For Krihsna Bhakthas: Does Krishna mean NOTHING..?
He was named Krishna, the Dark one. Would it be right to call that it meant Nothing, in spiritual parlance?
Saguna aspect of divine as NOTHING.
Hi Ranger, I did not ask what krishna was, but just what his name (chanted with much peity and meditated upon by devotees) meant at deeper levels. The description does not fit the word or roots thereof, to suggest NOTHING. Ego is also for the created beings and not the Creator, which Krishna declared He was (Gita 9:11). Whether you mean ego to denote vanity or the sense of doership (in spiritual parlance), either way the "weakness" is not applicable to the Lord, who is the actual Doer and Enjoyer (boktha cha Prabhur eva) of all actions in essence (like my fan running at home is linked to the Power Generator and actually run by its energy and paid for the service). So it is not right to treat the Creator and his Creation on par. The ego is an infimity for the creature as it assumes ownership for its actions while it is a Fact for the Lord and hence free from blemish
Hi Ravi, nice. We also say that the Nothing is Nirguna or formless aspect which was origin of Krishna but once he was manifest as one of his own creation, he was Saguna form.
Nice discussion all of you. we shall wait for any more views before we close for the time being.