supreme personality of God??

[Anahat]

For those of you who are learned in the gita, srimad bhagavattam, and any other reputable Vedic texts, is Krishna really the supreme personality of god? Do the vedas infact sum this up as truth or is it a grounds for a fundamentalist tactic? I know that sounds harsh but kinda losing it right now over this. please help anyone who has studied these texts, even prabupads renditions. thank you

[Anima]

Namaste, Anahat.

I don't know, but I love Him and think He's great! He shows us everything we need to see.

Pranam.

[Christi]

Hi Anahata,

I would strongly recommend that you buy a copy of The Bagavad Gita with English translation and commentary by Sri Aurobindo. It is the best English translation of the Gita that I have read.

[kami]

quote:Originally posted by Anahat

For those of you who are learned in the gita, srimad bhagavattam, and any other reputable Vedic texts, is Krishna really the supreme personality of god? Do the vedas infact sum this up as truth or is it a grounds for a fundamentalist tactic? I know that sounds harsh but kinda losing it right now over this. please help anyone who has studied these texts, even prabupads renditions. thank you

Hi Anahat,

In short, yes and no.

Firstly, the Vedas do not extol any one personality to be supreme. Krishna avatar is downstream to the Vedas. The Vedas have no mention of "Krishna" per se. Lord Vishnu (whose avatar Krishna is) is himself mentioned almost in passing in the older Vedas, where the emphasis in primarily on nature. Therefore there is more frequent mention of Indra (God of thunder/rain), Varuna (God of water), Agni (God of fire), etc. Recently, I explained a bit about the construct of the Vedas here, if you are interested.

The business of "supreme personality" is not from the Vedas, but the Puranas. The Puranas are different, consisting of teachings in the form of stories, centered around a particular Supreme being. In the Bhagavata Purana (or Srimad Bhagavatam as it is known), Lord Vishnu reigns supreme - he is the origin of all. In the Shiva Purana, it is Lord Shiva. In the Devi Purana, She is "Adi", the primordial being, Brahman/Ishwara. And so on..

The terms "Krishna Consciousness" and "Supreme Personality of Godhead" were coined by Prabhupada, in an effort to re-vitalise what is known as Vaishnavism (followers of Lord Vishnu). And I agree, it can appear cult-ish.

In essence, Krishna = Shiva = Devi = Christ = Allah = Ishwara, i.e., the Self that is within. Thus, whoever your Ishta is, is the Supreme Personality of Godhead - for you.

Hope this helps a bit.

[Anahat]

okay thank you Christi for your suggestion and thank you kami for your insight.
Is there a source where I can compare puranas. A very good friend of fine has recently acquired all cantos of prabupads srimad bhagavattam, hes been reading them diligently I believe hes on the fifth canto now. And hes been insisting that Krishna is in fact the one true God to be worshipped. his argument is that vyasa deva who complied the whole of the vedas, the brahma samhita, the mahabarata and the gita, gave his final opinion on the whole of Vedanta through writing srimad bhagavattam. And in that according to Prabupad, who is recognized as the only true transcriber of Vedic literature, declares fully in multiple places that Krishna is supreme.  

On a personal level I have no taste for ISKCONs bhakti yoga approaches, even if they say that they are directly prescribed by God himself, I cant bring myself to their system or ideology. I respect it on the grounds that others may have found their own practice and path to God.
However my friend has become insistent that that I should take up chanting mahamantra and transition to bhakti yoga, nut not just any bhakti yoga but bhakti specifically to Krishna........

I have a deep respect for my friend because without him I would not be practicing yoga. Ive seen him grow in his practice over the years and when he recently acquired the bagavattam that's when things changed between me and him. We are still deep loving friends but I cant help but feel that I need to run as far as I can from him sometimes. Once again the whole thing sounds silly but ive been losing sleep over this

[kami]

Dear Anahat,

There is really no "comparing" the Puranas. In this, Hindu dharma is unique - it is full of paradoxes and contradictions. And there is absolutely no push to make everything "fit" by keeping teachings that agree and discarding those that seemingly don't. You don't even have to believe in God (let alone a Hindu God) to be a Hindu. There are 6 main different schools of thought in Hindu dharma, Advaita and Dvaita being the two most well-known. Each is unique in its philosophy, beliefs and outlook. The commonality among all schools is the acceptance of the Vedas to be supreme. This is why it is called "Sanatana dharma" - the eternal law, with freedom given to each practitioner to follow what "calls" to them.

It is not true that there is one and only commentator of Vyasa's writings. None of the versions I read (with the original Sanskrit verses) say anything remotely close to that. That whole dogma is man-made, and subject to a whole host of issues. If you read for example, Paramahamsa Yogananda's version of the Gita, it is full of references to kriya yoga. In Swami Chinmayananda's version, there is not a single mention of kriya (the Gita itself has no verses on kriya yoga). However, both versions are beautiful, and they both teach me different things..

If you want to read modern commentaries on the Puranas, I personally like Ramesh Menon's writings, easily available on amazon.

Ultimately, we have to realize the crucial thing about Bhakti - it is deeply personal, cannot be enforced or thrust upon another. If this kind of thing does not appeal to you, what do you hope to gain from it? The whole point of bhakti is to surrender - and one can make a tree/rock/whatever an Ishta as long as one is drawn to surrender to it, as long as it evokes in you the impetus to discover your true nature. You will make swifter progress if you follow your heart instead of doing something for someone else's sake, IMHO.

Peace and love to you.

[Anahat]

kami I completely agree with you

reason why I ask this is because im placed in a difficult situation with someone regarding this subject. i deeply appreciate your response and you have infact validated what i have personally felt in my heart all along. there are still issues im struggling with and im hesitant to actually post them here because they run pretty deep.

i have studied paramahansa yoganandas gita and out of all renditions his hits home with me. i find it a comforting companion with AYP. i cant really say much else but thank you for your time

[Radharani]

quote:Originally posted by Christi

Hi Anahata,

I would strongly recommend that you buy a copy of The Bagavad Gita with English translation and commentary by Sri Aurobindo. It is the best English translation of the Gita that I have read.

Dear Anahat,

This is a favorite topic of mine, as someone who is madly in love with Krishna.  I agree with Christi that the place to start is a good translation of the Gita.  The Gita - almost any translation thereof - is pretty clear as to Who Krishna is.

Having said that, I agree with Kami that bhakti is deeply personal and each of us will relate to God in whatever form appeals to us.  For me personally, I just find Krishna totally adorable, while at the same time I understand that there is only one God Who manifests in many different forms.  I also adore Him as Jesus.  Actually, it was Krishna who helped me appreciate Jesus after I had rejected Christianity years before.  I perceive Him/them as "same Guy, different costumes."  Your friend is just sharing his enthusiasm because he's so in love, and I understand that.  I've made the same mistake in the past.  But, nobody can force their own personal ishta on you; you have to feel drawn to a particular manifestation of the Divine.

I will differ with Kami, though, w/ regard to the historical timeline of how and when Krishna became known as "The Supreme Personality of Godhead."  This was not the modern invention of Prabhupada.  Rather it arose around 1500 A.D. with Gaudiya Vaishnavism.  Prior to that He was always known as an avatar, perhaps the main avatar, of Vishnu.

IMO the Gita is pretty clear as to His nature, however, it is a well known fact that people can use sacred texts to "prove" nearly any fundamentalist doctrine that they wish.  Look at what has happened with the Bible.  Therefore I recommend reading with an open but discerning mind and ultimately go with what really calls to you in your own heart.

I hope that is helpful.  

[Anima]

quote:Originally posted by Radharani

This is a favorite topic of mine, as someone who is madly in love with Krishna.

I hope that is helpful.  

[kami]

quote:Originally posted by Radharani
[brI will differ with Kami, though, w/ regard to the historical timeline of how and when Krishna became known as "The Supreme Personality of Godhead."  This was not the modern invention of Prabhupada.  Rather it arose around 1500 A.D. with Gaudiya Vaishnavism.  Prior to that He was always known as an avatar, perhaps the main avatar, of Vishnu.

Thank you Radharani.

The "Krishna cult" is indeed that old (or older). However, I was referring to the specific term "Supreme Personality of Godhead" which was coined by Prabhupada especially for the English speaking West (in all seriousness, I've wondered what that even means).. That term is not seen in any other Krishna-based literature[]

Love to you.

[Radharani]

My Dear Kami, fellow lover of Madhava,

I had written a quite lengthy, in-depth reply with lots of links and quotations, which unfortunately was lost when I accidentally hit the wrong keys while attempting to cut and paste.  I tried a second time with an abbreviated version and once again it was lost due to typing errors while going between pages.  I will try one last time and may He have mercy on my pathetic self:

The term is simply Prabhupada's translation of the Gita 10:12, which some others have translated as "Supreme Being" or "Primordial God."

The term "Godhead" is also used in Christianity to refer to "The essential and divine nature of God, regarded abstractly."

Krishna identifies Himself as the Source of all existences.  So, the term is intended to convey the infinite brahma effulgence as incarnated in this delightful, adorable Person.

As for literary history, Ramanuja states that Krishna is "The Supreme Lord whom all the Vedas declare and for whom all austerities are performed."  Note, he says ALL the vedas...  And the Bhagavata Purana states He is the incarnation of Vishnu.  So the concept of Krishna as the Supreme Being is definitely there historically, regardless of the particular term used.

Love to you also!