Krishna assumes a childlike form – does this mean he has some other original form?

Answer Podcast

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Thank you When we say that Krishna assumes a childlike form does that mean that there is some other form that is original of Krishna and just to reciprocate he takes up this form not exactly sometimes certain words are used because to convey some philosophical points so when it is said that we all come from God, everything comes from God I have written an article also on this topic that is it refers to something in a time denominational sense it’s in a sense of philosophical philosophical dependence not in a fair sense of chronological evolution so we are also eternal in that sense there is no time when we didn’t exist and God existed we are co-eternal with God or if we say that for example Mahaprabhu’s manifestation that the two became one that the one absolute truth manifested as two divine couple ekatmanam api vadeha vedau gatham tam so Chaitanya Chaitanya says that one absolute truth manifested as two for the reciprocation of love and now the two have become one because the one wants to because Krishna wants to experience life from Radha’s perspective so now the word become is used over here but this is not in a time denominational time progressional sense it’s more in a sense of philosophical dependence it’s more in philosophical conveying the philosophical point over there so similarly it’s not that there is a time when Krishna did not exist and then he starts existing and then he stops existing it’s not like that there is some form existed before Krishna manifested as a child it is just that Krishna has different manifestations dvaitam acyutam anademanantarupam so now we may say that one particular form is the original form and other forms manifest from that and yes anandandavan champo which is a well known book written by which is a prominent book on Krishna written by Kavi Karnapur states that actually Krishna is Krishna’s original form is the form of the kaishora and from the kaishora rupa the bala rupa and the pauganda rupa the kumara rupa and the bala rupa manifest so this implies that actually we could say that it is Krishna’s that form which is original but again that is more in the sense that the madhurya rasa is considered the complete rasa and other rasas manifest from are subordinate to that supreme rasa but this is again not in the time denominational sense it’s meant to convey a particular philosophical point so in that sense Krishna assuming a particular form is not that there is some other form original and from that this comes but it is just that Krishna is choosing to manifest in different forms for different purposes so it’s to convey a philosophical point not to convey a time progressional sequence thank you