What is Krishna ? Bhagavad-gita 7.03 and 7.26

[Ravisankar S. Mayavaram]

On Fri, 3 Jul 1998, Gummuluru Murthy wrote:
>
> I fully agree that Shrikrishna is Ishwara and Ishwara is as real as
> you and I. But in the paramArtha (the only state we are concerned
> with), is not everything nirguna Brahman ? In that state, where is
> Shrikrishna, arjuna and the jeevas ? I think it is a mis-interpretation
> of my earlier post to read into it that I said while we are real,
> Shrikrishna is a fiction.

My fundamental problem is this: When a person is completely immeresed in
this duality and dealings of this world, I think (s)he should not talk
from the paramArtha satyam. That will be claiming the jIvAna muktA state.
We may be desirous of attaining the non-dual state. My point was not to
misinterpret you. Question do you deal with this world with advaita
bhAvam. If a person who does not see samatvam here, and who leads life
which serves as a proof for his belief in duality. How can that person
talk from paramArtha satyam. I have not seen Autsralia at all. Just to
imitate the one who has seen Australia and talk like him does not make me
one like him.


>
> Shrikrishna is the same as Shri RamaNa maharshhi. Both are jnAnam in
> embodied form. Somehow, we do not attribute the properties of Ishwara
> to Shri RamaNa while we readily call Shrikrishna as Ishwara ! Why is
> that ?

I dont think a jIvaNa muktA will equal Ishvara. I do not have any
reference for this now. I request knowledgeable members to discuss this
issue. A jIvanamuktA is free while here itself, because he does not
identify himself with ephemeral things. But he is not Ishvara. Ishvara has
certain unique powers. Which jIvanamuktAs cannot lay claim upon. If they
do that very moment they will fall deep down from that state. This is my
belief. shrIkR^iShNa is a pUrNAvataram. You can not compare him with
a jIvanamukta.  I request Rama and Anand to correct me if I am wrong.

>
> The step of Ishwara in advaita, while a very useful one, is still
> not the final step. My feeling is, our understanding of advaita
> will not be short-circuited if we look beyond Ishwara.


While in vyavahArika, with no glimpse of even savikalpa samadhi let alone
nirvikalpa samAdhi, if one talks about looking beyond Ishvara, I think it
is pointless. It will lead one no where. It is true according to advaita
vedanta that in a non-dual state, duality of Ishvara and jIva does not
exists. To talk as if one is in paramArtha satyam while being in
vyavahArika satyam is misleading.


One cannot attain the non-dual state by talking about it. By doing
Atmavichara after stilling one's mind and disconnecting it from senses,
one has to known who he really is. Intense Sadhana is essential and
Ishwara is the only support for that sAdhana.


My intention is not to mis-intrepret you. I am sorry if I did so. I
believe that people in bondage, especially householders, should not talk
as if they are in paramArtha satyam. It is as contradictory as light and
darkness.


With respects,
Ravi