Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 97

Thread: Vishnu or Krishna?

  1. #21

    Re: Vishnu or Krishna?

    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

  2. #22
    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
    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.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    usa,iowa
    Age
    31
    Posts
    133
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Vishnu or Krishna?

    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, 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, Viṣṇu, Śiva or the living entities in general to be separate from the Supreme, and who knows 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

  4. #24
    Join Date
    November 2013
    Posts
    157
    Rep Power
    271

    Re: Vishnu or Krishna?

    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

  5. #25
    Join Date
    December 2012
    Posts
    552
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Vishnu or Krishna?

    Quote Originally Posted by ameyAtmA View Post
    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

  6. #26
    Join Date
    November 2013
    Posts
    157
    Rep Power
    271

    Re: Vishnu or Krishna?

    Quote Originally Posted by brahma jijnasa View Post


    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.
    Last edited by ameyAtmA; 05 July 2014 at 04:08 PM.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    June 2013
    Location
    श्रीवर्धन
    Age
    25
    Posts
    570
    Rep Power
    1114

    Re: Vishnu or Krishna?

    Quote Originally Posted by ameyAtmA View Post
    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?

  8. #28
    Join Date
    December 2012
    Posts
    552
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Vishnu or Krishna?

    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 and


    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/sho...377#post110377

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


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


    regards

  9. #29
    Join Date
    June 2013
    Location
    श्रीवर्धन
    Age
    25
    Posts
    570
    Rep Power
    1114

    Re: Vishnu or Krishna?

    Namaste Brahma Jijnasa

    Quote Originally Posted by brahma jijnasa View Post
    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

    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

    When you start to think about it anything you can get will be this: Confusion and
    There 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.
    Last edited by hinduism♥krishna; 06 July 2014 at 05:42 AM.
    Hari On!

  10. #30

    Re: Vishnu or Krishna?

    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

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
  •