- This topic has 5 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 3 weeks, 5 days ago by
.
-
Posts
-
There is this notion that god is perfect. Is it a fact or just an assumption made by humans to explain our inferiority and God’s superiority? If God, which in our case is Krishna, is perfect, how did something perfect create something as imperfect as human beings? Does it mean that within God, the potential for both perfection and imperfection exists but only perfection gets manifested and therefore, he is god but in humans only imperfection gets manifested and therefore, we are human beings? What really makes God (Krishna) perfect?
Krishna is everything, including perfect and imperfect. Everything manifested from Him is a part of Him. So, it is slightly less perfect than Him. However, even that less perfect thing becomes perfect when it is used correctly. For example, we can say that a knife is imperfect because it cannot be used to cook like a pan. But if we use it as a knife, then it is perfect. The most perfect thing can be used in any way but a less-than-perfect thing can be used perfectly in fewer ways. If it is used in only those ways, then it is perfect. In fact, it is then as perfect as the most perfect thing being used in that way.
Krishna did not make us imperfect. He made us like knives and pans. We chose to use ourselves in less-than-perfect ways, just like you can try to use a knife like a pan. That choice is also given by Krishna to everyone. But we misused that choice to be something else which makes us imperfect. Hence, there is self-realization to know that I am a knife and not a pan. When we know who we are, then we use ourselves in that way, and that is perfect. But if we don’t know who we are, then we try to be something other than the most perfect thing we can be, and that becomes imperfect.
You can also read this: The Semantic Conception of Reality. In this, I have taken the example of a pen and paperweight. If you use a pen as a paperweight, then it is imperfect. But if you use it as a pen, then it is perfect. So, what something is, is defined by its most ideal use. That is its svarupa or original form. We can also call it the intended form. But it can be used in non-intended ways. So, we are imperfect because we have forgotten the svarupa. If we know the svarupa then it is perfect.
Hello Sir, thank you for explaining it. The reason why I ask this is because whenever I have a discussion about this with my friends, they cite examples of Krishan stealing butter or the clothes of females when they were bathing. If Krishna is perfect, is it possible to explain these instances which are used by people to mock Krishna?
While writing the previous answer, I was going to say that your real question is something else and you are asking me something else, but anyway, now you asking the real question.
Your question is about morality. It is defined by one’s duty. Generally, we are not supposed to steal others’ property. But since Krishna created everything, it is not others’ property. It is already His property. Similarly, Krishna takes the clothes of the Gopis, but they are already His property.
Morality does not apply when the person whose property you are taking wants you to take it. The Gopis make butter and eagerly wait for Krishna to come and steal it. This is why Krishna is called Hari. Hari is one who steals. From the root Har comes the Arabic word Harem. The literal meaning of Haram in Arabic/Urdu is that which doesn’t belong to you but you have still taken it. If you steal something from someone, it is called Haram. In a Harem also, everything is not rightfully owned. But it is taken. There is a special pleasure in taking what doesn’t belong to you. Hari engages in the same kind of pleasure. But it is not Haram because everything already belongs to Him, and yet, He pretends that He is stealing it. Factually, neither is He stealing it nor is He taking anything against the wishes of those from whom He is taking it. They want Him to take it and He comes to take it.
This is a special privilege. You can offer something to Krishna and He won’t come to take it. We are begging Krishna to take our food and bless it, but He is reluctant. But when there is intense love, then Hari comes to steal. By stealing, He fulfills the desire of His devotees. But for others, He is morally responsible. To see God’s immoral and irresponsible side, we have to become His pure devotees.
Asserting one’s right over others is a mark of love. A child rides on its parent’s back. Some children want their parents to become a horse. They sit on the back and enjoy. The parent also enjoys becoming subordinate to his child. This is not immorality because there is love on both sides. By riding on the back of the parent, the child is not insulting the parent. Likewise, the parent doesn’t feel insulted when the child rides on the back. Love is not governed by ordinary rules of morality.
So, when Krishna steals butter, then the Gopis go to complain to His mother Yashoda. This is because they want to see Him again. But if Mother Yashoda scolds Krishna, then the hearts of the Gopis melt and they tell her to not scold. Then they make butter again and wait for Him to come and steal it. Sometimes, the Gopis also hide behind a door or curtain to see Krishna stealing the butter. In most paintings of Krishna stealing butter, you will see a Gopi hiding behind a pillar or door and watching the theft. They don’t stop Him before He can steal. But they complain about it later on.
This is the meaning of spirituality being beyond the three modes of material nature. In tamo-guna, one steals. In rajo-guna, one purchases things at a fair price. In sattva-guna, one just does his duty even if it doesn’t give the results. But in transcendence, there is stealing, although the unfair price is that the richer person steals what is abundantly available in his home, and the Gopis are expecting that because they have made butter so Krishna must come to steal it. So, it is not sattva-guna because there is an expectation of a result. It is not rajo-guna because it is unfair to make Krishna (the richest person) a thief. It is not tamo-guna, because it is not stolen against someone’s will.
Nanda Maharaja in Gokul and Vrindavana is already the richest Gopa. He has the most number of cows. But Krishna doesn’t steal in his home. His mother tries to feed Him, but He doesn’t want to be fed. Then He goes to steal in others’ homes. This is the beauty of Krishna’s pastimes. Those whose hearts are purified of sattva, rajas, and tamas relish these things even though they have given up all kinds of desires. This is why it is called transcendent. Mundane people cannot understand it.
Hello Sir, thank you for your response. It will take me sometime to understand this. Could you suggest a book written by you or anyone else that can explain these things in more detail? Is the book “Semantic conception of reality” a good book to start? And I noticed in the time line tab that you have written multiple books. Is there any particular sequence in which I can read them to understand everything about Sanatan Dharma?
If you haven’t read it, then start by reading Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-Gita As It Is. I don’t like to recommend a specific order of books because everyone is different. Each book is on a different topic. You can read in any order you like. You can also read the Blog if you like. There are thousands of things to know. But each person is more interested in something, so that is up to them to decide.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.