If there is not any difference at all between Lord Krishna and other forms of the Lord, and if form of Lord Krishna is not somehow more complete than all the other forms, then why have all the forms called amsas while only Lord Krishna is not amsa? Lord Krishna is nobody's amsa or part! Word aṁśa means "a part". A part is somehow less complete than the whole. The very word aṁśa "a part" implies that they are somehow less complete than Lord Krishna.
That means that the holy name of Lord Rama has a higher spiritual power than some other names. This is, again, consistent with the view that the Lord appears in the form of Lord Rama in a more complete manner than in other forms. If this is not so then why would the name of Lord Rama had a higher spiritual power.
We should also notice that there is the difference between "complete" "more complete" and "the most complete". For all forms of the Lord are said to be simultaneously "a part" and "plenary", but for Lord Krishna is not said "a part" but only "complete" or even "the most complete".
Even Lord Narayana is said to be a part of Lord Krishna in Bhagavatam 10.14.14 (
http://vedabase.net/sb/10/14/14/en ).
In Bhagavatam 1.9.18 (
http://vedabase.net/sb/1/9/18/en ) Lord Krishna is described as "He is the first Nārāyaṇa". So it is not Lord Narayana the first at all but is Lord Krishna. He is that "First One" from whom everything else emerges. "Everything else" includes Lord Narayana, all other forms of Lord Vishnu, all living beings and everything that is material.
Bookmarks