even the notion of Moksha!!!
Respects.
Naga Narayana.
------------------------------------------------------
Hereditary … who is responsible for one's traits … parents?!
Dear Rakesh,
I see the transparent truthfulness in your doubt. But, parents' belief that they solely destine their offsprings' lives is mere arrogance! Children's belief that they are what they are solely due to their parents is sheer ignorance!! It is the perpetual dynamism of the world around one is born into and the intrinsic qualities within one is born with that really shape up the person. One is what one is due to THREE types of hereditary: Genetic, Social and Personal. The first two categories of influences come from the world around while the last one is solely authored by the individual as such.
Genetic hereditary cannot be really traced though the parents seem to be the tip of that iceberg. It goes all the way back to origin of life itself about which nobody can say anything assertively! Though the genetic lineage is apparent on one's end … it becomes blurry as one digs backward and becomes obscure soon.
Social hereditary cannot be completely determined either, though the parents seem to be the biggest factors in the beginning. The child interacts with so many other elements around in one's exposure. Irrespective of parents' best efforts, the social influence over the child overwhelms by par.
Personal trait is an intriguing factor no science can ever determine. Sceince just discards this factor since it does not know how to trace the so-called personal lineage. However, the person plays a key role no matter whether one accepts or not. We call the basic reason for one's personal traits as VASANAs - collective impressions one has collected over one's life (lives) by applying one's free will to exercise one's choice to seek a path in life dynamically. Can any trace this? The psychologists and psychiatrists claim some superficial success for sure … but, only the tip of a monstrous iceberg within! There is only one authority to dig into this - one who is its only author - ONESELF!
Therefore, the ONLY traceable element for one's characteristics is oneself - one's personal traits, Vaasanas in other words. It is impossible to establish social and genetic hierarchy as the possibilities remain infinite spanning the whole space and time domains. The only gateway to the other two is the first. But, one remains clueless of one's personal traits since one has developed dependence on the world to determine one's very identity! Therefore, one fails utterly in all three fronts. Since, one's personal trait retains key to all … I am afraid, one is responsible for whatever one is. No point in blaming parents or anything else for whatever one becomes in one's life! It is one's VERY PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to trace oneself within. The only way to achieve that is to turn within … away from the distracting senses around …
Paraanchi khaani vyatriNaat svayambhooh tasmaangparaangpashyati naantaraatman |
Kashchiddheerah pratyagaatmaanamaikshat aavrittachakshuh amritattvamicchhan ||
Respects.
Naga Narayana.
----------------------------------------------------------
Hari Om
Let me first address the conclusion drawn by Sadhak Rakesh..!
You say, that Krishna was a Yogi (and not an Avataar). Master Yogi...Guru of Yogis! Sure...!! I agree on Yogi part !!! Thanks.
You have promulgated a theory captioned by you as 'Krishna as human theory' and have stated that the various issues raised by you re:curses, Leela etc get satisfied if Krishna is considered human and then your good self can understand His 'set of follies' ! That is what you, Rakesh, have stated in respect of Krishna to whom Scriptures call eternal Father of all, including father of you and me. I thanked you at the outset because your goodself were kind enough to call Him as 'Yogi'.
Are you aware that by admitting He was Yogi, you have contradicted completely your own aforesaid theory called ' Krishna as human theory' ? No...you are not aware ! Now be aware of what you state but not know (Blind knowledge).
You called Krishna to be "Yogi" ! But Rakeshji Maharaj, are you aware as to what is "Yogi" ? No ..you are not aware even that. I will tell you what is Yogi.
'Yoga' has 8 limbs/parts - Yama, Niyama, Aasan, Pranayaam, Pratyahaar, Dharana, Dhyaan and Samadhi (Yogadarshan- Second Paad- 29th Sutra). In these the first limb is YAMA. "Yama" are 5 - Non violence (Ahimsa); Truth (Satya); Asteya (non-stealing); Celibacy (Brahmacharya) and non-hoarding (Aparigrah) (Yogadarshan- Second Paad- Sutra 30) ! One who follows these 8 limbs is "Yogi".
Now pay attention.
Now whoever is YOGI, he will definitely follow YAMA, in other words, He will always speak Truth. If some one does not speak the TRUTH, then he can not be Yogi because he has not followed even the first limb of Yoga ! So Krishna was a truthful person, always spoke truth. Naturally, because according to you also, He is Yogi, and according to Scriptures a Yogi follows Yama and always speaks Truth.
So if Lord Krishna was a Yogi, then He speaks truth; and if He speaks truth then YOU MUST AGREE that He is God Himself (the Supreme God) because Krishna Himself had spoken so in Gita (Refer BG 4/6;5/29;7/7;9/4; 10/3; 15/15 etc etc) !
Now what do you say, Man? Reply...!
You have praised Krishna on one count at least. That He gave Gita to us. I suppose you respect Gita or at least heard about it. Now read what Gita says about "your" knowledge and person :
MOGH ASHA MOGH KARMANO MOGH 'GYAANA' VICHETASAH ! RAKSHASHI MASURIM CHAIV PRAKRUTIM MOHINIM SHRITAH - BG 9:12 !
Futile are the hopes, karmas and 'knowledge' of such ignorant persons ...! 'Futile knowledge'..Of whom? Who is referred here? Read 9:11 now:
AVAJANANTI MAAM MOODHA MANUSHIM TANUMAASHRITAM ! PARAMBHAVAMAJAANANTO MAM BHOOT MAHESHWARAM !!
Ignorant and stupid people understand Me to be a human....!
This is what your 'Yogi' Krishna has stated. He must speak truth according to you only..and if He has spoken truth, find out to whom He referred as Ignorant/Stupid (Moodha) ! This is how 'knowledge' when applied wrongly gets futile- I call it 'blind knowledge' ...!!
Actually, God is a subject matter of 'belief' and no body can force other to 'believe' ! I also have no intention to make you believe. I have just proved the fallacy and stupidity of your own statement and have established my belief through your statement.
I will deal with your balance confusions, conjectures, surmises and utterings in next posting.
Jai Shree Krishna
Vyas N B
----------------------------------------------------------
In short, according to me, does it mean that Krishna as a parent was also somewhere responsible
for the evil and unrighteousness in his children.
When we hold Dhritrashtra's greed/Gandhari's eye covered accountable for the bad
upbringing of 100 kauravas, when we hold accountable dhundhkari's mother
accountable for his going into path of unrighteousness, when we hold accountable
the rakshasi mother of Ravana for his growing up into a lusty, adharmik person,
then why can't we hold Krishna & Rukmini accountable for bad upbringing of their
children. How do we justify that except for the failure in the upbringing on parent's part, in this
case Krishna and his wives?
I know these questions are very harsh and blasphemous, but i think this is an
intellectual forum where people have tolerance for questions to their beliefs.
regds,
rakesh
--------------------------------------------
Dharma evolves from dharnas(doctrines) which we ourselves lay in conformity to cosmic dictation.When we violate,adharma impedes dharma and its set or promulgated rituals.Lord Krishna is idol and inspiration of duty,discipline,justice and other moral and social values.He is the charm to decencies expressed in a very broader meaning of gopis.When anyone's sons or other irresponsible members in society misbehave,momentum of life can be affected.
subhashtewari
---------------------------------------------------
Sri Hari Raam Raam.
Am loving the answers given to the question by Rakesh Ji--thanks so much to each Sadhaka for sharing your knowledge. Where I am, its difficult to access this kind of discourses and am really very grateful for this forum.
Just one comment to Rakesh Ji--why do you call it a "terrible end?" The Lord was already gone when that arrow hit his toe--for one who did what he did during his time on Earth, don't you believe that he was just there for that arrow?
And am also agreeing with other Sadhakas who said that The Blessed Lord demonstrated that even He is not exempted from the Laws of Karma. Its another huge lesson at the last moment of His time on Earth, a lesson that all of us--His Descendants should always keep in mind every moment of our lives and thus perform Dharma--righteous duty so that we won't at some point in time have to encounter our own arrows...
Hari Bol.
NS Bisnath
TAD VISNOH PARAMAM PADAM (Rg Veda 1.22.20)
-----------------------------------------------
Hari Om
Questions like this actually throw more Qs at the questioner itself. This Q has all such ingredients. Such Qs end up in exposing 'lack of belief' in an understanding which is subject matter of belief and introduction of intellect there so as to acquire 'knowledge'
This Q has also arisen because of not understanding, at the outset, as to what is "dharma" !!! Once the very concept gets ill conceived, its co-relation accordingly must get erroneous. Dharma is always individual. Once you perceive dharma like that, you will not relate it with any outer or inner prosperity, ascendants or descendants, famiily, children...nor with birth or death..! "Destruction" is as good a job of Paramatma as is "Creation" and "Preservation" ! What is so important then about destruction of those who took birth ? They must die and they die. What is so puzzling about a spider creating the web and then eating it away? What dharma has got to do with it? Hence the very co-relation here by the Questioner needs correction.
Secondly, You ought to 'believe' correctly ! "To
Believe" is an independent power of every human being. One must utilise it correctly. There are elements to understand in this world. Some are subject matter of 'belief' and some are subject matter of 'knowledge' ! These 2 things viz belief and knowledge can not be intermingled. You don't have option of using them interchangeably. They have quite opposite areas of application. Where is belief, when there is knowledge? The Q of belief arises only when there is no knowledge available. God is subject matter of 'belief' only, because there is no 'knowledge' available of God on the planet. You must believe first. Later on, knowledge may come.
Any error in this regard actually means 'blindness' with reference to knowledge but manifests by dubbing 'belief' as blind. After all knowledge has ego entailed with it. For example, when you perceive, by using intellect (knowledge), Krishna to be human, you may conclude that the belief viz He was incarnation of Lord Vishnu, is a blind belief merely because your knowledge does not support that. Here , belief and knowledge get intermingled, erroneously. Hence erroneous conclusion arises.
It is not that 'belief' does not get converted into 'knowledge' ! Those who believe in God , later on "know" Him also. But if they don't believe, how will they know? When you indulge in mixture of 'belief' and 'knowledge' , you end up with 'blindness' of knowledge. Rightly so ! What kind of logic or rationale can work there in that which is subject matter of belief (where no knowledge is available) ? Hence one should not funnily introduce knowledge, logic, rationale, reasoning, intellect, mind etc on such issues. Either believe or do not believe..that is it.
JUST AS: You have no 'knowledge' that Mr So and So is your father. You can not identify him on the strength of your knowledge. Nor do you 'know' as to who was your mother. You believe. You don't remember your birth. Whoever fed you, took care of you is your mother and to whoever Your mom points out to you is your father and you believe her and 'accept' him to be your father. There is no option before you to 'know' ! You must believe.
Just As identity of this birth father is subject matter of belief and not of knowledge, SIMILARLY: God (Our Eternal Father) , Scriptures, Self ..these are subject matter of belief.. NOT of knowledge. Any effort to introduce intellect in 'knowing' as to who is your father of this birth is as futile as is trying to 'know' your Eternal Father. But once you 'believe' (accept) some one to be your father, that belief later on may get converted into knowledge (experience).
(For example in your later life, your conduct, mannerism, voice, walking/talking style itself start suggesting similarity with your father to those who are acquainted with your father also)
Same is the case with Krishna, His Leela, Scriptures, Dharma...!!! You can't use intellect there. You must believe. What else can you do? The moment you try to introduce intellect, erroneous results are bound to follow.
Thirdly, are you aware that the laws pertaining to Jagat (world) are totally opposite to laws pertaining to Jeeva (Self) and Jagdish (God) ? One should never make an error of applying 'worldly laws' to understand Jeeva/Jagdish. Actually, 100% opposite laws operate there. Ha...!! There are only 3 elements existing in Universe. 1 Jeeva 2 Jagat 3 Jagdish. Then there are 3 powers - 1 To do 2 To know 3 To believe. Then there are 3 goals/desires- 1 To do 2 To know 3 To get...! Scriptures teach you as to what power you should use for fulfilling which desire with respect to which element.
Jai Shree Krishna
Vyas N B
----------------------------------------------------
Dear Geeta Sadhakas, Namaskar,
Shrikrishna was 9th Avatar of Lord Vishnu. It is a fact that he was born as a human, from the genetic material inherited from several ancestors of Vasudeva and Devaki. As a human, Krishna had chromosomes from his human ancestors. All the ancestors were not as great as Krishna and you cannot expect all his next-generations to be great. So his children and grand-children were perfect humans. Srikrishna has uplifted dharma, we cannot imagine why he could not uplift his children and grand children.
This anology applies to several great men. Rama, Tilak, Gandhi, Newton, Eienstain etc.
....Gee Waman.
-------------------------------------------------
Dear Sirs,
Thanks for taking this query up and for various responses.
However, i am not fully convinced with the responses. Broadly these theories are
raised:
1) Leela of God: This is like blindly agreeing to what is being told by
religious pundits. All leelas of god have some meaning behind it. No leela has
god done, which is not to support a higher cause.
I don't understand what message god wanted to give by letting his family members
commit fratricide. He himself killed many of his sons bear hand and with kusha
grass. i am totally puzzled at the message coming out of this. Comparing monkeys
getting killed in Rama-Ravan war or other good people dying in war for higher
cause with this kind of fratricide is not justified.
2) Cause and effect: Rama killed vaali etc...do we mean that Rama did adharma by
killing vaali from a hiding? Rama justified killing of vaali from hiding as he
declares him as the judge and executioner (Rama being the descendents of the
ruler of aryaavrat, thus responsible for upkeep of justice) of the criminal. To
hang or execute a criminal, a judge or executioner don't need to necessarily
fight with him. You can bring him to position of disadvantage and execute. To
upkeep a higher dharma/cause, one can forego a lower dharma/cause. Such lower
cause's effect get fully absorbed by the bigger cause, hence repercussions are
not seen. This principal saves all the judges who have to give up relative lower
cause of (freedom/life for all beings) for a higher cause (restraint/death to
one to save the life of 100).
3) Curse from Gandhari to Krishna : If Krishna kills to uplift dharma, why
should gandhari's curse have such effect. If every parent of a criminal start
cursing the judge and executioner and it starts taking effect, what would be the
protection for Judge. The principal of "dharma protects the protector of dharma"
should have protected Krishna also from Gandhari's curse.
4) Curse from Rishis to Samba and his brothers: No doubt Samba and other bros
were a spoiled brats. But I couldn't understand why ? On one hand we say that by
just chanting Krishna we can get freedom out of our sins, by just forming a
family relation with him we can be saved, on the other hand the real sons of
krishna are not able to get rid of their sins. Its like swimming in river and
still thirsty. How is it possible?
5) All souls are individual and closeness with goodness doesn't ensure that the
qualities would be passed: Difficult to accept.
6) Krishna as Human Theory: If we accept Krishna as Human with his highs & Lows, with his set of follies, we can still explain. As a human we daily get indulged in many selfish and sinful activities even though we know at core of the heart its wrong. Those weeknesses keep us as normal human. Might be he as a leader of masses got so much indulged in public welfare that couldn't give much attention to his children growing up into brats and evils.
No doubt Krishna is a guru who gave us gita, he is yoga guru.
When he claims himself as God, its when he gets in yoga state and the "I" he
refers to is the supreme "I".
But in other situations he was also a human with his own set of Lows.
regds,
rakesh
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear Sadaks,
People do not study full text and understand deeper meaning and clarifications given in scripts itself. Asking such questions is like spoon feeding a adult. But still- The monkeys that died in war between Sri Rama and Ravana was awakened from death and later taken to God abode. Sri Krishna sons/people dies before Sri Krishna was to leave to HIS abode SRI VAIKUNT, as they are to reach their respective DIVYA Lokas before Sri Krishna leaves. Their fight was arranged fight by saap. Sri Krishna was shot at HIS feet big toe with an arrow, by a hunter called Zara and Sri Krishna Avathar was over and HE left this world just like a lightening while 33 crore demi gods was witnessing. Zara was Vaali earlier in Tretha Yug who was shot by arrow by Sri Rama. Karma Theory. Cause and effects. One great saint in south India near Selam , was THIRUMOOLAR lived 3000 years. He gave a sloka in Tamil which meant- (AASAI ARUMIN AASAI ARUMIN EASON AGIGILUM ASSAI ARUMIN) MEANS even GOD cannot escape cause and effect. Dobby who abused mother Seetha was Dobby killed by Sri Krishna in Mathura. Kubja hunch back disfigured lady in Mathura was made a beautiful woman by Sri Krishna. This lady was old lady who misguided Kakeyi and made Sri Rama to go to forests. Bala Gopalas were Rishis during Sri Ram avathar. You and me who are we? this if we know we have attained realization.
B.Sathyanarayan
------------------------------------------------
Hari Om
The principle that 'Dharma protects Dharma' has no co-relation with perishing of "Krishna's family" as perceived by you to be "His family". Whoever is born, dies. What 'dharma' has got to do with the same? Where it has been stipulated that those who follow dharma, their children can not die or fight with each other ? That is no. 1
Secondly, everything happening with reference to Lord Krishna , who is incarnation of Vishnu, is 'Leela' and has its own characteristics. You can't decipher out the reasons of the same with your limited intellect. The 'avataar' of Krishna means- He came into this world not as an ordinary human being but as Supreme Lord Himself. He did not take birth as an ordinary human under the control of Prakruti...rather He took Prakruti under His control and lived in human body for certain time. The Laws of Nature apply to Jeevas, not even to liberated souls what to talk of 'avataars' !
We all are His family only. Why then to presume that those who perished fighting each other were only His family members? There are reasons for that incidence too. One reason was 'curse of Gandhaari' ! Second reason was onset of Kaliyuga...and so on.
Yes...Dharma protects the follower of it. But Dharma relates to an individual not to his descendants. Father may be Ugrasen and son may be Kansa. Similarly, father may be Hiranyakashyap and son may be Prahlad. Can not it be?
Jai Shree Krishna
Vyas N B
----------------------------------------------
Dharma does not need protection by anybody. Dharma remains dharma
irrespective of what people do. Dharma is the property of entities:
properties are inherent in bodies and natural phenomena. If you mean by
Dharma on righteoisness or practice of good values, then that is only a
part of dharma. In any case, Krishna as a human being had to die one
day. As a preacher of Gita, how one dies is not an issue for Krishna who
has perfected all Yohgas. He lived in a society where he had to mix
with both good and vil and there is always a probabiity of unanticipated
death. It was a possibility of his dyng as an arrow strikes him while
he was perched on a tree if h was on a tree in a forest whee hunters
were hunting for food among birds perched on tree branches. As for
Krishna, it as immaterial to Him as to how he died.
Krisna was among the raest of Yogis and his progeny need not be just
like Him. Whatever He had done, He did selflessly and without any
desire. It is not the naturl law tht his sons will be ike him - a pure
soul always engaged in action without desire, anger, fear, attachment
etc. It would npt matter to Him as how His sons would live life.
Rather, he did not ave ay desre that His sns woud follow Him, and gain
from his good deeds. And, His sons are not merely His sons alone but
also the sons of His iives. He is a rare being: he came and went
without any attachment and doing good to people. He was an idol to be
followed. Few people would follow his preacxhing. So your question is
relly not relevant. All saints are the sons of God as all evil men are:
the concept of family for God is the entire Universe - not the immediate family of human beings HE was born and created as a human being.
Basudeb Sen
----------------------------------------
Dear Rakesh Ji & Other Sadaaks,
Namaskar!
About this destruction of Krisha's family and its Yadavs Kul my father, a learnt scholar of B-Gita told me told a story in my childhood related to this episode of destruction of Yadavas. Here it goes like he narrated as under:
A group of Yadava boys were playing and suddenly during the play they amongst them one boy was put with an Inverted Kadayi hanging from his neck and covering it with long robe over the Kadai, making him appear as if the boy is a pregnant lady. Testing the intelligence of one great Saint (Don't remember the name), the boys went to him and asked whether the apparent pregnant lady would deliver a boy or girl!!??? The saint ignored the children's naughty question and just told
them go children and play! But the children as usually were naughty, kept on insisting the Saint time and again number of times with same query as to what would the pregnant boy deliver. This continual persistance of the boys annoyed the Saint very much who finally said It would deliver the thing which would finish your whole dynasity!!!! After some stepulated time, the boy delivered some soft stone like thing. The boys were surprised and went Lord Krishna telling their fun playing with the Saint. The boys asked Krishna as to now what
they should do with this strange stone. Krisha told them to rub the stone on a flat stone and throw the stuff into one water pond near by. On full rubbing the stone reduced to a small sharp and hard piece which could not be further reduced by rubbing. So this small piece was also thrown into the water pond as such along with moist rubbed material. After some more months huge Reed plants having very sharp leaves, grew from the pond obviously from the molten rubbed
material while a fish swallowed the left sharp piece. The fish has been caught and sold to a archer Shikari. While cleaning and cutting the Fish for eating, he found the sharp stone piece which, he used to make a good arrow. The sharp leaves of Reed got use for killing the whole Yadav dynesty as per the Saint's Curse while; the Shikari used the special arrow made to kill a beautiful bird appearing from a distance. When he went to get the bird, to his great surprise and sorrow it was Krishna who was hit in the foot which killed him fulfilling the Saints Curse fully!!!
The is everythig is as destined which, is to happen while rest becomes the means to get it fullfilled!!!
Regards to destiny!
I am
KKK
(Kuldeep Kumar Kaul)
===============================================
UNDERSTANDING DHARMA
Dharma is Nature (swabhaav) which needs no protection. Rituals (karmakaand) need protection and Rituals don't protect one from the end [whosoever is born, vanishes after death]. All forms of Avatar obeyed this Law without exception. If not, kindly visit some of them NOW, as (then present) people visited them (at that time).
Humbly,
Saadhaka.
-----------------------------------------------
Dear listfolk,
The tragic events of Krishna's old age prove Krishna's historicity. It is not hagiography, invented to glorify him, but perfectly human history related by the bards because they knew they couldn't conceal it because everybody knew. He was a human being, his elevation to divine status only came about when his life-story was already well-known and unalterably fixed.
Kind regards,
KE - Koenraad Elst
----------------------------------------------
Related Link:
http://www.swamiramsukhdasji.net (english)
http://www.swamiramsukhdasji.org (hindi)
Post message: gita-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subscribe: gita-talk-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe: gita-talk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
27,000+ sadhakas
A list of all topics discussed in 2009 along with their links are at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gita-talk/message/3189
0 comments:
Post a Comment