3

I know it may sound foolish but I am little confused. It has been extensively said that Krishna was Parmatma. However Parmatma never takes birth nor does he die. Yet we know that Krishna took birth and he died a violent death.

In my opinion if Krishna was only a Parmatma then he should not have born and neither he should have died. But it seems to me that he was like any human being who has both the Jivatma and the Paramatma components inside him. His Jivatma died and reached to the his own abode of Parmatma to never return again.

My question is :

Was Krishna both Jivatma and Paramatma?

If you say that Krishna was only Pramatma then how can he take birth and die?

  • 1
    God does take incarnations and Krishna was one such incarnation. – Chinmay Sarupria Sep 28 '17 at 14:53
  • May be worth to know about leela. – Pandya Sep 29 '17 at 10:03
  • Lord takes incarnation and we takes birth. There is difference between incarnation and normal birth. Birth that we get is not by our own wish. Means, we can't choose that we will born in which family and what body you will get to wear. And what will be your time span of life. These things can't be in our hand since you have taken normal birth(as per your prev. birth karma). But in case of Lord, all those things are in hand of Lord completely. When Lord takes incarnation then He himself decides how and where he will born. He takes birth by his own wish and write his bhagya by himself unlike us. – Rishabh Sep 29 '17 at 11:46
  • It seems to me that he incarnated as a highly developed Jivatma because he died a violent death and only a Jivatma can die. Parmatma never dies nor does he takes birth. If it was a Leela then everyone including Radha, Balram , Arjun , Gandhari was playing his or her role in the Leela. In fact we are also playing a part in Leela but we are unaware of it. – Dheeraj Verma Sep 29 '17 at 12:40
4

That what we know about Lord Krishna supposedly took birth and died violently are actually his lilas (play, pastimes), and not real birth and violent death. Lord Krishna is just paramatma, and He is not a jivatma.
I explained what is lila, ie pastimes of the Lord in my post at https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/a/15067/2790

That Lord Krishna and his brother Balarama were not ordinary humans or jiva souls is clearly seen in the Bhagavatam verse 1.1.20 where it is said that they were just masked to look like ordinary humans, because they were the Supreme Lord (bhagavān):
https://www.vedabase.com/en/sb/1/1/20

kṛtavān kila karmāṇi  
saha rāmeṇa keśavaḥ
atimartyāni bhagavān
gūḍhaḥ kapaṭa-mānuṣaḥ

kṛtavān — done by; kila — what; karmāṇi — acts; saha — along with; rāmeṇa — Balarāma; keśavaḥ — Śrī Kṛṣṇa; atimartyāni — superhuman; bhagavān — the Personality of Godhead; gūḍhaḥ — masked as; kapaṭa — apparently; mānuṣaḥ — human being.

Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the Personality of Godhead, along with Balarāma, played like a human being, and so masked He performed many superhuman acts.

You said:
If it was a Leela then everyone including Radha, Balram , Arjun , Gandhari was playing his or her role in the Leela. In fact we are also playing a part in Leela but we are unaware of it.

Although it is true that a jivatma can play a role in the lila, it is important to understand that it is the Lord's lila and not our own lila. The difference is that the Lord's lila is played according to his wish, and not according to our own will. If the lila would be our own, it would be played according to our own will, but this is not the case because we are not the controller of the lila. However, the Lord is the controller of the lila. So it is not correct to say that the Lord's participation in the lila is like our participation in the lila because there is a huge difference.

  • Code blocks are not for quoting. Use > or "quotes" for quoting the question. – Sarvabhouma Oct 5 '17 at 17:01

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .