Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 97

Thread: Vishnu or Krishna?

  1. #11

    Re: Vishnu or Krishna?

    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

  2. #12
    Join Date
    December 2012
    Posts
    552
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Vishnu or Krishna?

    Namaste
    Quote Originally Posted by Samraat Bhismadeva Maurya View Post
    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

  3. #13
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    usa,iowa
    Age
    31
    Posts
    133
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Vishnu or Krishna?

    Quote Originally Posted by brahma jijnasa View Post
    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?

  4. #14
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    usa,iowa
    Age
    31
    Posts
    133
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Vishnu or Krishna?

    Quote Originally Posted by markandeya 108 dasa View Post
    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

  5. #15
    Join Date
    June 2013
    Location
    श्रीवर्धन
    Age
    25
    Posts
    570
    Rep Power
    1114

    Re: Vishnu or Krishna?

    Quote Originally Posted by brahma jijnasa View Post

    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.



    Quote Originally Posted by SKR108
    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.
    Last edited by hinduism♥krishna; 03 July 2014 at 03:42 AM.

  6. #16

    Re: Vishnu or Krishna?

    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
    Last edited by markandeya 108 dasa; 03 July 2014 at 05:09 AM.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    June 2013
    Location
    श्रीवर्धन
    Age
    25
    Posts
    570
    Rep Power
    1114

    Re: Vishnu or Krishna?

    Pranam Markendeya.

    Quote Originally Posted by markandeya 108 dasa View Post
    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.
    Hari On!

  8. #18

    Re: Vishnu or Krishna?

    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......_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

  9. #19

    Re: Vishnu or Krishna?

    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,
    Things to remember:

    1. Life = yajña
    2. Depth of Āstika knowledge is directly proportional
    to the richness of Sanskrit it is written in
    3. Āstika = Bhārata ("east") / Ārya ("west")
    4. Varṇa = tripartite division of Vedic polity
    5. r = c. x²
    where,
    r = realisation
    constant c = intelligence
    variable x = bhakti

  10. #20
    Join Date
    June 2013
    Location
    श्रीवर्धन
    Age
    25
    Posts
    570
    Rep Power
    1114

    Re: Vishnu or Krishna?

    Quote Originally Posted by markandeya 108 dasa View Post

    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.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Sita is Sri Kamakshi Amman..
    By Viraja in forum Vaishnava
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 01 February 2016, 07:02 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 28 May 2014, 12:39 PM
  3. Shri Rudra - Sankarshana Moorti Swaroopo ??
    By giridhar in forum Shaiva
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10 July 2011, 06:27 AM
  4. Shiva and Vishnu are the same.
    By bhargavsai in forum God in Hindu Dharma
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12 February 2008, 07:55 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •