[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Krishna and Krishnaa (was Re: ARTICLE : Just say no...)
Sankar Jayanarayanan <kartik@Eng.Auburn.EDU> wrote in article
<ghenDy0Dzu.M4u@netcom.com>...
>
> Hari Krishna Susarla wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> > For example, Draupadi is sometimes called Krishna because of her
allegedly
> > blackish complexion. But wait, God is also known as Krishna.
>
> Draupadi is called "KR^ishhNaa" and the Lord is called "KR^ishhNa". The
former
> is the feminine form and the latter is the masculine form of the English
word
> "black" (or "dark"?) in Sanskrit.
Thanks for the clarification, but I think the point was nevertheless clear.
Two things with the same name are not necessarily the same.
> > Is Draupadi
> > also God?
>
> sarvaM khalvidaM brahma .
>
> There is nothing that is not God.
If God is omnipotent, omnisicient, and omnipresent, then I cannot accept
this understanding.
Arjuna says, "param brahmaa param dhaamo pavitram paramam bhavaan."
Everything is Brahman, but only Krishna is the Supreme Brahman.
Brahman simply means spirit. If there is nothing that is not God, then that
means that there is nothing that is not omnipotent, omniscient, and
omnipresent. Do you want to show me something that meets these qualities?
If you confuse the energies of the Lord for the Lord Himself, you make an
unfortunate mistake. There is certainly a continuity between the two, but
one comes from the other.
