Originally Posted by
brahma jijnasa
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 PersonalityThe 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.
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.
Bookmarks