[Advaita-l] Re: Lord Krishna lived for 125 years

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004, Raghavendra N Kalyan wrote:

>  I agree with you that Krishna cannot be thought of as having "died"
> like a bonded jIva. Krishna himself says that it is not a correct idea
> to think of him as the material body. However, if the mahAbhArata or any
> purANa refers to Krishna's passing away as "death" (now this is
> something which I dont know and have not verified), there is nothing
> wrong in using the word as long as one understands it as "the end of an
> incarnation" rather than death in the normal sense. I think the Swamiji
> also might have sanctioned the word in a similar sense.
>

Here for example is the description in Vishnu Purana 5.37

gate tasmin sa bhagavAn saMyojyAtmAnamAtmani |
brahmabhUte'vyaye'chintye vAsudevamaye'male || 68 ||

ajanmanyajare'nAshinyapramaye'khilAtmani |
tatyAja mAnuShaM dehamatItya trividhAM gatim || 69 ||


Then Bhagavan having joined his own self with the self which is Brahman
inexhaustible, inconceivable and one with Vasudeva, the pure, unborn,
unaging, imperishable and universal Self,  abandoned his mortal body and the
existence consisting of three gunas.


So "death" is not explicitly mentioned here at least but leaving the
mortal body is close enough I think.  It seems overly pedantic to use
appearence and disappearence instead.  And note Bhagavans true nature is
said to be nirguna.

>From the vyavaharic standpoint all souls appear to take birth and death.
>From the paramarthika standpoint there is noone who can be born or die.

-- 
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>