Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 51

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

  1. #21

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ganeshamylord View Post
    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.
    Dear ganeshmylord,
    Yeah, but as far I know, the Gaudiyas do not say that Vishnu came from Krishna as an incarnation, but that all roopas of the Lord came at the same time. Just as soon as you have a star, you have starlight. Any Gaudiya please feel free to point out my inaccuracies.

    Scriptures only give Krishna the title of purnavatar, meaning he is Lord Narayana himself. I do not know why you cannot understand this. Narayana is not the origin of Krishna; that is like saying Narayana is the origin of himself. You could say that Narayana became Krishna, but you cannot say that Krishna is only an amsha of Narayana and he is just a "partial incarnation" of Narayana. Fact remains is that he was the only one who could display the powers of Narayana completely. Proof of this is that Narayana appeared in his original 4 armed to Devaki and Vasudeva, and then BECAME the baby Krishna after hearing their prayers. Also, there is a story where Krishna transformed himself into Narayana just to test the gopis' devotion to him. Plus, he had the discus of Narayana himself. To say he is just a "part" of Narayana is wrong when he is the full Narayana himself.

    My opinion of that verse is the only one that makes sense, and I am sure Sri Vaishnava would back me on this. When Krishna is Narayana, he could have said the Bhagavad Gita again. But he didn't because the Gita is very confidential. To say that Krishna couldn't say the Bhagavad Gita again because he was lacking "yoga" is just as ludicrous as the claim that Shiva "spoke" the Bhagavad Gita through Krishna.

    Also, are you trying to say that Krishna's body is made of maya? Because that is something that even Adi Shankara would condemn.


    Scriptures clearly point out who is Supreme and who is not. Every major Vedantin has come to one main conclusion on who is God.

    Forgive my offences and inaccuracies.
    Regards

  2. #22
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    usa,iowa
    Age
    36
    Posts
    133
    Rep Power
    0

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



    Namaste axlyz

    Scriptures clearly point out who is Supreme and who is not. Every major Vedantin has come to one main conclusion on who is God.
    _______________________________________________________
    No they didnot unless you have been told a lie just like how gaudiyas changed the whole mahabharata( where they said shiva is a bhakta of krishna when its the other way round) and padma purana (where they removed shiva geeta) and also have their own ways of interpreting things like Sri chaitanyas wife died of a snake bite and then it came in the gaudiya text as "snake of seperation" LOL and many more.
    And your line of thought can believe whatever is congenial to its faith just like how it believes the moon is farther away from the sun itself ,earth is flat, womans brain is half of a mans,women children dont deserve a birth etc




    Also, are you trying to say that Krishna's body is made of maya? Because that is something that even Adi Shankara would condemn.
    ____________________________________________
    It is one thing you made a God out of Sri chaitanya etc now can you also stop talking on behalf of someone who has a brain like Adi shankara?
    Its one thing you live in your ignorant well can you stop destroying the credibility of intellect by talking on behalf of Adi shankara? And did you say adi shankara thinks Vishnu is superior to Shiva? I dont think so. According to his philosophy Brahma Vishnu Rudra lie at the feet of the wife of Shiva which again is not personal but just to state that the creation maintenance and dissolution are not even significant to the actual truth Parabrahma, . But thats not the point here and i dont want to even argue about intelligence with someone as superficial and dishonest as you

    It is clearly mentioned in Vishnu purana that Krishnas body got burnt and irrespective of how you might whitewash it to suit your self indulgent lie that you call bhakti the fact is only a body with maya can get burnt by fire.
    And again the fact that His body got burnt is from Vishnu Purana and not my pov.






    My opinion of that verse is the only one that makes sense, and I am sure Sri Vaishnava would back me on this. When Krishna is Narayana, he could have said the Bhagavad Gita again. But he didn't because the Gita is very confidential. To say that Krishna couldn't say the Bhagavad Gita again because he was lacking "yoga" is just as ludicrous as the claim that Shiva "spoke" the Bhagavad Gita through Krishna.
    ____________________________________________________
    Well if you say Krishna lacking yoga is ludicrous due to your ignorance fanaticism and failure to comprehend truth then you are calling Krishna ludicrous as that statement is not my pov but said by Krishna HimselfAnd no Sri Vaishnava would agree that Narayana is inferior to Krishna and has "60" qualities vs 64 of Krishna
    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.




    Fact remains is that he was the only one who could display the powers of Narayana completely. Proof of this is that Narayana appeared in his original 4 armed to Devaki and Vasudeva, and then BECAME the baby Krishna after hearing their prayers. Also, there is a story where Krishna transformed himself into Narayana just to test the gopis' devotion to him. Plus, he had the discus of Narayana himself. To say he is just a "part" of Narayana is wrong when he is the full Narayana himself.
    __________________________________________________
    Fact for you might define as untruth and laughable for someone with commonsense .Did you think Narayana wasnt there in Vaikuntha while appearing as Krishna?? Then who do you think was maintaining the rest of the universe? With all due respect to your flimsy superficial understanding of God,,God is all pervading. Just because God appeared as Krishna doesnt mean He wasnt present in Vaikunta or anywhere else and either way whatever you blabbered is your pov. Il quote from SB

    SB 10.89.58
    dvijātmajā me yuvayor didṛkṣuṇā
     mayopanītā bhuvi dharma-guptaye
    kalāvatīrṇāv avaner bharāsurān
     hatveha bhūyas tvarayetam anti me

    Lord Mahā-Viṣṇu said:I brought the brāhmaṇa’s sons here because I wanted to see the two of you, My expansions, who have descended to the earth to save the principles of religion. As soon as you finish killing the demons who burden the earth, quickly come back here to Me.
    Here Lord Mahavishnu clearly states that both Arjuna and Krishna are His Amshas or Kalas. And He orders them to come back to Him quickly
    All these arent my versions but are directly from scriptures







    Yeah, but as far I know, the Gaudiyas do not say that Vishnu came from Krishna as an incarnation, but that all roopas of the Lord came at the same time. Just as soon as you have a star, you have starlight. Any Gaudiya please feel free to point out my inaccuracies.
    _______________________________________________________\
    And as far as i know i have read a godforsaken book which says Vishnu has "58" qualities and Krishna has "64" Narayana has "60" This came from the same self proclaimed devotees of krushna who dont know the shape of earth nor do they know reality of universe , who dont even know that moon is a satellite but went on to decide the qualities of Narayana who created everything in the universe.
    and also they said that Krishna created Balaram and from balaram the Chaturvyuha comes out and from there Narayana comes out:P
    And if all roopas came at one time then why are only 125 years described? Considering the age of the universe is trilllions of years why do you think only 125 years of dwapar yuga of this Manuvantara are described? Where was Krishna during the rest trillions of years??

    P.S Feeble minds are indeed evil minds.



    Scriptures only give Krishna the title of purnavatar, meaning he is Lord Narayana himself. I do not know why you cannot understand this. Narayana is not the origin of Krishna; that is like saying Narayana is the origin of himself.
    ____________________________________________
    Hahaha Is this logic in accordance with your gaudiyas "absolute truth" of earth being flat oetc etc??
    Purnavatar meaning complete with the qualities of Narayana or complete with realization of Narayana. But i suppose you dont have the same honesty in asking the same question when someone from your line tells that Krishna is the origin of chaturvyuha and Narayana
    Last edited by ganeshamylord; 18 July 2014 at 11:21 AM.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    June 2013
    Location
    Maharashtra
    Posts
    570
    Rep Power
    1125

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

    PranAm Bandhu.

    And as far as i know i have read a godforsaken book which says Vishnu has "58" qualities and Krishna has "64" Narayana has "60"
    This is interesting. I'd like to know is there any reference about this in our scriptures?

    Now some questions, who's measured these qualities? What are those four extra qualities that are not present in Narayana?

    I request someone, who claims such belief, to throw some light on this.

  4. #24

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ganeshamylord View Post


    Namaste axlyz
    I didnot reply to your post in the other thread on equality b.w Vishnu and Shiva because you seem to have been brainwashed into thinking that Adi shankara and majority of "vedantins" are Vaishnavaites hahaha
    I cant reply to such flimsy suppositions.
    Anway heres my answer





    Scriptures clearly point out who is Supreme and who is not. Every major Vedantin has come to one main conclusion on who is God.
    _______________________________________________________
    No they didnot unless you have been told a lie just like how gaudiyas changed the whole mahabharata( where they said shiva is a bhakta of krishna when its the other way round) and padma purana (where they removed shiva geeta) and also have their own ways of interpreting things like Sri chaitanyas wife died of a snake bite and then it came in the gaudiya text as "snake of seperation" LOL and many more.
    And you can also believe whatever is congenial to your blind faith just like how you guys planned a vedic planetarium where the moon is farther away from the sun itself ,earth is flat etc And everything which is not truth seems congenial to you so if you are happy that way so be it.LOL
    Also you can chose to live in your small well where a self titled acharya made a statement that the womans brain is half of a mans,women children dont deserve a birth, and child sex should start from 11years




    Also, are you trying to say that Krishna's body is made of maya? Because that is something that even Adi Shankara would condemn.
    ____________________________________________
    It is one thing you made a God out of Sri chaitanya etc now can you also stop talking on behalf of someone who has a brain like Adi shankara?
    Its one thing you live in your ignorant well can you stop destroying the credibility of intellect by talking on behalf of Adi shankara? And did you say adi shankara thinks Vishnu is superior to Shiva? I dont think so. According to his philosophy Vishnu is one of the three gods who lie at the feet of the wife of Shiva. But thats not the point here and i dont want to even argue about intelligence with someone as superficial and dishonest as you

    It is clearly mentioned in Vishnu purana that Krishnas body got burnt and irrespective of how you might whitewash it to suit your self indulgent lie that you call bhakti the fact is only a body with maya can get burnt by fire.
    And again the fact that His body got burnt is from Vishnu Purana and not my pov.






    My opinion of that verse is the only one that makes sense, and I am sure Sri Vaishnava would back me on this. When Krishna is Narayana, he could have said the Bhagavad Gita again. But he didn't because the Gita is very confidential. To say that Krishna couldn't say the Bhagavad Gita again because he was lacking "yoga" is just as ludicrous as the claim that Shiva "spoke" the Bhagavad Gita through Krishna.
    ____________________________________________________
    Well if you say Krishna lacking yoga is ludicrous due to your ignorance fanaticism and failure to comprehend truth then you are calling Krishna ludicrous as that statement is not my pov but said by Krishna HimselfAnd no Sri Vaishnava would agree that Narayana is inferior to Krishna and has "60" qualities vs 64 of Krishna
    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.




    Fact remains is that he was the only one who could display the powers of Narayana completely. Proof of this is that Narayana appeared in his original 4 armed to Devaki and Vasudeva, and then BECAME the baby Krishna after hearing their prayers. Also, there is a story where Krishna transformed himself into Narayana just to test the gopis' devotion to him. Plus, he had the discus of Narayana himself. To say he is just a "part" of Narayana is wrong when he is the full Narayana himself.
    __________________________________________________
    Fact for you might define as untruth and laughable for someone with commonsense .Did you think Narayana wasnt there in Vaikuntha while appearing as Krishna?? Then who do you think was maintaining the rest of the universe? With all due respect to your flimsy superficial understanding of God,,God is all pervading. Just because God appeared as Krishna doesnt mean He wasnt present in Vaikunta or anywhere else and either way whatever you blabbered is your pov. Il quote from SB

    SB 10.89.58
    dvijātmajā me yuvayor didṛkṣuṇā
     mayopanītā bhuvi dharma-guptaye
    kalāvatīrṇāv avaner bharāsurān
     hatveha bhūyas tvarayetam anti me

    Lord Mahā-Viṣṇu said:I brought the brāhmaṇa’s sons here because I wanted to see the two of you, My expansions, who have descended to the earth to save the principles of religion. As soon as you finish killing the demons who burden the earth, quickly come back here to Me.
    Here Lord Mahavishnu clearly states that both Arjuna and Krishna are His Amshas or Kalas. And He orders them to come back to Him quickly
    All these arent my versions but are directly from scriptures







    Yeah, but as far I know, the Gaudiyas do not say that Vishnu came from Krishna as an incarnation, but that all roopas of the Lord came at the same time. Just as soon as you have a star, you have starlight. Any Gaudiya please feel free to point out my inaccuracies.
    _______________________________________________________\
    And as far as i know i have read a godforsaken book which says Vishnu has "58" qualities and Krishna has "64" Narayana has "60" This came from the same self proclaimed devotees of krushna who dont know the shape of earth nor do they know reality of universe , who dont even know that moon is a satellite but went on to decide the qualities of Narayana who created everything in the universe.
    and also they said that Krishna created Balaram and from balaram the Chaturvyuha comes out and from there Narayana comes out:P
    And if all roopas came at one time then why are only 125 years described? Considering the age of the universe is trilllions of years why do you think only 125 years of dwapar yuga of this Manuvantara are described? Where are the rest trillions of years of Krishnas pastimes??

    P.S Feeble minds are indeed evil minds.



    Scriptures only give Krishna the title of purnavatar, meaning he is Lord Narayana himself. I do not know why you cannot understand this. Narayana is not the origin of Krishna; that is like saying Narayana is the origin of himself.
    ____________________________________________
    Hahaha Is this logic in accordance with your gaudiyas "absolute truth" of earth being flat oetc etc??
    Purnavatar meaning complete with the qualities of Narayana or complete with realization of Narayana. But i suppose you dont have the honesty in asking the same question when someone from your line tells that Krishna is the origin of chaturvyuha and Narayana
    Namaste ganeshmylord ji,

    You said, "Namaste axlyz
    I didnot reply to your post in the other thread on equality b.w Vishnu and Shiva because you seem to have been brainwashed into thinking that Adi shankara and majority of "vedantins" are Vaishnavaites hahaha
    I cant reply to such flimsy suppositions."

    Do tell me why Shankara says in his Gita Bhashya

    "There is none who is equal to you, and when that is the case, how even can there be any who is superior to You in any of three worlds, Oh Lord, who is of unrivaled power?" (Bhag. G 11.43)

    "(Lord Krishna says) 'I, the Supreme Parabrahman known by name as vAsudeva, am the source of the whole world. From Me alone evolves the whole universe in all its changes, including existence and dissolution, action, effect, and enjoyment'" (Bhag. G 10.8)

    You are obsessed with hate of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and Gaudiya Sampradaya. It is hilarious when you speak of Gaudiya's changing the Mahabharata. Not even Adi Shankara can agree that Shiva is the lord of Krishna (as shown in his bhashya). Read them carefully.

    I have been "brainwashed"? Please, I was born to parents who were not vaishnavas and thought Shiva=Krishna. I actually had to think before I became a Vaishnava, so I wasn't brainwashed.

    I can agree on one point on the 64 qualities thing. I personally think it doesn't make sense. If we are talking about the Gaudiya perspective, then it should at least be that Vishnu is 100% God and Krishna is 110%. But your comment doesn't bother me because I believe that Vishnu came on this earth as Krishna, but I don't think one is greater than the other. So Krishna=Vishnu.

    Do not accuse me of saying that "Krishna is the source of chaturvyaha and vishnu etc" when I do not believe that. I believe Vishnu is the source of all. And regarding your claim that I thought Vishnu wasn't in Vaikuntha etc. Vishnu is always in Vaikuntha, he probably took an expansion of himself and displayed it to Devaki and Vasudeva. I didn't say that Vishnu became Krishna and only lived on Earth. If I did, then forgive me because I didn't mean that.

    And regarding Adi Shankara, here's a few quotes to get you thinking.

    "Supreme Lord with with the name nArAyaNa" (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad bhAShya, 3.7.3)

    "Vishnu, or Ananta, who is the primordial being, who has all the three worlds for His body, and who is the in-dwelling Soul of all the beings" (Mundaka Upanishad bhAShya, 2.1.4)

    "The all-pervading Brahman, the Supreme Soul, known by the name vAsudeva" (kaTha upaniShad bhAShya, 1.3.9)

    In his Git Bhashya for 9.25, he says that Vaishnavas attain the highest state of liberation. Not any other god's devotee.

    The mahopanishad itself says "eko ha vai nArAyaNa asIt, na brahma nEshana."

    The Narayanopanishad says "nArAyaNat rudrO jAyatE."

    Adi Shankara also quotes this "Vishnu is sung everywhere at the beginning, middle, and end of the Vedas, the holy rAmAyaNa and the mahAbhArata, O Best of the lineage of Bharata!" (Harivamsa, 3.132.95). (Sources: Narayanastra Blog)

    The Vedas themselves say that Agni is the lowest and Vishnu is the highest, and that the devas always look the to supreme abode of Vishnu.

    Madhusudhana Sarasvati was a parama Vaishnava himself, as he was a great devotee of Krishna. I did not look at the poem that he composed supposedly praising Krishna and Shiva, but here is what this site has to say.

    "Mahimnastotratika and Harilila-vyakhya are commentaries on Pushpadanta’s Sivamahimnastotra and Bopadeva’s Harilila respectively for proclaiming the wonderful qualities of Sri Krishna. He has exhibited his great skill by interpreting the slokas in praise of Siva as praising Lord Krishna." (http://www.kamakoti.org/kamakoti/art...%20-%2041.html)

    Saying that Krishna is Shiva's devotee contradicts the Vedas, Puranas, and Adi Shankara who has agreed in the Gita that Lord Krishna is the Lord of Lords.

    "Purnavatar meaning complete with the qualities of Narayana or complete with realization of Narayana."

    Complete with realization of Narayana? You mean to say that he "got knowledge" of Narayana and that's why he was an elevated person? Wow.

    If you want to try to refute the Gaudiya view that Krishna > Vishnu, then go ahead and do it. I will have no problem because I myself don't agree with that. If that was the intent of this blog, then fine. But it appears that you are trying to display Krishna as some weak demigod. Because he is Narayana. This has been confirmed in the Mahabharata and Bhagavata Purana.
    Regards.

  5. #25
    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 hinduism♥krishna View Post
    PranAm Bandhu.



    This is interesting. I'd like to know is there any reference about this in our scriptures?

    Now some questions, who's measured these qualities? What are those four extra qualities that are not present in Narayana?

    I request someone, who claims such belief, to throw some light on this.
    Namaste bandhu

    I have read it in most of the translations of iskcon and specifically a book written in kaliyuga called chaitanya charitamrita.
    Am unsure if that is a scripture or a figment of imagination because it says Lord Mahavishnu who structures the whole cosmos takes His birth as someone called advaita acharya and prays to Lord Krishna to take His birth as Chaitanya.
    i was amused by the amount of shallow superficiality and the feeble understanding of Lord Narayana in it when i saw that the standard rating of gaudiyas is as follows
    1)Bhagavad Gita(which actually contains the jist of the real brahman) as 10th class:P
    2)Srimad Bhagavatam(which is a purana and is lower than Bhagavad Gita which is a part of Mahabharata an itihasa) as graduate degree:P:P
    3)Chaitanya charitamrita(book written by a person born in kaliyuga in kaliyuga) as the highest post graduate level:P:P

  6. #26
    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

    I have read it in most of the translations of iskcon and specifically a book written in kaliyuga called chaitanya charitamrita.
    PranAm Ganesha Bandhu

    The belief of qualities can not be accepted from such regional scripture. I've read entire Bhagavata and Vishnu Puruna yet I didn't find any distinction based on qualities.

    Am unsure if that is a scripture or a figment of imagination because it says Lord Mahavishnu who structures the whole cosmos takes His birth as someone called advaita acharya and prays to Lord Krishna to take His birth as Chaitanya.
    So absurd ! How would any intelligent believe in this.


    1)Bhagavad Gita(which actually contains the jist of the real brahman) as 10th class:P
    2)Srimad Bhagavatam(which is a purana and is lower than Bhagavad Gita which is a part of Mahabharata an itihasa) as graduate degree:P:P
    3)Chaitanya charitamrita(book written by a person born in kaliyuga in kaliyuga) as the highest post graduate level:P:P
    No brother, All vaidik scriptures (Not non-vedik) are at the same level. Nothing is greater or lower as all scriptures talk on the essence of Upanishada. Prabhu, Bhagavata is my soul itself and is not different from Krushna. This Bhagavata is the masterpiece of Advaita Bhakti and explains the highest knowledge of Upanishada. It's nectar of krishna's last discourse to uddhava. So How can it be lower than any scripture? In fact precious Jewell of Uddhava Gita makes Bhagavata above all.
    Last edited by hinduism♥krishna; 18 July 2014 at 01:24 PM.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    usa,iowa
    Age
    36
    Posts
    133
    Rep Power
    0

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

    ,Namaste axlyz


    "There is none who is equal to you, and when that is the case, how even can there be any who is superior to You in any of three worlds, Oh Lord, who is of unrivaled power?" (Bhag. G 11.43)
    ____________________________________________________
    Narayana is ofcourse the Supreme Paramatma and when was i disagreeing with this?



    "(Lord Krishna says) 'I, the Supreme Parabrahman known by name as vAsudeva, am the source of the whole world. From Me alone evolves the whole universe in all its changes, including existence and dissolution, action, effect, and enjoyment'" (Bhag. G 10.8)
    _____________________________________________________
    This is a standard statement foretold in all the gitas including devi gita,shiva gita(padma purana) ganesha gita.



    You are obsessed with hate of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and Gaudiya Sampradaya. It is hilarious when you speak of Gaudiya's changing the Mahabharata. Not even Adi Shankara can agree that Shiva is the lord of Krishna (as shown in his bhashya). Read them carefully.
    ______________________________________________
    Disagreeing with them doesnt mean hating them. Also you wont understand it due to your deep rooted self indulgent ignorance.
    May be you havent read the mahabharata

    Mahabharata
    Rudra Bhakthya Thu Krishnena Jagat Vyaptham Mahathmana,
    Tham Prasadhya Thadha Devam Bhadaryam Kila Bharatha.
    Arthath Priya Harathwam Cha Sarva Lokeshu Vai Yadhaa,
    Prapthavaaneva Rajendra Suvarnaakshan Maheswaraath.
    Meaning:
    The Great Lord Krishna, due to His devotion to the Supreme Lord Rudra,has Spread All Over The Universe, Oh Bharatha, Lord Shiva pleased by His penance in Badri granted Him the boon due to which He has Attained The State Of Being More Dear,Than All The Worlds And All Aspects Of Knowledge.

    Yuge Yuge Thu Krushnena Thoshitho Vai Maheswara,
    Bhakthya Paramaya Chaiva Prathi Sruthwa Mahatmana.
    Meaning :
    Lord Maheshwara becomes pleased and happy Yugas After Yugas, By this Krishna who is THE SUPREME DEVOTEE Of Lord Shiva which is accepted by mahatmas.

    So Krishna worships Shiva in all yugas in all His incarnations . Am sure you do know that the sudarshana chakra was granted to Him by Shiva. and it doesnt mean He is inferior. Just indicates that the Brahman worships His own self
    and so should we.






    I have been "brainwashed"? Please, I was born to parents who were not vaishnavas and thought Shiva=Krishna. I actually had to think before I became a Vaishnava, so I wasn't brainwashed.
    _______________________________________
    you need to redefine the term "think"





    I can agree on one point on the 64 qualities thing. I personally think it doesn't make sense. If we are talking about the Gaudiya perspective, then it should at least be that Vishnu is 100% God and Krishna is 110%. But your comment doesn't bother me because I believe that Vishnu came on this earth as Krishna, but I don't think one is greater than the other. So Krishna=Vishnu.
    _____________________________
    You cant agree on one thing and disagree on other. That is the whole point here. And spirituality doesnt recourse itself on my view or yours. Neither is god a part of any organisation and God doesnt mould Himself to cater to your belief or my belief or any cult belief.




    Do not accuse me of saying that "Krishna is the source of chaturvyaha and vishnu etc" when I do not believe that. I believe Vishnu is the source of all. And regarding your claim that I thought Vishnu wasn't in Vaikuntha etc. Vishnu is always in Vaikuntha, he probably took an expansion of himself and displayed it to Devaki and Vasudeva. I didn't say that Vishnu became Krishna and only lived on Earth. If I did, then forgive me because I didn't mean that.
    ______________________________________________
    Well my matter of contention is with certain school of thought and not with you. You can agree with some and disagree with another thats your pov and it carries no honesty or worth from my pov





    "Supreme Lord with with the name nArAyaNa" (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad bhAShya, 3.7.3)
    ________________________________
    You should read svetasvatara kaivalya jabala upanishads and also shri rudram of the vedas



    "Vishnu, or Ananta, who is the primordial being, who has all the three worlds for His body, and who is the in-dwelling Soul of all the beings" (Mundaka Upanishad bhAShya, 2.1.4)
    ________________________________________________
    You should read the shri rudram commentaries too. vishnu is not a sectarian name and is also a name for shiva and ganesha and devi(As vaishnavi)



    "
    The mahopanishad itself says "eko ha vai nArAyaNa asIt, na brahma nEshana."
    The Narayanopanishad says "nArAyaNat rudrO jAyatE."
    ______________________________
    svetasvatara says the same thing about rudra and kalagnirudra upanishad says the same thing



    Adi Shankara also quotes this "Vishnu is sung everywhere at the beginning, middle, and end of the Vedas, the holy rAmAyaNa and the mahAbhArata, O Best of the lineage of Bharata!" (Harivamsa, 3.132.95). (Sources: Narayanastra Blog)
    ____________________________________
    Adi shankara also wrote the saundarya lahari and propagated sri chakra philosophy much more than anything else and i didnt know i should now start listening to this narayanastra blog guy who now kind of became the upholder of hindu dharma Personally when Krishna worships Shiva i better accept the view of Krishna while you accept Narayanastra guy and get into the razzle dazzle of forms and names and think God is as childish as you are and that He thinks in the same line and fights with others over supremacy issue



    The Vedas themselves say that Agni is the lowest and Vishnu is the highest, and that the devas always look the to supreme abode of Vishnu.
    _______________________________________________________
    No they dont. You are like a small kid shouting its dad is the best. Hopefully that dad will give you intelligence soon



    I did not look at the poem that he composed supposedly praising Krishna and Shiva, but here is what this site has to say.
    ______________________
    exactly and thats the point you dont look at real points but cherry pick from whatever you deem is convenient




    Saying that Krishna is Shiva's devotee contradicts the Vedas, Puranas, and Adi Shankara who has agreed in the Gita that Lord Krishna is the Lord of Lords.
    ___________________________________________
    Krishna didnot even exist in the vedas so you are partly true because contradiction doesnt apply to things that dont even exist.
    and once again Krishna worshipped shiva if you read mahabharata anushasana parva and krishna was the one who sang the shiva sahasranama to yuddhistira and calls shiva as para brahma.
    In bhagavata krishna tells vasudeva not to worship indra but He Himself worships Shiva and Ambika that itself means something'



    If you want to try to refute the Gaudiya view that Krishna > Vishnu, then go ahead and do it. I will have no problem because I myself don't agree with that. If that was the intent of this blog, then fine. But it appears that you are trying to display Krishna as some weak demigod. Because he is Narayana. This has been confirmed in the Mahabharata and Bhagavata Purana.
    _______________________________________________
    No i never told, not even for a second that Krishna is a weak demigod. Infact i am against the demigod thing. And id say the same thing to any shaivaite who calls Krishna a demigod too.
    But due to your fanaticism you areNOT able to appreciate the truth but that is none of my business



    In his Git Bhashya for 9.25, he says that Vaishnavas attain the highest state of liberation. Not any other god's devotee
    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________

    Frankly this statement takes the cake You think upamanyu,tandi,gautama,kapila,parashurama,dadhichi,nandi, bhringi, etc etc didnot attain liberation?
    http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m13/m13a018.htm Mahabharata

    Kapila, avatar of vishnu who gave us the Sankhya said,--I adore Bhava with great devotion for many lives together. The illustrious Deity at last became gratified with me and gave me knowledge that is capable of aiding the acquirer in getting over rebirth.


    Valmiki, addressing Yudhishthira, said,-- the sin of Brahmanicide, O Bharata, possessed me. I then, for cleansing myself, sought the protection of the sinless Isana who is irresistible in energy. I become cleansed of all my sins.

    Jamadagni's son, Parashurama--I was afflicted with the sin, O eldest son of Pandu, of Brahmanicide for having slain my brothers who were all learned Brahmanas. For purifying myself, I sought the protection, O king, of Mahadeva.

    Viswamitra said,--I was formerly a Kshatriya. I paid my adorations to Bhava with the desire of becoming a Brahmana Through the grace of that great Deity I succeeded in obtaining the high status of a Brahmana that is so difficult to obtain.

    Rishi Asita-Devala, said,--In former days, O son of Kunti, through the curse of Sakra, all my merit due to the acts of righteousness I had performed, was destroyed. The puissant Mahadeva it was who kindly gave me back that merit together with great fame and a long life.


    Vasudeva,said,--Mahadeva of golden eyes was gratified by me with my penances. the illustrious Deity said unto me,--Thou shalt, O Krishna, through my grace, become dearer to all persons than wealth which is coveted by all. Thou shalt be invincible in battle. Thy energy shall be equal to that of Fire. Thousands of other boons Mahadeva gave unto me on that occasion. In a former incarnation I adored Mahadeva on the Manimantha mountain for millions of years. Gratified with me, the illustrious Deity said--Blessed be thou, do thou solicit boons as thou wishest. Bowing unto him with a bend of my head, I said--If the puissant Mahadeva has been gratified with me, then let my devotion to him be unchanged, O Isana! Even this is the boon that I solicit.--The great God said unto me,--Be it so--and disappeared there and then.'

    Meditating on the highest Lord, allied to Uma, powerful, three-eyed, blue-necked, and tranquil, the holy man reaches Him who is the source of all, the witness of all and is beyond darkness (i.e. Avidya). Lord SHiva says "For me there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor air, nor ether. Thus realising the Paramatman, who lies in the cavity of the heart, who is without parts, and without a second, the Witness of all, beyond both existence and non-existence – one attains the Pure Paramatman Itself."25. He who studies the Shatarudriya, is purified as by the Fires, is purified from the sin of drinking, purified from the sin of killing a Brahmana, from deeds done knowingly or unawares. Through this he has his refuge in Shiva, the Supreme Self. One who belongs to the highest order of life should repeat this always or once (a day).Kaivalyopanishad the upanishad of liberation
    Last edited by ganeshamylord; 21 July 2014 at 12:45 AM.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    June 2013
    Location
    Maharashtra
    Posts
    570
    Rep Power
    1125

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

    PranAm,

    Quote Originally Posted by axlyz View Post
    Namaste ganeshmylord ji,

    Do tell me why Shankara says in his Gita Bhashya

    "There is none who is equal to you, and when that is the case, how even can there be any who is superior to You in any of three worlds, Oh Lord, who is of unrivaled power?" (Bhag. G 11.43)
    Narayana and Brahman are indifferent. That's why he is called as supreme. Because he's established himself one with Brahman while telling Gita. Upanishads too say there's nothing as compared to Brahman, it is above all and also says that this self is none other than Brahman.

    "(Lord Krishna says) 'I, the Supreme Parabrahman known by name as vAsudeva, am the source of the whole world. From Me alone evolves the whole universe in all its changes, including existence and dissolution, action, effect, and enjoyment'" (Bhag. G 10.8)
    Yes, Krushna is Vasudeva. Because He's more than just form. 'Vasudeva' means vasu-rested everywhere ie all pervading & deva- ruler of the world ie origin of all. Krishna never said in Gita that his form is Brahman. Just quote even a single reference where form is mentioned as Brahman.

    Please, I was born to parents who were not vaishnavas and thought Shiva=Krishna.
    What do you mean? Vaishnawa doesn't think shiva=vishnu? Read Bhagavata Purana to know the real vaishnawism. Real vaishnawas (Advaitian) don't see any difference between shiva and Vishnu and such vaishnawa only attains Brahman, other vaishnawas don't attain Brahman.

    And regarding Adi Shankara, here's a few quotes to get you thinking.
    "Supreme Lord with with the name nArAyaNa" (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad bhAShya, 3.7.3)

    "Vishnu, or Ananta, who is the primordial being, who has all the three worlds for His body, and who is the in-dwelling Soul of all the beings" (Mundaka Upanishad bhAShya, 2.1.4)

    "The all-pervading Brahman, the Supreme Soul, known by the name vAsudeva" (kaTha upaniShad bhAShya, 1.3.9)
    Narayana is Brahman. Even Shukadeva and Narada are also mentioned as Brahman. Besides Atma/Jiva itself is mentioned as Brahman. Thus these all facts refutes the notion of Brahman has form. Nowhere in any scripture form is mentioned as Brahman.

    In his Git Bhashya for 9.25, he says that Vaishnavas attain the highest state of liberation. Not any other god's devotee.
    What an ignorant statement. This reflects poor knowledge on scriptures. For adi Shankara vishnu is not limited to form. He's all pervading formless. The devotion to ganesha or Shiva is not different from Vishnu's worship. Moreover In padma Purana krishna himself says " worshippers of all gods attain me' In Narada puruna, Narada mentioned Ganesha as a giver of Moksha. So what do you mean by this?


    Adi Shankara also quotes this "Vishnu is sung everywhere at the beginning, middle, and end of the Vedas, the holy rAmAyaNa and the mahAbhArata, O Best of the lineage of Bharata!" (Harivamsa, 3.132.95). (Sources: Narayanastra Blog)
    He's glorified in his true nature which is all-pervading formless nature. Veda doesn't glorify Krishna's form.

    The Vedas themselves say that Agni is the lowest and Vishnu is the highest, and that the devas always look the to supreme abode of Vishnu.
    Vishnu here is referred to supreme abode, not to a limited form of God. Formless and Akshara is the highest abode of Vishnu. bhagavan has declared this in Gita.


    Saying that Krishna is Shiva's devotee contradicts the Vedas, Puranas, and Adi Shankara who has agreed in the Gita that Lord Krishna is the Lord of Lords.
    LoL, how krishna is devotee of Shiva contradicts with Veda? In fact the distinction between Shiva and Vishnu contradicts with Veda. I think, one who's highly influenced by duality and form, can't comprehend Adi Shankara's teachings.

    "Purnavatar meaning complete with the qualities of Narayana or complete with realization of Narayana."
    Krishna is amsha avatara of Vishnu, not purna avatara. Purna avatara is vague belief. If you don't think so cite the references where Krishna is purna avatara. BtW, Amsha doesn't mean that he's really a part and lower. Amsha is imagined as compared to Infinite Brahman. Krishna form is like compressed form of Infinite Brahman Vishnu. So he's mentioned as Amsha of Vishnu.

  9. #29

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

    Dear ganeshmylord,

    You said "Narayana is ofcourse the Supreme Paramatma and when was i disagreeing with this?"

    -Really? When you say things such as Krishna worshiped Shiva etc, how can you exactly think that Narayana is supreme?

    You said, "This is a standard statement foretold in all the gitas including devi gita,shiva gita(padma purana) ganesha gita. "

    Yeah, but only Bhagavad Gita is considered the most authentic and the perfect knowledge. Did Adi Shankara comment on Devi Gita, Shiva Gita, etc?
    Only Bhagavad Gita has been considered the root of all knowledge.

    You said, "]Disagreeing with them doesnt mean hating them. Also you wont understand it due to your deep rooted self indulgent ignorance."

    -Right. So that basically means that you will continue to condemn people who have devoted their whole lives to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's movement (hari-naam sankirtan).

    Krishna only worshiped Rudra because Rudra asked Vishnu to worship him so Shiva would get more respect. Krishna himself says that whenever he worshiped Rudra, he was actually worshiping Himself.

    Krishna has never worshiped Rudra in any of his incarnations. Did you know that the Valmiki Ramayana has no mention of Lord Ram worshiping Rudra?

    You said, "you need to redefine the term "think"

    -Okay, if you say so. My family continued to harass me because of my new lifestyle (vegetarian, etc) and my religion. They also accused Ramanuja, Madhva, and Chaitanya to be "polluters of Hinduism" and that they were more Christian than Hindu. I hope you can see what kind of environment I was raised in and how much effort it took me to realize what the truth was.

    You said, "You cant agree on one thing and disagree on other. That is the whole point here. And spirituality doesnt recourse itself on my view or yours. Neither is god a part of any organisation and God doesnt mould Himself to cater to your belief or my belief or any cult belief"

    Why can't I? I was only interested in the hari-naam sankirtan and the life of Chaitanya when I meant I was interested in Gaudiya Vaishnavism. I am not one, just so you know.

    Agreed, God is not a part of any organization. However, Vaishnavas have just been following what the Gita, Vedas, and Puranas have been saying.

    You said, "You should read the shri rudram commentaries too. vishnu is not a sectarian name and is also a name for shiva and ganesha and devi(As vaishnavi)"

    -Okay, I don't know too much about Vishnu naam, but Narayana naam is only for Vishnu and the Vedas themselves say that Narayana is Parabrahman. Hence no Shiva, Ganesha, nor Devi.

    When Krishna says that all the Vedas praise him, then everything must be a praise to Vishnu/Narayana.

    You said, "svetasvatara says the same thing about rudra and kalagnirudra upanishad says the same thing"

    -I don't know which verses you are referring to. Either way, Rudra is also a name of Narayana and hence denotes Vishnu. Rudra is a common noun, unlike Narayana.

    You said, "Adi shankara also wrote the saundarya lahari and propagated sri chakra philosophy much more than anything else and i didnt know i should now start listening to this narayanastra blog guy who now kind of became the upholder of hindu dharma Personally when Krishna worships Shiva i better accept the view of Krishna while you accept Narayanastra guy and get into the razzle dazzle of forms and names and think God is as childish as you are and that He thinks in the same line and fights with others over supremacy issue"

    -Lahiris are not authentic. When Shankara himself says so clearly in his Bhashyas (which are universally regarded as his) that only Narayana is supreme compared to all devatas, he could not have changed his philosophy while writing the Lahiris and whatnot.

    The Narayanastra Blog person is only echoing the message of Ramanuja, Madhva, Vedanta Desika, Yamuna, etc. Do you think you are smarter than those people?

    You said, "No they dont. You are like a small kid shouting its dad is the best. Hopefully that dad will give you intelligence soon"

    -agnirvai devanamavamo vishnuh paramah tadantara sarva devatah
    "Agni is the lowest and Vishnu is the highest among devas. All other gods occupy positions that are in between." (Aitareya Brahmana 1.1.1)

    You said, "exactly and thats the point you dont look at real points but cherry pick from whatever you deem is convenient"

    -Well I did not know much about Madhusudhana but Adi Shankara makes things pretty clear that he regards Narayana as supreme. I doubt you even read the article.

    You said, "Krishna didnot even exist in the vedas so you are partly true because contradiction doesnt apply to things that dont even exist.
    and once again[SIZE=2][FONT=Times New Roman] Krishna worshipped shiva if you read mahabharata anushasana parva and krishna was the one who sang the shiva sahasranama to yuddhistira and calls shiva as para brahma."

    -Look...Krishna is just Vishnu in a different form. Yes, Krishna is not mentioned but Vishnu/Narayana is.

    Shiva Sahasranama is not authentic. No single major Vedantin has ever commented on it, whereas Vishnu Sahasranama has been praised and commented by even Adi Shankara. Why did Adi Shankara write a commentary on Vishnu and not Shiva Sahasranama? Because the Shiva Sahasranam didn't exist back then. Either way, Vedas use Narayana to denote Brahman and your Shiva Sahasranam doesn't even have it.

    You said, "In bhagavata krishna tells vasudeva not to worship indra but He Himself worships Shiva and Ambika that itself means something'"

    Krishna worshiped Himself when we was supposedly worshiping Shiva. Plus, in the Bhagavata Purana, Shiva and his family tries to fight with Krishna and get demolished. When they can't even defeat him, why should he worship them??

    You said, "No i never told, not even for a second that Krishna is a weak demigod. Infact i am against the demigod thing. And id say the same thing to any shaivaite who calls Krishna a demigod too.
    But due to your fanaticism you areNOT able to appreciate the truth but that is none of my business"

    -Lol...so you think that all Gods are equal and the same? Not only is that illogical, but has no support from scriptures. Shiva and Narayana cannot both be God for many reasons.
    1) Vedas claim Narayana is supreme
    2) Narayana and Rudra have had many fights, with Narayana always winning
    3) All major acharyas believe in the Supremacy of Vishnu, including Shankara.

    Narayana is a proper noun. It cannot be used for anyone else than Vishnu. With that observation, any quotes that have different names for Parabrahman, ie "rudro vai purusho" just refer to Narayana.

    Regards

  10. #30
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Mumbai
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,210
    Rep Power
    1364

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

    Namaste axlyz ji,

    Brother, I humbly request you that if you wish to be open minded, please do not follow Narayanaastra Blog. Sure that guy has knowledge of shastras and sanskrit grammar. No denying it. But he is strongly attached to Sri Vaishnava SampradAya and has a BIG Ego. Finally that thread was deleted. He didnt wished to discuss, didnt want to listen and had also put commentary on his blog.

    This discussion had taken place here on HDF. That guy has no tolerance even to listen to anyone.

    I had requested him, not to interpret Adi Sankara from Vaishnava POV, but all in vain.

    Sorry for sidetracking this thread.

    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

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
  •