Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27

Thread: Lokas

  1. #11

    Re: Lokas

    Respected Smarnam ji

    Thanks for reply.I agree all forms of Lord Vasudeva.But in material plane, why there is difference in some forms.It is told that Lord Narasimha worship will give immediate results than other forms.There is a proverb that there is no tommorow for Narasimha.He comes immediately for his devotees.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    July 2012
    Age
    52
    Posts
    2,088
    Rep Power
    2640

    Re: Lokas

    Very beautifully stated, Smaranam ji! Thank you.

    I too bow down to that Vasudeva who is everywhere as well as Antaryaami in all jeevas! _/\_
    Last edited by Viraja; 11 October 2014 at 06:51 AM.
    jai hanuman gyan gun sagar jai kapis tihu lok ujagar

  3. #13
    Join Date
    December 2012
    Posts
    552
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Lokas

    Namaste Viraja and Anirudh


    Quote Originally Posted by Viraja
    I wonder why then our Sri Vaishnava alwars have not sung any pasurams (hymns) praising the relevant kshetras within Vaikuntha where different forms of Sriman Narayana are represented. Out of the 'not of this world' kshetras, only 'Thirupparkadal' and 'Paramapadam' have been sung by the alwars. If Sri Rama, Sri Krishna, Sri Narasimha and other forms (avataras) of Sri Vishnu had separate places of manifestation within Vaikunta, wouldn't then the alwars have sung about them separately? To my understanding thus, all avataras emanated from Sri Vishnu and merged into him upon completion of their avatara.

    This question has always indeed fascinated me and I have raised my doubt thus elsewhere in this forum before - whether different avataras of Sri Vishnu exist differently/separately in Sri Vaikuntha and I have not received a clear answer. Still searching...
    In my country there is a saying that says something like "Who waits, he finally welcomed (the answer to his questions)"

    I don't know about Sri vaishnava saints and scholars, but I know that Gaudiya vaishnava scholars recognize existence of different places (or you can call it lokas or planets, or different Lord's abodes) in the eternal world of Vaikuntha.
    I can give you some examples about it from the scriptures.

    It is said that in the eternal Vaikuntha world there are eternal places such as Mathura, Vrindavana, Dvaraka and Ayodhya, so that when the Lord descends from Vaikuntha to this material world as an avatara He descends along with his eternal abode which then appears here on earth. So for example when Lord Krishna descends to this material world as an avatara He comes along with his eternal abodes Mathura, Vrindavana and Dvaraka. When Lord Rama descends from Vaikuntha to this material world as an avatara, He descends along with his eternal abode Ayodhya which then appears here on earth.

    Here are quotes from Srimad Bhagavatam 11.31.23-24 and explanation given by Jiva Gosvami about eternal place of Dvaraka:
    http://vedabase.net/sb/11/31/en
    http://vedabase.net/sb/11/31/23/en
    http://vedabase.net/sb/11/31/24/en

    Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī explains that whereas the external manifestation of the Lord's abode was covered by the ocean, the Lord's eternal Dvārakā exists beyond the material universe and certainly beyond the material ocean.
    Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī has quoted a verse from the end of the Eleventh Canto that further clarifies that the abode of the Lord is as eternal as the Lord Himself: "The ocean immediately swallowed Dvārakā, O Mahārāja, taking away the Lord's personal abode, which the Lord had abandoned. The Supreme Lord, Madhusūdana, is always present in Dvārakā, which merely by being remembered takes away everything unfavorable. It is the most auspicious of auspicious places." (Bhāg. 11.31.23-24)

    It is important to note in verses Bhāgavatam 11.31.23 and 24 mention of the expression dvārakāḿ hariṇā ... nityaḿ sannihitas tatra bhagavān madhusūdanaḥ "Lord Madhusūdana, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is eternally present in Dvārakā" which confirms that Dvaraka is not a temporary transient place of this material world which is perishable, but it is imperishable eternal place: nityam -- eternally; sannihitaḥ -- present; tatra -- there; bhagavān -- the Supreme Personality of Godhead; madhusūdanaḥ -- Madhusūdana.

    This material world is temporary and is a perishable place because it is created and destroyed, but Vaikuntha and places that exist there (Mathura, Vrindavana, Dvaraka, Ayodhya, ... ) are eternal and indestructible because the world of Vaikuntha is never destroyed. So when the Lord descends from the Vaikuntha to this material world as an avatara, He descends along with his eternal imperishable abode which then appears here on earth.
    To say it in other words, Dvaraka which appeared on earth 5000 years ago that was visible to material eyes was only a replica of eternal Dvaraka that exists in Vaikuntha. When the Lord completes his pastimes (lilas) on earth this replica Dvaraka can be destroyed, but eternal Dvaraka in Vaikuntha is never annihilated and the Lord lives there forever.

    Here is an example which shows that Mathura is an eternal abode of the Lord:
    http://vedabase.net/sb/10/1/28/en

    "Since that time, the city of Mathurā had been the capital of all the kings of the Yadu dynasty. The city and district of Mathurā are very intimately connected with Kṛṣṇa, for Lord Kṛṣṇa lives there eternally." (Bhāgavatam 10.1.28)


    The Lord lives separately in Vaikuntha and Goloka. This can be seen from the description in the Brahma-vaivarta Purana:
    http://brahma-vaivarta-puranam.blogs...-complete.html

    106 O mother, above the material world is the spiritual world of Vaikuntha and Goloka. O mother, as the spiritual world is eternal, so You are also eternal.

    http://brahma-vaivarta-puranam.blogs...-complete.html

    14 In Vaikuntha He appears in many forms as four-armed Lord Narayana, the beloved of Laksmi. In Goloka and Gokula He appears in His original form as two-armed Lord Krsna, the beloved of Radha.

    So it seems that Vaikuntha and Goloka are two separate places, eternal abodes of the Lord. In Vaikuntha the Lord appears in his four-armed form Narayana, whereas in Goloka He appears in his two-armed form as Krishna. These two forms, four-armed and two-armed, exist there forever!
    For this reason it is said that Vaikuntha and Goloka are two eternal abodes of the Lord, because He lives there eternally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anirudh
    I get a feeling that one avtar of Shreeman Naaraayan is inferior or equal or superior to the other avtar. But is it possible?
    God is God and thus He is not superior to nor inferior to God. At least this is so on the level of tattva (constitutional position or existence).
    Narayana, Vishnu, Rama, Krishna, Balarama, Nrisimha, Varaha, Matsya, Sankarshana, ... etc, are all one and the same God (Lord) who appears in his different forms, ie they are all Lord Vishnu (Vishnu tattva).

    However, there are avataras which are not Vishnu tattva, but are jiva tattva, ie they are jiva souls chosen by the Lord. Sometimes the Lord chooses an advanced jiva soul and makes an avatara of him. It is said that Parasurama is one such jiva chosen by the Lord, and thus by the Lord's choosing he has become avatara.
    It is also said that guna avataras of Lord Vishnu -- Brahma who is avatara of rajo guna, and Shiva who is avatara of tamo guna -- are two advanced jiva souls chosen by the Lord for the purpose of creation and destruction of the world.
    Certainly that avataras who are jiva souls (jiva tattva) chosen by the Lord are inferior and subordinate to Lord Vishnu. Jiva soul is eternally dependent on and subordinate to Lord Vishnu.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viraja
    Sri U.Ve.Krishnan in his upanyas 'Sri Vishnu Puranam' telecast by Vijay TV (available for free viewing in Youtube) says that Sri Parasurama, and Sri Balarama are not worshippable avataras in that they are manifestations in which Sri Bhagwan chose a noble soul out of many and vested his 'shakti' on them and that they are not thus bhagwan himself.
    It may be that Parasurama is just an ordinary jiva soul in which the Lord vested his power (shakti) and thus He made him an avatara, but Gaudiya vaishnavas do not agree with the view that Lord Balarama is also one such ordinary jiva soul (a noble soul) in which the Lord vested his power (shakti) and thus made him an avatara. This is for the reason that Lord Balarama is described as the Lord Himself (Bhagavan) in the scriptures, and thus Vishnu tattva. Lord Balarama is Vishnu just like Narayana is Vishnu, or just like Krishna is Vishnu.



    regards

  4. #14

    Re: Lokas

    Hare KRshNa

    Those were some very nice quotes from the Bhagvatam pointing to eternality of the dhAm.


    Quote Originally Posted by brahma jijnasa View Post
    Namaste Viraja and Anirudh
    Lord Balarama is Vishnu just like Narayana is Vishnu, or just like Krishna is Vishnu.
    BalarAm is Adi Shesha. Therefore the Shesha-sheshashAyI Bhagavanta relationship. NityAnanda-GaurAnga.
    || Shri KRshNArpaNamastu ||

  5. #15
    Join Date
    July 2012
    Age
    52
    Posts
    2,088
    Rep Power
    2640

    Re: Lokas

    Namaste BJ ji,

    I am extremely happy to hear that GV preaches that different forms of Vishnu such as Rama, Krishna manifest separately in Vaikuntha. I have been searching for an answer as this. It gives me immense pleasure to know Sri Rama and Sri Krishna, both of whom are very dear to me, have their own separate forms in Vaikuntha. Thanks for this knowledge. Also thanks for the clarification regarding Balaramavatara.

    Thanks & Regards,

    Viraja
    jai hanuman gyan gun sagar jai kapis tihu lok ujagar

  6. #16

    Re: Lokas

    Quote Originally Posted by devotee123 View Post
    I agree all forms of Lord Vasudeva.But in material plane, why there is difference in some forms.It is told that Lord Narasimha worship will give immediate results than other forms.
    praNAm

    It is interesting that you started the question with "in the material plane" because therein lies the answer, don't you think?

    It is not a difference, it is flavours. Flavours, variegatedness. Why? For the various temperaments of beings (jIva) in the world. The same Lord becomes different things to different people, because the people are different, hold different identity-tags -- pink green yellow blue purple orange... not the Lord. BhagavAn is crystal clear, transparent.

    ye yathA mAm prapadyante tAmstathaiva (tatha eva) bhajAmyaham

    There is a proverb that there is no tommorow for Narasimha.He comes immediately for his devotees.
    I could write the exact same statement for Shri KRshNa, Shri RAm, just see how Shri hari came to rescue Gajendra in an instant, a flash, as soon as Gajendra called Him!

    Even so, BhagavAn makes provision for these differences -- karuNAsAgar (ocean of compassion and mercy), vighnavinAshak (remover of obstacles and inauspiciousness), mukunda (giver of liberation) etc.

    shabdAtiga (beyond words, He transcends the world of words).

    --

    Going a bit off-topic but not really ...

    Someone said : Our heart is crystal-clear. A crystal. It reflects what you keep in front of it.

    Beautifully said. Here, The crystal heart is paramAtmA, and the opaque colored object is the jIva identifying with worldly qualifiers of prakRtI (material nature).

    BhagavAn Shri KRshNa is VAsudev because
    a) He is sarva-bhUta nivAsa , sarva-deva-nivAsa (the refuge, shelter, resting place of all beings; all emotions, fears, worries melt once you surrender to His shelter) - He is everywhere, vAsudev sarvamiti
    b) hRdayAntaryAmI -- lives in the hearts of all beings OR living as a jIva in a body (another view -- see bhAgvat canto 11)
    c) son of vasudev

    This is why all of His forms are eternal and everywhere eternally. If you want to seek one form and filter out the rest, by all means He lets you, nay, encourages you to do so.

    BhagavAn is His DhAma (abode) and dhAma is bhagavAn.
    VaikunTha = the Lord (son of vikunTha) and VaikunTha His abode -- where worries fears cease to be.
    || Shri KRshNArpaNamastu ||

  7. #17
    Join Date
    October 2012
    Location
    Bhaarath
    Age
    51
    Posts
    1,113
    Rep Power
    1502

    Re: Lokas

    Namaste brahma jijnasa,

    Thank you very much for the explanation.

    Also it reminds the famous rather infamous thread (by HlK) that tried to claim the non existence of Vaikunta :-)

    There is a statement in Uttar Kaanda of Srimad Valmiki Ramayana that everything including non living things went along with Sri Raama when he left Ayodhya.

    So I can find some relations with the existence of parallel world in Vaikunta. How ever would like to read translations of Srimad Bhaagavatham by someone other than Iskcon Guru.

    Also I look at Parasuram from a different perspective.

    Parasuram seemed to be busy killing Adharmic Shatriyaas. I am not sure whether he killed all Shatriyaa Kings or all Adharmic Shatriyaa Kings.

    If it means all Shatriyaas then it implies all Shatriya Kings were Adharmic.

    That means, world was too bad then and he did exactly what Sri Krishna did. The only difference is HIS period was over when at Sri Krishna descended.

    Another point to be noted is, Shree Parasuram seemed to have lived in the period of Sri Raama as well as Sri Krishna. That supports the view that HE wished to stay back in this world.

    Whether we have multiple world in Vaikunta or not or whether Shree Parasuram has a place in Vaikunta or not, as Shree Parasuram is associated with Astra (weaponry) Vidya, he will appear again rather we ll be able to see him again. HE was and will be important (if not more important than any other) Avtar in his own scheme of things.

    I have an another doubt on the Karma theory as per Hinduism but will reserve it for an another day.

    Quote Originally Posted by brahma jijnasa View Post
    Namaste Viraja and Anirudh
    ....
    regards
    Anirudh...

  8. #18
    Join Date
    December 2012
    Posts
    552
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Lokas

    Namaste Anirudh, Viraja and Smaranam

    Quote Originally Posted by Anirudh
    Namaste brahma jijnasa,

    Thank you very much for the explanation.

    Also it reminds the famous rather infamous thread (by HlK) that tried to claim the non existence of Vaikunta :-)
    Some people first choose some "philosophy" and develop faith in it, and then they read the scriptures so that when they come to some verses that do not fit in with their "philosophy" they deny the clear and explicit statements declared in these verses. What else could they do? Since they do not believe in clear and explicit statements of the scriptures but rather believe in their "philosophy" all that they can do, and know to do, is to deny these verses. All our Vaishnava acaryas such as Ramanuja, Madhvacarya, Nimbarka, Vishnu Svami, Baladeva Vidyabhushana and others have said that the eternal Vaikuntha world is a place of eternal liberation (mukti) and final destination for the souls. All this is confirmed by the numerous statements in the scriptures. One who does not believe the scriptures but rather believes in his "philosophy" will deny it, but we should not deny it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Anirudh
    So I can find some relations with the existence of parallel world in Vaikunta. How ever would like to read translations of Srimad Bhaagavatham by someone other than Iskcon Guru.
    The most widely used translation with commentary on the Bhagavatam is the Srila Prabhupada's (founder of Iskcon), but there are other. Here's another one online: http://www.bhagavata.org/contents.html
    Somewhat different but not much. I hope you will not become a victim of anti Srila Prabhupada propaganda, the people who say that his translations are not good. What I know about his translations is that they are not always completely literal but are explanatory (descriptive, interpretive, serving to explain something). I think that's the advantage of the translation and not its drawback. It makes the verse more clear to the reader and it's an advantage, as I said. Actually ask the following question: What is the general purpose of the translation? Is it to render the verse somehow "literally" (whatever that "literally" means), or is it to render its actual meaning? I think the purpose of the translation is to render its actual meaning, and I think he did not fail at this.
    I read his translations of the Bhagavad gita, Srimad Bhagavatam and Isha Upanishad (Sri Isopanisad) since 1990 and I can tell you that these are among the best translations I've seen.


    Quote Originally Posted by Viraja
    Namaste BJ ji,

    I am extremely happy to hear that GV preaches that different forms of Vishnu such as Rama, Krishna manifest separately in Vaikuntha. I have been searching for an answer as this. It gives me immense pleasure to know Sri Rama and Sri Krishna, both of whom are very dear to me, have their own separate forms in Vaikuntha. Thanks for this knowledge. Also thanks for the clarification regarding Balaramavatara.

    Thanks & Regards,

    Viraja
    There is another way how we can easily understand that different forms of Lord Vishnu such as Rama, Krishna, ... etc, manifest separately in Vaikuntha. This verse helps us to understand that:
    http://vedabase.net/sb/10/27/11/en

    svacchandopātta-dehāya
    viśuddha-jñāna-mūrtaye
    sarvasmai sarva-bījāya
    sarva-bhūtātmane namaḥ

    "Unto Him who assumes transcendental bodies according to the desires of His devotees, unto Him whose form is itself pure consciousness, unto Him who is everything, who is the seed of everything and who is the Soul of all creatures, I offer my obeisances." (Bhāgavatam 10.27.11)

    Here it says that the Lord's bodily form is viśuddha-jñāna-mūrtaye "whose form is itself pure consciousness" (viśuddha -- perfectly pure; jñāna -- knowledge; mūrtaye -- whose form) which means that His bodily form is pure existence of Brahman, ie His body is transcendental to the material nature, namely, His body is sat cit ananda Brahman.

    But it also says svacchandopātta-dehāya "Him who assumes transcendental bodies according to the desires of His devotees" (sva -- of His own [devotees]; chanda -- according to the desire; upātta -- who assumes; dehāya -- His transcendental bodies).
    This is an important point. Why?
    Suppose what would happen if the Lord does not assume different Vishnu forms (Vishnu tattva) such as Rama, Krishna, ... etc, separately in Vaikuntha?
    We know that there are devotees who are exclusively and completely dedicated to only one Vishnu tattva form. Thus, for example, there are devotees who are exclusively devoted to Lord Narayana only, those who are devoted to Lord Krishna only, those who are devoted to Lord Rama only, those who are devoted to Lord Shiva (Sadasiva = Sadāśiva) only, etc. Here Lord Shiva (Sadasiva) is one eternal form of Vishnu in Vaikuntha who is different from the god (demigod) we call guna avatara Lord Shiva who is responsible for the destruction of the world. So there is one guna avatara Lord Shiva who lives in this material universe, and there is another Lord Shiva (Sadasiva) who is said to live forever on his own planet (loka) called Sadasivaloka in Vaikuntha. This Lord Sadasiva is Vishnu tattva, ie He is identical to Lord Vishnu just like Narayana is Vishnu, or just like Krishna is Vishnu. So Lord Sadasiva is not a jiva soul (jiva tattva). But guna avatara Lord Shiva is a jiva chosen by the Lord for the purpose of destruction of the world, as I explained in the previous post in this thread.
    Note: This distinction between these two forms of Lord Shiva - Sadasiva and guna avatara Shiva - so far I have been repeatedly explained at HDF, and it is a specific view of the Gaudiya vaishnava tradition. Other Vaishnava traditions that I know of do not recognize the difference between these two forms of Lord Shiva. It seems that they considered Lord Sadasiva to be a jiva soul. So they think the worship of Lord Sadasiva, as well as worship of guna avatara Shiva, does not lead to liberation (mukti). It is so because worship of jiva do not produce liberation, only worship of Vishnu tattva forms produce liberation.

    Suppose what would happen if a devotee of Lord Krishna achieved liberation and comes to Vaikuntha and see there Lord Narayana with Lakshmi and devotees who serve them in a spirit of service. What would he think, how would he feel like? He would ask where is my Lord Krishna playing the flute, where is His beloved Sri Radha, where are the gopis and cowherd boys and Surabhi cows, where is the rasa dance, etc? All this he would not found in Vaikuntha where Lord Narayana is because there is no such things there, and also he would not found these things in Sadasivaloka where Lord Sadasiva is, nor elsewhere, because there is no such things anywhere else but only on Goloka. He would have to go to some another place, Goloka, to be able to see all this things. Other devotees could feel similarly, they who are devoted to Rama (where is my Lord Ramacandra, where is Sita, and Hanuman?), or they who are devoted to Sadasiva (where are my Uma Sadasiva?), etc.
    There is a beautiful book that describes one devotee of Lord Krishna who found himself in such a situation , it is Brihad Bhagavatamrita by Sanatana Gosvami. Some devotees of the Lord are devoted to just one form and not at all interested in any other of His forms. Thus, in this book Sanatana Gosvami wrote the story about one devotee of Lord Krishna, Gopa-kumara, who went to Vaikuntha and there could not find pleasure even in the company of the Lord Sadāśiva and His followers in the Sadasivaloka, nor could he find pleasure in the company of the Lord Narayana and His followers. But only when he came to the abode of Lord Krishna, Goloka, he finally found pleasure in the company of Lord Krishna and His followers.

    So that's the point here when the Bhagavatam says that the Lord assumes forms (see quote above) "according to the desires of His devotees". A devotee's desires to serve a particular form of the Lord in a particular mellow (rasa) could be diverse, so the Lord responds accordingly, so that He assumes one form for one group of his devotees in one place in Vaikuntha, and another form He assumes for another group of his devotees somewhere else in Vaikuntha. And thus the Lord manifests separately in Vaikuntha.


    Quote Originally Posted by smaranam
    BalarAm is Adi Shesha.
    Yes, Lord Balarama is usually described in the scriptures as such.
    It is said that Adi Shesha aka Ananta is Lord Balarama's expansion.



    regards

  9. #19
    Join Date
    October 2012
    Location
    Bhaarath
    Age
    51
    Posts
    1,113
    Rep Power
    1502

    Re: Lokas

    Namaste Brahma jijnasa,

    Thank you very much for the link and explanation.

    I am not anti ISKCON or his founder. But his translations are too elaborate and the present ISKCON is less spritual and more commercial :-( Despite that I have great respect for him for his relentless effort to spread Hinduism.

    Personally I believe Hinduism should be actively spread, and if that means conversions let that be. My only restriction is religious conversions shouldn't bemanipulative or forced like Abrahamic volunteers do.

    As we are discussing Loka and deities residing in it, may I ask you doubt that is bit off the topic. What is the role and position of deities like Shiva Indra Vayu Brahma etc in Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

    If Vishnu or Krishna is supreme Brahman, and Veda says only one Brahman then these other deities can't be the supreme Brahman. At the same time they can't be Jivaatma as well.

    Moreover, I have reached to a conclusion that to get deeper knowledge one has to follow one of the philosophy. Problem arise only when we try force down our suited ideas on others. (Unfortunately hat's what IlK tried to do)

    Sri Vaishnavism (the northern branch aka Vedavalli) offers me a very good explanation on the relationship between Shreeman Naaraayan and other deities.

    I would like to hear from you from the Gaudiya Vaishnava perspective.

    Quote Originally Posted by brahma jijnasa View Post
    Namaste Anirudh, Viraja and Smaranam



    Some people first choose some "philosophy" and develop faith in it, and then they read the scriptures so that when they come to some verses that do not fit in with their "philosophy" they deny the clear and explicit statements declared in these verses. What else could they do? Since they do not believe in clear and explicit statements of the scriptures but rather believe in their "philosophy" all that they can do, and know to do, is to deny these verses. All our Vaishnava acaryas such as Ramanuja, Madhvacarya, Nimbarka, Vishnu Svami, Baladeva Vidyabhushana and others have said that the eternal Vaikuntha world is a place of eternal liberation (mukti) and final destination for the souls. All this is confirmed by the numerous statements in the scriptures. One who does not believe the scriptures but rather believes in his "philosophy" will deny it, but we should not deny it.




    The most widely used translation with commentary on the Bhagavatam is the Srila Prabhupada's (founder of Iskcon), but there are other. Here's another one online: http://www.bhagavata.org/contents.html
    Somewhat different but not much. I hope you will not become a victim of anti Srila Prabhupada propaganda, the people who say that his translations are not good. What I know about his translations is that they are not always completely literal but are explanatory (descriptive, interpretive, serving to explain something). I think that's the advantage of the translation and not its drawback. It makes the verse more clear to the reader and it's an advantage, as I said. Actually ask the following question: What is the general purpose of the translation? Is it to render the verse somehow "literally" (whatever that "literally" means), or is it to render its actual meaning? I think the purpose of the translation is to render its actual meaning, and I think he did not fail at this.
    I read his translations of the Bhagavad gita, Srimad Bhagavatam and Isha Upanishad (Sri Isopanisad) since 1990 and I can tell you that these are among the best translations I've seen.




    There is another way how we can easily understand that different forms of Lord Vishnu such as Rama, Krishna, ... etc, manifest separately in Vaikuntha. This verse helps us to understand that:
    http://vedabase.net/sb/10/27/11/en

    svacchandop�tta-deh�ya
    viśuddha-jñ�na-mūrtaye
    sarvasmai sarva-bīj�ya
    sarva-bhūt�tmane namaḥ

    "Unto Him who assumes transcendental bodies according to the desires of His devotees, unto Him whose form is itself pure consciousness, unto Him who is everything, who is the seed of everything and who is the Soul of all creatures, I offer my obeisances." (Bh�gavatam 10.27.11)

    Here it says that the Lord's bodily form is viśuddha-jñ�na-mūrtaye "whose form is itself pure consciousness" (viśuddha -- perfectly pure; jñ�na -- knowledge; mūrtaye -- whose form) which means that His bodily form is pure existence of Brahman, ie His body is transcendental to the material nature, namely, His body is sat cit ananda Brahman.

    But it also says svacchandop�tta-deh�ya "Him who assumes transcendental bodies according to the desires of His devotees" (sva -- of His own [devotees]; chanda -- according to the desire; up�tta -- who assumes; deh�ya -- His transcendental bodies).
    This is an important point. Why?
    Suppose what would happen if the Lord does not assume different Vishnu forms (Vishnu tattva) such as Rama, Krishna, ... etc, separately in Vaikuntha?
    We know that there are devotees who are exclusively and completely dedicated to only one Vishnu tattva form. Thus, for example, there are devotees who are exclusively devoted to Lord Narayana only, those who are devoted to Lord Krishna only, those who are devoted to Lord Rama only, those who are devoted to Lord Shiva (Sadasiva = Sad�śiva) only, etc. Here Lord Shiva (Sadasiva) is one eternal form of Vishnu in Vaikuntha who is different from the god (demigod) we call guna avatara Lord Shiva who is responsible for the destruction of the world. So there is one guna avatara Lord Shiva who lives in this material universe, and there is another Lord Shiva (Sadasiva) who is said to live forever on his own planet (loka) called Sadasivaloka in Vaikuntha. This Lord Sadasiva is Vishnu tattva, ie He is identical to Lord Vishnu just like Narayana is Vishnu, or just like Krishna is Vishnu. So Lord Sadasiva is not a jiva soul (jiva tattva). But guna avatara Lord Shiva is a jiva chosen by the Lord for the purpose of destruction of the world, as I explained in the previous post in this thread.
    Note: This distinction between these two forms of Lord Shiva - Sadasiva and guna avatara Shiva - so far I have been repeatedly explained at HDF, and it is a specific view of the Gaudiya vaishnava tradition. Other Vaishnava traditions that I know of do not recognize the difference between these two forms of Lord Shiva. It seems that they considered Lord Sadasiva to be a jiva soul. So they think the worship of Lord Sadasiva, as well as worship of guna avatara Shiva, does not lead to liberation (mukti). It is so because worship of jiva do not produce liberation, only worship of Vishnu tattva forms produce liberation.

    Suppose what would happen if a devotee of Lord Krishna achieved liberation and comes to Vaikuntha and see there Lord Narayana with Lakshmi and devotees who serve them in a spirit of service. What would he think, how would he feel like? He would ask where is my Lord Krishna playing the flute, where is His beloved Sri Radha, where are the gopis and cowherd boys and Surabhi cows, where is the rasa dance, etc? All this he would not found in Vaikuntha where Lord Narayana is because there is no such things there, and also he would not found these things in Sadasivaloka where Lord Sadasiva is, nor elsewhere, because there is no such things anywhere else but only on Goloka. He would have to go to some another place, Goloka, to be able to see all this things. Other devotees could feel similarly, they who are devoted to Rama (where is my Lord Ramacandra, where is Sita, and Hanuman?), or they who are devoted to Sadasiva (where are my Uma Sadasiva?), etc.
    There is a beautiful book that describes one devotee of Lord Krishna who found himself in such a situation , it is Brihad Bhagavatamrita by Sanatana Gosvami. Some devotees of the Lord are devoted to just one form and not at all interested in any other of His forms. Thus, in this book Sanatana Gosvami wrote the story about one devotee of Lord Krishna, Gopa-kumara, who went to Vaikuntha and there could not find pleasure even in the company of the Lord Sad�śiva and His followers in the Sadasivaloka, nor could he find pleasure in the company of the Lord Narayana and His followers. But only when he came to the abode of Lord Krishna, Goloka, he finally found pleasure in the company of Lord Krishna and His followers.

    So that's the point here when the Bhagavatam says that the Lord assumes forms (see quote above) "according to the desires of His devotees". A devotee's desires to serve a particular form of the Lord in a particular mellow (rasa) could be diverse, so the Lord responds accordingly, so that He assumes one form for one group of his devotees in one place in Vaikuntha, and another form He assumes for another group of his devotees somewhere else in Vaikuntha. And thus the Lord manifests separately in Vaikuntha.




    Yes, Lord Balarama is usually described in the scriptures as such.
    It is said that Adi Shesha aka Ananta is Lord Balarama's expansion.



    regards
    Anirudh...

  10. #20
    Join Date
    October 2012
    Location
    Bhaarath
    Age
    51
    Posts
    1,113
    Rep Power
    1502

    Re: Lokas

    Namaste Brahma Jijnasa

    I wish to address the Sada Siva explanation separately. If Sada Shiva is Vishnu tatva then why do we need Shree Krishna to annihilate EVIL.

    It is said explanation of Purana or any other scripture should reconcile with Veda. So can you tell me how all Devatas merge with Brahman in Veda.
    Anirudh...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Question about heaven
    By wundermonk in forum Vaishnava
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 28 November 2011, 09:27 AM
  2. KUNDALINI RELATIONS
    By upsydownyupsy mv ss in forum Hot Topics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 20 November 2011, 04:00 AM
  3. satsangaH: bhakti, jnAna, karma yoga
    By saidevo in forum Yoga
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 20 August 2009, 10:54 PM
  4. Loka's and coming back to Bhu
    By yajvan in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06 July 2007, 11:49 AM
  5. Sai Dharma: Creation Embodied in Man
    By saidevo in forum God in Hindu Dharma
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04 September 2006, 03:10 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •