Krishna

I have just started learing about Krishna and it always refers for Krishna as God and Lord. Is this the Christian God? I'm guessing not but I don't really know....
I also read a bit that said "As a spiritual person you're only going to be happy in your original (spiritual) relationship with your original father and family members." Does this mean that I could not be happy where I am on earth?
I'm a bit confused and any help would be appreciated.
Basically.. I'm wondering "What does it all mean?"

Thanks, Holly

 

Holly, thats a big question to answer. But I'll try.
Firstly, in the Vedic tradition of India there are different schools, who see things differently from each other, although really, it is only a difference in emphasis. God is said to be the supreme reality, and is called Brahman. Some say this Brahman is a personal being - Krishna, whilst others say Krishna and the other gods are forms taken by God, who is ultimately formless. Krishna is an Avatar - one who descends to earth to bring salvation to mankind, just as Christ is believed to do by Christians.
Is it the same God? Yes - the same One who is worshipped under many different forms and names - Jesus, Allah, Krishna, Kali, Buddha,Jehova. It is all the One God manifesting at different times and places.

I'm not fully sure what you've read, but the second point seems to be one that is often made regarding our identity.
The Bhagavad Gita teaches that within all beings is the Atman, the Soul. This is who we really are, but we don't realize it, We identify with the body, and think that is who we are. Through the process of yoga, we have to come to see the truth, to awaken to our real identity, awaken the atman in us.This soul,it is said, is undergoing a process of continual birth, death and rebirth. With the end of one body, so the soul takes a new one, and so the cycle continues until we attain liberation (mukti). The family relations of a particular life are not the souls eternal relations - the true relationship is with Krishna.
It doesn't mean at all that you can't enjoy full happiness wherever you are - it means that if we discover our true inner being and our relationship to God, who is all-blissful and loving, we will enjoy happiness eternally.
Nor does it mean you should turn your back on others - family, freinds. But the relationship to God is to come first, worldly relations second. But at a more advanced stage, it is said that the devotee learns to se Krishna in all beings, from the highest down to the most lowly.
I don't know if that will help, or just add to your confusion. The best advice is to read the Bhagavad Gita and see what Sri Krishna says.

Love & Peace.

 

Not another one.


Well said Bill

 

Lol

- thanks Sebbi.

Love & Peace.

 

we're all so silly.

 

Krishna? His first name is Harry.

 

You are right - Christianity is more narrow and rigid in its conceptions.

But Brahman is the One Reality - not an aspect. So say the Upanishads.

 

hahhahaha

 

brahman and atman are not aspects of anything, they are both words indicating the Infinite, which cannot be expressed verbally. Sarvada bhramate it i brahman, that which is everywhere is brahman, antaha vasati iti atman, tha which lives within all is the atman. These are just various ways of describing or indicating the Truth, to guide us towards its experience.

 

Don't forget Paramatman!

 

paramam atma it paramatma - The Highest of Souls, that which is the soul of everything.

 

In my understanding, and I stress it is only my understanding, the Atman or Jiavataman is the individual soul, Paramatman is, as you say Bhaskar, the soul of everything - God Himself. Both are present within us.

 

Actually in various places in the scriptures atman is used alternatively to refer to jivatman or paramatman depending on context, though more often paramatman in my experience.

The thing is, the jivatma has only relative existence. The existence of jivatmanis an illusion created by ignorance and in truth even that is only a manifestation and play of paramatman.

 

Silence

 

That's one version - however, not the only one. Realization of the Atman is one thing - Paramatman another.
The great mistake is to think the Atman is the ego.
According to some, Madhva, Ramanuja for example,the Atman is eternally existent and it is only a part, a portion of the Paramatman.
In the Gita, Krishna mentions both, and it seems the terms are not synonomous.

 

Well yes, there are various schools of thought with such distinctions that are not important enough to argue about.

Personally I follow Adi Shankara's school of thought, advaita. The Self is One, eternal, and indivisible. Since there is only one brahman, who is all encompassing, it is not possible to divide that into parts, because to divide something into parts there has to be a space other than that something, another entity to create the division. The existence of such an entity separate from brahman contradicts our qualification of brahman itself, therefore it cannot be so. Hence I assert that brahman is indivisible and so the concept being a "small part" of brahman is contradictory to the concept of brahman itself.

 

Its definitely not something to argue about. As you say, there are different schools - terminology etc. may vary. But all are only different paths to that One Truth that is above all of our mental and philosophical concepts. Call it Brahman, Paramatman or Puroshottama - its just different ways of seeing.

Its like Sri Ramakrishna's story of the blind men and the elephant - one touched its leg and said an elephant is like a tree trunk, one touched its ear and said its like a fan - and so on.

 

What I mean Bhaskar, is that if I had full realization, and my ego were truly extinguished for good, If my consciousness was merged wholly and eternally in the Divine, I could say Atman and Paramatman are one. Until then, I feel I have to keep a distinction. Like the difference between an individual and a universal Purusha.


Om Shanti.

 

Beloved Bill,
I fully appreciate and understand what you are saying. I, on the other hand, constantly try to see that paramatman everwhere and in eveything, including myself. Therefore to me, atman is brahman and everything is a part of the cosmic purusha.