Vishnu or Krishna?

[brahma jijnasa]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Namaste


Your history books are wrong.


regards

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

[hinduism♥krishna]

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]

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