|| Sarvam Krishnamayam Jagat ||
Sarvam Krishnayam Jagat.
Everything is filled with Krishna. This is what some of the folks say. Lord Krishna is expected to be present in every animate and inanimate object.
In every thing Paramathman resides. There is nothing in which That does not exist. The isness is expounded in every aspect of the living. The isness of the animate and inanimate is established due to the presence of the Lord. It can also be said that the isness is established of the Lord as well. There is no difference in meaning, because the Lord exists in all, and by existing is made to exist in all.
The story of Prahlada illustrates that Lord exists in every thing. The story is not merely a bedtime story. The insight provided in the story is massive. When we say, "exists in all", the question arises as to what exists. The answer logically is "Krishna". Who is Krishna? The bhakti saints spent their lives on understanding and loving Krishna. By Krishna only Paramathman is meant.
BUT, there exists another interpretation for the same sentence. Krishna also means Black color. So the sentence means, "everything is filled with blackcolor". Or, "Everything is filled with blackness". That will mean that everything is engulfed in naught. there is nothing in any direction we see. What is percieved doesnot exist. hence whatever is present in the perceptable world doesnot exist. This is entirely opposite to the previous interpretion, in which we stated that everything is filled with Paramathman.
So what is the real meaning of the statement? The one interpretation says one thing, while the other says the exactly opposite thing. The answer is qute simple. "Both".
This is when people will say that there is definitely something wrong. We have been taught in logic that everything is either true or false; either black or white. But no one has taught us about the greys in life, because people thought that greys were too obvious to mention. I said in a polished way. Actually, people dont know how to interpret seemingly self-contradicting things.
World is filled with Nothing and yet it is filled with everything.
The world is the product of Maya. Hence we can say that world doesnot exist. But to a person living, he cant accept tht whatever he sees and touches and senses is non-existent. But he can relate to it being filed by GOD.
GOD was invented by man to hide the Nothingness.
Hence the actual interpretation is in accepting both, because in Nirvikalpa samadhi, neither there is existence nor non-existence.
Thus the sentence is truth whichever way it is seen.
Everything is filled with Krishna. This is what some of the folks say. Lord Krishna is expected to be present in every animate and inanimate object.
In every thing Paramathman resides. There is nothing in which That does not exist. The isness is expounded in every aspect of the living. The isness of the animate and inanimate is established due to the presence of the Lord. It can also be said that the isness is established of the Lord as well. There is no difference in meaning, because the Lord exists in all, and by existing is made to exist in all.
The story of Prahlada illustrates that Lord exists in every thing. The story is not merely a bedtime story. The insight provided in the story is massive. When we say, "exists in all", the question arises as to what exists. The answer logically is "Krishna". Who is Krishna? The bhakti saints spent their lives on understanding and loving Krishna. By Krishna only Paramathman is meant.
BUT, there exists another interpretation for the same sentence. Krishna also means Black color. So the sentence means, "everything is filled with blackcolor". Or, "Everything is filled with blackness". That will mean that everything is engulfed in naught. there is nothing in any direction we see. What is percieved doesnot exist. hence whatever is present in the perceptable world doesnot exist. This is entirely opposite to the previous interpretion, in which we stated that everything is filled with Paramathman.
So what is the real meaning of the statement? The one interpretation says one thing, while the other says the exactly opposite thing. The answer is qute simple. "Both".
This is when people will say that there is definitely something wrong. We have been taught in logic that everything is either true or false; either black or white. But no one has taught us about the greys in life, because people thought that greys were too obvious to mention. I said in a polished way. Actually, people dont know how to interpret seemingly self-contradicting things.
World is filled with Nothing and yet it is filled with everything.
The world is the product of Maya. Hence we can say that world doesnot exist. But to a person living, he cant accept tht whatever he sees and touches and senses is non-existent. But he can relate to it being filed by GOD.
GOD was invented by man to hide the Nothingness.
Hence the actual interpretation is in accepting both, because in Nirvikalpa samadhi, neither there is existence nor non-existence.
Thus the sentence is truth whichever way it is seen.
Labels: Hardcore Musings
posted by Murali | 23:21
1 Comments:
This statement is wrong, as per scriptures:
"GOD was invented by man to hide the Nothingness."
Man was created by God(Krishna). God also created Maaya. But when man takes refuge in Krishna, the effect of Maaya disappears.
Post a Comment
<< Home