PDA

View Full Version : Vishnu or Krishna?



Samraat Bhismadeva Maurya
30 June 2014, 04:14 AM
Hari Bol!
I offer my humble obeisances to Sri Guru and Sri Gauranga.

Oh, i feel so ignorant as i ask this, what is the major differences between Vishnu and Krishna, what is the difference between asking for Krishna and asking for Vishnu. Who is really the supreme supreme and can anybody provide some scriptures to explain this, thank you :)

EDIT: Please forgive my insolence above, for i am a very ignorant being.
My real question should be: What is the difference between Gaudiya Vaishnavsim and Vaishnavsim, if Krsna and Vishnu are one, why are there two sects?

Jai Sri Radhe-Syam!

hinduism♥krishna
01 July 2014, 10:48 PM
Pranam Maurya.

I feel that you shouldn't have asked this . At one point 'supremacy game'* among Vishnu and Shiva is accepted but between vishnu and Krishna, never!

According to Scriptural POV, according to Bhagavata Purana and all other Puranas including Vishnu Purana, Krishna is amsha/Kalavatar of Vishnu. Many times Krishna is identified with Narayana/Vishnu. They're one, no any difference. Do you remember at the time of birth and death of Krishna, he resumes his original form of chaturbhuja Vishnu. Actually Vishnu with four hands took birth to Devaki.Later vishnu transformed himself. Krishna is nothing but a transformation of vishnu into another vishnu with human like two arms. He did this at the time of his birth when Devaki requested him to become human like child . In Bhagavad Gita too, when Arjuna realised him as a God, he addressed him by saying all pervading Vishnu. So it's very clear from Scriptures that Vishnu with four arms is the original form of Krishna. Krishna form was temporary when he was doing Lila on the earth. But Vishnu form with four arms is permanent. He's Narayana. Nara + Ayana, whose ayana(Home) is NAra(water), who's resting on the sea with his consort Lakshmi.

Thank You

SKR108
01 July 2014, 11:12 PM
Pranam Maurya.

I feel that you shouldn't have asked this . At one point 'supremacy game'* among Vishnu and Shiva is accepted but between vishnu and Krishna, never!

According Scriptural POV, according to Bhagavata, Krishna is amsha/Kalavatar of Vishnu. Many times Krishna is identified with Narayana/Vishnu. They're one, no any difference. Do you remember at the time of birth and death of Krishna, he resumes his original form of chaturbhuja Vishnu. Actually Vishnu with four hands took birth to Devaki.Later vishnu transformed himself. Krishna is nothing but a transformation of vishnu into another vishnu with human like two arms. He did this at the time of his birth when Devaki requested him to become human like child . In Bhagavad Gita too, when Arjuna realised him as a God, he addressed him by saying all pervading Vishnu.

Thank You

*Child Game

Pranam

this is how I see it as well. So on what basis would you say do Srila Prabhupada and other Gaudiya vaishnavas teach that Krishna is source of all incarnations and emanations, Vishnu/Narayana included? I have read where SP says that the two-armed form of Krishna is supreme.

Samraat Bhismadeva Maurya
02 July 2014, 01:51 AM
Hari Bol!

I had a bad feeling about asking this, i hope all of you may forgive me for such a question ):

I offer my humble apologies.

Thank you for the answer, I had heard and knew that Krsna and Vishnu are one, but my real question was, if they are the same, then why is there Vaishnavisim and Gaudiya Vaishnavisim, shouldn't they be one? the question should've been what is the difference between Gaudiya Vaishnavisim and Vaishnavisim. ;)

I'll change it.

The question here was worded very badly and i had delivered the question wrong, still, it goes to show how far away I am to god, i am a very fallen soul ):

Please forgive me.
Jai Sri Radhe-Syam

hinduism♥krishna
02 July 2014, 02:15 AM
My real question should be: What is the difference between Gaudiya Vaishnavsim and Vaishnavsim, if Krsna and Vishnu are one, why are there two sects?

Namaskar MAURYA

We should not believe them different sects. The worship of Krishna is nothing but worshiping Vishnu in the form of krishna who has peacock feather on his head. There are many avatara of Vishnu.



Gaudiya Vaishnawism and Vaishnawism are different sects not because Vishnu and Krishna are different. They are different bacause of their philosophical interpretations of Shastras. Gaudiyas think that Krishna isn't a Avatara while Vaishnawas think Krishna is Avatara of Vishnu. Traditional Vaishnawas don't condemn worship of any other god like Shiva but Gaudiyas do. Traditional Vaishnawas believe Vishnu and Shiva are one however Gaudiyas do not. Traditional Vaishnawism of Adi Shankara which is much older than any other Vaishnawa sect like of Madhvacharya, teaches that Atma and Brahman are one and we should worship Vishnu thinking the self as all-pervding Vishnu while Gaudiyas have a different theory- Achintya Bhedabheda, which is not followed by mainstream Vaishnawism. There are such things which makes Vaishnawism different from Gaudiyism.


You asked for relation between Krishna and Vishnu. If you want scriptural references I can post them. :)


Hari Narayana

hinduism♥krishna
02 July 2014, 03:15 AM
can anybody provide some scriptures to explain this, thank you :)


You asked for scriptural supports to explain who's Krishna. Okay, I give you some scriptural quotes proving Krishna is none other than Vishnu and he's part/Avatara of Vishnu/Narayana. These verses will surely help you to know the fact. [ Note: Being Amsha/Part doesn't mean it is lower, unlike Modern sects consider ]

=====>>>

एतौ भगवतः साक्षात् हरेर्नारायणस्य हि ।
अवतीर्णाविहांशेन वसुदेवस्य वेश्मनि ॥ Bhagavata 10.43.२३ ॥

Meaning: These two ( Krishna and Balarama ) are Avatara of Hari himself. They are descended here as parts of Narayana in the home of Vasudeva.


अप्यद्य विष्णोर्मनुजत्वमीयुषो
भारावताराय भुवो निजेच्छया ।Bhagavata 10.38.10

Meaning: I am going to see the Supreme Lord Viṣṇu, who by His own will has now assumed a humanlike form ( Krishna form ) to relieve the earth of her burden.

प्रधानपुरुषावाद्यौ जगद्धेतू जगत्पती ।
अवतीर्णौ जगत्यर्थे स्वांशेन बलकेशवौ ॥ ३२ ॥

Meaning: Primeval Purusha ( Brahman ) and Prakruti-Maya which is the origin cause and master of the world has descended here by its parts in the form of Balarama and Krishna. [ Krishna is the representation of Purusha and Balarama as Prakruti-Maya ]


भूमेः सुरेतरवरूथविमर्दितायाः ।
क्लेशव्ययाय कलया सितकृष्णकेशः ॥ भागवत पूरण २.७.२६ ॥

To destroy evils , Brahman as dark ( krishna ) and white hair ( balarama ) , will take birth by a ansha ( part ). [ In vishnu purana as well, same thing is stated ]


====>>> All these verses clearly indicates that Krishna is a part and Avatara (Kalavatara) of Narayana or Vishnu.


Myself hinduism♥krishna (http://hindudharmaforums.com/member.php?u=5478), advaitian vaishnawa follower of Janardana-Dattatreya Vaishnawa Sampradaya.

ganeshamylord
02 July 2014, 03:50 AM
Hari Bol!

My real question should be: What is the difference between Gaudiya Vaishnavsim and Vaishnavsim, if Krsna and Vishnu are one, why are there two sects?

Jai Sri Radhe-Syam!


Namaste
The difference is Vaishnavas follow Vedas and Puranas as written by VedaVyasa while gaudiya vaishnavas follow books like Chaitanya charitamrita which are neither puranas nor vedas but self professed versions of the concerned authors. And while Vaishnavas use sanskrit hymns in accordance with our sanatana dharma gaudiya vaishnavas use their own versions of bengali songs and also expect non bengalis to sing them and treat them in par with vedas and also have their own versions of Puranas where they take only things that suit their philosophy:):)

markandeya 108 dasa
02 July 2014, 06:00 AM
Samraat Bhismadeva Maurya prabhu,

Dandavats,


Vishnu and Krishna are inconceivable one and different. This is the philosophy of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Acintya beda abeda tattva.


http://jessica-zanello.tumblr.com/post/76363776196/shri-chaitanya-charitamrita-adi-lila-chapter-5

A break down of the expansions and plenary expansions of Krishna is given above.




My real question should be: What is the difference between Gaudiya Vaishnavsim and Vaishnavsim, if Krsna and Vishnu are one, why are there two sects

Each plenary expansion has a different function, Krsna is eternally expanding in unlimited forms for more Lila. Each sect of religion, not just Vaishnavism have different approach to God, some like to worship God in awe and reverence, this is particularly common in more traditional sects of South Indian Vaishnavism. Others develop a relationship with the divine through Love and play, this is Vrndavana Bhakti, prem bhakti. Some want to be God, krsna facilitates this desire with nirguna brahman. Some want material success, so they worship Ganesh, although that's not his only purpose, Sri Ganesh is also removing obstacles to Bhakti and sadhana. The Vedas and the diversity of potency's and personalities are all facilitating the desire of all sentient beings in the phenomenal world, and also the absolute world, nothing is independent, everything serves a purpose, even krsna himslef is not independent, he creates rasa and prem with His devotees, like when Yasoda bound Him, krsna allows the devotee to bind Him, to control Him, even to chastise Him, its his lila , His wish his will .

To say Vishnu, Ganesh, Shiva, Narayana, Rama are all one and the same with no difference is not accepted by the Bhakti school of Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

The Siddhanta of the acintya bed abeda tattva is that its not just one, reality has diversity, both in the phenomenal world and the absolute world.

Ys

Md

brahma jijnasa
02 July 2014, 02:07 PM
Namaste

Vishnu and Krishna are inconceivable one and different. This is the philosophy of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Acintya beda abeda tattva.

As far as I know it is not said so according to Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy.
Gaudiya Vaishnavas say that a living being, jiva, is inconceivable one and different from the Lord. It is not said that one form of the Supreme Lord, Vishnu, is inconceivable one and different from other form of the Supreme Lord, Krishna.


regards

brahma jijnasa
02 July 2014, 02:25 PM
Namaste

Namaste
The difference is Vaishnavas follow Vedas and Puranas as written by VedaVyasa while gaudiya vaishnavas follow books like Chaitanya charitamrita which are neither puranas nor vedas but self professed versions of the concerned authors. And while Vaishnavas use sanskrit hymns in accordance with our sanatana dharma gaudiya vaishnavas use their own versions of bengali songs and also expect non bengalis to sing them and treat them in par with vedas and also have their own versions of Puranas where they take only things that suit their philosophy:):)

That's not true. Like you're saying that Gaudiya Vaishnavas do not accept Shruti scriptures!
Gaudiya Vaishnavas accept all Shruti scriptures, 4 Vedas and their corresponding constituent parts, namely Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanishads!
They also accept virtually all Smriti scriptures as well, Puranas, Itihasas, Pancaratras, Dharma shastras, various Samhitas such as Brahma-samhita, Tantras, ... etc.


regards

markandeya 108 dasa
02 July 2014, 02:30 PM
Pranams brahma jijnasa,

Thank you for your input


As far as I know it is not said so according to Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy.
Gaudiya Vaishnavas say that a living being, jiva, is inconceivable one and different from the Lord. It is not said that one form of the Supreme Lord, Vishnu, is inconceivable one and different from other form of the Supreme Lord, Krishna.

I am not so sure, I will double check, but as far as I know that is the correct siddhanta.

Acintya Beda Abeda Tattva is as you know, inconceivable oneness and difference, the word acintya being the most important, and tattva conclusion.

As far as I can make out and finding that it fits in with with many observations I accept that the philosophy and view of Acintya Beda Abeda Tattva is universal to all things.

This ranges from the jiva , Bhagavan, phenomena, the explanation that God is non different from his creation and different inconceivably, and also his plenary expansion, again the word acintya is the most important.
All the vishnu Tattvas are one and the same, but each one has a different function or personality.

A simple example

A father at home has a certain personality, it maybe loving and relaxed in his mood at home. When he goes to work lets say he is a manager for a very important company or government department. His personality will change according to his duty. So the father is the same person in two separate instances and acts in 2 totally different ways. The Father does not change who he is.

That is the mundane example, and if we consider the divine omnipotency, omnipresence and omniscience of Bhagavan He can be in more than one place displaying an unlimited array of form and no form simultaneously and fully conscious of all his expansions. This is acintya, this is his inconceivable oneness and difference.

The jiva is also one and different from each other and the Lord.

Krsna and his material energy is also Acintya Beda Abeda Tattva

Phenomena is Acintya Beda Abeda Tattva

As far as I know Acintya Beda Abeda Tattva is an Absolute truth and is contained within all things bar none. This is the genius of Sri Chaitanya Maha Prabhu's teachings and on His authority the highest Siddhanta of Vedic philosophy.

Ys

Md

brahma jijnasa
02 July 2014, 03:21 PM
Namaste


My real question should be: What is the difference between Gaudiya Vaishnavsim and Vaishnavsim, if Krsna and Vishnu are one, why are there two sects?

Jai Sri Radhe-Syam!

There are several different vaishnava traditions (sampradayas). They differ in their philosophical conclusions with regard to the position of Lord Krishna.

Gaudiya Vaishnava conclusion on the position of Lord Krishna is that He is the original form of all Vishnu's forms. So although Lord Krishna and Lord Vishnu are one and the same Supreme Lord that appears in two different forms, it is Lord Krishna the original form of the Supreme Lord and not Lord Vishnu or anyone else. Thus, it is Lord Krishna the original form of the Supreme Lord and all the others -- other forms of Lord Vishnu such as Narayana, Rama, Balarama, Sankarshana, Nrisimha, Varaha, Matsya, Kurma, Sadasiva, ... etc -- are merely His expansions or parts.
This is usually said like this: Lord Krishna is the source of all avataras because He is the original form of the Lord, and all the others are His parts and parcels (portions).

This Gaudiya Vaishnava conclusion on the position of Lord Krishna is beautifully expressed in the verse of Srimad Bhagavatam 1.3.28:


ete cāṁśa-kalāḥ puṁsaḥ kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam

"All of the above-mentioned incarnations are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa is the original Personality of Godhead."

In other Vaishnava sampradayas they think that Lord Vishnu is source of Lord Krishna, ie they think Lord Krishna is Lord Vishnu's avatara. Gaudiya Vaishnavas do not accept this conclusion. ;)



regards

ganeshamylord
02 July 2014, 04:22 PM
Namaste


That's not true. Like you're saying that Gaudiya Vaishnavas do not accept Shruti scriptures!
Gaudiya Vaishnavas accept all Shruti scriptures, 4 Vedas and their corresponding constituent parts, namely Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanishads!
They also accept virtually all Smriti scriptures as well, Puranas, Itihasas, Pancaratras, Dharma shastras, various Samhitas such as Brahma-samhita, Tantras, ... etc.


regards


Can you tell me what exactly is Brahma samhita? I always wonder? Like is it from the vedas or puranas or what? What is its source? Why do i see most gaudiya vaishnavas quoting from Brahma samhita as if that is the final authority on Sanatana Dharma?
P.S 4 Vedas donot call Krishna as the supreme nor do the original upanishads and for that matter.

And if you accept "itihasas" like mahabharata . Krishna is the name of Shiva too. The 127th name of Lord Shiva in Shri Shiva sasharanama which was told to Yuddhistira by Sri Krishna Himself?

ganeshamylord
02 July 2014, 04:31 PM
Samraat Bhismadeva Maurya prabhu,

Dandavats,

Each plenary expansion has a different function, Krsna is eternally expanding in unlimited forms for more Lila. Each sect of religion, not just Vaishnavism have different approach to God, some like to worship God in awe and reverence, this is particularly common in more traditional sects of South Indian Vaishnavism. Others develop a relationship with the divine through Love and play, this is Vrndavana Bhakti, prem bhakti. Some want to be God, krsna facilitates this desire with nirguna brahman. Some want material success, so they worship Ganesh, although that's not his only purpose, Sri Ganesh is also removing obstacles to Bhakti and sadhana.

To say Vishnu, Ganesh, Shiva, Narayana, Rama are all one and the same with no difference is not accepted by the Bhakti school of Gaudiya Vaishnavism.



Ys

Md


Namaste
And what is your source to say that Lord Ganesha is worshipped for material success? Has this view been given by Narada or Veda vyasa? or who?
Because Radha prays to Ganesha as"Param brahma param dhama paresha parameeshawaram" in the radha kruta ganesha stotra? Is She a materialistic paashandi who has inferior knowledge and low intelligence to worship a demigod and call Lord Ganesha as the supreme brahman? Or do gaudiya vaishnavaites know much more than Radha Herself?

Why do Gaudiya vaishnavates degrade other schools of thought? Why dont they focus on their own versions of spiritual success which has already translated into reality as politics,child abuse and scams and law suits:):)

hinduism♥krishna
03 July 2014, 02:37 AM
This Gaudiya Vaishnava conclusion on the position of Lord Krishna is beautifully expressed in the verse of Srimad Bhagavatam 1.3.28:

ete cāṁśa-kalāḥ puṁsaḥ kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam

"All of the above-mentioned incarnations are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa is the original Personality of Godhead."In other Vaishnava sampradayas they think that Lord Vishnu is source of Lord Krishna, ie they think Lord Krishna is Lord Vishnu's avatara. Gaudiya Vaishnavas do not accept this conclusion. ;)


Namaste Brahma Jijnasa, I respect your view but

Are you sure the translation you've given is correct? Check it once again? Just observe according to original sanskrit words, some words here are additional : 1) Above mentioned incarnations 2) Original Personality
The verse is actually in regard with 1.3.27 and how did you assume that incarnations like Rama are part of part or a part and what's the support other than assuming? Why would ALL Puranas mention Krishna in Vishnu's Avatara list?


Here we'll see what that verse is actually telling. Before it's very important to note that that verse is the answer of Shaunaka Sage's question. Before starting of the discourse of Suta, Shaunaka asked only about Krishna. He asked who was Krishna who appeared as a son of Devaki. Thus that verse 1.3.28 is an answer confirming Krishna as Bhagavan himself. But this doesn't mean all avataras are not Bhagavan. Because Suta spoke that verse according the question presented by Shaunaka. So the answer is expected from Suta that Krishna is Bhagvan himself. Because Shaunaka was unaware who was Krishna in reality, who acted like a human. Thus Suta simply said Krishna is Bhagavan himself. But some people perceived this verse into another absurd belief which is clearly confronted by another verses of Bhagavata itself. :)
Now we'll observe the original sanskrit verses.

ऋषयो मनवो देवा मनुपुत्रा महौजसः ।
कलाः सर्वे हरेरेव सप्रजापतयः तथा

: Sages, Manu, Gods, sons of Manu similarly Lord Brahma, all are Vibhutis of Vishnu himself.

एते चांशकलाः पुंसः कृष्णस्तु भगवान् स्वयम् ।
इन्द्रारिव्याकुलं लोकं मृडयन्ति युगे युगे ॥ २८ ॥

: And these amsha-Vibhutis are Purusha-Krishna himself. However Bhagavan himself rejoices people grieved by Indra's enemies in various Yuga.

[ I think this is the accurate translation as it is not contradicting with other verses mentioning Krishna as Avatara of Vishnu ]

Note that : Here Bhagavan word includes all the incarnations of Vishnu like Rama and Krishna. Because in all the puranas and Itihasa it is mentioned like this : Bhagavan Rama, Bhagavan Vyasa, Bhagavan Krishna, Bhagavan Parashurana, Bhagavan Shiva etc. So all incarnations and Vishnu himself should be treated as Bhagavan, not Parts.

Not this much only, the main proofs clearly mentioning Krishna as avatara or as a part/amsha of Narayana/Vishnu. Bhagavta Purana states that all Avataras gets descended from First Purana Avatara of Brahman, which is Narayana who is taking Yoga Nidra on the sea.
I've already posted those verses confronting the opposite belief.


एतौ भगवतः साक्षात् हरेर्नारायणस्य हि ।
अवतीर्णाविहांशेन वसुदेवस्य वेश्मनि ॥ Bhagavata 10.43.२३ ॥

Meaning: These two ( Krishna and Balarama ) are Avatara of Hari Narayana himself. They are descended here as parts of Narayana in the home of Vasudeva.


अप्यद्य विष्णोर्मनुजत्वमीयुषो
भारावताराय भुवो निजेच्छया ।Bhagavata 10.38.10

Meaning: I am going to see the Supreme Lord Viṣṇu, who by His own will has now assumed a humanlike form ( Krishna form ) to relieve the earth of her burden.

प्रधानपुरुषावाद्यौ जगद्धेतू जगत्पती ।
अवतीर्णौ जगत्यर्थे स्वांशेन बलकेशवौ ॥ ३२ ॥

Meaning: Primeval Purusha ( Brahman ) and Prakruti-Maya which is the origin cause and master of the world has descended here by its parts in the form of Balarama and Krishna. [ Krishna is the representation of Purusha and Balarama as Prakruti-Maya ]


भूमेः सुरेतरवरूथविमर्दितायाः ।
क्लेशव्ययाय कलया सितकृष्णकेशः ॥ भागवत पूरण २.७.२६ ॥

To destroy evils , Ishwara as dark ( krishna ) and white hair ( balarama ) , will take birth by a ansha ( part ). [ In vishnu purana as well, same thing is stated ]
====>>> All these verses clearly indicates that Krishna is a part and Avatara (Kalavatara) of Narayana or Vishnu.




I have read where SP says that the two-armed form of Krishna is supreme.It'll be my pleasure to know it :) As per my knowledge of Bhagavata Purana, it doesn't teach such absurd thing like Two arms is supreme or four arms is supreme. Vishnu is Vishnu. If he has assumed a human like form with two arms doesn't mean he's different from Krishna. No one should forget that actually Narayana with four arms appeared in front of Devaki but since Devaki requested he converted himself in a human child with two arms. This itself is more than sufficient to prove Krishna and Vishnu are one or Krishna is Avatara of Vishnu.




Vishnu and Krishna are inconceivable one and different. This is the philosophy of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Acintya beda abeda tattva.

Oh my gosh, You've applied Achintya theory even to Vishnu. What Brahma Jijnasa has said is right, the theory is applied only to Jiva, not to the incarnations of Krishna.

markandeya 108 dasa
03 July 2014, 05:32 AM
Pranams Namaskara dandavats Hinduism Krishna prabhu ji,


Just to sum a couples of things.

Achintya-Bheda-Abheda is an absolute truth, it also applies to krsna and visnu tattva. Same as it applies to Lord Shiva and Krsna, yogurt and milk is the example.

You also seem to have a fixation on the pastimes of when Krsna first appeared and He showed His four armed Narayana form.

Sri Krsna was showing this because until that time Narayan and Vishnu were accepted as the supreme godhead. But you fail to understand that Sri Krsna was revealing what they accepted as God, but later went on to say that in fact He was the adi, the original cause of all causes, even Vishnu tattva.

We only have to read Sr Brahma Saṁhitā to solve this very simple subject.



I am surprised your only taking certain portions to make it fit into your own views.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmJUuiLfteY

Ys

Md

hinduism♥krishna
03 July 2014, 06:21 AM
Pranam Markendeya.


Achintya-Bheda-Abheda is an absolute truth, it also applies to krsna and visnu tattva. Same as it applies to Lord Shiva and Krsna, yogurt and milk is the example.

I don't think so. I think Prabhupada many times said that Vishnu and Krishna are one. He didn't mention Achintya theory while mentioning relation between Vishnu and Krishna.


Sri Krsna was showing this because until that time Narayan and Vishnu were accepted as the supreme godhead.

I hope you're kidding here. So Krishna defeated Narayana and by taking Avatara in the form of Narayana so that he would prove himself superior than Vishnu.


We only have to read Sr Brahma Saṁhitā to solve this very simple subject.

Why Brahma Samhita? It's authenticity is not confirmed by all vaishnawa and non-vaishnawa sects. I'd certainly read Bhagavata Purana which is complete in itself, which is saying Krishna is amsha avatara of Vishnu.



I am surprised your only taking certain portions to make it fit into your own views.

My views? Where? If views are presented by strong supports from Shastras, then they aren't just views, they're truths.

markandeya 108 dasa
03 July 2014, 07:05 AM
Pranams Hinduism Krishna,

Please check the below link to understand the gaudiya siddhanta, this thread is about gaudiya siddhanta on vishnu and krsna, if there is a difference, if they are the same and who came from where first.

http://vaniquotes.org/wiki/SB_01.03.28_ete_camsa-kalah_pumsah..._cited_(Bks)

Our view is that both are eternally existing, Vishnu tattva is never under the influence of maya, no birth no death, no causation, free of any trace of phenomena or mundane influence, things are explained for our logic, but there is a more subtle meaning once our senses become purified by sadhana.

If I wanted to I can fill this whole thread and more with masses of information supporting that Krsna is the Adi, and transcendence also manifests itself in form, its what the whole basis of our tradition is built on, its not a whim, its a feature of the absolute transcendental expansion.

But whats the point, as I say, its a diverse reality, and the vedas describe so many aspect of the absolute truth.

Krsna is Vishnu and Vishnu is Krsna, they are non different, but in terms of lila and rasa there are differences, this is explained so nicely in the writings of the six goswamis and hundreds of other sources including Srimad Bhagavatam.

The truth is both personal and impersonal, shastra supports both, people who dont understand the shastra will stick to one side, one will say its impersonal or this incarnation is adi and has form, the shastra is full of controversial and contradictory statements.

When one advances a little further, and get past the book part of understanding Veda and Siddhanta he arrives at a place of non sectarianism, God for want of a better word is an unlimited subject, thats why we say that God is both, both with form and without form.

If you hold tight to a certain emphasis in shastra and then claim the authority of shastra as your support for your views, then you will also have to say that some parts of shastra are wrong.

Ys

Md

Kalicharan Tuvij
03 July 2014, 07:34 AM
Namaste,

Vishnu is a Devatā, Krishna is His incarnation.
This means, Vishnu never comes, as Vishnu, to the material form here on earth, even though He is omnipresent.

In the same manner, Indra is a Devatā, Saraswati is a Devi, Shiva is a mahā Deva, etc, and they simply don't incarnate (because they are Devatā-s), even though they are omnipresent.

The name for "incarnate" is "bhagvāna" in Sanskrit. So this is it. Krishna is bhagvan, not Devatā. The same for Ram, Narsimha, etc. They are called bhagvan because they are Vishnu-incarnate.

Bhagvāna = Bhag (the God of Matter) + vān (possessor)
= One who incarnates into Matter/ Earth.


Shri Krishna,

hinduism♥krishna
03 July 2014, 08:03 AM
Our view is that both are eternally existing, Vishnu tattva is never under the influence of maya, no birth no death, no causation, free of any trace of phenomena or mundane influence, things are explained for our logic, but there is a more subtle meaning once our senses become purified by sadhana.

Brother, it's not matter of Sampradayic beliefs. It's a matter of Shastra Pranama. You didn't explain those verses even in a word.


But whats the point, as I say, its a diverse reality

Reality is never diverse. It's one and alone. Its Ekmeva and Advitiya.


Krsna is Vishnu and Vishnu is Krsna, they are non different, but in terms of lila and rasa there are differences, this is explained so nicely in the writings of the six goswamis and hundreds of other sources including Srimad Bhagavatam.

Give me supports proving this claim that there are differences in regard with Lila. Didn't you observe? What verses I've posted are from Lila canto of Bhagavata itself. If Lila chapters are clearly saying that vishnu is playing Lila by assuming a form of human or Krishna, then what's there to explain more?


The truth is both personal and impersonal,

Impossible ! Shastra say Reality is without a second. It can't be dual. Either Personal or Impersonal must be false. Because if we consider both the realities, then any one of them should be dependant on other, means either personal is the origin of impersonal or impersonal is the origin of personal. The logic says that the thing which is dependant on other can't be a real thing. So if we think both exists mutually, then both becomes false and the reality would result in nothing.


,
the shastra is full of controversial and contradictory statements.

Shastra doesn't contain any contradictory statements. Because sometimes desired meaning of the verse is different from literal meaning.


If you hold tight to a certain emphasis in shastra and then claim the authority of shastra as your support for your views, then you will also have to say that some parts of shastra are wrong.

Let me know which parts will become wrong. It seems that you've no answer to those verses which clearly say that Krishna is amsha avatara of Vishnu. But you don't want to say anything about it.

markandeya 108 dasa
03 July 2014, 09:06 AM
Pranams Hindu Krishna

So your saying that if I can find a quote that will say that Krsna is the cause of Vishnu and Krsna is eternal, and his form is eternal, and that he has a face and ears and eyes, that He is one with everything and different from everything simultaneously, then you will accept ?


Thats the import thing, or else I fear its just spirals into a boring "I quote this you quote that".

Improve your understanding of Gaudiya Vaishnavsim then i will discuss :)

Ys

Md

ganeshamylord
03 July 2014, 09:14 AM
Pranams Hinduism Krishna,

If I wanted to I can fill this whole thread and more with masses of information supporting that Krsna is the Adi, and transcendence also manifests itself in form, its what the whole basis of our tradition is built on, its not a whim, its a feature of the absolute transcendental expansion.

Md

Namaste
No you cannot. Or may be your quotes would be mainly from chaitanya charitamrita or brahma samhita both of which are neither shrutis nor smritis.
Also gopalatapani upanishad isnt authentic. So can you quote anything that shows Krishna is superior to Vishnu from authentic scriptures like vedas or upanishads(the main ones)?
One more thing markandeya. Just because your sampradaya says so or rather because you have been brainwashed into it doesnt make it authentic nor does it represent gaudiya vaishnavism as a whole.
or just because some one from a sampradaya gives a very foolish answer like krishnas aura is impersonal brahman and stuff like that doesnt make it any less childish. The answer is simple/. If Krishna existed from the beginning(as a creator of vishnu) His leelas would be described from time immemorial and not just the 125 years of Bhagavatam. If Krishna was eternal(i mean as independent of Vishnu) why are only 125years documented? Are only 125 years important among the trillions of years that He has?If you take Vishnu out of Krishna He will become a he. simple.

ganeshamylord
04 July 2014, 02:22 AM
Namaste markandeya
These are the statements of Lord Narayana from Bhagavata. What do you mean by bhakti schools of thought? Are the schools you talk of the masters of Narayana or are they the followers of Narayana? Its unfortunate many foreigners with half baked knowledge of sanatana dharma and their fanatic enthusiasm spoil the peace and intelligence of dharma. They follow what their fanatic gurus teach them and ignore what the supreme Guru Narayana teaches. Here Narayana clearly states what His devotees should do and who ever ignore His teachings and make their own faulty ideas with their low intelligence are not His devotees and that is said not by me but by Narayana. And if you go through any scripture its clearly mentioned whoever differentiates between Shiva and Narayana sink down to the hellish conditions of lifeJ That is why in any sane school of thought sri rudram is also to be sung along with purusha suktam.
Dancing and singing songs but with a mind full of poison towards other living enties will only lead hell. Whatever any school might profess, Lord Krishna never for once in Gita taught either to visualize Him in a form of a cowherd boy with a face and a flute nor did He ever teach that singing songs and dancing without understanding His position as the Supreme Brahman makes a person His devotee. And since you told that advaita is the sophisticated version of islam. Am sorry while am unsure of that statement you made the fanaticism of “my god is supreme” is just like islam and may be worse than that.
yathā pumān na svāṅgeṣu
śiraḥ-pāṇy-ādiṣu kvacit
pārakya-buddhiṁ kurute
evaṁ bhūteṣu mat-paraḥ
SYNONYMS
TRANSLATION
A person with average intelligence does not think the head and other parts of the body to be separate. Similarly, My DEVOTEE does not differentiate Viṣṇu (http://sanskritdictionary.org/visnu), the all-pervading Personality of Godhead, from any thing or any living entity.
trayāṇām eka-bhāvānāṁ
yo na paśyati vai bhidām
sarva-bhūtātmanāṁ brahman
sa śāntim adhigacchati
TRANSLATION
The Lord continued: One who does not consider Brahmā (http://sanskritdictionary.org/brahma), Viṣṇu (http://sanskritdictionary.org/visnu), Śiva or the living entities in general to be separate from the Supreme, and who knows Brahman (http://sanskritdictionary.org/brahman), actually realizes peace; OTHERS DONOT






Namaste Brahmajignasa
yes indeed

ete chamsa kala pumsah krishnastu bhagavan swayam
Who is that bhagavan??? That bhagavan is Narayana/vishnu

ameyAtmA
04 July 2014, 08:10 PM
Dear devotees of Vishnu and devotees of Shri KRshNa

What do you make of this chapter in canto 12 of Shrimad BhAgvat mahApurAN?

http://vedabase.com/en/sb/12/11

Looking forward to your comments/essays/inputs.

Thank You and praNAm

brahma jijnasa
04 July 2014, 09:20 PM
Dear devotees of Vishnu and devotees of Shri KRshNa

What do you make of this chapter in canto 12 of Shrimad BhAgvat mahApurAN?

http://vedabase.com/en/sb/12/11

Looking forward to your comments/essays/inputs.

Thank You and praNAm

Namaste

It would be a better idea to open a new thread and ask the question because in this thread we are discussing another topic.


regards

ameyAtmA
04 July 2014, 09:39 PM
Namaste

It would be a better idea to open a new thread and ask the question because in this thread we are discussing another topic.


regards

I think not, because just see what ShauNak Rshi is asking Suta ji --

SB 12.11.2-3 We wish to attain all knowledge regarding Deity Worship / kriya yog (that KRshNa explained to Uddhav earlier). Therefore, tell us please --- when knowers of pAncharAtrici ways of worship perform archana (worship) of that Lakshmi-pati (Lord of the Goddess of Fortune), how do they meditate on His various anga (limbs) and upAnga (associates like GaruDa), ayudha (weapons) such as the Sudarshan Chakra (disc), and alankAr (ornaments) such as the Kaustubha gem?


It is explaining how to look at Lord NArAyaNa with His 4 arms, Ayudha, His 8 messengers Nanda-Sunanda etc. This chapter explains what Narayan represents.

Yet, to the devotees, He is that sweet GhanaShyAm Whose arms are the safest haven Whose 'shelA' - the fine cloth over His shoulder is the blanket. Whose Lotus Eyes Lotus Heart Lotus Cheeks Lotus palms, Lotus Arms Lotus smile , long flowing hair (GhanashyAm), Lotus Feet, anklets, garland, are all the source of the highest peace, bliss, joy, security, safety, love, nest and HOME.

hinduism♥krishna
04 July 2014, 11:15 PM
I think not, because just see what ShauNak Rshi is asking Suta ji --

SB 12.11.2-3 We wish to attain all knowledge regarding Deity Worship / kriya yog (that KRshNa explained to Uddhav earlier). Therefore, tell us please --- when knowers of pAncharAtrici ways of worship perform archana (worship) of that Lakshmi-pati (Lord of the Goddess of Fortune), how do they meditate on His various anga (limbs) and upAnga (associates like GaruDa), ayudha (weapons) such as the Sudarshan Chakra (disc), and alankAr (ornaments) such as the Kaustubha gem?


It is explaining how to look at Lord NArAyaNa with His 4 arms, Ayudha, His 8 messengers Nanda-Sunanda etc. This chapter explains what Narayan represents.

Yet, to the devotees, He is that sweet GhanaShyAm Whose arms are the safest haven Whose 'shelA' - the fine cloth over His shoulder is the blanket in which to hide from the boogeymen and know they are always always safest and most blissful in Shri Hari's arms. Whose Lotus Eyes Lotus Heart Lotus Cheeks Lotus palms, Lotus Arms Lotus smile , long flowing hair (GhanashyAm), Lotus Feet, anklets, garland, are all the source of the highest peace, bliss, joy, security, safety, love, nest and HOME.

I've read 12th canto many times. But what're you trying to say? What's the relation of this to the topic of the thread?

brahma jijnasa
05 July 2014, 03:30 AM
Namaste

Yes indeed in the scriptures sometimes we do find conflicting statements on the subject who is whose avatara.

According to this statement of Bhagavatam 10.43.23 it seems that Krishna and Balarama are avataras of Narayana:


etau bhagavataḥ sākṣād
dharer nārāyaṇasya hi
avatīrṇāv ihāṁśena
vasudevasya veśmani

etau -- these two; bhagavataḥ -- of the Supreme Lord; sākṣāt -- directly; hareḥ -- of Lord Hari; nārāyaṇasya -- Nārāyaṇa; hi -- certainly; avatīrṇau -- have descended; iha -- to this world; aṁśena -- as expansions; vasudevasya -- of Vasudeva; veśmani -- in the home.

[The people said:] These two boys (Krishna and Balarama) are certainly expansions of the Supreme Lord Nārāyaṇa who have descended to this world in the home of Vasudeva.

The verse says precisely that Krishna and Balarama are avataras (avatīrṇau -- have descended), and that they are amshas (aṁśena) which means "parts" or "expansions" of Lord Narayana.
The word avatara literally means "one who descends", and thus according to this verse Krishna and Balarama are avataras of Lord Narayana and also parts or expansions (aṁśena) of Lord Narayana.

But let's look what says the verse Bhagavatam 10.14.14 where Brahma offers prayers to Lord Krishna:


nārāyaṇo ’ṅgaṁ

nārāyaṇaḥ -- Lord Śrī Nārāyaṇa; aṅgam -- the expanded plenary portion

Here Brahma says to Lord Krishna "Indeed, Lord Nārāyaṇa is Your expansion", ie he says that Lord Narayana is Lord Krishna's part or expansion (aṅgam or aṁśa). The words aṅgam and aṁśa (see above aṁśena in Bhagavatam 10.43.23, and also cāṁśa-kalāḥ in Bhagavatam 1.3.28) are synonyms and have the same meaning "part, portion, expansion"!
So it seems that here we have a statement that says exactly the opposite of the statement in Bhagavatam 10.43.23 (see above)!!! :)

Lord Balarama described himself as a part of Lord Krishna in Bhagavatam 10.68.37: ... ’ham api yasya kalāḥ "Great demigods like Lord Brahmā and Lord Śiva, and even the goddess of fortune and I, are simply parts of His spiritual identity".
Here it is stated that Lord Balarama is avatara of Lord Krishna, so here it is stated differently than Bhagavatam 10.43.23, see above.
So whose expansion or avatara is Lord Balarama, then?! Is He Lord Krishna's avatara or Lord Narayana's avatara?

So, then, who is whose expansion or avatara? Is Lord Krishna Lord Narayana's avatara or Lord Narayana is Lord Krishna's avatara?!
When you start to think about it anything you can get will be this: Confusion :confused: and :(
:D

In order to eliminate this confusion back then in the 16th century Jiva Gosvami in the Gaudiya vaishnava sampradaya wrote a book titled Krishna Sandarbha in which he examined many of these statements in the scriptures which seems to be contradictory and he arrived at the conclusion that it is Lord Krishna the original Personality of Godhead, ie it is Lord Krishna the original form of the Supreme Lord and all the others -- other forms of Lord Vishnu such as Narayana, Rama, Balarama, Sankarshana, Nrisimha, Varaha, Matsya, Kurma, Sadasiva, ... etc -- are merely His expansions or parts.
This is usually said like this: Lord Krishna is the source of all avataras because He is the original form of the Lord, and all the others are His parts and parcels (portions).
Thus, it is said that Lord Krishna is not an avatāra, but is avatārī -- the source of all incarnations.
This Gaudiya Vaishnava conclusion on the position of Lord Krishna is beautifully expressed in that famous verse Bhagavatam 1.3.28:


ete cāṁśa-kalāḥ puṁsaḥ kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam

"All of the above-mentioned incarnations are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa is the original Personality of Godhead."

Jiva Gosvami, one of the foremost acaryas in the tradition, even calls this statement of Bhagavatam verse 1.3.28 the paribhasha-sutra or the key verse of the entire Srimad Bhagavatam, essential in order to properly understand the position of Lord Krishna who is the main topic, the sum and substance of the entire Srimad Bhagavatam. It is the statement which forms the basis of the theology of the Chaitanya school, and distinguishes it from the earlier vaishnava schools of Ramanuja and Madhvacarya.
Jiva Gosvami also says that this statement of Bhagavatam verse 1.3.28 is a mahavakya, one of "The Great Sayings" such as mahavakyas or "The Great Sayings" in the Upanishads (such as tat tvam asi or aham brahmasmi) which pronounce some of the key points of the teachings of Vedanta.

In other Vaishnava sampradayas they think that Lord Vishnu is source of Lord Krishna, ie they think Lord Krishna is Lord Vishnu's avatara. Gaudiya Vaishnavas do not accept this conclusion.

Some gist of the arguments given by Jiva Gosvami and other Gaudiya Vaishnava acaryas on the position of Lord Krishna can be seen in some of my old posts in the old threads:

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=110377#post110377

and also http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=97144#post97144 and forward, pay special attention to the post #177 and forward


--------
PS, all Bhagavatam verses see at BBT translation, vedabase


regards

hinduism♥krishna
05 July 2014, 06:51 AM
Namaste Brahma Jijnasa


Namaste

Yes indeed in the scriptures sometimes we do find conflicting statements on the subject who is whose avatara.

I don't think so. Who is whose Avatara is not a subject of Purana. It's importance is absolute null in the essence of Purana. Bhagavata doesn't teach two arm or four arm is supreme :D


But let's look what says the verse Bhagavatam 10.14.14 where Brahma offers prayers to Lord Krishna:


nārāyaṇo ’ṅgaṁ

nārāyaṇaḥ -- Lord Śrī Nārāyaṇa; aṅgam -- the expanded plenary portion

Here is the Verse with complete meaning :

नारायणस्त्वं न हि सर्वदेहिनां
आत्मास्यधीशाखिललोकसाक्षी ।
नारायणोऽङ्*गं नरभूजलायनात्
तच्चापि सत्यं न तवैव माया ॥ १४ ॥

Meaning: You are Narayana. You are Atma of all jivas, you are ruler and onlooker of entire worlds. As water which is formed from nara is your Ayan [ Home ] , you are called as Anga [ Body or Part ] of Narayana. But this is not true. [You are amsha is] only because of Maya. [ Here concept of amsha is completely declined as it is always viewed from Maya. If one is amsha of another, doesn't mean one is supreme & other is lower. I don't know from where that belief came. The essence is that though Brahman appears in form as a amsha in the form of Narayana, it's complete in its own nature. Amsha of Infinite is not possible. This is the same thing as Bhagavan says in Gita - Unintelligents think me, who is unmanifested, as having a tainted form. ]


What could be more stronger support other than this verse?


अप्यद्य विष्णोर्मनुजत्वमीयुषो
भारावताराय भुवो निजेच्छया ।Bhagavata 10.38.10

Meaning: I am going to see the Supreme Lord Viṣṇu, who by His own will has now assumed a humanlike form ( Krishna form ) to relieve the earth of her burden.

[ Here it is clearly mentioned that Vishnu has assumed a form of Krishna who has two hands. So NO any difference between Krishna and Vishnu. That's why he's called as Avatara of Vishnu to mention him indifferent from Vishnu. Puranas use Avatara word to establish someone indifferently from someone ]


So it seems that here we have a statement that says exactly the opposite of the statement in Bhagavatam 10.43.23 (see above)!!! :) It seems you can accept one verse which isn't supporting Vishnu as Avatara but you can , without thinking equally , can ignore those 100s of verses that VERY clearly mentions that Krishna is Amsha Avatara of Vishnu. If you really want to find a contradictory verse, I request you to find only a single verse, like ' Vishnu/Narayana is Avatara of Krishna. Then only intelligents can find it contradictory.


So whose expansion or avatara is Lord Balarama, then?! Is He Lord Krishna's avatara or Lord Narayana's avatara? This doesn't prove that Vishnu is Avatara of Krishna. Here he must be called as Amsha in regard with infinite formless Brahman OR if we think on it, then actually Amsha of Aamsha of amsha of A can be called as amsha of A because in their relation condition of amsha is satisfied :D


When you start to think about it anything you can get will be this: Confusion and
:DThere will be confusion only if you are strongly attached to your belief. There's no confusion at all . All puranas mention Krishna as Avatara of Vishnu. It's so simple ! No confusion ! :)



This Gaudiya Vaishnava conclusion on the position of Lord Krishna is beautifully expressed in that famous verse Bhagavatam 1.3.28:


ete cāṁśa-kalāḥ puṁsaḥ kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam

"All of the above-mentioned incarnations are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa is the original Personality of Godhead."

But you didn't tell me. Where are these words "above-mentioned incarnations the original Personality of Godhead" in original Sanskrit Verse. And why did you choose this verse even though the same Bhagavata mentions many times that Krishna is Avatara. I think one should read Bhagavata without assuming any philosophy or beliefs, then only truth of Bhagavata unveils. Because if we've already assumed that ' this is so this is that', then we'll surely interpret it according to our assumed view.

markandeya 108 dasa
05 July 2014, 07:52 AM
Hindu Krishna

If we are to take everything as literal, meaning we have not purified our buddhi's then we are going to get into a very big mess.

It clearly says in the Bible that the only way to God is through Jesus. The Koran Through Mohamed, the jews say that only born jewish people can know the true essence.

You say your bit, we say our bit.

Who is right

Or is the logic of the vedas a bit more flexible and purports are designed to attract he minds of all beings bar non.

The ignorant see dogma and contradiction, the enlightened see the pastimes of Lord.

Ys

Md

hinduism♥krishna
05 July 2014, 08:01 AM
If we are to take everything as literal, meaning we have not purified our buddhi's then we are going to get into a very big mess

What's there in it not to take literally? The Verse is saying " Vishnu has assumed a Krishna form" What's here not to take literally? :D

markandeya 108 dasa
05 July 2014, 08:13 AM
LOL, what's there in it not to take literally? The Verse is saying " Vishnu has assumed a Krishna form" What's here not to take literally?

Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.3.28 Krsna Is the Source of All Incarnations

ete camsa-kalah pumsah
krsnas tu bhagavan svayam
indrari-vyakulam lokam
mrdayanti yuge yuge

All of the above-mentioned incarnations are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord Sri Krsna is the original Personality of Godhead. All of them appear on planets whenever there is a disturbance created by the atheists. The Lord incarnates to protect the theists.

So we have 2 equally valid statements that contradict each other. As I said the absolute is described in various ways in all of Veda.

The ones whose Buddhis are purified by sadhana and have accepted initation from a bona fide guru in an authorized parampara can easily solve the contradictions of Veda.

Ys

Md

hinduism♥krishna
05 July 2014, 09:31 AM
Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.3.28 Krsna Is the Source of All Incarnations

ete camsa-kalah pumsah
krsnas tu bhagavan svayam
indrari-vyakulam lokam
mrdayanti yuge yuge

All of the above-mentioned incarnations are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord Sri Krsna is the original Personality of Godhead. All of them appear on planets whenever there is a disturbance created by the atheists. The Lord incarnates to protect the theists.

So we have 2 equally valid statements that contradict each other. As I said the absolute is described in various ways in all of Veda.

The ones whose Buddhis are purified by sadhana and have accepted initation from a bona fide guru in an authorized parampara can easily solve the contradictions of Veda.

Ys

Md

Everything has been explained in #13 post. You say I take both contradictory verses. But not true you've actually ignored those many verses stating Krishna is amsha of Narayan.

You've taken that verse separately. The verse 1.3.28 is in relation with1.3.27. Because the verse starts 'ete' mentioning all those previously mentioned. Moreover the translation you've provided is not the translation of original Sanskrit verse. "All these incarnations" and "original personality of Godhead" theses words are completely absent in Sanskrit Verse.

markandeya 108 dasa
05 July 2014, 09:50 AM
Pranams,


Your understanding is immature and only leading to aparadha, I will wait till you understand things a little more deeply, because so far I feel your understanding of Brahman is very limited.

Ys

Md

hinduism♥krishna
05 July 2014, 12:27 PM
Your understanding is immature and only leading to aparadha, I will wait till you understand things a little more deeply, because so far I feel your understanding of Brahman is very limited.


Okay, I quit here. I forgot that this is Hare Krishna forum. Yes, Vishnu is Avatara of Krishna. Now this doesn't give any error in Hare Krishna forum.

Thanks to those who've read my comments. :)

Ekam
05 July 2014, 04:41 PM
Why can't be Vishnu and Krishna each other's avatara simultaneously at the same time?

This would satisfy both opinions cited in the Shastras.

Are we talking about an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent God or about cake or pizza that can be divided unto parts?

Pranams.

IcyCosmic
05 July 2014, 04:49 PM
Namaste,

Guru-dev Parashuram is no different from Matsya-dev and Vishnu is no different from Krishna, these are all avataras of the same supreme lord and divine intelligence. No matter what sect you belong to I would assume that would be the philosophical assumption depending on who is deemed as official incarnations according to that school. I'm not as learned as the other members in regard to scriptures but that is the line of thought I carry.

brahma jijnasa
05 July 2014, 06:20 PM
Namaste

I don't think so. Who is whose Avatara is not a subject of Purana. It's importance is absolute null in the essence of Purana. Bhagavata doesn't teach two arm or four arm is supreme


Amazed ! Here it becomes 'seems' and in the next verse10.14.14 you mentioned becomes 'true' though that verse verse doesn't state that Vishnu is Avatara of Krushna. And 10.43.23 is not a only verse to support krishna as a amsha. There are such hundreds of verses in Puranas including Bhagavata and Vishnu Purana.
... ...
... ...

You're just babbling nonsense.


It seems you can accept one verse which isn't supporting Vishnu as Avatara but you can , without thinking equally , can ignore those 100s of verses that VERY clearly mentions that Krishna is Amsha Avatara of Vishnu. If you really want to find a contradictory verse, I request you to find only a single verse, like ' Vishnu/Narayana is Avatara of Krishna. Then only intelligents can find it contradictory.




So whose expansion or avatara is Lord Balarama, then?! Is He Lord Krishna's avatara or Lord Narayana's avatara?

This doesn't prove that Vishnu is Avatara of Krishna.

Are you blind or what is the problem with you?
I quoted verses that clearly and explicitly declare that Narayana and Balarama are avataras of Lord Krishna. Open your eyes and see what it says there!




ete cāṁśa-kalāḥ puṁsaḥ kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam

"All of the above-mentioned incarnations are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa is the original Personality of Godhead."

But you didn't tell me. Where are these words "above-mentioned incarnations the original Personality of Godhead" in original Sanskrit Verse. And why did you choose this verse even though the same Bhagavata mentions many times that Krishna is Avatara. I think one should read Bhagavata without assuming any philosophy or beliefs, then only truth of Bhagavata unveils. Because if we've already assumed that ' this is so this is that', then we'll surely interpret it according to our assumed view.

The BBT translator has not translated this verse literally, but he translated in accordance with the conclusion of the Gaudiya vaishnava tradition.

Not that I chose this verse, but Jiva Gosvami and other Gaudiya vaishnava acaryas chose this verse back then in the 16th century. That's what I explained in the previous posts in this thread. It seems that you're not reading my posts or you are just blind?
Why they chose exactly this verse? I even explained that, read my previous posts.


regards

brahma jijnasa
05 July 2014, 07:07 PM
Namaste

Namaste,

Guru-dev Parashuram is no different from Matsya-dev and Vishnu is no different from Krishna, these are all avataras of the same supreme lord and divine intelligence. No matter what sect you belong to I would assume that would be the philosophical assumption depending on who is deemed as official incarnations according to that school. I'm not as learned as the other members in regard to scriptures but that is the line of thought I carry.

Certainly that they are one and the same Supreme Lord who appears in many different forms, but after careful and thorough analysis of the scriptures Jiva Gosvami and other Gaudiya vaishnava acaryas arrived at the conclusion that it is precisely Lord Krishna the original form of the Supreme Lord and all the others -- other forms of Lord Vishnu such as Narayana, Rama, Balarama, Sankarshana, Nrisimha, Varaha, Matsya, Kurma, Sadasiva, ... etc -- are merely His expansions or parts.
So, it is Lord Krishna the source of all avataras because He is the original form of the Lord, and all the others are His parts and parcels (portions).

To anyone who wants to study in detail this subject matter I can recommend a book Laghu Bhagavatamrta by Rupa Gosvami and especially Krishna Sandarbha by Jiva Gosvami.

Some gist of the arguments given by Jiva Gosvami and other Gaudiya Vaishnava acaryas on the position of Lord Krishna can be seen in some of my old posts in the old threads:

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...377#post110377

and also http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...7144#post97144 and forward, pay special attention to the post #177 and forward


regards

ganeshamylord
06 July 2014, 02:22 AM
Namaste


Certainly that they are one and the same Supreme Lord who appears in many different forms, but after careful and thorough analysis of the scriptures Jiva Gosvami and other Gaudiya vaishnava acaryas arrived at the conclusion that it is precisely Lord Krishna the original form of the Supreme Lord and all the others -- other forms of Lord Vishnu such as Narayana, Rama, Balarama, Sankarshana, Nrisimha, Varaha, Matsya, Kurma, Sadasiva, ... etc -- are merely His expansions or parts.
So, it is Lord Krishna the source of all avataras because He is the original form of the Lord, and all the others are His parts and parcels (portions).

To anyone who wants to study in detail this subject matter I can recommend a book Laghu Bhagavatamrta by Rupa Gosvami and especially Krishna Sandarbha by Jiva Gosvami.

Some gist of the arguments given by Jiva Gosvami and other Gaudiya Vaishnava acaryas on the position of Lord Krishna can be seen in some of my old posts in the old threads:

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...377#post110377

and also http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...7144#post97144 and forward, pay special attention to the post #177 and forward


regards

Namaste
So are you supposing that the gaudiya gosvamis of kaliyuga know much more than veda vyasa and the gaudiya acharyas of kaliyuga which is full of faults now became the final authorities on sanatana dharma? And their books hold more weight than vedas and upanishads??

lalit1000
06 July 2014, 02:48 AM
Okay, I quit here. I forgot that this is Hare Krishna forum. Yes, Vishnu is Avatara of Krishna. Now this doesn't give any error in Hare Krishna forum.

Thanks to those who've read my comments. :)
Is this a new theory??like the aryan invasion theory.

markandeya 108 dasa
06 July 2014, 03:34 AM
Pranams

The difference between lord krsna and lord vishnu is acintya, they are one and the same. They are only separated by lila. They are one and the same, so there is no division, this is not part of the dualism, it is a total misinterpretation of Sri Gaudiya siddhanta.

To say that the gaudiaya siddhanta has more weight than veda vyasa, veda and Upanishads is pure interpretation.

Vishnu tattva is not seprated, the example is given of the head of state, when he goes to work he is different in his actions and duty from when he acts as as husband or father at home, but he is still the same person.

Sri Adi shankara, Absolute truth is brahman and is no dual

Lord Buddha, Brahman is not the highest reality and denied veda, but was incarnation of Vishnu.

Sri Caitanya, Brahman has variety but is non dual.

Different teachers have different conclusions

Veda can incorporate all these views by context of tradition.

Neophytes cannot understand, not by logic, not by debate and certainly not by racist hate mails, or purporting the teachings of the veda to conclude that non duality is the realization of expanding the false ego to the point of absolute oneness of all things.

This is not pure advaita, not only is it not true advaita its pure ego exaggerated to the point of atheism.

I think there is one word that hindu and ganesh need to learn before studying any spiritual tradition, epistemology, it will be very helpful for you

hinduism♥krishna
06 July 2014, 03:47 AM
This is not pure advaita, not only is it not true advaita its pure ego exaggerated to the point of atheism.:o Now Gaudiyas will decide what is pure advaita and what is not. You are constantly saying that you know advaita . I accept but here's one problem for me. Can you tell me what is Mula Prakruti and Mahattatva and what's the realation of Kriya-shakti and Dnyana-shakti to Mahattatva and what is jiva and how it is Brahman though it seems to be deluded ? Explain me. I'm not getting that

markandeya 108 dasa
06 July 2014, 04:18 AM
Pranams

As Adi Shankara concluded Bhaja Govindam

Its is foolish to get caught up in grammtical understanding of shastra. The final words of many acharyas in different traditions is Bhakti, gita 18.66.

If you interpret Bhakti as a dualistic function of jiva then we disagree, but I wont be losing any sleep if your view is different from sri chaitanya, its your free will.


an you tell me what is Mula Prakruti and Mahattatva and how Jiva is Brahman though it seems to be deluded

This topic in gaudiya vaishnavism is spoken in the philosophical discussion and teaching of Tatastha and jiva tattva. I will leave it up to you interpret that as you see fit, but please take into consideration the demographics of consciousness. As I say to study shastra one needs a certain amount of epistemology.

For to me approach the vedas and consider it a map of an ultimate singular entity and all shastra and vedic knowledge are in fact a demographic of one consciousness without diversity is absurd. But I am sure that can be explained away easily by some members here because I am not Indian, so its impossible for us to understand Veda.

Advaita among some has become lopsided in the conclusion, thats my estimation, but I do consider advaita in it's pure teaching and reality an absolute truth. And in many ways I think the Chinese Taoist have a much purer teaching about it.

I am not saying that advaita has no truth, I am saying that Advaita is now a polluted teaching, purely because you think your the adi, and the philosophy that is attached to false understanding of advaita teaching on maya is a total absurdity in the context of ultimate realization of your own false conclusions.

hinduism♥krishna
06 July 2014, 04:37 AM
If you interpret Bhakti as a dualistic function of jiva then we disagree:) I myself am Bhakta of Krishna. Do you mean what is the meaning of Bhakti in Sanksrit ? Bhakti is antonym of Vibhakti . Vibhakti means separatness and so Bhakti means oneness. There's always oneness between devotee's self and Bhagavan. The peak of devotion is the the state where devotee doesn't remain as devotee and bhagavan doesn't remains as bhagavan. That state is Brahman where there is not a second. Brahman alone is there in its completeness.

Dualistic worship is condemned in Shruti and Smruti.

"That is my Atma. In this way one should worship God" ( B. U. 2.5.19)

" Those who worship God thinking I'm another, he's another, doesn't know. He's like an animal " ( B.U. 1.4.10 )

" All insults those who see the self different from everything " (B.U. 2.4.6)

" Samata (Oneness) alone is the true worship of Vishnu" ( Vishnu Purana 1.17.90)

" This world is the manifestation of SarvaBhuta Vishnu. So Dnyani should see this world or Vishnu indifferent from the self" ( Vishnu Purana 1.17.84 )

These verses speak more than words...

ganeshamylord
06 July 2014, 04:38 AM
Pranams

As Adi Shankara concluded Bhaja Govindam

Its is foolish to get caught up in grammtical understanding of shastra. The final words of many acharyas in different traditions is Bhakti, gita 18.66.

If you interpret Bhakti as a dualistic function of jiva then we disagree, but I wont be losing any sleep if your view is different from sri chaitanya, its your free will.

Namaste markandeya

Adi shankaras bhaja govindam was actually for the fanatic vaishnavas trying to prove the supremacy of a singular deity, quoting from unauthentic scriptures to prove their point.So he told them "Oh foolish minded men why dont you just worship and chant govinda instead of fighting with others for atleast by chanting govinda you might get some intelligence":)

Second BG18.66 is in no way related to saguna bhakti. By surrender Krishna alluded to the Brahman who is situated as the paramatma in the hrit chakra. As revealed by Him in 18.61 and 18.62:)

Third no one is stating that bhakti is dual but then bhakti has stages and the definition of real bhakti is revealed by Sri krishna Himself in uddhava gita where He says the real bhakta sees Him in all the beings and He also states that worshipping Him in a form is the lowest of all forms of bhakti:)
Jnana is also bhakti just incase you are ill informed

markandeya 108 dasa
06 July 2014, 04:42 AM
Pranams

Your right, you defeated me

Now please talk to someone else, all this direction of animal, racist foreigner who cannot understand veda and hate directed towards me is not my cup of tea. I think thats what teenagers do on facebook.

Have a good day

Ys

Md

hinduism♥krishna
06 July 2014, 04:55 AM
As Adi Shankara concluded Bhaja Govindam

Its is foolish to get caught up in grammtical understanding of shastra. The final words of many acharyas in different traditions is Bhakti,Namaste..

Who are against Bhakti? :) As I see, Adi Shankara's vaishnawism is the oldest and pure traditional vaishnawism, much older than Madhavacharya's vaishnawism. It is free from any adulteration. Adi Shankara has said in his Vishnu Sahastranama Bhashya that one should worship vishnu thinking him as the self. This is the authentic vaishnawism prescribed in shastras and which was taught by Adi Shankara by composing bhaja govindam and other stotra on Vishnu.


He composed Bhaja Govindam to shower mercy on advaita-vaishnawas not for those who see vishnu different from the self. Instead of judging what is Advaita-bhakti on your own, you should read Bhagavata Purana specially Uddhava Gita, last discourse of Shri Krishna, with devotion.


Hari Rama Narayana :)

markandeya 108 dasa
06 July 2014, 05:06 AM
Your more interesting in trying to inflame the topic of discussing different aspects of veda, and propaganda.

I have seen many people do the same thing over the years, there does come a time when they mature.

Hopefully that day will come to you soon.

A simple humble request to both hindu krishna and Ganesh

Please do not partake in any conversation with me, I am to old and tired of vicious debates, racists hate mails and argumentation based on bias rather than gentlemanly discussion of philosophy. Maybe you had some problems with another philosophy, I can sympathize, I do not represent anyone tradition, in fact organised structural beliefs systems do not inspire me, no matter what shape or form they come in, historical, categorical and fundamentalism have no interest in my approach to working things out.


In fact I would say the wisest person in the age of Kali is Lord Buddha, he calmly puts aside your futile approach to knowledge.

I would recommend the reading and understanding of the kalama sutta, it will be very good for your spiritual psychology.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.than.html


Now please take your hated, racism and fundamentalism somewhere else please.

ganeshamylord
06 July 2014, 05:27 AM
Your more interesting in trying to inflame the topic of discussing different aspects of veda, and propaganda.

I have seen many people do the same thing over the years, there does come a time when they mature.

Hopefully that day will come to you soon.

A simple humble request to both hindu krishna and Ganesh

Please do not partake in any conversation with me, I am to old and tired of vicious debates, racists hate mails and argumentation based on bias rather than gentlemanly discussion of philosophy. Maybe you had some problems with another philosophy, I can sympathize, I do not represent anyone tradition, in fact organised structural beliefs systems do not inspire me, no matter what shape or form they come in, historical, categorical and fundamentalism have no interest in my approach to working things out.


In fact I would say the wisest person in the age of Kali is Lord Buddha, he calmly puts aside your futile approach to knowledge.

I would recommend the reading and understanding of the kalama sutta, it will be very good for your spiritual psychology.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.than.html


Now please take your hated, racism and fundamentalism somewhere else please.


Namaste markandeyaji

I never knew you were an older gentleman as you didnt display your age. My intention was never racist but just to support the truth. And truth alone wins in the end and truth is the highest form of the Lord. Pardon me if i sounded offensive and i would have touched your feet if i was with you right now

hinduism♥krishna
06 July 2014, 06:52 AM
Namaste Markandeya, :)

Be humble to all living beings no matter they're your friends or enemies. Vaishnawa should not critisize anyone. This is what Chaitanya Mahaprabhu has tought us.

Thank You...

Samraat Bhismadeva Maurya
06 July 2014, 07:07 PM
Hari Bol!


Okay, I quit here. I forgot that this is Hare Krishna forum. Yes, Vishnu is Avatara of Krishna. Now this doesn't give any error in Hare Krishna forum.

Thanks to those who've read my comments. :)

Thank you very much for your input, it has helped a lot.

This is why we cant take over the world :P There is so much disagreement and misunderstandings.
Why cant we accept Krsna and Vishnu are one, i had always thought they were the same but the paths different,
Please correct me if i am wrong, but is it that the path to Vishnu is through worship and the path to Krsna is through love and emotion?. Krsna is supreme personality of god? And Vishnu is supreme form of God?
If Vishnu and Krishna are the same then being an Avatara makes one no more or less superior.

Thank you,

Jai Sri Radhe-Syam!

brahma jijnasa
07 July 2014, 06:10 AM
Namaste

Why can't be Vishnu and Krishna each other's avatara simultaneously at the same time?

This would satisfy both opinions cited in the Shastras.

That's precisely what I explained in the link that I gave at the end of my post. :)
This was the explanation of Gaudiya vaishnava acaryas.


Are we talking about an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent God or about cake or pizza that can be divided unto parts?

What do you mean by that?


regards

brahma jijnasa
07 July 2014, 06:16 AM
Namaste

Namaste
So are you supposing that the gaudiya gosvamis of kaliyuga know much more than veda vyasa and the gaudiya acharyas of kaliyuga which is full of faults now became the final authorities on sanatana dharma? And their books hold more weight than vedas and upanishads??

It is not about faults and weight, it is about interpretation of the scriptures.


regards

brahma jijnasa
07 July 2014, 06:28 AM
Namaste

Dualistic worship is condemned in Shruti and Smruti.

"That is my Atma. In this way one should worship God" ( B. U. 2.5.19)

" Those who worship God thinking I'm another, he's another, doesn't know. He's like an animal " ( B.U. 1.4.10 )

" All insults those who see the self different from everything " (B.U. 2.4.6)

" Samata (Oneness) alone is the true worship of Vishnu" ( Vishnu Purana 1.17.90)

" This world is the manifestation of SarvaBhuta Vishnu. So Dnyani should see this world or Vishnu indifferent from the self" ( Vishnu Purana 1.17.84 )

These verses speak more than words...


This is your idea and your like minded people of what these statements say. But Vaishnavas understand these statements differently.
This is a vaishnava forum, don't forget that.


regards

ganeshamylord
07 July 2014, 11:37 AM
Namaste


It is not about faults and weight, it is about interpretation of the scriptures.


regards


Namaste

It amuses me when people who dont even know the shape of earth go and start to write "scriptures" describing the structure of the universe and then demand that we have to believe it "as it is":Roll:

Samraat Bhismadeva Maurya
07 July 2014, 11:13 PM
Namaste

It amuses me when people who dont even know the shape of earth go and start to write "scriptures" describing the structure of the universe and then demand that we have to believe it "as it is":Roll:

Hari Bol!

What? How does he not know the shape of the earth? Where did you get that from!?

hinduism♥krishna
08 July 2014, 01:28 AM
Pranam king Samraat :)




Why cant we accept Krsna and Vishnu are one

I've looked into every Purana. All Puranas mentioned Krishna as Avatara of Vishnu/Narayana. Avatara doesn't mean someone is lower but it is called as descending of Bhagavan to establish Dharma. In case of Krishna Avatara, Vishnu was descended in the form of human with two arms. But this doesn't imply that krishna is lower than vishnu.



Please correct me if i am wrong, but is it that the path to Vishnu is through worship and the path to Krsna is through love and emotion?.

Not at all ! Krishna is Vishnu and Vishnu is Krishna. Worshipers and devotees worships and devotees to both forms. However if Krishna is just an transformation of Vishnu in two hands, why would you ask this?


Krsna is supreme personality of god? And Vishnu is supreme form of God?

Personality of God is refuted by Bhagavan himself in BG, by saying "Unintelligents consider me a person" " BG 8.21- Unmanifested (impersonal) is my supreme abode" BG 7.24 - "Unintelligents consider me who is unmanifested, as having a tainted form (personal).


If Vishnu and Krishna are the same then being an Avatara makes one no more or less superior.

The fact is that Krishna is amsha avatara of Vishnu. Amsha doesn't mean something is lower. Would you consider part of Infinite?

brahma jijnasa
08 July 2014, 10:47 PM
Namaste

As I see, Adi Shankara's vaishnawism is the oldest and pure traditional vaishnawism, much older than Madhavacharya's vaishnawism. It is free from any adulteration.

There is one funny thing about that what you call "Adi Shankara's vaishnawism is the oldest and pure traditional vaishnawism" and "It is free from any adulteration".
This Adi Shankara's vaishnavism and his philosophy is rejected by all vaishnava acaryas and vaishnava traditions.
Do not forget to mention that because we are now here in the vaishnava forum "Hare Krishna (ISKCON)". :)
So much about "It is free from any adulteration".


He composed Bhaja Govindam to shower mercy on advaita-vaishnawas not for those who see vishnu different from the self.

Not one Vaishnava see Lord Vishnu different from His Self because every Vaishnava knows that Lord Vishnu, the Person, who is the Supreme God is the Self!
It is only your own idea and your like minded people's idea that vaishnavas think that Lord Vishnu is different from the Self.


regards

ganeshamylord
08 July 2014, 10:52 PM
[quote=brahma jijnasa;117633]Namaste


There is one funny thing about that what you call "Adi Shankara's vaishnawism is the oldest and pure traditional vaishnawism" and "It is free from any adulteration".
This Adi Shankara's vaishnavism and his philosophy is rejected by all vaishnava acaryas and vaishnava traditions.
Do not forget to mention that because we are now here in the vaishnava forum "Hare Krishna (ISKCON)". :)
So much about "It is free from any adulteration".
____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______
Namaste

You do know that the bhakti tradition came much later in Sanatana Dharma right? I know we are in hare krishna forum but that doesnt mean we can twist the facts to suit our convenience:)
Adi shankara was the one who revived Sanatana Dharma from the hands of buddhists and bhakti traditions emerged much much later.

brahma jijnasa
08 July 2014, 11:24 PM
Namaste



Namaste

You do know that the bhakti tradition came much later in Sanatana Dharma right? I know we are in hare krishna forum but that doesnt mean we can twist the facts to suit our convenience:)
Adi shankara was the one who revived Sanatana Dharma from the hands of buddhists and bhakti traditions emerged much much later.

Are you sure about that?
Even in the Rig Veda there are verses in praise of Lord Vishnu. Isn't that bhakti?
There are Mahabharata, Puranas, etc, all describe bhakti. It would be artificial to think that despite all these descriptions Vaishnavas did not exist. Not only that but the word "Vaishnava" can be found mentioned in many scriptures!
There are even archaeological evidences to confirm the existence of Vaishnavas in the era BCE. It is the Heliodorus pillar, etc.

All this is much older than Adi Shankara!


regards

ganeshamylord
09 July 2014, 12:18 AM
Namaste

Namaste

Are you sure about that?
Even in the Rig Veda there are verses in praise of Lord Vishnu. Isn't that bhakti?
There are Mahabharata, Puranas, etc, all describe bhakti. It would be artificial to think that despite all these descriptions Vaishnavas did not exist. Not only that but the word "Vaishnava" can be found mentioned in many scriptures!
There are even archaeological evidences to confirm the existence of Vaishnavas in the era BCE. It is the Heliodorus pillar, etc.

All this is much older than Adi Shankara!


regards
Namaste
I said "bhakti" traditions not vaishnava traditions. And i didnot say that sanatana dharma didnot exist i said it got revived after shankaracharya .And vaishnavi word is also mentioned in Durga suktam Mahanarayana upanishad but however in vedas vishnu and vaishnavi meant the all pervading aspects and not the pauranic personal versions of the same just like how rudra of vedas transformed into Shiva of puranas.
And yes the heliodorus pillar was erected during the reign of a buddhist king. However that said the "dominant" religion was also buddhism at that time;.
So what i mean is the traditions of bhakti or the "parampara" systems started after shankaracharya before that Vishnu was the impersonal Para Brahman just as when you read the Bhishma kruta Sahasranama there is no mention of the personal aspect and it highlights Lord as the Supreme impersonal god. Infact advaita is a name of Vishnu.
So "rejecting" shankaracharya means hypocrisy at its best considering he revived sanatana dharma from the onslaught of buddhism.

P.S And i do know this is a hare krishna forum just as i know krishna is a name for shiva also:)

brahma jijnasa
09 July 2014, 01:12 AM
Namaste

I said "bhakti" traditions not vaishnava traditions. And i didnot say that sanatana dharma didnot exist i said it got revived after shankaracharya .And vaishnavi word is also mentioned in Durga suktam Mahanarayana upanishad but however in vedas vishnu and vaishnavi meant the all pervading aspects and not the pauranic personal versions of the same just like how rudra of vedas transformed into Shiva of puranas.
And yes the heliodorus pillar was erected during the reign of a buddhist king. However that said the "dominant" religion was also buddhism at that time;.
So what i mean is the traditions of bhakti or the "parampara" systems started after shankaracharya before that Vishnu was the impersonal Para Brahman just as when you read the Bhishma kruta Sahasranama there is no mention of the personal aspect and it highlights Lord as the Supreme impersonal god. Infact advaita is a name of Vishnu.
So "rejecting" shankaracharya means hypocrisy at its best considering he revived sanatana dharma from the onslaught of buddhism.

P.S And i do know this is a hare krishna forum just as i know krishna is a name for shiva also:)

I see.
So you think that in the era before Shankara Vaishnavism was impersonalist, you think that Vaishnavism was not as explained by vaishnava acaryas such as Ramanuja, Madhvacarya and others?


So what i mean is the traditions of bhakti or the "parampara" systems started after shankaracharya before that Vishnu was the impersonal Para Brahman just as when you read the Bhishma kruta Sahasranama there is no mention of the personal aspect and it highlights Lord as the Supreme impersonal god.I can not agree with that. Also none of Vaishnava traditions agree with this view. Vaishnava faith we know today has always existed and it is exactly this faith that is presented in the scriptures. This is the faith that God is a Person, Brahman, the ultimate goal of all spiritual endeavors.

The name "Shiva" is mentioned as Vishnu's name in the Vishnu sahasra nama in the Mahabharata. ;)


regards

ganeshamylord
09 July 2014, 01:23 AM
Namaste


I see.
So you think that in the era before Shankara Vaishnavism was impersonalist, you think that Vaishnavism was not as explained by vaishnava acaryas such as Ramanuja, Madhvacarya and others?

I can not agree with that. Also none of Vaishnava traditions agree with this view. Vaishnava faith we know today has always existed and it is exactly this faith that is presented in the scriptures. This is the faith that God is a Person, Brahman, the ultimate goal of all spiritual endeavors.

The name "Shiva" is mentioned as Vishnu's name in the Vishnu sahasra nama in the Mahabharata. ;)


regards

Namaste
As far as i recollect my social studies, history books in india state that bhakti traditions started in the last few hundreds of years. Because history books go by facts not faith:) And shankaracharya existed much prior to ramanujacharya and madhavacharya :)
If faith is a prerequisite then there is no limit to what people believe or disbelieve.
And yes 127th name of Shiva is krishna:) And vishnu is a name for shiva and ganesha too:)

brahma jijnasa
09 July 2014, 01:38 AM
Namaste

Personality of God is refuted by Bhagavan himself in BG, by saying "Unintelligents consider me a person" " BG 8.21- Unmanifested (impersonal) is my supreme abode" BG 7.24 - "Unintelligents consider me who is unmanifested, as having a tainted form (personal).

This is completely wrong. Personality of God is not refuted nowhere in the scriptures!
Your translations are false!


regards

brahma jijnasa
09 July 2014, 01:48 AM
Namaste

Namaste
As far as i recollect my social studies, history books in india state that bhakti traditions started in the last few hundreds of years. Because history books go by facts not faith:) And shankaracharya existed much prior to ramanujacharya and madhavacharya :)
If faith is a prerequisite then there is no limit to what people believe or disbelieve.

Your history books are wrong. :)


regards

Samraat Bhismadeva Maurya
09 July 2014, 01:49 AM
Hari Bol!


Namaste
As far as i recollect my social studies, history books in india state that bhakti traditions started in the last few hundreds of years.

Bhakti yoga is considered by some to be the oldest form of yoga with its roots in the Vedas, or ancient scriptures of India. Some of the hymns in the Vedas are thought to be four thousand years old. However, Bhakti yoga did not emerge as a distinct form of yoga until about 500 B.C, this however, does not mean it didn't exist before 500 B.C. i.e. Aeneas of Troy founded Roman culture, but Rome only became a geo-politcal entity in 753BC, doesn't mean Romans didn't exist before that.

What you talk about is the popularisation and preaching of the Bhakti Movement, however, Bhakti Yoga has been there for 1000's of years


If faith is a prerequisite then there is no limit to what people believe or disbelieve.
And yes 127th name of Shiva is krishna And vishnu is a name for shiva and ganesha too

So Shiva and Ganesha are also avataras of Vishnu and Krsna?


I've looked into every Purana. All Puranas mentioned Krishna as Avatara of Vishnu/Narayana. Avatara doesn't mean someone is lower but it is called as descending of Bhagavan to establish Dharma. In case of Krishna Avatara, Vishnu was descended in the form of human with two arms. But this doesn't imply that krishna is lower than vishnu.

So Krsna is an avatara of Vishnu, Vaishnavisim and Gaudiya Vaishnavisim are the same, whats the problem, if there is, then why so and if there is a distinct difference between Vaishnavisim and Gaudiya Vaishnavisim apart from the Name, please tell me.

ganeshamylord
09 July 2014, 02:43 AM
Namaste


Your history books are wrong. :)


regards

Namaste
Shankaracharya 788 -822 CE
Ramanuja 1017–1137 CE
Madhavacharya (1238–1307 CE)

hinduism♥krishna
09 July 2014, 02:53 AM
Namaste
Shankaracharya 788 -822 CE


Pranam,
This is not correct I think. According to traditional belief he was existed in 5th century.


Namaste
Shankaracharya 788 -822 CE
Ramanuja 1017–1137 CE
Madhavacharya (1238–1307 CE)

The only think we can conclude here that as far as we know we can say that Adi Shankara's vaishnawism is the oldest and traditional Vaishnawism known today.

brahma jijnasa
09 July 2014, 03:14 AM
Namaste

Hari Bol!

Thank you very much for your input, it has helped a lot.

This is why we cant take over the world :P There is so much disagreement and misunderstandings.
Why cant we accept Krsna and Vishnu are one, i had always thought they were the same but the paths different,
Please correct me if i am wrong, but is it that the path to Vishnu is through worship and the path to Krsna is through love and emotion?. Krsna is supreme personality of god? And Vishnu is supreme form of God?
If Vishnu and Krishna are the same then being an Avatara makes one no more or less superior.

Thank you,

Jai Sri Radhe-Syam!

Dear Samraat Bhismadeva Maurya

since you mentioned that you're only 14 years old it is hardly surprising that you're confused with all this. I have already explained in previous posts in this thread what is the relationship between Vishnu and Krishna. Go through my previous posts and see what I said there.
See, it is not clear even to many other participants of this forum although they are much older than you, so how then it can be clear to someone who is just 14. Wait until you're 18 or 19 and then many things will be much clearer than now.
I remember you mentioned in your first post when you become a member of the forum that you are a Gaudiya vaishnava (Iskcon). If you want to learn about this faith then read Srila Prabhupada's (A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami) books and watch from whom you will learn here in the HDF forums because here there are many who do not know much about the Vaishnava faith or do not know specifically about Gaudiya vaishnava faith.
As far as I can see on the HDF there are not many people who know Vaishnava faith very well.


regards

ganeshamylord
09 July 2014, 03:16 AM
Namaste


This is completely wrong. Personality of God is not refuted nowhere in the scriptures!
Your translations are false!


regards

Namaste
If his translations are false why dont you give the correct translations of Bg 7.24 and 8.21. And unlike yours what he says are quotes from the scriptures and not his personal opinions ,,like your opinion that ramanujacharya and madhavacharya existed before shankaracharya :P

brahma jijnasa
09 July 2014, 03:41 AM
Namaste

Namaste
If his translations are false why dont you give the correct translations of Bg 7.24 and 8.21. And unlike yours what he says are quotes from the scriptures and not his personal opinions ,,like your opinion that ramanujacharya and madhavacharya existed before shankaracharya :P

Regarding translations.
The correct ones are those that are translated by vaishnava translators and vaishnava commentators who explained them.

Regarding "opinion that ramanujacharya and madhavacharya existed before shankaracharya".
I did not say that. I said that the Vaishnava bhakti faith as we know it today -- a faith that Brahman is the supreme Person -- existed long before Shankara.


regards

ganeshamylord
09 July 2014, 03:43 AM
Namaste


Regarding translations.
The correct ones are those that are translated by vaishnava translators and vaishnava commentators who explained them.

Regarding "opinion that ramanujacharya and madhavacharya existed before shankaracharya".
I did not say that. I said that the Vaishnava bhakti faith as we know it today -- a faith that Brahman is the supreme Person -- existed long before Shankara.


regards
Namaste
"So you think that in the era before Shankara Vaishnavism was impersonalist, you think that Vaishnavism was not as explained by vaishnava acaryas such as Ramanuja, Madhvacarya and others?" was what you said. I am not a vaishnavaite:P so i dont know how else to intepret this straight statement.

And please give the translation of those two quotes as per your sampradaya system and try to enlighten us

hinduism♥krishna
09 July 2014, 04:06 AM
Namaste I said that the Vaishnava bhakti faith as we know it today -- a faith that Brahman is the supreme Person -- existed long before Shankara.


Pranam Brahma Jijanasa, no one denies that Vishnu is Supreme Brahamn and I think Supreme person doesn't mean Supreme form or man. It is "Param Purusha". In Sanskrit, Purusha means who has entered into Pura [ city ]. As Param Purusha has entered into the city of Prakruti, he has divided himself in countless Jivas by his own sport, he's known as Param Purusha. I only want to say that you can not copyright vaishnawism to some sects only.

Hari himself declares who is the best devotee:

Hari said – “ One who sees God in all the beings and all the beings in God as well as within himself is the best Bhagawata. (devotee of Bhagwan)” [ BP 11.2.45]


" Atman is Himself what is created as the Universe and the creator as the Atman only in the form of Ishwara, one with it, by whom it is coming into existence. He protects it, it is protected by Him as Vishwatma, the All-pervading God, and He also sums up and withdraws it in Himself. Therefore there is nothing else but Atman, described to be Reality. All these things coming, existing or ending – the three states only falsely appear on the true base of Atman." [BP 11.28.6-7]


"One who thinks himself different from the lord, loses the memory of his real self, due to His Maya, and falls prey to the mistaken belief that he is the body. He is then seized by the fear caused by duality, which is the identification with “other” thing than the self. Therefore, the wise should worship God by only the devotion believing that he himself as Atman, his Guru and the God are one!" [BP 11.2.37]

यन्मनसा न मनुते येनाहु: मनो मतम् ।
तदेव ब्रम्ह त्वं विद्धि नेदं यदिदमुपासते । kenopanishad 1.5 ।

" That which is not thought by mind but by which mind thinks, know this alone to be Brahman, not that which is being worshiped here "
As I see from Bhagavata Puruna, Vaishnawism means seeing Bhagavan as omnipresent Brahman, not just in form. Seeing him as our self is the authentic worship prescribed in Bhagavata. Oneness is his true worship. Seeing all beings in the self and the self in all beings is what is vaishnawism of Bhagavata. Vaishnawa doesn't see in any difference between Atma,Guru and Ishwara.


Thus Vishnu who is supreme lord should be worshipped, seeing him the self of all Jivas. This is the ultimate Vaishnawism as I know.



Hari NARAYANA

brahma jijnasa
09 July 2014, 04:12 AM
Namaste

Namaste
And please give the translation of those two quotes as per your sampradaya system and try to enlighten us

If you truly want to become enlightened :) ...

See any Vaishnava translation and commentary from some of the mainstream vaishnava sampradayas. Gaudiya vaishnava translation and commentary / explanation see at BBT (Bhaktivedanta Book Trust) books or vedabase, it is online.


regards

brahma jijnasa
09 July 2014, 04:23 AM
Namaste



Pranam Brahma Jijanasa, no one denies that Vishnu is Supreme Brahamn and I think Supreme person doesn't mean Supreme form or man. It is "Param Purusha". In Sanskrit, Purusha means who has entered into Pura [ city ]. As Param Purusha has entered into the city of Prakruti, he has divided himself in countless Jivas by his own sport, he's known as Param Purusha. I only want to say that you can not copyright vaishnawism to some sects only.
... ...

Well then, you believe in your faith, but these are the Vaishnava forums for mainstream Vaishnavas and not for "Advaitic" vaishnavas.


regards

Samraat Bhismadeva Maurya
05 August 2014, 04:47 AM
Hari Bol!

Dandavats all,

Perhaps the only difference is the Dham's and the final goal?

Vaikuntha dham is predominated by opulence and Goloka is predominated by Sweetness?

But this does not mean souls in Vaikuntha are subject to passion, here is a verse from Bhagavatam.

3.15.20

yat saṅkulaṁ hari-padānati-mātra-dṛṣṭair
vaidūrya-mārakata-hema-mayair vimānaiḥ
yeṣāṁ bṛhat-kaṭi-taṭāḥ smita-śobhi-mukhyaḥ
kṛṣṇātmanāṁ na raja ādadhur utsmayādyaiḥ

The inhabitants of Vaikuṇṭha travel in their airplanes made of lapis lazuli, emerald and gold. Although crowded by their consorts, who have large hips and beautiful smiling faces, they cannot be stimulated to passion by their mirth and beautiful charms.

Prabhupada's Purport

In the material world, opulences are achieved by materialistic persons by dint of their labor. One cannot enjoy material prosperity unless he works very hard to achieve it. But the devotees of the Lord who are residents of Vaikuṇṭha have the opportunity to enjoy a transcendental situation of jewels and emeralds. Ornaments made of gold bedecked with jewels are achieved not by working hard but by the benediction of the Lord. In other words, devotees in the Vaikuṇṭha world, or even in this material world, cannot be poverty-stricken, as is sometimes supposed. They have ample opulences for enjoyment, but they need not labor to achieve them. It is also stated that in the Vaikuṇṭha world the consorts of the residents are many, many times more beautiful than we can find in this material world, even in the higher planets. It is specifically mentioned here that a woman’s large hips are very attractive and they stimulate man’s passion, but the wonderful feature of Vaikuṇṭha is that although the women have large hips and beautiful faces and are decorated with ornaments of emeralds and jewels, the men are so absorbed in Kṛṣṇa consciousness that the beautiful bodies of the women cannot attract them. In other words, there is enjoyment of the association of the opposite sex, but there is no sexual relationship. The residents of Vaikuṇṭha have a better standard of pleasure, so there is no need of sex pleasure.

Is this so?

Thank you,

Jai Sri Radhe-Syam!

brahma jijnasa
06 August 2014, 03:21 PM
Namaste

Hari Bol!

Dandavats all,

Perhaps the only difference is the Dham's and the final goal?

Vaikuntha dham is predominated by opulence and Goloka is predominated by Sweetness?

But this does not mean souls in Vaikuntha are subject to passion, here is a verse from Bhagavatam.

... ...

Is this so?

Thank you,

Jai Sri Radhe-Syam!

That's right, there are no passion in Vaikuntha.


regards

Samraat Bhismadeva Maurya
07 August 2014, 02:14 AM
Namaste


That's right, there are no passion in Vaikuntha.


regards

Hari Bol!

No i asked, if the only difference between Vishnu and Krishna are the Dham's?

grames
07 August 2014, 01:39 PM
Dear.,

There is no difference between Lord Vishnu and Lord Krshna as it is the very same Krshna who is Vishnu! (Trying to find difference in Lord and His forms results in eternal damnation as per one Vaishnava Tradition and few purana vakyas)

The difference is in the Dham's and not in the "Lord" but Lord chooses to display/exhibit certain "qualities" of Him on His own volition for His very own purpose! Understand that, Vaikunta exist for different manifestation of Lord and to engage in experiencing such manifested qualities of Lord!

Hare Krshna!

brahma jijnasa
07 August 2014, 09:44 PM
Namaste

Hari Bol!

No i asked, if the only difference between Vishnu and Krishna are the Dham's?

Grames answered your question, but that does not mean we should not see any difference in various forms of the Lord.

Brahman or the Supreme is one, but he appears in many different eternal forms as Narayana, Rama, Krishna, Balarama, Sankarshana, etc.
The difference between them is reflected in many ways. Their physical features are different, for example Lord Krishna has two hands while Lord Narayana has four hands and Lord Krishna is playing the flute and dancing with the gopis, while Lord Narayana is never mentioned to playing the flute and dancing with the gopis. Have you ever heard that in some scripture Lord Varaha (Boar) is mentioned as dancing with the gopis? :)
So this various forms of the Lord are different in various ways, their physical features are different, their activities or pastimes (lilas) are different, even their names are different (Narayana, Rama, Krishna, Balarama, ... etc), their respective abodes and consorts are different (Narayana resides in Vaikuntha along with his eternal consort Lakshmi, while Krishna resides in Goloka along with his eternal consort Radha), their entourage is different (eg gopis and gopas are not associated with Narayana, but are associated with Krishna). Even some other specifics may be different such as rasas (the taste, the feeling or sentiment), or as you mentioned Vaikuntha is predominated by opulence and Goloka is predominated by Sweetness.

Yet another difference is between Them, as we have already discussed in the previous posts in this thread.
Lord Krishna is the complete whole to the maximum completeness and therefore He can not be anyone's part (aṁśa) or avatara, while everyone else are His parts (aṁśa) or avataras: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=117943#post117943


regards

Believer
08 August 2014, 01:04 AM
Namaste,



Lord Krishna is the complete whole to the maximum completeness and therefore He can not be anyone's part (aṁśa) or avatara, while everyone else are His parts (aṁśa) or avataras:
Do I understand it correctly that different incarnations of the God in His earthly form are different in their capabilities, since they are not His "complete" form? Does God leave some of His potencies behind in His celestial abode when He chooses to appear among us? And, why is that? Is it like packing your clothes for a trip - you take some with you and leave the rest at home? Would it be extra effort to bring along all His potencies? Is the Lord not capable of doing that, and must pick and choose as to what to take with Him for His earthly appearance? If He could bring along all His potencies all the time, then He would be "complete" in all his avataars - earthly or celestial - and there would be no reason for this mindless discussion! And who decides in which avataar He is "complete"?

Who all voted to give this discussion a 4 star rating? Time to give the tired old keyboard some rest and step out to get some fresh air.

Pranam.

grames
08 August 2014, 11:20 AM
Dear brahma jijnasa.,

It is very dangerous and also fruitless effort to attempt to find "differences" in various forms of Lord on the basis of what "He" has done in such forms that He has manifested! At least for Gaudiyas, all the forms of Lord are Vishnu Tattva - meaning no difference on the basis of "Tattva"!

The 'Rasa' or the mellows that Lord has "Chosen" to express is on His own volition and we cannot take a meaning like "Lord NraShima cannot play flute" - This leads no where but amounts to committing a sin as you are imparting a dosha to the Lord ( as He is incapable). So, for RasaVadins, Lord Krshna is the Svyam Bagavan as He has expressing all of His mellows in this form and thus the most suitable form to engage with (for the Madurya etc). This understanding should not be confused or adulterated with "Finding differences in His different Avatars" as all of them are Him!

Hare Krshna!

Amrut
08 August 2014, 11:31 AM
|| Hari OM ||


Namaste,


Do I understand it correctly that different incarnations of the God in His earthly form are different in their capabilities, since they are not His "complete" form? Does God leave some of His potencies behind in His celestial abode when He chooses to appear among us? And, why is that? Is it like packing your clothes for a trip - you take some with you and leave the rest at home? Would it be extra effort to bring along all His potencies? Is the Lord not capable of doing that, and must pick and choose as to what to take with Him for His earthly appearance? If He could bring along all His potencies all the time, then He would be "complete" in all his avataars - earthly or celestial - and there would be no reason for this mindless discussion! And who decides in which avataar He is "complete"?

Who all voted to give this discussion a 4 star rating? Give your keyboard some rest and get a life.

Pranam.

Nice thoughts


Dear brahma jijnasa.,

It is very dangerous and also fruitless effort to attempt to find "differences" in various forms of Lord on the basis of what "He" has done in such forms that He has manifested! At least for Gaudiyas, all the forms of Lord are Vishnu Tattva - meaning no difference on the basis of "Tattva"!

The 'Rasa' or the mellows that Lord has "Chosen" to express is on His own volition and we cannot take a meaning like "Lord NraShima cannot play flute" - This leads no where but amounts to committing a sin as you are imparting a dosha to the Lord ( as He is incapable). So, for RasaVadins, Lord Krshna is the Svyam Bagavan as He has expressing all of His mellows in this form and thus the most suitable form to engage with (for the Madurya etc). This understanding should not be confused or adulterated with "Finding differences in His different Avatars" as all of them are Him!

Hare Krshna!

+1, true, very true.

Nice message

Not doing something does not mean not capable. Take form that suits you.

Jai Shri Rama

brahma jijnasa
08 August 2014, 09:54 PM
Namaste Grames

Dear brahma jijnasa.,

It is very dangerous and also fruitless effort to attempt to find "differences" in various forms of Lord on the basis of what "He" has done in such forms that He has manifested! At least for Gaudiyas, all the forms of Lord are Vishnu Tattva - meaning no difference on the basis of "Tattva"!

The 'Rasa' or the mellows that Lord has "Chosen" to express is on His own volition and we cannot take a meaning like "Lord NraShima cannot play flute" - This leads no where but amounts to committing a sin as you are imparting a dosha to the Lord ( as He is incapable). So, for RasaVadins, Lord Krshna is the Svyam Bagavan as He has expressing all of His mellows in this form and thus the most suitable form to engage with (for the Madurya etc). This understanding should not be confused or adulterated with "Finding differences in His different Avatars" as all of them are Him!

Hare Krshna!

I agree with you. I have not made ​​any differentiating on the level of tattva when I talked about various forms of the Lord in the previous post. They are all Vishnu tattva, the Supreme Lord. No doubt about it!
However my point was different. I said that it's not wrong to see the difference in various forms of the Lord in terms of their physical appearance, name, pastimes, rasas, entourage, etc. Please read my post carefully. Why we should not observe such differences in different forms of the Lord when these differences are clearly outlined in the scriptures? There is no reasons for that.

Regarding rasas.
I have not imparting a deficiency in the Lord like you said "Lord NraShima cannot play flute" or the like. However still the fact remains that eg Lord Varaha (Boar) or Lord Nrisimha have never been mentioned as dancing with the gopis or playing the flute anywhere in the scriptures.


regards

Viraja
09 August 2014, 12:43 PM
Namaste friends,

It actually appears that the Lord Sriman Narayana purposefully did leave behind some of his kalas to differentiate between his avataras. Though Sri Rama and Sri Krishna avataras are both considered purnavataras, it is said bhagwan comes in his Krishna avatara with all of his 16 kalas whereas in Ramavatara, he comes only with 14 kalas, with 2 of the kalas hidden so that Sri Rama will behave and feel himself to be a common man. If one is interested in knowing all the kalas, it can be viewed here. (https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110224063924AAp8iZ2) This, even though, Sri Rama is known to be the perfect man that ever lived. And in other avataras, namely Parasurama and Balarama, Sriman Narayana is said to have transferred his shakti into some well-deserving Atmas (who are not himself) and made them be born with some of his qualities, these avataras are known as 'Gauna Avataras' and are not to be worshiped by those well-versed in Shastras (Swami Velukkudi Krishnan).

And there is no need to mention how the different avataras of bhagwan differ in their rasa. Sri Krishna's is one of playfulness, of immense charm. Sri Rama's is one of seriouness, of being dispassionate. It is even described Sri Rama was too serious about 'Acharam' (maintaining purity of being) whereas Sri Krishna was more of an easy-going type, not too particular about Acharam. Isn't this why some people like Sri Rama while some people like Sri Krishna? (And so goes the list).

Regards,

Viraja

Believer
09 August 2014, 01:21 PM
Namaste,

However still the fact remains that eg Lord Varaha (Boar) or Lord Nrisimha have never been mentioned as dancing with the gopis or playing the flute anywhere in the scriptures.
Does 'not doing' something in an avatar translate to 'not being able' to do it and therefore not being the 'complete' avatar?


It is even described Sri Rama was too serious about 'Acharam' (maintaining purity of being) whereas Sri Krishna was more of an easy-going type, not too particular about Acharam.

Does an easy-going style compromise the 'maintaining purity of being'? :)

Pranam.

Viraja
09 August 2014, 02:04 PM
Does an easy-going style compromise the 'maintaining purity of being'? :)

Pranam.

I think not. Because by 'Acharam', it is meant to denote the external ritualistic purification done by precisely the Brahmin community, without which it is viewed by a sin to worship god. This includes such factors as not touching those who did not bathe (after one takes a dip in a holy river) and worshiping god only upon this condition being met. (If not, that is, if someone happens to touch the clothes of someone who hasn't bathed, they would bathe again to get purified again).. Sri Rama being born of 'sUrya-kUla' is deemed very strict in maintaining this external purity, but Sri Krishna did not feel it important. Probably I guess Sri Krishna's worship at Dwapara yuga was vastly different from Sri Rama's worship at Treta yuga!

brahma jijnasa
11 August 2014, 09:20 AM
Namaste


Do I understand it correctly that different incarnations of the God in His earthly form are different in their capabilities, since they are not His "complete" form? Does God leave some of His potencies behind in His celestial abode when He chooses to appear among us? And, why is that? Is it like packing your clothes for a trip - you take some with you and leave the rest at home? Would it be extra effort to bring along all His potencies? Is the Lord not capable of doing that, and must pick and choose as to what to take with Him for His earthly appearance? If He could bring along all His potencies all the time, then He would be "complete" in all his avataars - earthly or celestial - and there would be no reason for this mindless discussion! And who decides in which avataar He is "complete"?

Does 'not doing' something in an avatar translate to 'not being able' to do it and therefore not being the 'complete' avatar?

No. The Supreme Lord is the Supreme Lord in each of his appearances. It is said that He is omnipotent. Being omnipotent He is able to do whatever He wants to. So there is no question that He is 'not being able' to do something. In some of His appearances He willingly chooses to do something He wants to do, and also He willingly chooses not to do something. But even this has nothing to do with not being the 'complete' avatara!
When is He complete avatara, and when is He more complete or even the most complete? How do we know in which form He is the most complete and when He is not? We know from the scriptures.
An excerpt from the Garga samhita is one such typical example which tells us that Lord Krishna is the most complete form of the Supreme Lord, see at http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=97144#post97144


regards

grames
11 August 2014, 04:03 PM
Dear brahma jijnasa.,


I said that it's not wrong to see the difference in various forms of the Lord in terms of their physical appearance, name, pastimes, rasas, entourage, etc. Please read my post carefully.

I do understand and this is our challenge with regards to understanding Him as One with out any differences! OTOH, we are stating He is Vishnu Tattva but immediately following that statement, you are listing differences. :P. You may wonder, what is it that is special here about Lord and how can i not see the differences though He appears to be "Different".

We call this as His Vishesha - its a topic not for kanistha adhikarins and i believe you either already know or will know very soon the play of the lalla, The One!

Hare Krshna!

brahma jijnasa
11 August 2014, 05:17 PM
Namaste

... we are stating He is Vishnu Tattva but immediately following that statement, you are listing differences. ...

We call this as His Vishesha - its a topic not for kanistha adhikarins and i believe you either already know or will know very soon the play of the lalla, The One!

Well then, let kanistha adhikaris first learn the philosophy of how He is the one only, but appears in many forms that are different. ;)
As it's said eko 'pi san bahudhā yo 'vabhāti: "Krishna is one, but He is manifested in unlimited forms and expanded incarnations." (Gopala-tapani Upanishad)


-----------
- kanistha adhikari - one who is at the initial stage of understanding of the spiritual knowledge
- Gopala-tapani Upanishad quote see at BBT, vedabase, Bhagavad-gita As It Is 11.54, purport


regards

ameyAtmA
12 August 2014, 02:18 AM
Hey, what are you all debating for? It should not happen that this thread is too engrossed in this discussion and forgets to notice....

KAnho GokuL Ayo hai!!
(Baby KRshNa has arrived (is arriving) in GokuL [soon].

Let us go take a look instead.

braj me rAsa rachAyo hai!!

HAthi ghodA pAlkhi jay kanhaiyA lAl kI
koTi bramhAnda ke adhipati LAl kI
gayyA charAne aye jai ho braja-gopAl kI

( Victory to the little KRshNa Who presides over a zillion universes and takes cows out to graze in the pastures In the joy of whose coming to town His father give away elephants, horses and palanquins)

markandeya 108 dasa
12 August 2014, 06:16 AM
Pranams,

If I understand it right in theory, as full realization would be very difficult, maybe that's part of the enjoyment of transcendence to never really come to a conclusion on matters that are acintya, inconceivable. We may want to reflect on some of the qualities of what Gaudiya Vaishnavism describes as the Godhead, Omnipresence, Omnipotent and Omniscience, when we include these qualities in our internal browsing to understand the nature of Godhead things can be a little more clear and we can then approach a small level of understanding acintya shakti.

There is no reason for the form of Narasingha to enter the past times of Gokula, because He is already there in the form of Syamasundara . If we think that these forms of Vishnu are not conscious of each other simultaneously at all times then we are limiting the Godhead to relative laws of human conditioning. Mind and intelligence cannot understand Godhead, consciousness can. Godhead does not lose consciousness of his other expansions, its all his lila and each lila has purpose and function.

More times than not we lose our ability to understand the approach of transcendence because we do not use our ability to think and reflect, we recite and repeat, but hidden inside this process is the ability of consciousness that includes mystic wonder, introspect.

I hope I added something of value.

Ys

Md

grames
12 August 2014, 11:56 AM
dear brahma jijnasa

Please don't take that remark offensive and my apologies if it sounded rude. If you search in this forum for posts by Smaranam Prabhu, you will get a glimpse of this beauty of Krshna and His leelamrta!

Hare Krshna!

grames
12 August 2014, 02:15 PM
Namaste,

I am getting what you are saying... Vaishnavas do not believe Lord can be understood by our own efforts or merits and however great it may be....He can be understandable only by His grace! ( DharmaBhuta Janana is also His gift - This is the real Janana for every jiva)

Hare Krshna!

brahma jijnasa
12 August 2014, 11:34 PM
Namaste

There is no reason for the form of Narasingha to enter the past times of Gokula, because He is already there in the form of Syamasundara .

Exactly. :)
Why would Lord Nrisimha played the flute and dancing with the gopis when He does so there in Gokula in the form of Lord Krishna? For Lord Nrisimha is that same Supreme Lord - Krishna!
For this reason the scriptures such as Gopala-tapani Upanishad say that He is one, but He is manifested in many forms: eko 'pi san bahudhā yo 'vabhāti.


regards

markandeya 108 dasa
18 August 2014, 03:05 PM
Pranams grames,


Namaste,

I am getting what you are saying... Vaishnavas do not believe Lord can be understood by our own efforts or merits and however great it may be....He can be understandable only by His grace! ( DharmaBhuta Janana is also His gift - This is the real Janana for every jiva)

Hare Krshna!

Exactly :) , for my own study I often like to keep the word acintya at the back of mind, it keeps it more interesting. We have a lot to look forward once taken seriously, such a huge subject with defies our limited intelligence which forces us to go deeper into conscious understanding.

Ys
Md