Can Sri Krishna be called 'a person'? The Next CEO of Stack OverflowWhat are the Yagnas Sri Krishna was referring to in Srimad Bhagavad Gita?Why did Sri Krishna say he is VAJRA among weapons?Why did Sri Krishna say he is Indra among Devatas?How much time did Sri Krishna take to preach Gita to Arjuna?Why did Sri Krishna advice Arjuna to do service to other Saints, for gaining knowledge?Why Krishna is called Kunj Bihari?Why is Krishna called Chola Putri PriyaWhy Krishna is called Ranchhod?Can anyone control Krishna?How can Brahman be the 'Anga-jyoti' of Sri Krishna?

Shortening a title without changing its meaning

MT "will strike" & LXX "will watch carefully" (Gen 3:15)?

Why did early computer designers eschew integers?

Does int main() need a declaration on C++?

What is the difference between 'contrib' and 'non-free' packages repositories?

Read/write a pipe-delimited file line by line with some simple text manipulation

"Eavesdropping" vs "Listen in on"

Is it okay to majorly distort historical facts while writing a fiction story?

How to pronounce fünf in 45

Is it correct to say moon starry nights?

Is it possible to make a 9x9 table fit within the default margins?

Direct Implications Between USA and UK in Event of No-Deal Brexit

Advance Calculus Limit question

How dangerous is XSS

Is the offspring between a demon and a celestial possible? If so what is it called and is it in a book somewhere?

Compensation for working overtime on Saturdays

Another proof that dividing by 0 does not exist -- is it right?

Find the majority element, which appears more than half the time

What is a typical Mizrachi Seder like?

Finitely generated matrix groups whose eigenvalues are all algebraic

Ising model simulation

Car headlights in a world without electricity

Is the 21st century's idea of "freedom of speech" based on precedent?

Is there a rule of thumb for determining the amount one should accept for a settlement offer?



Can Sri Krishna be called 'a person'?



The Next CEO of Stack OverflowWhat are the Yagnas Sri Krishna was referring to in Srimad Bhagavad Gita?Why did Sri Krishna say he is VAJRA among weapons?Why did Sri Krishna say he is Indra among Devatas?How much time did Sri Krishna take to preach Gita to Arjuna?Why did Sri Krishna advice Arjuna to do service to other Saints, for gaining knowledge?Why Krishna is called Kunj Bihari?Why is Krishna called Chola Putri PriyaWhy Krishna is called Ranchhod?Can anyone control Krishna?How can Brahman be the 'Anga-jyoti' of Sri Krishna?










3















In Gita, Sri Krishna says:




4.6 Though I am birthless, undecaying by nature, and the Lord of beings, (still) by subjugating My Prakriti, I take birth by means of My own Maya.



4.9 He who thus knows truly the divine birth and actions of Mine does not get birth after casting off the body. He attains Me, O Arjuna.



7.24 The unintelligent, unaware of My supreme state which is immutable and unsurpassable, think of Me as the unmanifest that has become manifest.




We have also to remember that




2.28 O descendant of Bharata, all beings remain unmanifest in the beginning;; they become manifest in the middle. After death they certainly become unmanifest. What lamentation can there be with regard to them?




So Sri Krishna makes it clear that He is different from 'Unmanisfest' becoming 'Manifest' as are ALL the persons.



Given the above, does any of our scriptures allow to brand Sri Krishna as a 'Person' ('Vyakti') with 'Personality'?



The meanings of the word 'Person' according to the the Oxford Dictionary are :




1A human being regarded as an individual.



•‘the porter was the last person to see her prior to her disappearance’
‘she is a person of astonishing energy’
More example sentencesSynonyms
1.1 (in legal or formal contexts) an unspecified individual.
‘each of the persons using unlawful violence is guilty of riot’
‘the entrance fee is £2.00 per person’
More example sentences
1.2with modifier An individual characterized by a preference or liking for a specified thing.
‘she's not a cat person’
More example sentencesSynonyms
1.3 A character in a play or story.
‘his previous roles in the person of a fallible cop’
Synonyms
1.4 An individual's body.
¤‘I would have publicity photographs on my person at all times’
More example sentencesSynonyms



2Grammar
《A category used in the classification of pronouns, possessive determiners, and verb forms, according to whether they indicate the speaker (first person), the addressee (second person), or a third party (third person).



《Example sentences
《3Christian Theology
《Each of the three modes of being of God, namely the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost, who together constitute the Trinity.




NO ISKCON TRANSLATIONS PLEASE. And the Christan Theology meaning of course in not applicable in this case.










share|improve this question



















  • 1





    How would you define a person? Any conscious entity is qualified to be a person?

    – Lazy Lubber
    17 hours ago






  • 1





    @Lazy Lubber person and vyakti both have dictionary meanings

    – Pratimaputra
    17 hours ago







  • 1





    @LazyLubber He is transcendental whose body is not of any matter, but of suddha sattva...and sat, cid and ananda form. But he has a body, he is not formless. he having a body is not the same as we having a body where soul and body are different. So he is called person in that sense.This is all vaishnava view not of any one vaishnava sect..

    – Krishna Varna
    17 hours ago







  • 2





    Yes you can. He was made out of flesh and blood like everbody else.

    – Wikash_hindu
    17 hours ago







  • 3





    Really? All Vaishnavas think Krishna is a person? Hiw many of our Vaishnava saints knew English? In comment you are asking "how many saints knew English" and in question you are asking for "person" itself, use Sanskrit word instead, why are you confusing others?

    – Krishna Shweta
    15 hours ago















3















In Gita, Sri Krishna says:




4.6 Though I am birthless, undecaying by nature, and the Lord of beings, (still) by subjugating My Prakriti, I take birth by means of My own Maya.



4.9 He who thus knows truly the divine birth and actions of Mine does not get birth after casting off the body. He attains Me, O Arjuna.



7.24 The unintelligent, unaware of My supreme state which is immutable and unsurpassable, think of Me as the unmanifest that has become manifest.




We have also to remember that




2.28 O descendant of Bharata, all beings remain unmanifest in the beginning;; they become manifest in the middle. After death they certainly become unmanifest. What lamentation can there be with regard to them?




So Sri Krishna makes it clear that He is different from 'Unmanisfest' becoming 'Manifest' as are ALL the persons.



Given the above, does any of our scriptures allow to brand Sri Krishna as a 'Person' ('Vyakti') with 'Personality'?



The meanings of the word 'Person' according to the the Oxford Dictionary are :




1A human being regarded as an individual.



•‘the porter was the last person to see her prior to her disappearance’
‘she is a person of astonishing energy’
More example sentencesSynonyms
1.1 (in legal or formal contexts) an unspecified individual.
‘each of the persons using unlawful violence is guilty of riot’
‘the entrance fee is £2.00 per person’
More example sentences
1.2with modifier An individual characterized by a preference or liking for a specified thing.
‘she's not a cat person’
More example sentencesSynonyms
1.3 A character in a play or story.
‘his previous roles in the person of a fallible cop’
Synonyms
1.4 An individual's body.
¤‘I would have publicity photographs on my person at all times’
More example sentencesSynonyms



2Grammar
《A category used in the classification of pronouns, possessive determiners, and verb forms, according to whether they indicate the speaker (first person), the addressee (second person), or a third party (third person).



《Example sentences
《3Christian Theology
《Each of the three modes of being of God, namely the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost, who together constitute the Trinity.




NO ISKCON TRANSLATIONS PLEASE. And the Christan Theology meaning of course in not applicable in this case.










share|improve this question



















  • 1





    How would you define a person? Any conscious entity is qualified to be a person?

    – Lazy Lubber
    17 hours ago






  • 1





    @Lazy Lubber person and vyakti both have dictionary meanings

    – Pratimaputra
    17 hours ago







  • 1





    @LazyLubber He is transcendental whose body is not of any matter, but of suddha sattva...and sat, cid and ananda form. But he has a body, he is not formless. he having a body is not the same as we having a body where soul and body are different. So he is called person in that sense.This is all vaishnava view not of any one vaishnava sect..

    – Krishna Varna
    17 hours ago







  • 2





    Yes you can. He was made out of flesh and blood like everbody else.

    – Wikash_hindu
    17 hours ago







  • 3





    Really? All Vaishnavas think Krishna is a person? Hiw many of our Vaishnava saints knew English? In comment you are asking "how many saints knew English" and in question you are asking for "person" itself, use Sanskrit word instead, why are you confusing others?

    – Krishna Shweta
    15 hours ago













3












3








3








In Gita, Sri Krishna says:




4.6 Though I am birthless, undecaying by nature, and the Lord of beings, (still) by subjugating My Prakriti, I take birth by means of My own Maya.



4.9 He who thus knows truly the divine birth and actions of Mine does not get birth after casting off the body. He attains Me, O Arjuna.



7.24 The unintelligent, unaware of My supreme state which is immutable and unsurpassable, think of Me as the unmanifest that has become manifest.




We have also to remember that




2.28 O descendant of Bharata, all beings remain unmanifest in the beginning;; they become manifest in the middle. After death they certainly become unmanifest. What lamentation can there be with regard to them?




So Sri Krishna makes it clear that He is different from 'Unmanisfest' becoming 'Manifest' as are ALL the persons.



Given the above, does any of our scriptures allow to brand Sri Krishna as a 'Person' ('Vyakti') with 'Personality'?



The meanings of the word 'Person' according to the the Oxford Dictionary are :




1A human being regarded as an individual.



•‘the porter was the last person to see her prior to her disappearance’
‘she is a person of astonishing energy’
More example sentencesSynonyms
1.1 (in legal or formal contexts) an unspecified individual.
‘each of the persons using unlawful violence is guilty of riot’
‘the entrance fee is £2.00 per person’
More example sentences
1.2with modifier An individual characterized by a preference or liking for a specified thing.
‘she's not a cat person’
More example sentencesSynonyms
1.3 A character in a play or story.
‘his previous roles in the person of a fallible cop’
Synonyms
1.4 An individual's body.
¤‘I would have publicity photographs on my person at all times’
More example sentencesSynonyms



2Grammar
《A category used in the classification of pronouns, possessive determiners, and verb forms, according to whether they indicate the speaker (first person), the addressee (second person), or a third party (third person).



《Example sentences
《3Christian Theology
《Each of the three modes of being of God, namely the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost, who together constitute the Trinity.




NO ISKCON TRANSLATIONS PLEASE. And the Christan Theology meaning of course in not applicable in this case.










share|improve this question
















In Gita, Sri Krishna says:




4.6 Though I am birthless, undecaying by nature, and the Lord of beings, (still) by subjugating My Prakriti, I take birth by means of My own Maya.



4.9 He who thus knows truly the divine birth and actions of Mine does not get birth after casting off the body. He attains Me, O Arjuna.



7.24 The unintelligent, unaware of My supreme state which is immutable and unsurpassable, think of Me as the unmanifest that has become manifest.




We have also to remember that




2.28 O descendant of Bharata, all beings remain unmanifest in the beginning;; they become manifest in the middle. After death they certainly become unmanifest. What lamentation can there be with regard to them?




So Sri Krishna makes it clear that He is different from 'Unmanisfest' becoming 'Manifest' as are ALL the persons.



Given the above, does any of our scriptures allow to brand Sri Krishna as a 'Person' ('Vyakti') with 'Personality'?



The meanings of the word 'Person' according to the the Oxford Dictionary are :




1A human being regarded as an individual.



•‘the porter was the last person to see her prior to her disappearance’
‘she is a person of astonishing energy’
More example sentencesSynonyms
1.1 (in legal or formal contexts) an unspecified individual.
‘each of the persons using unlawful violence is guilty of riot’
‘the entrance fee is £2.00 per person’
More example sentences
1.2with modifier An individual characterized by a preference or liking for a specified thing.
‘she's not a cat person’
More example sentencesSynonyms
1.3 A character in a play or story.
‘his previous roles in the person of a fallible cop’
Synonyms
1.4 An individual's body.
¤‘I would have publicity photographs on my person at all times’
More example sentencesSynonyms



2Grammar
《A category used in the classification of pronouns, possessive determiners, and verb forms, according to whether they indicate the speaker (first person), the addressee (second person), or a third party (third person).



《Example sentences
《3Christian Theology
《Each of the three modes of being of God, namely the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost, who together constitute the Trinity.




NO ISKCON TRANSLATIONS PLEASE. And the Christan Theology meaning of course in not applicable in this case.







krishna bhagavad-gita






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 10 hours ago









Sarvabhouma

16.1k567147




16.1k567147










asked 18 hours ago









PratimaputraPratimaputra

8,936745




8,936745







  • 1





    How would you define a person? Any conscious entity is qualified to be a person?

    – Lazy Lubber
    17 hours ago






  • 1





    @Lazy Lubber person and vyakti both have dictionary meanings

    – Pratimaputra
    17 hours ago







  • 1





    @LazyLubber He is transcendental whose body is not of any matter, but of suddha sattva...and sat, cid and ananda form. But he has a body, he is not formless. he having a body is not the same as we having a body where soul and body are different. So he is called person in that sense.This is all vaishnava view not of any one vaishnava sect..

    – Krishna Varna
    17 hours ago







  • 2





    Yes you can. He was made out of flesh and blood like everbody else.

    – Wikash_hindu
    17 hours ago







  • 3





    Really? All Vaishnavas think Krishna is a person? Hiw many of our Vaishnava saints knew English? In comment you are asking "how many saints knew English" and in question you are asking for "person" itself, use Sanskrit word instead, why are you confusing others?

    – Krishna Shweta
    15 hours ago












  • 1





    How would you define a person? Any conscious entity is qualified to be a person?

    – Lazy Lubber
    17 hours ago






  • 1





    @Lazy Lubber person and vyakti both have dictionary meanings

    – Pratimaputra
    17 hours ago







  • 1





    @LazyLubber He is transcendental whose body is not of any matter, but of suddha sattva...and sat, cid and ananda form. But he has a body, he is not formless. he having a body is not the same as we having a body where soul and body are different. So he is called person in that sense.This is all vaishnava view not of any one vaishnava sect..

    – Krishna Varna
    17 hours ago







  • 2





    Yes you can. He was made out of flesh and blood like everbody else.

    – Wikash_hindu
    17 hours ago







  • 3





    Really? All Vaishnavas think Krishna is a person? Hiw many of our Vaishnava saints knew English? In comment you are asking "how many saints knew English" and in question you are asking for "person" itself, use Sanskrit word instead, why are you confusing others?

    – Krishna Shweta
    15 hours ago







1




1





How would you define a person? Any conscious entity is qualified to be a person?

– Lazy Lubber
17 hours ago





How would you define a person? Any conscious entity is qualified to be a person?

– Lazy Lubber
17 hours ago




1




1





@Lazy Lubber person and vyakti both have dictionary meanings

– Pratimaputra
17 hours ago






@Lazy Lubber person and vyakti both have dictionary meanings

– Pratimaputra
17 hours ago





1




1





@LazyLubber He is transcendental whose body is not of any matter, but of suddha sattva...and sat, cid and ananda form. But he has a body, he is not formless. he having a body is not the same as we having a body where soul and body are different. So he is called person in that sense.This is all vaishnava view not of any one vaishnava sect..

– Krishna Varna
17 hours ago






@LazyLubber He is transcendental whose body is not of any matter, but of suddha sattva...and sat, cid and ananda form. But he has a body, he is not formless. he having a body is not the same as we having a body where soul and body are different. So he is called person in that sense.This is all vaishnava view not of any one vaishnava sect..

– Krishna Varna
17 hours ago





2




2





Yes you can. He was made out of flesh and blood like everbody else.

– Wikash_hindu
17 hours ago






Yes you can. He was made out of flesh and blood like everbody else.

– Wikash_hindu
17 hours ago





3




3





Really? All Vaishnavas think Krishna is a person? Hiw many of our Vaishnava saints knew English? In comment you are asking "how many saints knew English" and in question you are asking for "person" itself, use Sanskrit word instead, why are you confusing others?

– Krishna Shweta
15 hours ago





Really? All Vaishnavas think Krishna is a person? Hiw many of our Vaishnava saints knew English? In comment you are asking "how many saints knew English" and in question you are asking for "person" itself, use Sanskrit word instead, why are you confusing others?

– Krishna Shweta
15 hours ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















6















Can Sri Krishna be called 'a person'?




Yes, here is what Ramanujacharya says in the introduction to his Bhagavad Gita Bhashya:




Nārāyaṇa is the Consort of Sri, He is absolutely auspicious and is the
antithesis of all that is evil. His essential nature consists of Being
(sat), Consciousness (cit) and Bliss (ānanda) and these
characteristics distinguish Him from all other beings. He is veritably
a great ocean of innumerable auspicious attributes which are intrinsic
to His nature and cannot be surpassed — some of them being;
omniscience, omnipotence, sovereignty, energy, creative potency and
glory.



Nārāyaṇa has a divine form, which is both pleasing and appropriate.
His form is inconceivable, indescribable, divine, eternal and
immaculate. He is a repository of limitless perfections such as
radiance, beauty, fragrance, tenderness, pervading sweetness and
youthfulness. The Lord is adorned with suitable divine ornaments which
are diverse, infinite, amazing, eternal, flawless, unlimited and holy.




And here is what Ramanujacharya says about Narayana's incarnation as Krishna:




Under the pretext of relieving the earth of its burdens, but really in order to make Himself available
for us (frail humans) to take refuge in Him, the Lord incarnated on the earth as Sri Krishna.
He thus
manifested Himself to all beings. He engaged in divine pastimes which captivated the minds and
hearts of all, high and low. He vanquished demoniac beings such as Pūtana, Śakaṭa, the two Arjuna
trees, Ariṣṭa, Prālambha, Dhenuka, Kaliya, Keśin, Kuvalaya-pīḍa, Cānura, Muṣṭika, Tośala and
Kaṁsa. He spread joy and beatitude over the entire world with the nectar of His glances and speech,
demonstrating His boundless compassion, friendliness and love for all.



When the internecine war between the sons of Pāṇḍu and the descendants of Kuru broke out, Kṛṣṇa,
the Supreme Being, the God of all gods, overwhelmed by His love for those devotees who had
taken refuge in Him, took upon Himself the humble role of the charioteer of Arjuna, so that He
could be seen by all the people




And also in chapter 15 called "Mystery of the Omnipresent Supreme Being", it is said in verse 4:




tataḥ padaṃ tat parimārgitavyaṃ yasmin gatā na nivartanti bhūyaḥ |
tameva cādyaṃ puruṣaṃ prapadye yataḥ pravṛttiḥ prasṛtā purāṇī



One should then seek that goal, attaining which one never returns. One should take refuge in
that Primal Person
from whom this ancient process emanated.




So clearly Krishna can be called a person, and not just by followers of ISKCON.






share|improve this answer


















  • 1





    purusha does not mean person

    – Pratimaputra
    16 hours ago











  • purusha -sukta means about a person?

    – Pratimaputra
    16 hours ago






  • 4





    Does Purusha necessarily mean a "person" in the sense of a human? I dont think so. Once again, I am asking OP to clarify what he means by the word "person".

    – Lazy Lubber
    16 hours ago






  • 1





    @Pratimaputra We can avoid extended discussion if you tell exactly what you mean by the word "person", rather than asking to refer to dictionary.

    – Lazy Lubber
    16 hours ago






  • 1





    @Pratimaputra I think you are escaping from giving a direct answer.

    – Lazy Lubber
    16 hours ago


















4














Yes, the word puruṣa really means "a person", it's explained like that in the Monier Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary:




[L=126439] a person , (pumān puruṣaḥ , a male person S3a1n3khGr2. Mn. ; daṇḍaḥp° , punishment personified Mn. ; esp. grammatical pers. ; with prathama , madhyama , uttama = the 3rd , 2nd , 1st pers. Nir. Pa1n2. ), an officer , functionary , attendant , servant Mn. MBh. &c (cf. tat-p°)




And Lord Krishna says in the Bhagavad-gita 15.18 (vedabase translation):




yasmāt kṣaram atīto ’ham
akṣarād api cottamaḥ
ato ’smi loke vede ca
prathitaḥ puruṣottamaḥ



yasmāt — because; kṣaram — to the fallible; atītaḥ — transcendental; aham — I am; akṣarāt — beyond the infallible; api — also; ca — and; uttamaḥ — the best; ataḥ — therefore; asmi — I am; loke — in the world; vede — in the Vedic literature; ca — and; prathitaḥ — celebrated; puruṣa-uttamaḥ — as the Supreme Personality.



Because I am transcendental, beyond both the fallible and the infallible, and because I am the greatest, I am celebrated both in the world and in the Vedas as that Supreme Person.




And in the following verse 19 that is repeated and there it is said that one who knows Lord Krishna as the Supreme Person without doubting, is the knower of everything, and he therefore engages himself in full devotional service to Lord Krishna.






share|improve this answer


















  • 2





    No actually Purusha is not a person...Also "Supreme personality" is wrongly applied at certain places!!! Lot of sanskrit to English translations are wrong!!

    – Akshay S
    14 hours ago







  • 2





    Purusha is something which cant be described correctly in English. The sloga meaning I have is Krishna says he is celebrated as Purushotamman...in Vedas. Most of the time when he refers himself, he declares himself as Paramesvara - the Parabrahman. At the highest stage, Krishna being avatar of Parabrahman, there's no difference between him and Paramesvara!

    – Akshay S
    14 hours ago







  • 2





    @brahmajijanasa ok. If its some sect translation, I dont want to get into discussion. But that Purusha is a word which is something cant be translated properly....in English....

    – Akshay S
    14 hours ago






  • 1





    No... its not!!! Purusha, Param Purusha, everything is complex and cannot be defined!!! @brahmajijnasa

    – Akshay S
    14 hours ago







  • 1





    @AkshayS ... I think Lord Krishna did not use words to tell something to Arjuna which is not possible to define because there is no purpose to say with words something which is Arjuna supposed to understand if it cannot be explained or defined, or that is to say if Arjuna is not able to understand.

    – brahma jijnasa
    12 hours ago


















3














This is how Krishnaprem, (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna_Prem), the renowned siddha Gaudiya Vaishnava saint sees the topic.He clearly answers in the negative and writes




Nor Krishna is man at all, but a great Power which, by its presence, though unknown, unseen, lightens the bitter sorrows of the world.




The sanskritdictionary.com gives the relevant meanings of 'Purusha' as




The soul; द्वाविमौ पुरुषौ लोके क्षरश्चाक्षर एव च Bg.15.16 &c. -7 The Supreme Being, God (soul of the universe); पुरातनं त्वां पुरुषं पुराविदः (विदुः) Śi.1.33; R.13.6.




It is obvious that here 'Purusha' can NOT mean person ('Vyakti') -- because three types of 'Purusha' are mentioned in the chapter 15 of the Gita: kshara, Akshara and Purusha-Uttama. If all three are translated as persons, that would be the most misleading!



in His 'The Yoga of the Bhagavad-Gita'. First Sri Krishnaprem clarifies:




To anyone who has eyes to see, Gita is based on direct knowledge of Reality, and the Path that leads to that Reality..Those eternal realities are the same now as they were thousand of years ago, and the text of Gita should be interpreted in words that refer to these realities here and now.




He explains the verse that contains the word 'Purusha' in chapter 15, sloka 4 of the Gita as




Detaching himself from  the union with the objects of both outer and inner senses, detaching himself in fact from all from whatsoever, the disciple must soar upon the trackless path of light towards the Primal Consciousness from which ages past the Cosmic Energied steamed forth. (verse 4).That Consciousness however being Absolute, is far beyond all that we know as such.Knower and Known exist in one as it is, in another way, they are not one in absolute matter.It is in fact no consciousness for us, being beyond the Fire of manifested life, the Moon of Mula-prakriti, the Sun of the unmanifested Atman.It is the Void; It is also the Full.Having gone thither, none can return again.That, Krishna says, is His Supreme Abode.That is the Goal; That is final bliss.




Krushnaprem is a foremost intellectual, a greatest Siddha Vaishnava and a top-class writer. So I lay most importance to His translation and interpretation.Those who know a minimum of both Sanskrit and English will understand that the word 'Purusha' can never be satisfactorily translated as 'Person', because The one Who lying in the 'Pura' is 'Purusha'.
Sri Krishnprem translates 'Purusha' as 'The Spirit or Consciousness'.
The entire book is available for download online in pdf format. https://www.auro-ebooks.com/the-yoga-of-the-bhagavat-gita/



The translations like 'Person' or 'The Supreme Personality of Godhead' are very very close to the Christan Theological meaning and the farthest from what the Gita and the Acharyas try to imply.






share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    Yes Purusha is not a person correct. And knower and known are not different. Yes!!!

    – Akshay S
    13 hours ago











  • Yes. Fine!!!!!!!

    – Akshay S
    2 hours ago











  • These western scholars can't understand actual reality and so they translated every word like bhagavan to supreme person and Purusha to supreme person. But our actual meanings of Gita and our scriptures are different. Influence of Kali in degradation of knowledge

    – Akshay S
    2 hours ago











  • Night mare in the sense?

    – Akshay S
    2 hours ago











  • It happens with these foreign translations. So what we can do is focus more on original sanskrit version Indian language translations.. we should avoid English as much as possible

    – Akshay S
    2 hours ago


















0














No. Krishna is the Supreme transcendental Person. We call Him satachidanand but when the devotees call Him Chidanand the "sat" is already understood. When the devotees call Him Anand or Parmanand that is He Himself, the Supreme transcendental Person. So, Anand (i.e. Bliss) is not His Name but He Himself, Chit (i.e supreme consciousness) and Sat (the supreme eternity) are His attributes here.



The devotees at same state of knowledge only try to find something which is known or unknown to them. How can a dictionary help find eternal meaning of/about God. In the B.Gita 10/10 He says, "tesham satat yuktanam bhajtam preetipurvkam, dadami buddhi-yogam tam yen mamupayantite."



We need to be in the association with the practicing devotees to get a fraction of the eternal induction (intelligence) and the real meaning of this nutshell verse.



By the way, we can only become blissful ("anandi bhavti...") and not the Bliss or "Anand" even if we get blessed with our supreme destination in devotion, i.e. Unlimited Permanent Bliss.



Everyone who wants to be blissful is searching for the same Bliss, "..anando brahamaneti vyajanaat..", but the dictionaries never reveal the eternal meaning and grammar books only tell linguistic accuracy in the literature. Here this Permanent Bliss should not be confused with the dictionary meaning of temporary fraction of the limited material bliss that animals get in eating, mating and sleeping etc.



When the devotees call Him the Person, His Supremacy and Transcendence is well understood by the scripture. Valamiki called Him "MARA" but He appeared as RAMA, the Purushotam because of his association with one of the greatest among the devotees, Lord Narada.



Sril Adi Shankracharya has very rightly said to a Pundit of Sanskrit Grammar in Varanasi, "Bhaj Govinadam, Bhaj Govindam, Govindam bhaj moddhamatte.." he was trying to find the literal meaning of the vedic literature in grammar books.






share|improve this answer
































    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes








    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    6















    Can Sri Krishna be called 'a person'?




    Yes, here is what Ramanujacharya says in the introduction to his Bhagavad Gita Bhashya:




    Nārāyaṇa is the Consort of Sri, He is absolutely auspicious and is the
    antithesis of all that is evil. His essential nature consists of Being
    (sat), Consciousness (cit) and Bliss (ānanda) and these
    characteristics distinguish Him from all other beings. He is veritably
    a great ocean of innumerable auspicious attributes which are intrinsic
    to His nature and cannot be surpassed — some of them being;
    omniscience, omnipotence, sovereignty, energy, creative potency and
    glory.



    Nārāyaṇa has a divine form, which is both pleasing and appropriate.
    His form is inconceivable, indescribable, divine, eternal and
    immaculate. He is a repository of limitless perfections such as
    radiance, beauty, fragrance, tenderness, pervading sweetness and
    youthfulness. The Lord is adorned with suitable divine ornaments which
    are diverse, infinite, amazing, eternal, flawless, unlimited and holy.




    And here is what Ramanujacharya says about Narayana's incarnation as Krishna:




    Under the pretext of relieving the earth of its burdens, but really in order to make Himself available
    for us (frail humans) to take refuge in Him, the Lord incarnated on the earth as Sri Krishna.
    He thus
    manifested Himself to all beings. He engaged in divine pastimes which captivated the minds and
    hearts of all, high and low. He vanquished demoniac beings such as Pūtana, Śakaṭa, the two Arjuna
    trees, Ariṣṭa, Prālambha, Dhenuka, Kaliya, Keśin, Kuvalaya-pīḍa, Cānura, Muṣṭika, Tośala and
    Kaṁsa. He spread joy and beatitude over the entire world with the nectar of His glances and speech,
    demonstrating His boundless compassion, friendliness and love for all.



    When the internecine war between the sons of Pāṇḍu and the descendants of Kuru broke out, Kṛṣṇa,
    the Supreme Being, the God of all gods, overwhelmed by His love for those devotees who had
    taken refuge in Him, took upon Himself the humble role of the charioteer of Arjuna, so that He
    could be seen by all the people




    And also in chapter 15 called "Mystery of the Omnipresent Supreme Being", it is said in verse 4:




    tataḥ padaṃ tat parimārgitavyaṃ yasmin gatā na nivartanti bhūyaḥ |
    tameva cādyaṃ puruṣaṃ prapadye yataḥ pravṛttiḥ prasṛtā purāṇī



    One should then seek that goal, attaining which one never returns. One should take refuge in
    that Primal Person
    from whom this ancient process emanated.




    So clearly Krishna can be called a person, and not just by followers of ISKCON.






    share|improve this answer


















    • 1





      purusha does not mean person

      – Pratimaputra
      16 hours ago











    • purusha -sukta means about a person?

      – Pratimaputra
      16 hours ago






    • 4





      Does Purusha necessarily mean a "person" in the sense of a human? I dont think so. Once again, I am asking OP to clarify what he means by the word "person".

      – Lazy Lubber
      16 hours ago






    • 1





      @Pratimaputra We can avoid extended discussion if you tell exactly what you mean by the word "person", rather than asking to refer to dictionary.

      – Lazy Lubber
      16 hours ago






    • 1





      @Pratimaputra I think you are escaping from giving a direct answer.

      – Lazy Lubber
      16 hours ago















    6















    Can Sri Krishna be called 'a person'?




    Yes, here is what Ramanujacharya says in the introduction to his Bhagavad Gita Bhashya:




    Nārāyaṇa is the Consort of Sri, He is absolutely auspicious and is the
    antithesis of all that is evil. His essential nature consists of Being
    (sat), Consciousness (cit) and Bliss (ānanda) and these
    characteristics distinguish Him from all other beings. He is veritably
    a great ocean of innumerable auspicious attributes which are intrinsic
    to His nature and cannot be surpassed — some of them being;
    omniscience, omnipotence, sovereignty, energy, creative potency and
    glory.



    Nārāyaṇa has a divine form, which is both pleasing and appropriate.
    His form is inconceivable, indescribable, divine, eternal and
    immaculate. He is a repository of limitless perfections such as
    radiance, beauty, fragrance, tenderness, pervading sweetness and
    youthfulness. The Lord is adorned with suitable divine ornaments which
    are diverse, infinite, amazing, eternal, flawless, unlimited and holy.




    And here is what Ramanujacharya says about Narayana's incarnation as Krishna:




    Under the pretext of relieving the earth of its burdens, but really in order to make Himself available
    for us (frail humans) to take refuge in Him, the Lord incarnated on the earth as Sri Krishna.
    He thus
    manifested Himself to all beings. He engaged in divine pastimes which captivated the minds and
    hearts of all, high and low. He vanquished demoniac beings such as Pūtana, Śakaṭa, the two Arjuna
    trees, Ariṣṭa, Prālambha, Dhenuka, Kaliya, Keśin, Kuvalaya-pīḍa, Cānura, Muṣṭika, Tośala and
    Kaṁsa. He spread joy and beatitude over the entire world with the nectar of His glances and speech,
    demonstrating His boundless compassion, friendliness and love for all.



    When the internecine war between the sons of Pāṇḍu and the descendants of Kuru broke out, Kṛṣṇa,
    the Supreme Being, the God of all gods, overwhelmed by His love for those devotees who had
    taken refuge in Him, took upon Himself the humble role of the charioteer of Arjuna, so that He
    could be seen by all the people




    And also in chapter 15 called "Mystery of the Omnipresent Supreme Being", it is said in verse 4:




    tataḥ padaṃ tat parimārgitavyaṃ yasmin gatā na nivartanti bhūyaḥ |
    tameva cādyaṃ puruṣaṃ prapadye yataḥ pravṛttiḥ prasṛtā purāṇī



    One should then seek that goal, attaining which one never returns. One should take refuge in
    that Primal Person
    from whom this ancient process emanated.




    So clearly Krishna can be called a person, and not just by followers of ISKCON.






    share|improve this answer


















    • 1





      purusha does not mean person

      – Pratimaputra
      16 hours ago











    • purusha -sukta means about a person?

      – Pratimaputra
      16 hours ago






    • 4





      Does Purusha necessarily mean a "person" in the sense of a human? I dont think so. Once again, I am asking OP to clarify what he means by the word "person".

      – Lazy Lubber
      16 hours ago






    • 1





      @Pratimaputra We can avoid extended discussion if you tell exactly what you mean by the word "person", rather than asking to refer to dictionary.

      – Lazy Lubber
      16 hours ago






    • 1





      @Pratimaputra I think you are escaping from giving a direct answer.

      – Lazy Lubber
      16 hours ago













    6












    6








    6








    Can Sri Krishna be called 'a person'?




    Yes, here is what Ramanujacharya says in the introduction to his Bhagavad Gita Bhashya:




    Nārāyaṇa is the Consort of Sri, He is absolutely auspicious and is the
    antithesis of all that is evil. His essential nature consists of Being
    (sat), Consciousness (cit) and Bliss (ānanda) and these
    characteristics distinguish Him from all other beings. He is veritably
    a great ocean of innumerable auspicious attributes which are intrinsic
    to His nature and cannot be surpassed — some of them being;
    omniscience, omnipotence, sovereignty, energy, creative potency and
    glory.



    Nārāyaṇa has a divine form, which is both pleasing and appropriate.
    His form is inconceivable, indescribable, divine, eternal and
    immaculate. He is a repository of limitless perfections such as
    radiance, beauty, fragrance, tenderness, pervading sweetness and
    youthfulness. The Lord is adorned with suitable divine ornaments which
    are diverse, infinite, amazing, eternal, flawless, unlimited and holy.




    And here is what Ramanujacharya says about Narayana's incarnation as Krishna:




    Under the pretext of relieving the earth of its burdens, but really in order to make Himself available
    for us (frail humans) to take refuge in Him, the Lord incarnated on the earth as Sri Krishna.
    He thus
    manifested Himself to all beings. He engaged in divine pastimes which captivated the minds and
    hearts of all, high and low. He vanquished demoniac beings such as Pūtana, Śakaṭa, the two Arjuna
    trees, Ariṣṭa, Prālambha, Dhenuka, Kaliya, Keśin, Kuvalaya-pīḍa, Cānura, Muṣṭika, Tośala and
    Kaṁsa. He spread joy and beatitude over the entire world with the nectar of His glances and speech,
    demonstrating His boundless compassion, friendliness and love for all.



    When the internecine war between the sons of Pāṇḍu and the descendants of Kuru broke out, Kṛṣṇa,
    the Supreme Being, the God of all gods, overwhelmed by His love for those devotees who had
    taken refuge in Him, took upon Himself the humble role of the charioteer of Arjuna, so that He
    could be seen by all the people




    And also in chapter 15 called "Mystery of the Omnipresent Supreme Being", it is said in verse 4:




    tataḥ padaṃ tat parimārgitavyaṃ yasmin gatā na nivartanti bhūyaḥ |
    tameva cādyaṃ puruṣaṃ prapadye yataḥ pravṛttiḥ prasṛtā purāṇī



    One should then seek that goal, attaining which one never returns. One should take refuge in
    that Primal Person
    from whom this ancient process emanated.




    So clearly Krishna can be called a person, and not just by followers of ISKCON.






    share|improve this answer














    Can Sri Krishna be called 'a person'?




    Yes, here is what Ramanujacharya says in the introduction to his Bhagavad Gita Bhashya:




    Nārāyaṇa is the Consort of Sri, He is absolutely auspicious and is the
    antithesis of all that is evil. His essential nature consists of Being
    (sat), Consciousness (cit) and Bliss (ānanda) and these
    characteristics distinguish Him from all other beings. He is veritably
    a great ocean of innumerable auspicious attributes which are intrinsic
    to His nature and cannot be surpassed — some of them being;
    omniscience, omnipotence, sovereignty, energy, creative potency and
    glory.



    Nārāyaṇa has a divine form, which is both pleasing and appropriate.
    His form is inconceivable, indescribable, divine, eternal and
    immaculate. He is a repository of limitless perfections such as
    radiance, beauty, fragrance, tenderness, pervading sweetness and
    youthfulness. The Lord is adorned with suitable divine ornaments which
    are diverse, infinite, amazing, eternal, flawless, unlimited and holy.




    And here is what Ramanujacharya says about Narayana's incarnation as Krishna:




    Under the pretext of relieving the earth of its burdens, but really in order to make Himself available
    for us (frail humans) to take refuge in Him, the Lord incarnated on the earth as Sri Krishna.
    He thus
    manifested Himself to all beings. He engaged in divine pastimes which captivated the minds and
    hearts of all, high and low. He vanquished demoniac beings such as Pūtana, Śakaṭa, the two Arjuna
    trees, Ariṣṭa, Prālambha, Dhenuka, Kaliya, Keśin, Kuvalaya-pīḍa, Cānura, Muṣṭika, Tośala and
    Kaṁsa. He spread joy and beatitude over the entire world with the nectar of His glances and speech,
    demonstrating His boundless compassion, friendliness and love for all.



    When the internecine war between the sons of Pāṇḍu and the descendants of Kuru broke out, Kṛṣṇa,
    the Supreme Being, the God of all gods, overwhelmed by His love for those devotees who had
    taken refuge in Him, took upon Himself the humble role of the charioteer of Arjuna, so that He
    could be seen by all the people




    And also in chapter 15 called "Mystery of the Omnipresent Supreme Being", it is said in verse 4:




    tataḥ padaṃ tat parimārgitavyaṃ yasmin gatā na nivartanti bhūyaḥ |
    tameva cādyaṃ puruṣaṃ prapadye yataḥ pravṛttiḥ prasṛtā purāṇī



    One should then seek that goal, attaining which one never returns. One should take refuge in
    that Primal Person
    from whom this ancient process emanated.




    So clearly Krishna can be called a person, and not just by followers of ISKCON.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 16 hours ago









    IkshvakuIkshvaku

    6,370434




    6,370434







    • 1





      purusha does not mean person

      – Pratimaputra
      16 hours ago











    • purusha -sukta means about a person?

      – Pratimaputra
      16 hours ago






    • 4





      Does Purusha necessarily mean a "person" in the sense of a human? I dont think so. Once again, I am asking OP to clarify what he means by the word "person".

      – Lazy Lubber
      16 hours ago






    • 1





      @Pratimaputra We can avoid extended discussion if you tell exactly what you mean by the word "person", rather than asking to refer to dictionary.

      – Lazy Lubber
      16 hours ago






    • 1





      @Pratimaputra I think you are escaping from giving a direct answer.

      – Lazy Lubber
      16 hours ago












    • 1





      purusha does not mean person

      – Pratimaputra
      16 hours ago











    • purusha -sukta means about a person?

      – Pratimaputra
      16 hours ago






    • 4





      Does Purusha necessarily mean a "person" in the sense of a human? I dont think so. Once again, I am asking OP to clarify what he means by the word "person".

      – Lazy Lubber
      16 hours ago






    • 1





      @Pratimaputra We can avoid extended discussion if you tell exactly what you mean by the word "person", rather than asking to refer to dictionary.

      – Lazy Lubber
      16 hours ago






    • 1





      @Pratimaputra I think you are escaping from giving a direct answer.

      – Lazy Lubber
      16 hours ago







    1




    1





    purusha does not mean person

    – Pratimaputra
    16 hours ago





    purusha does not mean person

    – Pratimaputra
    16 hours ago













    purusha -sukta means about a person?

    – Pratimaputra
    16 hours ago





    purusha -sukta means about a person?

    – Pratimaputra
    16 hours ago




    4




    4





    Does Purusha necessarily mean a "person" in the sense of a human? I dont think so. Once again, I am asking OP to clarify what he means by the word "person".

    – Lazy Lubber
    16 hours ago





    Does Purusha necessarily mean a "person" in the sense of a human? I dont think so. Once again, I am asking OP to clarify what he means by the word "person".

    – Lazy Lubber
    16 hours ago




    1




    1





    @Pratimaputra We can avoid extended discussion if you tell exactly what you mean by the word "person", rather than asking to refer to dictionary.

    – Lazy Lubber
    16 hours ago





    @Pratimaputra We can avoid extended discussion if you tell exactly what you mean by the word "person", rather than asking to refer to dictionary.

    – Lazy Lubber
    16 hours ago




    1




    1





    @Pratimaputra I think you are escaping from giving a direct answer.

    – Lazy Lubber
    16 hours ago





    @Pratimaputra I think you are escaping from giving a direct answer.

    – Lazy Lubber
    16 hours ago











    4














    Yes, the word puruṣa really means "a person", it's explained like that in the Monier Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary:




    [L=126439] a person , (pumān puruṣaḥ , a male person S3a1n3khGr2. Mn. ; daṇḍaḥp° , punishment personified Mn. ; esp. grammatical pers. ; with prathama , madhyama , uttama = the 3rd , 2nd , 1st pers. Nir. Pa1n2. ), an officer , functionary , attendant , servant Mn. MBh. &c (cf. tat-p°)




    And Lord Krishna says in the Bhagavad-gita 15.18 (vedabase translation):




    yasmāt kṣaram atīto ’ham
    akṣarād api cottamaḥ
    ato ’smi loke vede ca
    prathitaḥ puruṣottamaḥ



    yasmāt — because; kṣaram — to the fallible; atītaḥ — transcendental; aham — I am; akṣarāt — beyond the infallible; api — also; ca — and; uttamaḥ — the best; ataḥ — therefore; asmi — I am; loke — in the world; vede — in the Vedic literature; ca — and; prathitaḥ — celebrated; puruṣa-uttamaḥ — as the Supreme Personality.



    Because I am transcendental, beyond both the fallible and the infallible, and because I am the greatest, I am celebrated both in the world and in the Vedas as that Supreme Person.




    And in the following verse 19 that is repeated and there it is said that one who knows Lord Krishna as the Supreme Person without doubting, is the knower of everything, and he therefore engages himself in full devotional service to Lord Krishna.






    share|improve this answer


















    • 2





      No actually Purusha is not a person...Also "Supreme personality" is wrongly applied at certain places!!! Lot of sanskrit to English translations are wrong!!

      – Akshay S
      14 hours ago







    • 2





      Purusha is something which cant be described correctly in English. The sloga meaning I have is Krishna says he is celebrated as Purushotamman...in Vedas. Most of the time when he refers himself, he declares himself as Paramesvara - the Parabrahman. At the highest stage, Krishna being avatar of Parabrahman, there's no difference between him and Paramesvara!

      – Akshay S
      14 hours ago







    • 2





      @brahmajijanasa ok. If its some sect translation, I dont want to get into discussion. But that Purusha is a word which is something cant be translated properly....in English....

      – Akshay S
      14 hours ago






    • 1





      No... its not!!! Purusha, Param Purusha, everything is complex and cannot be defined!!! @brahmajijnasa

      – Akshay S
      14 hours ago







    • 1





      @AkshayS ... I think Lord Krishna did not use words to tell something to Arjuna which is not possible to define because there is no purpose to say with words something which is Arjuna supposed to understand if it cannot be explained or defined, or that is to say if Arjuna is not able to understand.

      – brahma jijnasa
      12 hours ago















    4














    Yes, the word puruṣa really means "a person", it's explained like that in the Monier Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary:




    [L=126439] a person , (pumān puruṣaḥ , a male person S3a1n3khGr2. Mn. ; daṇḍaḥp° , punishment personified Mn. ; esp. grammatical pers. ; with prathama , madhyama , uttama = the 3rd , 2nd , 1st pers. Nir. Pa1n2. ), an officer , functionary , attendant , servant Mn. MBh. &c (cf. tat-p°)




    And Lord Krishna says in the Bhagavad-gita 15.18 (vedabase translation):




    yasmāt kṣaram atīto ’ham
    akṣarād api cottamaḥ
    ato ’smi loke vede ca
    prathitaḥ puruṣottamaḥ



    yasmāt — because; kṣaram — to the fallible; atītaḥ — transcendental; aham — I am; akṣarāt — beyond the infallible; api — also; ca — and; uttamaḥ — the best; ataḥ — therefore; asmi — I am; loke — in the world; vede — in the Vedic literature; ca — and; prathitaḥ — celebrated; puruṣa-uttamaḥ — as the Supreme Personality.



    Because I am transcendental, beyond both the fallible and the infallible, and because I am the greatest, I am celebrated both in the world and in the Vedas as that Supreme Person.




    And in the following verse 19 that is repeated and there it is said that one who knows Lord Krishna as the Supreme Person without doubting, is the knower of everything, and he therefore engages himself in full devotional service to Lord Krishna.






    share|improve this answer


















    • 2





      No actually Purusha is not a person...Also "Supreme personality" is wrongly applied at certain places!!! Lot of sanskrit to English translations are wrong!!

      – Akshay S
      14 hours ago







    • 2





      Purusha is something which cant be described correctly in English. The sloga meaning I have is Krishna says he is celebrated as Purushotamman...in Vedas. Most of the time when he refers himself, he declares himself as Paramesvara - the Parabrahman. At the highest stage, Krishna being avatar of Parabrahman, there's no difference between him and Paramesvara!

      – Akshay S
      14 hours ago







    • 2





      @brahmajijanasa ok. If its some sect translation, I dont want to get into discussion. But that Purusha is a word which is something cant be translated properly....in English....

      – Akshay S
      14 hours ago






    • 1





      No... its not!!! Purusha, Param Purusha, everything is complex and cannot be defined!!! @brahmajijnasa

      – Akshay S
      14 hours ago







    • 1





      @AkshayS ... I think Lord Krishna did not use words to tell something to Arjuna which is not possible to define because there is no purpose to say with words something which is Arjuna supposed to understand if it cannot be explained or defined, or that is to say if Arjuna is not able to understand.

      – brahma jijnasa
      12 hours ago













    4












    4








    4







    Yes, the word puruṣa really means "a person", it's explained like that in the Monier Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary:




    [L=126439] a person , (pumān puruṣaḥ , a male person S3a1n3khGr2. Mn. ; daṇḍaḥp° , punishment personified Mn. ; esp. grammatical pers. ; with prathama , madhyama , uttama = the 3rd , 2nd , 1st pers. Nir. Pa1n2. ), an officer , functionary , attendant , servant Mn. MBh. &c (cf. tat-p°)




    And Lord Krishna says in the Bhagavad-gita 15.18 (vedabase translation):




    yasmāt kṣaram atīto ’ham
    akṣarād api cottamaḥ
    ato ’smi loke vede ca
    prathitaḥ puruṣottamaḥ



    yasmāt — because; kṣaram — to the fallible; atītaḥ — transcendental; aham — I am; akṣarāt — beyond the infallible; api — also; ca — and; uttamaḥ — the best; ataḥ — therefore; asmi — I am; loke — in the world; vede — in the Vedic literature; ca — and; prathitaḥ — celebrated; puruṣa-uttamaḥ — as the Supreme Personality.



    Because I am transcendental, beyond both the fallible and the infallible, and because I am the greatest, I am celebrated both in the world and in the Vedas as that Supreme Person.




    And in the following verse 19 that is repeated and there it is said that one who knows Lord Krishna as the Supreme Person without doubting, is the knower of everything, and he therefore engages himself in full devotional service to Lord Krishna.






    share|improve this answer













    Yes, the word puruṣa really means "a person", it's explained like that in the Monier Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary:




    [L=126439] a person , (pumān puruṣaḥ , a male person S3a1n3khGr2. Mn. ; daṇḍaḥp° , punishment personified Mn. ; esp. grammatical pers. ; with prathama , madhyama , uttama = the 3rd , 2nd , 1st pers. Nir. Pa1n2. ), an officer , functionary , attendant , servant Mn. MBh. &c (cf. tat-p°)




    And Lord Krishna says in the Bhagavad-gita 15.18 (vedabase translation):




    yasmāt kṣaram atīto ’ham
    akṣarād api cottamaḥ
    ato ’smi loke vede ca
    prathitaḥ puruṣottamaḥ



    yasmāt — because; kṣaram — to the fallible; atītaḥ — transcendental; aham — I am; akṣarāt — beyond the infallible; api — also; ca — and; uttamaḥ — the best; ataḥ — therefore; asmi — I am; loke — in the world; vede — in the Vedic literature; ca — and; prathitaḥ — celebrated; puruṣa-uttamaḥ — as the Supreme Personality.



    Because I am transcendental, beyond both the fallible and the infallible, and because I am the greatest, I am celebrated both in the world and in the Vedas as that Supreme Person.




    And in the following verse 19 that is repeated and there it is said that one who knows Lord Krishna as the Supreme Person without doubting, is the knower of everything, and he therefore engages himself in full devotional service to Lord Krishna.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 15 hours ago









    brahma jijnasabrahma jijnasa

    1,966829




    1,966829







    • 2





      No actually Purusha is not a person...Also "Supreme personality" is wrongly applied at certain places!!! Lot of sanskrit to English translations are wrong!!

      – Akshay S
      14 hours ago







    • 2





      Purusha is something which cant be described correctly in English. The sloga meaning I have is Krishna says he is celebrated as Purushotamman...in Vedas. Most of the time when he refers himself, he declares himself as Paramesvara - the Parabrahman. At the highest stage, Krishna being avatar of Parabrahman, there's no difference between him and Paramesvara!

      – Akshay S
      14 hours ago







    • 2





      @brahmajijanasa ok. If its some sect translation, I dont want to get into discussion. But that Purusha is a word which is something cant be translated properly....in English....

      – Akshay S
      14 hours ago






    • 1





      No... its not!!! Purusha, Param Purusha, everything is complex and cannot be defined!!! @brahmajijnasa

      – Akshay S
      14 hours ago







    • 1





      @AkshayS ... I think Lord Krishna did not use words to tell something to Arjuna which is not possible to define because there is no purpose to say with words something which is Arjuna supposed to understand if it cannot be explained or defined, or that is to say if Arjuna is not able to understand.

      – brahma jijnasa
      12 hours ago












    • 2





      No actually Purusha is not a person...Also "Supreme personality" is wrongly applied at certain places!!! Lot of sanskrit to English translations are wrong!!

      – Akshay S
      14 hours ago







    • 2





      Purusha is something which cant be described correctly in English. The sloga meaning I have is Krishna says he is celebrated as Purushotamman...in Vedas. Most of the time when he refers himself, he declares himself as Paramesvara - the Parabrahman. At the highest stage, Krishna being avatar of Parabrahman, there's no difference between him and Paramesvara!

      – Akshay S
      14 hours ago







    • 2





      @brahmajijanasa ok. If its some sect translation, I dont want to get into discussion. But that Purusha is a word which is something cant be translated properly....in English....

      – Akshay S
      14 hours ago






    • 1





      No... its not!!! Purusha, Param Purusha, everything is complex and cannot be defined!!! @brahmajijnasa

      – Akshay S
      14 hours ago







    • 1





      @AkshayS ... I think Lord Krishna did not use words to tell something to Arjuna which is not possible to define because there is no purpose to say with words something which is Arjuna supposed to understand if it cannot be explained or defined, or that is to say if Arjuna is not able to understand.

      – brahma jijnasa
      12 hours ago







    2




    2





    No actually Purusha is not a person...Also "Supreme personality" is wrongly applied at certain places!!! Lot of sanskrit to English translations are wrong!!

    – Akshay S
    14 hours ago






    No actually Purusha is not a person...Also "Supreme personality" is wrongly applied at certain places!!! Lot of sanskrit to English translations are wrong!!

    – Akshay S
    14 hours ago





    2




    2





    Purusha is something which cant be described correctly in English. The sloga meaning I have is Krishna says he is celebrated as Purushotamman...in Vedas. Most of the time when he refers himself, he declares himself as Paramesvara - the Parabrahman. At the highest stage, Krishna being avatar of Parabrahman, there's no difference between him and Paramesvara!

    – Akshay S
    14 hours ago






    Purusha is something which cant be described correctly in English. The sloga meaning I have is Krishna says he is celebrated as Purushotamman...in Vedas. Most of the time when he refers himself, he declares himself as Paramesvara - the Parabrahman. At the highest stage, Krishna being avatar of Parabrahman, there's no difference between him and Paramesvara!

    – Akshay S
    14 hours ago





    2




    2





    @brahmajijanasa ok. If its some sect translation, I dont want to get into discussion. But that Purusha is a word which is something cant be translated properly....in English....

    – Akshay S
    14 hours ago





    @brahmajijanasa ok. If its some sect translation, I dont want to get into discussion. But that Purusha is a word which is something cant be translated properly....in English....

    – Akshay S
    14 hours ago




    1




    1





    No... its not!!! Purusha, Param Purusha, everything is complex and cannot be defined!!! @brahmajijnasa

    – Akshay S
    14 hours ago






    No... its not!!! Purusha, Param Purusha, everything is complex and cannot be defined!!! @brahmajijnasa

    – Akshay S
    14 hours ago





    1




    1





    @AkshayS ... I think Lord Krishna did not use words to tell something to Arjuna which is not possible to define because there is no purpose to say with words something which is Arjuna supposed to understand if it cannot be explained or defined, or that is to say if Arjuna is not able to understand.

    – brahma jijnasa
    12 hours ago





    @AkshayS ... I think Lord Krishna did not use words to tell something to Arjuna which is not possible to define because there is no purpose to say with words something which is Arjuna supposed to understand if it cannot be explained or defined, or that is to say if Arjuna is not able to understand.

    – brahma jijnasa
    12 hours ago











    3














    This is how Krishnaprem, (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna_Prem), the renowned siddha Gaudiya Vaishnava saint sees the topic.He clearly answers in the negative and writes




    Nor Krishna is man at all, but a great Power which, by its presence, though unknown, unseen, lightens the bitter sorrows of the world.




    The sanskritdictionary.com gives the relevant meanings of 'Purusha' as




    The soul; द्वाविमौ पुरुषौ लोके क्षरश्चाक्षर एव च Bg.15.16 &c. -7 The Supreme Being, God (soul of the universe); पुरातनं त्वां पुरुषं पुराविदः (विदुः) Śi.1.33; R.13.6.




    It is obvious that here 'Purusha' can NOT mean person ('Vyakti') -- because three types of 'Purusha' are mentioned in the chapter 15 of the Gita: kshara, Akshara and Purusha-Uttama. If all three are translated as persons, that would be the most misleading!



    in His 'The Yoga of the Bhagavad-Gita'. First Sri Krishnaprem clarifies:




    To anyone who has eyes to see, Gita is based on direct knowledge of Reality, and the Path that leads to that Reality..Those eternal realities are the same now as they were thousand of years ago, and the text of Gita should be interpreted in words that refer to these realities here and now.




    He explains the verse that contains the word 'Purusha' in chapter 15, sloka 4 of the Gita as




    Detaching himself from  the union with the objects of both outer and inner senses, detaching himself in fact from all from whatsoever, the disciple must soar upon the trackless path of light towards the Primal Consciousness from which ages past the Cosmic Energied steamed forth. (verse 4).That Consciousness however being Absolute, is far beyond all that we know as such.Knower and Known exist in one as it is, in another way, they are not one in absolute matter.It is in fact no consciousness for us, being beyond the Fire of manifested life, the Moon of Mula-prakriti, the Sun of the unmanifested Atman.It is the Void; It is also the Full.Having gone thither, none can return again.That, Krishna says, is His Supreme Abode.That is the Goal; That is final bliss.




    Krushnaprem is a foremost intellectual, a greatest Siddha Vaishnava and a top-class writer. So I lay most importance to His translation and interpretation.Those who know a minimum of both Sanskrit and English will understand that the word 'Purusha' can never be satisfactorily translated as 'Person', because The one Who lying in the 'Pura' is 'Purusha'.
    Sri Krishnprem translates 'Purusha' as 'The Spirit or Consciousness'.
    The entire book is available for download online in pdf format. https://www.auro-ebooks.com/the-yoga-of-the-bhagavat-gita/



    The translations like 'Person' or 'The Supreme Personality of Godhead' are very very close to the Christan Theological meaning and the farthest from what the Gita and the Acharyas try to imply.






    share|improve this answer




















    • 1





      Yes Purusha is not a person correct. And knower and known are not different. Yes!!!

      – Akshay S
      13 hours ago











    • Yes. Fine!!!!!!!

      – Akshay S
      2 hours ago











    • These western scholars can't understand actual reality and so they translated every word like bhagavan to supreme person and Purusha to supreme person. But our actual meanings of Gita and our scriptures are different. Influence of Kali in degradation of knowledge

      – Akshay S
      2 hours ago











    • Night mare in the sense?

      – Akshay S
      2 hours ago











    • It happens with these foreign translations. So what we can do is focus more on original sanskrit version Indian language translations.. we should avoid English as much as possible

      – Akshay S
      2 hours ago















    3














    This is how Krishnaprem, (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna_Prem), the renowned siddha Gaudiya Vaishnava saint sees the topic.He clearly answers in the negative and writes




    Nor Krishna is man at all, but a great Power which, by its presence, though unknown, unseen, lightens the bitter sorrows of the world.




    The sanskritdictionary.com gives the relevant meanings of 'Purusha' as




    The soul; द्वाविमौ पुरुषौ लोके क्षरश्चाक्षर एव च Bg.15.16 &c. -7 The Supreme Being, God (soul of the universe); पुरातनं त्वां पुरुषं पुराविदः (विदुः) Śi.1.33; R.13.6.




    It is obvious that here 'Purusha' can NOT mean person ('Vyakti') -- because three types of 'Purusha' are mentioned in the chapter 15 of the Gita: kshara, Akshara and Purusha-Uttama. If all three are translated as persons, that would be the most misleading!



    in His 'The Yoga of the Bhagavad-Gita'. First Sri Krishnaprem clarifies:




    To anyone who has eyes to see, Gita is based on direct knowledge of Reality, and the Path that leads to that Reality..Those eternal realities are the same now as they were thousand of years ago, and the text of Gita should be interpreted in words that refer to these realities here and now.




    He explains the verse that contains the word 'Purusha' in chapter 15, sloka 4 of the Gita as




    Detaching himself from  the union with the objects of both outer and inner senses, detaching himself in fact from all from whatsoever, the disciple must soar upon the trackless path of light towards the Primal Consciousness from which ages past the Cosmic Energied steamed forth. (verse 4).That Consciousness however being Absolute, is far beyond all that we know as such.Knower and Known exist in one as it is, in another way, they are not one in absolute matter.It is in fact no consciousness for us, being beyond the Fire of manifested life, the Moon of Mula-prakriti, the Sun of the unmanifested Atman.It is the Void; It is also the Full.Having gone thither, none can return again.That, Krishna says, is His Supreme Abode.That is the Goal; That is final bliss.




    Krushnaprem is a foremost intellectual, a greatest Siddha Vaishnava and a top-class writer. So I lay most importance to His translation and interpretation.Those who know a minimum of both Sanskrit and English will understand that the word 'Purusha' can never be satisfactorily translated as 'Person', because The one Who lying in the 'Pura' is 'Purusha'.
    Sri Krishnprem translates 'Purusha' as 'The Spirit or Consciousness'.
    The entire book is available for download online in pdf format. https://www.auro-ebooks.com/the-yoga-of-the-bhagavat-gita/



    The translations like 'Person' or 'The Supreme Personality of Godhead' are very very close to the Christan Theological meaning and the farthest from what the Gita and the Acharyas try to imply.






    share|improve this answer




















    • 1





      Yes Purusha is not a person correct. And knower and known are not different. Yes!!!

      – Akshay S
      13 hours ago











    • Yes. Fine!!!!!!!

      – Akshay S
      2 hours ago











    • These western scholars can't understand actual reality and so they translated every word like bhagavan to supreme person and Purusha to supreme person. But our actual meanings of Gita and our scriptures are different. Influence of Kali in degradation of knowledge

      – Akshay S
      2 hours ago











    • Night mare in the sense?

      – Akshay S
      2 hours ago











    • It happens with these foreign translations. So what we can do is focus more on original sanskrit version Indian language translations.. we should avoid English as much as possible

      – Akshay S
      2 hours ago













    3












    3








    3







    This is how Krishnaprem, (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna_Prem), the renowned siddha Gaudiya Vaishnava saint sees the topic.He clearly answers in the negative and writes




    Nor Krishna is man at all, but a great Power which, by its presence, though unknown, unseen, lightens the bitter sorrows of the world.




    The sanskritdictionary.com gives the relevant meanings of 'Purusha' as




    The soul; द्वाविमौ पुरुषौ लोके क्षरश्चाक्षर एव च Bg.15.16 &c. -7 The Supreme Being, God (soul of the universe); पुरातनं त्वां पुरुषं पुराविदः (विदुः) Śi.1.33; R.13.6.




    It is obvious that here 'Purusha' can NOT mean person ('Vyakti') -- because three types of 'Purusha' are mentioned in the chapter 15 of the Gita: kshara, Akshara and Purusha-Uttama. If all three are translated as persons, that would be the most misleading!



    in His 'The Yoga of the Bhagavad-Gita'. First Sri Krishnaprem clarifies:




    To anyone who has eyes to see, Gita is based on direct knowledge of Reality, and the Path that leads to that Reality..Those eternal realities are the same now as they were thousand of years ago, and the text of Gita should be interpreted in words that refer to these realities here and now.




    He explains the verse that contains the word 'Purusha' in chapter 15, sloka 4 of the Gita as




    Detaching himself from  the union with the objects of both outer and inner senses, detaching himself in fact from all from whatsoever, the disciple must soar upon the trackless path of light towards the Primal Consciousness from which ages past the Cosmic Energied steamed forth. (verse 4).That Consciousness however being Absolute, is far beyond all that we know as such.Knower and Known exist in one as it is, in another way, they are not one in absolute matter.It is in fact no consciousness for us, being beyond the Fire of manifested life, the Moon of Mula-prakriti, the Sun of the unmanifested Atman.It is the Void; It is also the Full.Having gone thither, none can return again.That, Krishna says, is His Supreme Abode.That is the Goal; That is final bliss.




    Krushnaprem is a foremost intellectual, a greatest Siddha Vaishnava and a top-class writer. So I lay most importance to His translation and interpretation.Those who know a minimum of both Sanskrit and English will understand that the word 'Purusha' can never be satisfactorily translated as 'Person', because The one Who lying in the 'Pura' is 'Purusha'.
    Sri Krishnprem translates 'Purusha' as 'The Spirit or Consciousness'.
    The entire book is available for download online in pdf format. https://www.auro-ebooks.com/the-yoga-of-the-bhagavat-gita/



    The translations like 'Person' or 'The Supreme Personality of Godhead' are very very close to the Christan Theological meaning and the farthest from what the Gita and the Acharyas try to imply.






    share|improve this answer















    This is how Krishnaprem, (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna_Prem), the renowned siddha Gaudiya Vaishnava saint sees the topic.He clearly answers in the negative and writes




    Nor Krishna is man at all, but a great Power which, by its presence, though unknown, unseen, lightens the bitter sorrows of the world.




    The sanskritdictionary.com gives the relevant meanings of 'Purusha' as




    The soul; द्वाविमौ पुरुषौ लोके क्षरश्चाक्षर एव च Bg.15.16 &c. -7 The Supreme Being, God (soul of the universe); पुरातनं त्वां पुरुषं पुराविदः (विदुः) Śi.1.33; R.13.6.




    It is obvious that here 'Purusha' can NOT mean person ('Vyakti') -- because three types of 'Purusha' are mentioned in the chapter 15 of the Gita: kshara, Akshara and Purusha-Uttama. If all three are translated as persons, that would be the most misleading!



    in His 'The Yoga of the Bhagavad-Gita'. First Sri Krishnaprem clarifies:




    To anyone who has eyes to see, Gita is based on direct knowledge of Reality, and the Path that leads to that Reality..Those eternal realities are the same now as they were thousand of years ago, and the text of Gita should be interpreted in words that refer to these realities here and now.




    He explains the verse that contains the word 'Purusha' in chapter 15, sloka 4 of the Gita as




    Detaching himself from  the union with the objects of both outer and inner senses, detaching himself in fact from all from whatsoever, the disciple must soar upon the trackless path of light towards the Primal Consciousness from which ages past the Cosmic Energied steamed forth. (verse 4).That Consciousness however being Absolute, is far beyond all that we know as such.Knower and Known exist in one as it is, in another way, they are not one in absolute matter.It is in fact no consciousness for us, being beyond the Fire of manifested life, the Moon of Mula-prakriti, the Sun of the unmanifested Atman.It is the Void; It is also the Full.Having gone thither, none can return again.That, Krishna says, is His Supreme Abode.That is the Goal; That is final bliss.




    Krushnaprem is a foremost intellectual, a greatest Siddha Vaishnava and a top-class writer. So I lay most importance to His translation and interpretation.Those who know a minimum of both Sanskrit and English will understand that the word 'Purusha' can never be satisfactorily translated as 'Person', because The one Who lying in the 'Pura' is 'Purusha'.
    Sri Krishnprem translates 'Purusha' as 'The Spirit or Consciousness'.
    The entire book is available for download online in pdf format. https://www.auro-ebooks.com/the-yoga-of-the-bhagavat-gita/



    The translations like 'Person' or 'The Supreme Personality of Godhead' are very very close to the Christan Theological meaning and the farthest from what the Gita and the Acharyas try to imply.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 2 hours ago

























    answered 14 hours ago









    PratimaputraPratimaputra

    8,936745




    8,936745







    • 1





      Yes Purusha is not a person correct. And knower and known are not different. Yes!!!

      – Akshay S
      13 hours ago











    • Yes. Fine!!!!!!!

      – Akshay S
      2 hours ago











    • These western scholars can't understand actual reality and so they translated every word like bhagavan to supreme person and Purusha to supreme person. But our actual meanings of Gita and our scriptures are different. Influence of Kali in degradation of knowledge

      – Akshay S
      2 hours ago











    • Night mare in the sense?

      – Akshay S
      2 hours ago











    • It happens with these foreign translations. So what we can do is focus more on original sanskrit version Indian language translations.. we should avoid English as much as possible

      – Akshay S
      2 hours ago












    • 1





      Yes Purusha is not a person correct. And knower and known are not different. Yes!!!

      – Akshay S
      13 hours ago











    • Yes. Fine!!!!!!!

      – Akshay S
      2 hours ago











    • These western scholars can't understand actual reality and so they translated every word like bhagavan to supreme person and Purusha to supreme person. But our actual meanings of Gita and our scriptures are different. Influence of Kali in degradation of knowledge

      – Akshay S
      2 hours ago











    • Night mare in the sense?

      – Akshay S
      2 hours ago











    • It happens with these foreign translations. So what we can do is focus more on original sanskrit version Indian language translations.. we should avoid English as much as possible

      – Akshay S
      2 hours ago







    1




    1





    Yes Purusha is not a person correct. And knower and known are not different. Yes!!!

    – Akshay S
    13 hours ago





    Yes Purusha is not a person correct. And knower and known are not different. Yes!!!

    – Akshay S
    13 hours ago













    Yes. Fine!!!!!!!

    – Akshay S
    2 hours ago





    Yes. Fine!!!!!!!

    – Akshay S
    2 hours ago













    These western scholars can't understand actual reality and so they translated every word like bhagavan to supreme person and Purusha to supreme person. But our actual meanings of Gita and our scriptures are different. Influence of Kali in degradation of knowledge

    – Akshay S
    2 hours ago





    These western scholars can't understand actual reality and so they translated every word like bhagavan to supreme person and Purusha to supreme person. But our actual meanings of Gita and our scriptures are different. Influence of Kali in degradation of knowledge

    – Akshay S
    2 hours ago













    Night mare in the sense?

    – Akshay S
    2 hours ago





    Night mare in the sense?

    – Akshay S
    2 hours ago













    It happens with these foreign translations. So what we can do is focus more on original sanskrit version Indian language translations.. we should avoid English as much as possible

    – Akshay S
    2 hours ago





    It happens with these foreign translations. So what we can do is focus more on original sanskrit version Indian language translations.. we should avoid English as much as possible

    – Akshay S
    2 hours ago











    0














    No. Krishna is the Supreme transcendental Person. We call Him satachidanand but when the devotees call Him Chidanand the "sat" is already understood. When the devotees call Him Anand or Parmanand that is He Himself, the Supreme transcendental Person. So, Anand (i.e. Bliss) is not His Name but He Himself, Chit (i.e supreme consciousness) and Sat (the supreme eternity) are His attributes here.



    The devotees at same state of knowledge only try to find something which is known or unknown to them. How can a dictionary help find eternal meaning of/about God. In the B.Gita 10/10 He says, "tesham satat yuktanam bhajtam preetipurvkam, dadami buddhi-yogam tam yen mamupayantite."



    We need to be in the association with the practicing devotees to get a fraction of the eternal induction (intelligence) and the real meaning of this nutshell verse.



    By the way, we can only become blissful ("anandi bhavti...") and not the Bliss or "Anand" even if we get blessed with our supreme destination in devotion, i.e. Unlimited Permanent Bliss.



    Everyone who wants to be blissful is searching for the same Bliss, "..anando brahamaneti vyajanaat..", but the dictionaries never reveal the eternal meaning and grammar books only tell linguistic accuracy in the literature. Here this Permanent Bliss should not be confused with the dictionary meaning of temporary fraction of the limited material bliss that animals get in eating, mating and sleeping etc.



    When the devotees call Him the Person, His Supremacy and Transcendence is well understood by the scripture. Valamiki called Him "MARA" but He appeared as RAMA, the Purushotam because of his association with one of the greatest among the devotees, Lord Narada.



    Sril Adi Shankracharya has very rightly said to a Pundit of Sanskrit Grammar in Varanasi, "Bhaj Govinadam, Bhaj Govindam, Govindam bhaj moddhamatte.." he was trying to find the literal meaning of the vedic literature in grammar books.






    share|improve this answer





























      0














      No. Krishna is the Supreme transcendental Person. We call Him satachidanand but when the devotees call Him Chidanand the "sat" is already understood. When the devotees call Him Anand or Parmanand that is He Himself, the Supreme transcendental Person. So, Anand (i.e. Bliss) is not His Name but He Himself, Chit (i.e supreme consciousness) and Sat (the supreme eternity) are His attributes here.



      The devotees at same state of knowledge only try to find something which is known or unknown to them. How can a dictionary help find eternal meaning of/about God. In the B.Gita 10/10 He says, "tesham satat yuktanam bhajtam preetipurvkam, dadami buddhi-yogam tam yen mamupayantite."



      We need to be in the association with the practicing devotees to get a fraction of the eternal induction (intelligence) and the real meaning of this nutshell verse.



      By the way, we can only become blissful ("anandi bhavti...") and not the Bliss or "Anand" even if we get blessed with our supreme destination in devotion, i.e. Unlimited Permanent Bliss.



      Everyone who wants to be blissful is searching for the same Bliss, "..anando brahamaneti vyajanaat..", but the dictionaries never reveal the eternal meaning and grammar books only tell linguistic accuracy in the literature. Here this Permanent Bliss should not be confused with the dictionary meaning of temporary fraction of the limited material bliss that animals get in eating, mating and sleeping etc.



      When the devotees call Him the Person, His Supremacy and Transcendence is well understood by the scripture. Valamiki called Him "MARA" but He appeared as RAMA, the Purushotam because of his association with one of the greatest among the devotees, Lord Narada.



      Sril Adi Shankracharya has very rightly said to a Pundit of Sanskrit Grammar in Varanasi, "Bhaj Govinadam, Bhaj Govindam, Govindam bhaj moddhamatte.." he was trying to find the literal meaning of the vedic literature in grammar books.






      share|improve this answer



























        0












        0








        0







        No. Krishna is the Supreme transcendental Person. We call Him satachidanand but when the devotees call Him Chidanand the "sat" is already understood. When the devotees call Him Anand or Parmanand that is He Himself, the Supreme transcendental Person. So, Anand (i.e. Bliss) is not His Name but He Himself, Chit (i.e supreme consciousness) and Sat (the supreme eternity) are His attributes here.



        The devotees at same state of knowledge only try to find something which is known or unknown to them. How can a dictionary help find eternal meaning of/about God. In the B.Gita 10/10 He says, "tesham satat yuktanam bhajtam preetipurvkam, dadami buddhi-yogam tam yen mamupayantite."



        We need to be in the association with the practicing devotees to get a fraction of the eternal induction (intelligence) and the real meaning of this nutshell verse.



        By the way, we can only become blissful ("anandi bhavti...") and not the Bliss or "Anand" even if we get blessed with our supreme destination in devotion, i.e. Unlimited Permanent Bliss.



        Everyone who wants to be blissful is searching for the same Bliss, "..anando brahamaneti vyajanaat..", but the dictionaries never reveal the eternal meaning and grammar books only tell linguistic accuracy in the literature. Here this Permanent Bliss should not be confused with the dictionary meaning of temporary fraction of the limited material bliss that animals get in eating, mating and sleeping etc.



        When the devotees call Him the Person, His Supremacy and Transcendence is well understood by the scripture. Valamiki called Him "MARA" but He appeared as RAMA, the Purushotam because of his association with one of the greatest among the devotees, Lord Narada.



        Sril Adi Shankracharya has very rightly said to a Pundit of Sanskrit Grammar in Varanasi, "Bhaj Govinadam, Bhaj Govindam, Govindam bhaj moddhamatte.." he was trying to find the literal meaning of the vedic literature in grammar books.






        share|improve this answer















        No. Krishna is the Supreme transcendental Person. We call Him satachidanand but when the devotees call Him Chidanand the "sat" is already understood. When the devotees call Him Anand or Parmanand that is He Himself, the Supreme transcendental Person. So, Anand (i.e. Bliss) is not His Name but He Himself, Chit (i.e supreme consciousness) and Sat (the supreme eternity) are His attributes here.



        The devotees at same state of knowledge only try to find something which is known or unknown to them. How can a dictionary help find eternal meaning of/about God. In the B.Gita 10/10 He says, "tesham satat yuktanam bhajtam preetipurvkam, dadami buddhi-yogam tam yen mamupayantite."



        We need to be in the association with the practicing devotees to get a fraction of the eternal induction (intelligence) and the real meaning of this nutshell verse.



        By the way, we can only become blissful ("anandi bhavti...") and not the Bliss or "Anand" even if we get blessed with our supreme destination in devotion, i.e. Unlimited Permanent Bliss.



        Everyone who wants to be blissful is searching for the same Bliss, "..anando brahamaneti vyajanaat..", but the dictionaries never reveal the eternal meaning and grammar books only tell linguistic accuracy in the literature. Here this Permanent Bliss should not be confused with the dictionary meaning of temporary fraction of the limited material bliss that animals get in eating, mating and sleeping etc.



        When the devotees call Him the Person, His Supremacy and Transcendence is well understood by the scripture. Valamiki called Him "MARA" but He appeared as RAMA, the Purushotam because of his association with one of the greatest among the devotees, Lord Narada.



        Sril Adi Shankracharya has very rightly said to a Pundit of Sanskrit Grammar in Varanasi, "Bhaj Govinadam, Bhaj Govindam, Govindam bhaj moddhamatte.." he was trying to find the literal meaning of the vedic literature in grammar books.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited 11 hours ago

























        answered 14 hours ago









        user30612user30612

        113




        113













            Popular posts from this blog

            Category:9 (number) SubcategoriesMedia in category "9 (number)"Navigation menuUpload mediaGND ID: 4485639-8Library of Congress authority ID: sh85091979ReasonatorScholiaStatistics

            Circuit construction for execution of conditional statements using least significant bitHow are two different registers being used as “control”?How exactly is the stated composite state of the two registers being produced using the $R_zz$ controlled rotations?Efficiently performing controlled rotations in HHLWould this quantum algorithm implementation work?How to prepare a superposed states of odd integers from $1$ to $sqrtN$?Why is this implementation of the order finding algorithm not working?Circuit construction for Hamiltonian simulationHow can I invert the least significant bit of a certain term of a superposed state?Implementing an oracleImplementing a controlled sum operation

            Magento 2 “No Payment Methods” in Admin New OrderHow to integrate Paypal Express Checkout with the Magento APIMagento 1.5 - Sales > Order > edit order and shipping methods disappearAuto Invoice Check/Money Order Payment methodAdd more simple payment methods?Shipping methods not showingWhat should I do to change payment methods if changing the configuration has no effects?1.9 - No Payment Methods showing upMy Payment Methods not Showing for downloadable/virtual product when checkout?Magento2 API to access internal payment methodHow to call an existing payment methods in the registration form?