@sadhavi सखेति मत्वा प्रसभं यद��क्तं
हे कृष्ण हे या��व हे सखेति ।
अजानता महिमानं तवेदं
मया प्रमादात्प्रणयेन वापि ॥11.41॥
Arjuna regrets calling Krishna as Sakha(11.41) and begs for forgiveness(in shloka 42). This is after realising who Krishna really is.
@jamadagnisri That's fine..... One would agree or disagree mostly based on attachment to family traditions/inherent Svabhava. He once recommended me to keep an open mind while engaging with Shaastras.
If one gives an excuse of busy work life for not doing a bare minimum Sandhyavandane must visit him at his home once. Being professor at IISC, Managing and co founding startups, Consulting companies, yet taking out time to teach shastra to his sishyas and still do nitya anushtana 🤯. I was blown away by his commitment to this shaastric way if life.
You don’t just sit to chant VS and say only “Gurutamo” then walk out, right? The issue here is the justness of addressable. But anyway I dont want to drag it further. I am of the opinion that "jagadguru" as an addressal is very human centric and doesn't signify atindriya tatva of Paramatma 🙏.
@Goutham29R@Aprameyah_ But the dictionary meaning of blasphemy perfectly suits the concept of Aparaadha and Ninda. Do you subscribe to a different meaning of blasphemy which you can't map to this?
Yes definitely. Krishna wouldnt mind so who are we to question.
But its just shows an intent of lack of reverence. Arjuna regrets such lack of reverence in gita.
सखेति मत्वा प्रसभं यदुक्तं हे कृष्ण हे यादव हे सखेति।
अज्ञानता महिमानं तवेदं मया प्रमादात्प्रणयेन वापि॥४१॥
A person who knows what Krishna really is would very naturally regret addressing him as just "Jagadguru" as it feels incomplete. One can very well call Him anything even affectionate names like “Kittanna” or “Kittu” with genuine bhakti bhava. But that's done at personal capacity. If addressing him in a formal way then "Paramatma" is better suited. This is just my opinion.
You can open dictionary and see the definiton of "BLASPHEMY - The act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God or something sacred". If you do anything as such to our sacred figures then its considered as DEVA APARAADHA in hinduism as well and there are many remedies mentioned for that. So Blasphemy is there in Hinduism.
Here if you take name of Krishna and do a sambodhana with just "JAGADGURU" then it shows lack of reverence and hence an aparaadha. A presence of shloka doesnt make it immune.
Just recall what arjuna felt after realising who Krishna really is and why he regrets calling him even as Sakha. He regrets for doing that aparaadha and asks forgiveness.
सखेति मत्वा प्रसभं यदुक्तं हे कृष्ण हे यादव हे सखेति।
अज्ञानता महिमानं तवेदं मया प्रमादात्प्रणयेन वापि॥४१॥
I am not saying its blasphemous to a degree where he should be punished as such for calling him jagadguru. Its still an aparaadha to do a sambodhana to krishna with such limitations as it signifies lack of reverence thats all. This is my opinion.
Oh its definitely there. Deva aparadha is very similar to Blasphemy and its even broader. Didnt Shankaracharya himself write devi aparadha kshamapana stotra ?
I think the OP is of the view that restricting Krishna to just "Jagadguru" is an APARAADHA. He should be mentioned as Paramatma at least even if you dont accept him as sarvottama for ideological reasons.