Dear prabhu or matha,
How god looks like? Is statue represents the god or the statue it self is god? Because hinduism said statue is just a medium. Pls clarify.
Dear Mon, the diety (statue) is made out of matter. But matter is simply a transformation of the Lord's energy.
If one makes a material form according the scriptural descriptions of the Lord, worships Him with love and the proper procedures, the Lord will then turn that matter into spirit and personally accept the offerings of Lord.
Just as an electrical engineer can build an electric stove or an electric refrigerator, all with the same energy, God, Krishna can easily turn matter into spirit.
the Absolute Truth encompasses all things, including the material. Lord Sri KRSNA provides you with a deity just as He provides you with the air in your lungs. the air is essential to your living, as your deities are to a temple, but the air is not you.
So it is not statue base or any form of definate material to praise god. God is something beyond that. Because alot of devoties here having some misunderstanding on goddess form. They claim that god has human look. Pls confirm that so that i can share your toughts and advice with my fellow friends. .
We have a human form because we come from God. God cannot give that which He does not have. God is not lacking anything, therefore God is not lacking form.
actually, the human form depicts our, the conditioned souls', entanglement with the material modes of nature due to our desire to lord over material nature.
* i don't like the way system is laid out on this. a stranger who reads all this is gonna be confused if they're not paying attention to the time comments are posted
janmadyasya yatah, Krishna, God is the source of everything. Therefore Krishna is the original form. This the what Bhagavad Gita and the other Vedic literature teaches.
you can't just say we have human form because we come from Lord Sri KRSNA. we have human form because it's what's been set forth by Him.
This is what you said "you can't just say we have human form because we come from Lord Sri KRSNA. we have human form because it's what's been set forth by Him."
This is from Bhagavad Gita Chapter 7 verse 15
They do not know that the blessed form of human life is designed after the eternal and transcendental feature of the Supreme Lord.
>>> Ref. VedaBase => Bg 7.15
i also said this: "actually, the human form depicts our, the conditioned souls', entanglement with the material modes of nature due to our desire to lord over material nature."
How does that verse support your statement.
Plus sastra clearly states that the deity is not representative but rather it is Transcendental and Krishna Himself. Arca vigraha murti.
"hello, i'm a doorbell. i have doorbell form because i come from Lord Sri KRSNA..."
a doorbell is not conscious.
I can support what I say with sastra. Please support your ideas with reference to sastra.
No one can manufacture a religious principle by imperfect speculation. One must follow in the footsteps of great authorities like Brahma, Siva, Narada, Manu, the Kumaras, Kapila, Prahlada, Bhisma, Sukadeva Gosvami, Yamaraja, Janaka, and Bali Maharaja. By mental speculation one cannot ascertain what is religion or self-realization.
>>> Ref. VedaBase => Bg 4.16
granted, but i could have just as easily said an animal, or a mammal.
regardless, the point i was making was that the true form of Lord Sri KRSNA exists all around, including the deities.
you said.. "regardless, the point i was making was that the true form of Lord Sri KRSNA exists all around, including the deities."
that is also not supported by sastra . (see http://vedabase.com/en/sb/1/2/11 )
There are three stages of God realization
Brahman (all pervading)
Paramatma (all pervading but in a localized form)
Bhagavan Sri Krishna states
nāhaṁ tiṣṭhāmi vaikuṇṭhe
yogināṁ hṛdayeṣu vā
tatra tiṣṭhāmi nārada
yatra gāyanti mad-bhaktāḥ
“My dear Nārada, actually I do not reside in My abode, Vaikuṇṭha, nor do I reside within the hearts of the yogīs, but I reside in that place where My pure devotees chant My holy name and discuss My form, pastimes and qualities.”
Bg 9.4 — By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them.
Bg 9.5 — And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me. Behold My mystic opulence! Although I am the maintainer of all living entities and although I am everywhere, I am not a part of this cosmic manifestation, for My Self is the very source of creation.
Krishna is avyakta aspect of Brahman and Paramatma is all pervading but His personal Bhagavan form is not everywhere.
next time, you might want to make sure you completely and thoroughly understand what is being said.
"similarly the entire universe is expanded on the lengthwise and crosswise potency of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and is situated within Him."
Dear Srila, there is a oneness between the potency and the potent and there is a difference between the potency and the potent.
Absolute oneness is contrary to Bhagavatam, and Gita. It is called Mayavada.
So please if you have some sastric reference that elucidates that the deity is simply representative and is not Krishna Himself please.
I know that a person can feed me but the cannot feed my photo. The Deity however can accept offerings.
"There is no difference between the arca-vigraha and the original person, and therefore those who are engaged in worshiping the Deity in the temple in full opulence, even on this planet, should be understood to be directly in touch with the Supreme Personality of Godhead without a doubt. As enjoined in the sastras, arcye visnau sila-dhir gurusu nara-matih: "No one should treat the Deity in the temple as stone or metal, nor should one think that the spiritual master is an ordinary human being."
>>> Ref. VedaBase => SB 5.17.14"
I do understand the point that if one is to say that God is everywhere then why is He not in the deities. However to say that the TRUE form of Sri Krishna is everywhere is not exactly what Krishna says. He says that His energy which transcendental is everywhere but He only manifest Himself in relation to the devotee in a relationship of devotion.
"... and impersonal Brahman is the glowing effulgence of the Personality of Godhead."
a part of the infinite, is still infinite nonetheless.
when there is reference to yogis, it is meant as a separate designation from devotees.
"Therefore, Brahman, Paramātmā and Bhagavān are qualitatively one and the same. The same substance is realized as impersonal Brahman by the students of the Upanisads, as localized Paramātmā by the Hiranyagarbhas or the yogīs, and as Bhagavān by the devotees."
This is from Back to Godhead magazine 1975 #10-07
"The reason the Deity is accorded such reverence is that the form of God is God. There is no difference between the form of the Lord and the Lord Himself. On the material platform, a person and his picture, for instance, are different. Seeing a picture of a friend may remind us of that friend, but the picture is only a representation, not the friend himself. Furthermore, in the material world a person is different even from his very body, for the body is matter whereas the person is the spiritual spark within the body. But God, if we accept Him as being fully spiritual, must be free from all such dualities. The Supreme Personality of Godhead and His transcendental form are the same spiritual identity. The Vedic literatures describe that each part of His transcendental body can perform any of the functions of any other part. Thus although with our eyes we can only see, the Lord can not only see with His eyes, but also taste, smell or hear with them. Thus the transcendental form of the Supreme Lord is unlimited and all-powerful.
>>> Ref. VedaBase => Not Imagination"
"statues have their place, and the point of deity worship is to focus your eyes, mind, intelligence, false ego, body and activities on a form that is wonderful, appealing, engaging, enlightening, and full in all opulences."
This is from Back to Godhead Magazine 1976 #11-08
"When Krsna the Supreme Lord appeared five thousand years ago to enact His pastimes, good people rejoiced to be in His presence, to live on the same earth with Him. Yet, when Lord Krsna no longer visibly walked the earth, how did these people, His devotees, react? We'd expect that they were unbearably lonely. But for thousands of years devotees in India have known that we can personally see and serve the Lord in His Deity form. Now, to the Western mind this idea may seem unfamiliar, but it's easy to understand. For instance, the post office may be far from our homes, so the postal officials install authorized mail boxes around the city for our convenience. Those boxes are as good as the post office itself. Similarly, the authorized form of the Lord is as good as the Lord Himself, and the Lord, in His form as the Deity, accepts the service we offer Him. ****************Although the average person might suppose that the Deity only represents the Lord, the mature devotee understands that the Deity is the Supreme Lord Himself. *********************For that reason, he worships the Deity with respect and love.
>>> Ref. VedaBase => In India, people have worshiped the Lord's form for centuries, and now the practice is flourishing in the West."
i completely, and whole-heartedly, accept and worship all transcendental forms of the Lord.
i never once encouraged anybody towards any impersonalist philosophy. my attempt was merely to identify the connection between the material and spiritual, i.e. the breathe and consciousness. only the will and mercy of Lord Sri KRSNA allows us to provide ourselves with the form of Deity worship.
that being said, if i need to elucidate upon the opulence of the Supreme Lord's transcendental energy by using a photograph as an example, i'd really appreciate it if you wouldn't mind restraining yourself from typing in the word "photograph" at the search engine over at vedabase. it makes you seem nervous and petty.
Actually photograph was not my search term. I looked up deity represents.
My point is that the photograph analogy that you used was improper sastrically. Now you are attacking my character.
To learn about Krishna is to learn from Krishna, meaning that whatever various ideas presented should be upheld by Krishna's words.
Teachings about Krishna which are contrary to sastra will naturally be rejected.
what if your offer and prayers were accepted by a photograph (of Deities), or painting, of Lord Sri KRSNA?
Same principle applies. Krishna is non different from his form. We are different from our form.
This is the understanding in Bhagavat philosophy.
"I know that a person can feed me but the cannot feed my photo. The Deity however can accept offerings."
so where you used this line to make a point, you are now contradicting yourself.
i'm just done with this debate, it's becoming past absurd. sastra is scripture and injunction.
i have, multiple times, confined your own made-up "sastra" (where Lord Sri KRSNA's words have been contorted because you chose to imply your own meanings, to win this debate), with real scripture.
also, if you get a chance, have your friends join with us!
you are very welcome. many thanks to you for your questions :)
statues have their place, and the point of deity worship is to focus your eyes, mind, intelligence, false ego, body and activities on a form that is wonderful, appealing, engaging, enlightening, and full in all opulences.
the statues represent Lord Sri KRSNA the same a photograph represents yourself.
Lord Sri KRSNA has unlimited, infinite! forms, but in the same manner we, as humans, would best relate to ants by assuming their shape and form, so Lord Sri KRSNA appears to us in a limited form. that is all. He can choose to appear as anything He likes, as is stated here: http://www.asitis.com/11/15.html
Dear Srila, The statue or Deity does not represent Krishna, According to Bhagavat philosophy the Deity IS Krishna. Therefore the example of a photograph is incorrect.
the camera transforms material energy into a transcendental relationship. . . .
"the camera transforms material energy into a transcendental relationship. . . ." Where in sastra or guru do you find this understanding? Or is it your own idea?
Thanks alot.....i will share this with my friends who. Thanks hare krishna.....
i'm also gonna start doing a weekly, maybe daily, Bhagavad-Gita As It Is thing in the forums. feel free to drop a line, say something, or ask any other questions you might have! jaya jaya
here's the first: http://www.krishna.com/forums/bhagavad-gita-it-chapter-9-verse-12-chapte...
My opinion, is pls discuss with all your devotee about the statue prayers. Hope all undertand we are still very basic level of prayers. There are more beyond that. Statue just represent of lord krishna.
Join our family of supporters. Make a donation.
Thank you to the following individuals for keeping Krishna.com alive and vibrant:
Sushanta Chowdhury, Gabriel Pena Renna, Oxana Yusupova, Marina Hansen Russo, Stephen kenton, Hemchand Tularam, Branch WaterSmile, Amit Singh, Chetan Suri, Suraj Joneja, Jovana Granatic, Ricky Verma, Carmen Rodriguez, Amrit Kaur, Jayantkumar Ramjee, Ian Lubsey, Debie Bharath, Venkat Krishnan, Robert Grant, Sunilkumar Patel, Prinul Gunputh, Mukta Carita, Vashkar Chowdhury, Ma-Sarada Priya, Sanjeev Singh, Sami Mahieddine, Lorraine Groom, Mahipal Reddy Patlolla, Bhaskar Gurram, Rakshit Sharma, Bhaskar Shroff, Shalini Anand, Surendra Krishnan, Kiran Epari, Margot Cordua, Keith Sorensen, Sanjiv Pillai, Tasha Wilson, Susheel N., Vijay Patel, Dev Mani, Shalini Anand, Richard Boyden, Amit Ramsawak, Audrey Jimenez, William Luthin, Krishnamohan Mada, Danny Koendjbiharie, Dianne Light, Chythanya Rajanna, Ida Michael, Keith Fralin, Helen Lima, DR P K Pancham, I Made Sudartha, Lelis Gonzalez, Sunilkumar Patel