For Krihsna Bhakthas: Does Krishna mean NOTHING..?

Sri Krishna was a poorna Avthar vibrant with activity - playing human cards interspersed with Divine disposals - taught spiritual paths to choose from and had specific mandate to reestablish Righteousness among the vain and powerful kings of his time. For kings were the trend setters - as observed by elders, "as is the king so are subjects" He actively involved in worldy affairs - albeit exhibiting his divine powers off and on - reassuring the pious and righteous ones that Divine was no mute spectator to the misuse of free will by the vain and powerful ones.

He was named Krishna, the Dark one. Would it be right to call that it meant Nothing, in spiritual parlance?


thanks Aumji, for the clarification. I do feel it odd to describe a full fledged

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

Update 2:

Saai thanks. yes, i did see that post and sought clarification here. It is true that many get into intellectual exercise, though they also have much devotion. As our exposure to spiritual texts are few and in pieces, people tend to fill up gaps with their own reasonings in good faith, with the dangers of conveying a wrong lead.

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.

Jai Krishna

5 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favourite answer

    Krishna means everything !

  • janaki
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    Lord Krishna emerged from the Niraakara Nithya Suddha Chaitanya (the Formless Eternal Pure Being) or a seeming NOTHING in Secular parlance, but once he embodied in the name and form of Krishna, with a mandate to re establish Dharma or Righteousness, he was EVERYTHING pervading the cosmos, adorning the form of Truth Auspiciousness and Beauty (Sathya Siva Sundara). He was suguna, sulabha, soundarya roopa. He was accessible to the simplest, poorest, seekers and deniers alike. How can one call Him “Nothing” when he was manifest in all His beauty and compassion to guide the humanity to divinity? He was no mute spectator to the goings on, allowing the destiny to take its course, as per the laws of Karma. On the other hand, He was pushing the destiny to act fair and fast, right before the people, to make them aware of the power of Dharma.

    As AUM ji had rightly pointed out, there are many meanings to the divine name given to Him by the family Guru of Vasudev, Saint Gargar. In an earlier question of this type, I think, the meanings – apart from the literal meaning Black - were given by a respondent in the lines, AUMji had now posted. Krishna meant the qualities most conspicuous in his divine self - was one who was attracting, making people happy, cultivating people (to produce good karma), lord of all actions, etc

    I think you have posted the question without searching previous queries on this, or being not satisfied by the answers there. But I think the answers were quite elaborate in the previous post also. Of course, the asker chose an answer as best which was not quite appropriate and you perhaps have it clarified now.

    I like to tell you that it is not necessary to consider the Best Answers chosen by Askers. Because, often the people who ask and those who respond in R&S are more intellectual than devotional (clouded by the familiar delusion that questions in spiritual domain could be interpreted fully in secular parlance) and so the traditional norms / views of experts are not often considered in the choice of the Best ones (Asker’s perception rules, over the really best answers carrying more authentic and convincing details)!

    Also, there is some silly craze in certain cases, to snatch Top Contributor label, for which some guys form into groups and select BA among themselves to push the scores!

    So we should have our own pick of the right answers from the way the source / authority is quoted by respondents.

    good wishes.

  • 1 decade ago

    Nothing here signifies "No Ego". Krishna had no Ego. He was completely Egoless. When there is no ego then one is Brahman itself, because Ego is the wrong identification of non self as self.


    Krishna says Ego is an obstruction, the lord who is everyone and everything has no Ego, he is not the Ego of the whole universe.

    Consider a ocean which is the only thing existing in the world, and there is no land. Then there is no need to call it "The ocean", it is the only one, it is everything. Similar is with Krishna, he is everything and he is the one, no ego nothing.

  • 1 decade ago

    The Sanskrit word Krishna means "black", "dark" or "dark-blue"[5] and is used as a name to describe someone with dark skin. Krishna is often depicted in murtis (images) as black, and is generally shown in paintings with a blue skin.

    Some Hindu traditions often ascribe varying interpretations and powers to the names. The Mahabharata's Udyoga-parva (Mbh 5.71.4) divides Krishna into elements kṛṣ and ṇa, kṛṣ (a verbal root meaning "to plough, drag") being taken as expressing bhū "being; earth" and ṇa being taken as expressing nirvṛti "bliss". In the Brahmasambandha mantra of the Vallabha sampradaya, the syllables of the name Krishna are assigned the power to destroy sin relating to material, self and divine causes.[6] Mahabharata verse 5.71.4 is also quoted in Chaitanya Charitamrita and Prabhupada in his commentary, translates the bhū as "attractive existence", thus Krishna is also interpreted as meaning "all-attractive one".[7][8] This quality of Krishna is stated in the atmarama verse of Bhagavatam 1.7.10.[9]

    The name Krishna is also the 57th name in the Vishnu Sahasranama and means the Existence of Bliss, according to Adi Sankara's interpretation. [10] Krishna is also known by various other names, epithets and titles, which reflect his many associations and attributes. Among the most common names are Govinda, "finder of cows", or Gopala, "protector of cows", which refer to Krishna's childhood in Vraja.[11][12] Some of the distinct names may be regionally important; for instance, Jagannatha (literally "Lord of the Universe"), a popular deity of Puri in eastern India.[13]

    So even if we take Krishna as dark.... dark does not mean Nothing !!

    Krishna is everything in the universe and beyond

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    There is a Shloka in Gyaneshwari(1st Gita ever translated) by divine saint Gyaneshwar. In one of the translations we get the meaning that "SATOASATOASMI" . It means that which exists is Me. And that which does not exist is also Me. This idea represents the superiority of Lord Vishnu over the concepts of existence & non-existence. Regarding Lord Krishna he presently exists just as Jesus or other Gods or African ghosts or spirits of other religions exists. But he is full of Anand means joy or supreme joy in his divine abode. "Nothing" is also a concept given proper backup & support in Hinduism. In Brahm Puran there is description about Extreme Doom. It means a soul gets converted into nothing or in other words rests in peace endlessly for never to return in this world(hells,heavens & earth). That means soul mingles in zero substance. Navnaths were extremely powerful Hindu saints just few centuries before Aurangzeb came in Maharashtra. They had the power to bring back souls into their bodies. But once a King had mingled with zero substance. So inspite of all their powers they were not successful in making the dead king alive. If the king's soul might had been in some of the heavens or hells or anywhere in this universe he might had been pulled back in his physical body but bcos he had mingled into nothingness none of the divine powers possesed by Navnaths worked. So the word "Nothing" is also equally meaningful in Hinduism & is given due importance. Some term it as Shapeless God or mingling with shapeless & formless god or Nirakar Shiv. In Chanakya's real life story one of the characters say that if death was a solution to life's problem the whole world will die but after death also the life & its problems goes on. Salvation or mingling with zero is the ultimate goal of a wise man. A soul which mingles there with zero substance is said to have salvation & then that soul never returns in this world. However regarding Lord Krishna, Rama etc. were not mingled with zero. After death just as some people get converted into ghost they were converted into Narayan - divine body form of Lord Vishnu & then they attained Supreme heavens- the Vaikunth Loka

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.