“It should be understood that all species of life, O son of Kunti, are made possible by birth in this material nature, and that I am the seed-giving father.” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-gita, 14.4)
Download this episode (right click and save)
मूर्तयः सम्भवन्ति याः
तासां ब्रह्म महद् योनिर्
अहं बीज-प्रदः पिता
mūrtayaḥ sambhavanti yāḥ
tāsāṁ brahma mahad yonir
ahaṁ bīja-pradaḥ pitā
Friend1: Not to overtly mention another popular faith, but is it possible for God to have only one son?
Friend2: I think anything is possible with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Bhagavan. As Narada Muni once explained, Narayana in Vaikuntha was threading the eye of a needle with an elephant. Narayana is the source of men.
Friend1: One way to explain God the person. Vaikuntha is His home. The imperishable realm.
Friend2: Not subject to creation, maintenance and dissolution.
Friend1: But is it possible for there to be only one son? No one else. Just a single person.
Friend2: Well, a son means something. It is a child. A mother and a father joining together. Who is the mother in this case?
Friend1: I am not well-versed in the tradition. You always hear stuff about “giving up His only begotten son.”
Friend2: Granted, spirituality is a science that goes well beyond the limits of this world. The Supreme Lord is both nirguna and saguna. He can be invisible to the eyes and also present right before us. Still, some application of logic is helpful. To the fullest extent of the thinking capacity, try to understand Him without doubts.
Friend1: Are you subtly referencing the fact that it seems illogical for God to have only one son?
Friend2: Think about it. Why only one? What is the relationship of the other children on this earth?
Friend1: You mean us mere mortals?
Friend2: Not only the human beings. The animals. The plants. The trees. The planets. Is not everybody related to Narayana?
Friend1: I would think they are, but this son is special.
Friend2: You said he is the only son.
Friend1: Okay, I admit that I don’t really get it, either.
Friend2: Logically, it doesn’t make sense, and from the descending authority of the Vedic tradition we get definitive evidence to the contrary. There is a verse in the Bhagavad-gita where Shri Krishna explains that He is the seed-giving father.
Friend1: Who is the mother?
Friend2: Material nature. Usually, it is referred to as the mahat-tattva. In that section of the Bhagavad-gita, there is the term mahad-brahma. This is the great Brahman, referring to the total material substance.
Friend1: I see. If Krishna impregnates the mahad-brahma, if He is the seed-giver, then He must be superior to the material nature.
Friend2: He dominates. The material substance does nothing on its own. The combination of mother and father leading to children. Not one, either; innumerable.
Friend1: Too many to count.
Friend2: There is the concept of the avatara. This category has different sub-categories. You have some avataras that are not Narayana directly, but they are specially empowered to carry His message.
Friend1: Are they sons of God?
Friend2: In the same way that you and I are. They are acharyas; representatives who lead by example. They can take us back to Godhead.
Friend2: Either holding us by the arm or by revealing to us the way to purify the consciousness so that the return takes place even prior to quitting the body: Hare Krishna Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare, Hare Rama Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare.
Either by the hand holding,
Or through practice unfolding.
Liberation finally to see,
And from duality be free.
Acharya out of many one,
Krishna with unlimited a son.
Who responsible for nature entire,
Vedas for that understanding higher.
Reblogged this on oshriradhekrishnabole.