Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 51

Thread: Anu geeta- The proof of Narayana supervising Krishna?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    usa,iowa
    Age
    36
    Posts
    133
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Anu geeta- The proof of Narayana supervising Krishna?

    Quote Originally Posted by brahma jijnasa View Post
    Namaste


    Yes, but then why would that mean that Narayana (Vishnu) is supervising Krishna?

    EDIT:
    It's just their conversation. I do not see how this would mean that He orders them, or that Narayana (Vishnu) is supervising Krishna.

    I do not want to comment on this because you obviously do not understand many of the attitudes that are represented in the Gaudiya vaishnava tradition.
    Besides it is not wise idea to come here to the Vaishnava forum and then talk "I think it is unauthorized self indulgent self serving lies ...". It could easily happen you become banned. Watch out!


    regards
    Namaste
    It is obvious you didnot understand the intent of the thread.

    Now coming to your question. How is Narayana supervising Krishna? See the statement made by Krishna. He says He cannot recollect the Bhagavad Gita in the ashwamedha parva.. Why do you think so? He then says He was "yoga yukta" in the battle field. Which indirectly means He cannot recollect or repeat the Gita once again because He is obviously not yoga yukta at the moment. Now that yoga yukta means "sufficient with yoga" and that yoga is obviously the knowledge of Narayana the supreme Brahman or awareness of oneness/nonduality with Narayana in this particular context.

    I quoted the Srimad Bhagavatam specifically because it proves that Krishna is a Kala of Mahavishnu contrary to what you said in your post. And the text specifically stressing on Mahavishu speaking to them with a voice of authority means He is ordering them because you dont use authority in normal conversations and neither would anyone bow their heads in normal conversations.

    And if you have anything productive to share feel free to do so.
    Is there anything else you didnt understand? And if you can throw light on why Krishna says that he cannot recollect the gita id be grateful to you
    Last edited by ganeshamylord; 07 July 2014 at 06:28 PM.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    usa,iowa
    Age
    36
    Posts
    133
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Anu geeta- The proof of Narayana supervising Krishna?

    Quote Originally Posted by Amrut View Post
    Namaste,

    According to Mahabharata and Yoga Vasista, Arjuna and Krishna are avatars of Nara and Narayana respectively. Nara will pass through all the joys and sorrows but Narayana will be aware of his Self. I cant remember exact verses.

    I do not go too deep and take things too seriously and literally to the pUrvabhumikA-s. They are created so as to create an atmosphere before giving new updeshas.

    Krishna rooted in Brahman said that I am Brahman. At times he said as ISvara too in gItA.

    It shows importance of gItA. Krishna also gave 3 more instructions, 3 to arjuna, Bhagavad Gita, Anu Gita / Brahmana gita (part of Anu Gita), Uttara Gita (mostly independent text, with commentary by Gaudapadacharya) and last upsdesha is given to Uddhava in the form of Uddhava Gita. All these are for the good of us. IF we do not stick to Brahman as 'person' lots of problems can be neutralized.

    Just my two cents.

    Hari OM
    Thanks a lot Amrutji for your two cents is worth a thousand for me

  3. #13
    Join Date
    June 2013
    Location
    Maharashtra
    Posts
    570
    Rep Power
    1125

    Re: Anu geeta- The proof of Narayana supervising Krishna?

    Quote Originally Posted by ganeshamylord View Post
    Namaste
    Yes even i was wondering how Krishna who is all pervading cannot be situated in yoga at that particular time? Is it His contact with His own Maya that made Him say that? Yoga i think is realization of the self as eternal and since Krishna was self realized right from birth this "yoga yukta" word even perplexes me
    PranAm,

    I think Yog-Yukta means one with Brahman. It can be meant that 'I' of Bhagavad Gita is actually Brahman. However many times 'I' is also mentioned for Vishnu's form like in case of describing Bhakti and worship.

    This is supported by a fact that some times Krishna mentioned Ishwara and Brahamn as a third person.
    Last edited by hinduism♥krishna; 08 July 2014 at 01:58 AM.

  4. #14

    Re: Anu geeta- The proof of Narayana supervising Krishna?

    Hello,
    A fundamental question quite relevant with this thread:

    It is said that in the beginning God, who was one, wanted to become many and enjoy himself. As the first step to creation he created Devi – the total cosmic Female force, also called Prakriti. For the male part, out of his left he created Shiva, out of his middle he created Brahma and out of his right he created Vishnu. That is why many regard the Devi as more powerful than the Trinities and hence She is called Parashakti or Paradevi – Para meaning beyond . Brahma created the universe. Vishnu controls and runs the universe. Shiva along with Shakti is engaged in the eternal dissolution and recreation of the universe.
    So A)Parabrhma(supreme Godhead) creates B)ParaSakthi and himself gets divided onto
    A1)Brahma,A2)Vishnu and A3)Shiva.

    Then how an amsa avatar of A2) can be A) himself where, in him, he clearly lacks the A1) and A2) attributes of A).
    Is the conception only because of Srimad Bhagwat Gita?Pardon my ignorance regarding my knowledge of scriptures and sastras.
    Taking hints from this thread , Lord Krishna mentions that he was Yoga yukta in Kurushetra while he was speaking Srimad Bhagawat Gita.Could that be it was Parabrahma himself speaking in Kuruksetra & not an avatar of A2)?.Because Lord Krishna mentions clearly that among the 11 Rudras he is sankara and among the 12 Adityas he is Vishnu.So how can Lord Vishnu be thought of as A)? Also how can an avatar of A2) says that he is A2 among the 12 Adityas?Arent these contradictory unless we conclude that it was the Supreme God head ,who is beyond A 1,2 and 3 s,was speaking in the battlefield and not an avatar of A2) ?


    Another question though not relevant to this thread:

    Since Guru is saksat Parabrahma ,worshipping him would be worshipping the Supreme Godhead A) which in turn means worshipping all the deties.
    So in this way we will have less fights and arguments regarding who is superior and who is inferior among Gods etc.Am i right or wrong?
    Regards.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    December 2012
    Posts
    552
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Anu geeta- The proof of Narayana supervising Krishna?

    Namaste
    Quote Originally Posted by lalit1000 View Post
    Hello,
    A fundamental question quite relevant with this thread:


    So A)Parabrhma(supreme Godhead) creates B)ParaSakthi and himself gets divided onto
    A1)Brahma,A2)Vishnu and A3)Shiva.

    Then how an amsa avatar of A2) can be A) himself where, in him, he clearly lacks the A1) and A2) attributes of A).
    Is the conception only because of Srimad Bhagwat Gita?Pardon my ignorance regarding my knowledge of scriptures and sastras.
    Taking hints from this thread , Lord Krishna mentions that he was Yoga yukta in Kurushetra while he was speaking Srimad Bhagawat Gita.Could that be it was Parabrahma himself speaking in Kuruksetra & not an avatar of A2)?.Because Lord Krishna mentions clearly that among the 11 Rudras he is sankara and among the 12 Adityas he is Vishnu.So how can Lord Vishnu be thought of as A)? Also how can an avatar of A2) says that he is A2 among the 12 Adityas?Arent these contradictory unless we conclude that it was the Supreme God head ,who is beyond A 1,2 and 3 s,was speaking in the battlefield and not an avatar of A2) ?
    Excellent observation!
    You noticed something that many people can not understand even after many years of studying the scriptures (I would even say after many lifetimes of studying the scriptures).

    For starters let we ask the question: Who is Parabrahman?
    Lord Krishna is God (deva) and Brahman often called Parabrahman (paraḿ brahma) or the Supreme Brahman. This is confirmed in the Bhagavad gita 10.12: paraḿ brahma paraḿ dhāma ... ādi-devam ajaḿ vibhum.
    Lord Krishna is nobody's avatara and He himself has all the attributes. He even has the attributes of all of them (Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva) because they all are His avataras and parts (aṁśa). You noticed that very well!
    Someone who is a complete whole in its entirety can not be anyone's part (aṁśa) or avatara! It is precisely Lord Krishna this complete whole to the maximum completeness and therefore He can not be anyone's part (aṁśa) or avatara!
    I explained why this is so in another thread, if you're interested see all my posts there beginning with post #12, also go through the links that I left there: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...t=12984&page=2


    Quote Originally Posted by lalit1000 View Post
    Another question though not relevant to this thread:

    Since Guru is saksat Parabrahma ,worshipping him would be worshipping the Supreme Godhead A) which in turn means worshipping all the deties.
    So in this way we will have less fights and arguments regarding who is superior and who is inferior among Gods etc.Am i right or wrong?
    Regards.
    Not so. Guru is not a God but is a servant of God and a soul surrendered to God.
    Reverence and bhakti (devotion, love) should be offered to both, The Supreme Lord and guru who is a soul surrendered to The Supreme Lord. This is confirmed in the Shvetasvatara Upanishad, the last verse in there says:

    yasya deve parā bhaktiḥ yathā deve tathā gurau

    "we should feel the highest devotion (bhakti) for God, and for Guru as for God"


    ----------
    PS. Bhagavad gita quote see at BBT, vedabase


    regards

  6. #16
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Mumbai
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,210
    Rep Power
    1364

    Re: Anu geeta- The proof of Narayana supervising Krishna?

    Quote Originally Posted by lalit1000 View Post
    Hello,
    A fundamental question quite relevant with this thread:


    So A)Parabrhma(supreme Godhead) creates B)ParaSakthi and himself gets divided onto
    A1)Brahma,A2)Vishnu and A3)Shiva.

    Then how an amsa avatar of A2) can be A) himself where, in him, he clearly lacks the A1) and A2) attributes of A).
    Is the conception only because of Srimad Bhagwat Gita?Pardon my ignorance regarding my knowledge of scriptures and sastras.
    Taking hints from this thread , Lord Krishna mentions that he was Yoga yukta in Kurushetra while he was speaking Srimad Bhagawat Gita.Could that be it was Parabrahma himself speaking in Kuruksetra & not an avatar of A2)?.Because Lord Krishna mentions clearly that among the 11 Rudras he is sankara and among the 12 Adityas he is Vishnu.So how can Lord Vishnu be thought of as A)? Also how can an avatar of A2) says that he is A2 among the 12 Adityas?Arent these contradictory unless we conclude that it was the Supreme God head ,who is beyond A 1,2 and 3 s,was speaking in the battlefield and not an avatar of A2) ?


    Another question though not relevant to this thread:

    Since Guru is saksat Parabrahma ,worshipping him would be worshipping the Supreme Godhead A) which in turn means worshipping all the deties.
    So in this way we will have less fights and arguments regarding who is superior and who is inferior among Gods etc.Am i right or wrong?
    Regards.
    Namaste,

    In Ganesha Gita (tika by Nilakanthacharya), it is said that Ganesha is everything. In Shiva Gita (commentary by Sripad Pandit Aradhya, and 2 advaita acharyas) says that Shiva is everything. Krishna in Gita says he is everything. There are slokas which say Kapila is everythng, Vishnu is evrything, Narayana is supreme, Rama is supreme. If we take all of them as person, then what is the truth?

    ISvara is always rooted in Brahman and hence can appear it in different forms.

    Do you practice Japa?

    If the mind sinks in the origin of mantra, the form of Lord vanishes. Try to keep the image of lord in front of you (in mind) and do japa. When mind is fully concentrated in mantra, form drops automatically. If we take the Lord as formless, then many problems are solved. But if we take it as person and something emanating from something is a part of former, then problems arise.

    If Krishna is original godhead, then why not upanishads simply mention Krishna. Why they use the word Brahman. Is there any vedic mantra dedicated to Krishna? If we take the real nature of Krishna, Shiva, Ganesha as formless (not need to take attributeless ), we find a consistency. So whenever it is said, 'I am supreme', we can take this 'I' as Brahman.

    In the similar way, it is Guru Tatva is parabrahman and not Guru as person, which is different from the trinity.

    Hari OM
    Only God Is Truth, Everything Else Is Illusion - Ramakrishna
    Total Surrender of Ego to SELF is Real Bhakti - Ramana Maharshi

    Silence is the study of the scruptures. Meditation is the continuous thinking of Brahman which is to be meditated upon. The complete negation of both by knowledge is the vision of truth – sadAcAra-14 of Adi SankarAcArya

    namah SivAya vishnurUpAya viShNave SivarUpiNe, MBh, vanaparva, 3.39.76

    Sanskrit Dict | MW Dict | Gita Super Site | Hindu Dharma

  7. #17

    Re: Anu geeta- The proof of Narayana supervising Krishna?

    Quote Originally Posted by ganeshamylord View Post
    Namaste
    Can any vaishnava followers explain to me the significance of Anu gita which occurs in the Ashwamedha parva of Mahabharata?
    I see some traditions particularly the gaudiya traditions calling Krishna as the origin of Vishnu and they always quote the Bhagavad Gita as a reference to support their claim. Also in chaitanya charitamrita it is said that Mahavishnu incarnates as Advaita acharya to serve the feet of Krishna in the form of Sri Chaitanya. Can non gaudiya vaishnavas especially sri vaishnavas throw some light on this perspective?

    However if we read Anugita we would understand that the Brahman whom Krishna referred to in the Bhagavad Gita is Narayana or Bhagavan. And that is the reason why it is called Bhagavad Gita and not Krishna Gita.

    Arjuna, the son of Pandu, having surveyed with delight that lovely palace, in the company of Krishna, spoke these words: ‘O you of mighty arms! O you whose mother is Devaki! when the battle was about to commence, I became aware of your greatness, and that divine form of yours. But that, O Kesava! which through affection (for me) you explained before, has all disappeared, O tiger-like man! from my degenerate mind. Again and again, however, I feel a curiosity about those topics. But (now), O Madhava! you will be going at no distant date to Dvaraka

    Krishna, possessed of great glory, replied in these words after embracing Arjuna.
    Vasudeva said:
    From me, O son of Pritha! you heard a mystery, and learnt about the eternal (principle), about piety in (its true) form, and about all the everlasting worlds. It is excessively disagreeable to me, that you should not have grasped it through want of intelligence. And the recollection (of it) now again is not possible (to me). Really, O son of Pandu! you are devoid of faith and of a bad intellect. And, O Dhananjaya! it is not possible for me to repeat in full (what I said before). For that doctrine was perfectly adequate for understanding the seat, of the Brahman. It is not possible for me to state it again in full in that way. For then accompanied by my mystic power, I declared to you the Supreme Brahman.

    _______________________________________________________________

    Please study carefully the last sentence. Krishna says He was accompanied by "mystic power" or "yoga yukta" back then in Kurukshetra. And hence it is impossible for Him to repeat Bhagavad gita. Which means that "mystic power" is none but Bhagavan Narayana who spoke through Krishna hence the gita is called Bhagavad Gita and not Krishna gita.
    This proves the pansophical aspect of Lord Vishnu. He is also present as Krishna just as He is present in all the atoms as Paramatma, Also my point in strengthened specifically when Krishna says not only can He not repeat Bhagavad Gita but also cannot recollect it. So the fact Lord Krishna forgets His own geeta and tells Arjuna that He isnt "sufficient with yoga" anymore to recite Bhagavad gita and goes ahead giving another geeta shows that the yoga He was talking about was none but complete awareness about His own position as Narayana and that it was Bhagavan Narayana speaking through Lord Krishna.

    Any more comments to support or refute my view?
    Not sure if this was stated already, but I do not think that is the intent of Krishna. First of all, there is no difference between Narayana and Krishna. Therefore, all names of Narayana are Krishna's names as well and vice versa. Plus, when Krishna speaks in the Bhagavad Gita, it is not "Sr Krishna Uvacha", but "Sri Bhagavan Uvacha", meaning that Bhagavan is also a name of Krishna. Therefore, Lord Narayana did not "speak" through Krishna, but came on this earth as Krishna. Secondly, my thoughts on that verse you gave is that I don't think Krishna is saying that he can't recite the entire Gita. It is similar to when a father tells his child "You have already spent $300 wastefully, and so I cannot give you $300 again". It is not that the father cannot give the money, it is just that he doesn't want it to be wasted again. I think that the last sentence just states that Krishna used his mystic potency and gave some to Arjun so they could go through the Bhagavad Gita in a matter of moments.

    This is a strictly Vaisnava interpretation, and since I am a beginner Vaisnava, I would appreciate criticisms/comments. Regards

  8. #18
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    usa,iowa
    Age
    36
    Posts
    133
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Anu geeta- The proof of Narayana supervising Krishna?

    Quote Originally Posted by axlyz View Post
    . First of all, there is no difference between Narayana and Krishna. Plus, when Krishna speaks in the Bhagavad Gita, it is not "Sr Krishna Uvacha", but "Sri Bhagavan Uvacha", meaning that Bhagavan is also a name of Krishna. . It is similar to when a father tells his child "You have already spent $300 wastefully, and so I cannot give you $300 again". It is not that the father cannot give the money, it is just that he doesn't want it to be wasted again. I think that the last sentence just states that Krishna used his mystic potency and gave some to Arjun so they could go through the Bhagavad Gita in a matter of moments.

    This is a strictly Vaisnava interpretation, and since I am a beginner Vaisnava, I would appreciate criticisms/comments. Regards
    Namaste
    But Krishna says He cannot recollect the gita,... He doesnt say He doesnt want to impart the knowledge again.

    Krishna is an amsha of Narayana... if you read Bhagavatam and also the 6th post in this thread you will get there

    Third i dont understand if are you trying to say Gita is like 300$ money which will perish if given (as far as i know knowledge grows as it is given) or if Arjuna wasted it because if Arjuna is a person who wastes it, it means he is ignorant and if arjuna is ignorant then his statement "para brahma param dhama pavitram" is also ignorance

    Yes its not Krishna uvacha but Bhagavan uvacha because it is Bhagavan Narayana speaking through Krishna. And regarding Krishna being amsha or total Narayana we have a thread by hinduismkrishna where he quoted the Vishnu purana where Krishnas body gets burnt in the pyre along with His wives. Now Narayana cannot be burnt neither does He have a body.

    Fourth yes thats what is the intent of the thread. If the "mystic potency" that Krishna used is subordinate to Him why isnt He able to use it again?

    And the 300$ theory is your personal interpretation and if it was that simple Krishna would have said "I dont want to tell you the Gita again because you dont deserve it" but He instead says "I am not well equipped in yoga at the moment so i cannot recollect it so i cant impart it again as it is beyond my ability to retell it"
    Last edited by ganeshamylord; 16 July 2014 at 04:27 PM.

  9. #19

    Re: Anu geeta- The proof of Narayana supervising Krishna?

    Quote Originally Posted by ganeshamylord View Post
    Namaste
    But Krishna says He cannot recollect the gita,... He doesnt say He doesnt want to impart the knowledge again.

    Krishna is an amsha of Narayana... if you read Bhagavatam and also the 6th post in this thread you will get there

    Third i dont understand if are you trying to say Gita is like 300$ money which will perish if given (as far as i know knowledge grows as it is given) or if Arjuna wasted it because if Arjuna is a person who wastes it, it means he is ignorant and if arjuna is ignorant then his statement "para brahma param dhama pavitram" is also ignorance

    Yes its not Krishna uvacha but Bhagavan uvacha because it is Bhagavan Narayana speaking through Krishna. And regarding Krishna being amsha or total Narayana we have a thread by hinduismkrishna where he quoted the Vishnu purana where Krishnas body gets burnt in the pyre along with His wives. Now Narayana cannot be burnt neither does He have a body.

    Fourth yes thats what is the intent of the thread. If the "mystic potency" that Krishna used is subordinate to Him why isnt He able to use it again?

    And the 300$ theory is your personal interpretation and if it was that simple Krishna would have said "I dont want to tell you the Gita again because you dont deserve it" but He instead says "I am not well equipped in yoga at the moment so i cannot recollect it so i cant impart it again as it is beyond my ability to retell it"
    Narayana is Krishna. To say that there is a difference between various manifestations of the Lord is ignorance. So, if Lord Narayana is supreme in his four hands form, then he is supreme in his Krishna form with 2 hands. This has been accepted by every Vaisnava. My interpretation just said that Krishna was simply disappointed that Arjuna had forgotten everything, and so he didn't want to talk then. That is why he chastises Arjun as having a bad intellect and bad devotion. The Bhagavad Gita was very confidential, so he could not just repeat it again. Just like $300 is a lot, you cannot just keep giving it. Saying that Narayana spoke though Krishna is wrong, as Krishna is Narayana. Arjuna calls Krishna as Krishna. Lord Narayana did speak the Gita, but not through Krishna, but AS Krishna.

    Lord Krishna has been called the Purna avatar of Lord Narayana, therefore he is just as powerful as Lord Narayana. It does not matter if Lord Narayana is the avatari, fact remains is that Lord Krishna is purna avatar. Claiming that Krishna is lower than Narayana (in terms of power, intelligence, etc) makes no sense to any Vaisnava.

    The verse from the Vishnu Purana, here is what I think. When Lord Krishna left, he simply left his maya form, or material form. This is the consensus of Vaisnavas, although I cannot quote scriptures to reinforce this because I do not have Vishnu Purana. But if you accept Lord Narayana's body as eternal and spiritual, you have to accept Lord Krishna's body as the same. Not doing so results in an offence against Lord Narayana.

    What Arjun said during the Gita was perfect, it is just that he forgot everything. Reason is that Lord Krishna gave Arjuna some of his yogic abilities in order for Arjuna to understand everything. No mortal can see the Vishwaroop without being blessed by the Lord.

    Note what Krishna says. He says "MY mystic potency", not anyone else's.

    I do not know what you are trying to prove. You claim that people who see Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiva as different are demons, but you fail to see that claiming that Lord Narayana and Lord Krishna are different is just as wrong and demonic.
    Forgive my inaccuracies and offences.
    Regards.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    usa,iowa
    Age
    36
    Posts
    133
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Anu geeta- The proof of Narayana supervising Krishna?

    Quote Originally Posted by axlyz View Post
    Narayana is Krishna. To say that there is a difference between various manifestations of the Lord is ignorance. So, if Lord Narayana is supreme in his four hands form, then he is supreme in his Krishna form with 2 hands. This has been accepted by every Vaisnava. My interpretation just said that Krishna was simply disappointed that Arjuna had forgotten everything, and so he didn't want to talk then. That is why he chastises Arjun as having a bad intellect and bad devotion. The Bhagavad Gita was very confidential, so he could not just repeat it again. Just like $300 is a lot, you cannot just keep giving it. Saying that Narayana spoke though Krishna is wrong, as Krishna is Narayana. Arjuna calls Krishna as Krishna. Lord Narayana did speak the Gita, but not through Krishna, but AS Krishna.

    Lord Krishna has been called the Purna avatar of Lord Narayana, therefore he is just as powerful as Lord Narayana. It does not matter if Lord Narayana is the avatari, fact remains is that Lord Krishna is purna avatar. Claiming that Krishna is lower than Narayana (in terms of power, intelligence, etc) makes no sense to any Vaisnava.

    The verse from the Vishnu Purana, here is what I think. When Lord Krishna left, he simply left his maya form, or material form. This is the consensus of Vaisnavas, although I cannot quote scriptures to reinforce this because I do not have Vishnu Purana. But if you accept Lord Narayana's body as eternal and spiritual, you have to accept Lord Krishna's body as the same. Not doing so results in an offence against Lord Narayana.

    What Arjun said during the Gita was perfect, it is just that he forgot everything. Reason is that Lord Krishna gave Arjuna some of his yogic abilities in order for Arjuna to understand everything. No mortal can see the Vishwaroop without being blessed by the Lord.

    Note what Krishna says. He says "MY mystic potency", not anyone else's.

    I do not know what you are trying to prove. You claim that people who see Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiva as different are demons, but you fail to see that claiming that Lord Narayana and Lord Krishna are different is just as wrong and demonic.
    Forgive my inaccuracies and offences.
    Regards.
    Well what im saying is i feel no real vaishnava especially shri vaishnava feels krishna is the origin of Narayana and my thread is to prove that when someone says krishna is the origin of Vishnu he is a liar and a fanatic
    And vaishnava doesnt mean only iskcon
    So the fact i quoted that Krishna is an amsha of Mahavishnu sets the point and that remains the truth whether you accept it or not and unlike yours i quoted from the scriptures and didnot give my opinion here
    Yes Krishna left His maya form and once He leaves His maya form He becomes Narayana. But in this world,clubbed with maya He is an amsha of Narayana. Narayana never associates with maya
    And differentiating not only Vishnu or Krishna or Shiva any one who differentiates between any soul in this creation thinking of that soul as different from the Brahman and propagates varnashrama caste system is an ignoramus.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Vishnu or Krishna?
    By Samraat Bhismadeva Maurya in forum Hare Krishna (ISKCON)
    Replies: 96
    Last Post: 18 August 2014, 02:05 PM
  2. Krishna The Supreme Godhead
    By Spiritualseeker in forum God in Hindu Dharma
    Replies: 81
    Last Post: 01 September 2009, 09:56 AM
  3. How did God manifest the universe?
    By Spiritualseeker in forum God in Hindu Dharma
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 18 August 2009, 12:18 PM
  4. Hindu view of Jesus
    By ScottMalaysia in forum Christianity
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 06 March 2008, 03:16 AM
  5. Identity of Narayana
    By Sri Vaishnava in forum Hare Krishna (ISKCON)
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 24 January 2008, 08:51 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
  •