Vishnu or Krishna?

[brahma jijnasa]

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/sho...943#post117943


regards

[Believer]

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]

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]

|| 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]

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]

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. 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]

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]

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]

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/sho...7144#post97144


regards

[grames]

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!