mahakala

bhava dasa wrote I am just asking for clarifation on what I have read from various web sites i.e a) Lord Brahma being a guna avatara b) Lord Brahma is the head of th Brahma Gaudiya sampradaya and c) The illusion of Lord Brahma as narrated in Srimad Bhagavatam My queries a) why Lord Brahma is not properly accorded the status befitting that of a Sampradaya founder? b) Why Lord Brahma (but Radha is) isn't the mediatrix in the Brahma Gaudiya sampradaya ? b) Can a Guru who is subject to illusion be fit to be a founder of a sampradaya ? The issue is not on whose authority I accept, as long as I get a logical reply to my queries

A) How you reconcile the above with the Gaudiya teaching that Brahma is a guna avatara ? B) If Garbodaksayi Vishnu manifest himself as Brahma is he subjected to the 3 jiva categories ? Guna-avataras (incarnations of the qualitative modes of nature) They are Brahma (rajo-guna), Visnu (sattva-guna) and Siva (tamo-guna). Brahma is one of the living entities, but due to his devotional service he is very powerful. This primal living entity, master of the mode of material passion, is directly empowered by the Garbhodakasayi Visnu to create innumerable living entities. In Brahma-samhita (5.49) Brahma is likened to valuable jewels influenced by the rays of the sun, and the sun is likened to the Supreme Lord Garbhodakasayi Visnu. If in some kalpa there is no suitable living entity capable of acting in Brahma's capacity, Garbhodakasayi Visnu Himself manifests as Brahma and acts accordingly. http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/avatars.htm How is Brahma respected and honoured in the Gaudiya tradition as an acharya ? (please note the difference - worshipping guru to that of deva) Thanks

Bhava das Brahma is the founder / head of the Brahma - Gaudiya sampradaya, as such. I would expect Brahma to be honoured by the sampradaya as their founding guru. For e.g in Sri sampradaya they believe Laskmi is their First guru, a) they have a parama guru pranam - honouring Laksmi. b) To Sri vaisnavas, Laksmi as a guru, is the mediatrix between God and the jivas My questions are simple a) where is such a parama guru pranam or honour for Brahma is the Gaudiya sampradaya ? b) If Brahma ji is founder of Gaudiya tradition, then Brhama ji should rightly be the mediatrix between the devotee and the Lord. But why Srimati Radha takes over his role ? c) Brahma is know to have fallen for his own daughter, and also subjected to illusion by the Lord, as such is he fit to be the founding acharya ? d) Please provide objective (not subjective) scriptural evidence to support the gradation of Brahma ji Thanks

It has nothing to do with deva- yajna. Isn't Lord Brahma the head of the Gaudiya Brahma sampradaya ? If so shouldn't Brahma be accorded the respect and worship befitting a founder of the great sampradaya ?

Getting tough and demanding huh I am stating the obvious, all three acharyas accepted the prasthana trayam as their authority. Its pseudo-vedantists, who have problems with valid pramanas. You crack me up, My refernence to SB , is to show that one SB verse can't taken out off context to the rest. Also refer to my post # 8 in this thread You are going in circles, read Srimad Bhagavatm Canto 10 to 11 for the answer. Canto 10 http://vedabase.net/sb/10/1/en Canto 11 http://vedabase.net/sb/11/31/en This is what, Srila Prabhupad had to say on Shiva. "In the beginning of the creation there was only the Supreme Personality Nārāyaṇa. There was no Brahmā, no Śiva, no water, no fire, no moon, no stars in the sky, no sun." (Mahā Upaniṣad 1) In the Mahā Upaniṣad it is also said that Lord Śiva was born from the forehead of the Supreme Lord. Thus the Vedas say that it is the Supreme Lord, the creator of Brahmā and Śiva, who is to be worshiped. You said - I never claimed that krsna is different from vishnu then you say - nor have I claimed they are the same If they are not the same then are they are different ? Please reconcile the contradicton. Really !! check this out to find out more on Narayana Srimad Bhagavatam 12.12.3 atra sańkīrtitaḥ sākṣāt sarva-pāpa-haro hariḥ nārāyaṇo hṛṣīkeśo bhagavān sātvatām patiḥ TRANSLATION This literature fully glorifies the Supreme Personality of Godhead Hari, who removes all His devotees' sinful reactions. The Lord is glorified as Nārāyaṇa, Hṛṣīkeśa and the Lord of the Sātvatas. source : http://vedabase.net/sb/12/12/3/en Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 11:31:27 ya etad deva-devasya viṣṇoḥ karmāṇi janma ca kīrtayec chraddhayā martyaḥ sarva-pāpaiḥ pramucyate TRANSLATION A person who with faith engages in chanting the glories of these various pastimes and incarnations of Viṣṇu, the Lord of Lords, will gain liberation from all sins. http://vedabase.net/sb/11/31/27/en Refer to your earlier comment You have explicitly said I (Krsna) does not apply to HIM - (Maha Vishnu). This implies I is not the same (different) as (from) HIM.

What ever Krsna says in the Gita cannot be taken out of context, it has to be reconciled with the upanishads and Brahma sutras. For these reason, BG was accepted as authoritative by Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhva acharyas. I have shown in Bhagavatam Cantos 10 and 11, how Krsna is described to be the incarnation of Vishnu. So everything that Krsna says in the Gita has to be seen in that light as an avatara and so there is no contradiction in his statement in BG Chpt 7 text 7 Chapter 10 text 8 etc There is nothing superior to Me, the ME is Vishnu/Narayana unless you prove that Vishnu and his incarnation Krsna are 2 different entities. You said Maha Vishnu etc have "No begining" then Please reconcile this statement in the Moksa-dharma where Krsna says, prajāpatiḿ ca rudraḿ cāpy aham eva sṛjāmi vai tau hi māḿ na vijānīto mama māyā-vimohitau "The patriarchs, Śiva and others are created by Me, though they do not know that they are created by Me because they are deluded by My illusory energy." If Shiva was created by Krsna, show me evidence where Krsna claims to have created Vishnu / Narayana ? If you claim Krsna is different from Vishnu / Narayan, please support your claim with a verse showing the difference and not ambigious texts with ME ( No truth beyond Me. Everything rests upon Me, etc). Nārāyaṇa Upaniṣad 4) Then it is said, eko vai nārāyaṇa āsīn na brahmā na īśāno nāpo nāgni-samau neme dyāv-āpṛthivī na nakṣatrāṇi na sūryaḥ: In the beginning of the creation there was only the Supreme Personality Nārāyaṇa. So you claiming Krsna is different from Maha Vishnu, according to Madhva its a serious offence to see a bedha in the 2, if you belong to the Madhava- gaudiya lineage source : http://vedabase.net/bg/10/8/en

kanista I feel this dicussion is going off topic - please note this thraed is on who is the avatara of whom. As to your claim on Krsna's sweetness , leelas etc - to each his/her own, and you cant comment on others' devotional propensities.

Rasa theory - give me a non Gaudiya pramanam to support it - that Krsna has more qualities than Narayana !!!

AumShanti, are you in denial ? Those verese from SB clearly and explicits states that the pastimes narrated in Canto 10 and 11 is on the incarnation of Visnu. And NOT the pastimes of Krsna in canto 10 /11 are on the incarnation of Krsna.. I have earlier given the Jesus and God analogy perhaps that will help you to digest the truth.

Then why take the krsna tu bhagavan svayam verse literally, perhaps, for poetic reasons, Krsna was used instead of Vishnu/Narayana as Krsna is an alternate name for Visnu et al

AumShanti There is nothing explicit in these vereses to indicate Krsna is the source of Vishnu. If you imply that the verses you quoted "everything emanates from Me " etc includes the creation of Vishnu by Krsna, then are you suggesting that Vishnu has a begining ?

My post is to provide evidence that Krsna is an incarnation of Vishnu. Canto 10 deals with the advent of Krishna and Canto11 with the disappearance, In the beginning of canto 10, King Prakshit has asked Suka to narrate Lord Vishnu's pastimes as Krsna avatara. yados' ca dharma-s'îlasya nitarâm muni-sattama tatrâms'enâvatîrnasya vishnor vîryâni s'amsa nah SB 10.1.2: O best of munis, you have also described the descendants of Yadu, who were very pious and strictly adherent to religious principles. Now, if you will, kindly describe the wonderful, glorious activities of Lord Viṣṇu, or Kṛṣṇa, who appeared in that Yadu dynasty with Baladeva, His plenary expansion. I have highlighted in my previous post how Prabhupad interpreted Visnor liberally as "or Krsna" The end of Canto 11, concludes by stating - incarnations of Vishnu ya etad deva-devasya vishnoh karmâni janma ca kîrtayec chraddhayâ martyah sarva-pâpaih pramucyate SB 11.31.27: A person who with faith engages in chanting the glories of these various pastimes and incarnations of Viṣṇu, the Lord of lords, will gain liberation from all sins.

You are right, there are many verses in SB that claims Krsna as the incarnation of Vishnu, unfortunately a certain group likes to cherry pick verses whithout seeing the whole picture. SB Canto 10 Chapter 8 verse 19 tasman nanadatmajo yam te Narayana samo gunaih O nanda ! This child of yours is equal to Lord Narayana in respect to his qualities

Srimad Bhagavatam canto 10 chpt 1 text 2 This chapter in on the eagerness of King Prakshit to learn about the incarnation of Krsna according to ACBVP. nitaram muni sattama tatramsenavatirnasya visnor viryani samsa nah Now if you will, kindly describe the wonderful, glorious activities of Lord Vishnu (or Krsna) who appeared in that yadu dynasty with Baladeva, His planeary expansion. This verse clear shows Vishnu to be the source of Krsna. a) In the tarnslation AC Bhaktivedanta Swami say Lord Vishnu or Krsna, why is there a need to add "or Krsna" when the verse clear states only Vishnu ? b) In his summary of this 10th canto - Prabhupad says incarnation of Krsna - what is he implying - Krsna the incarnation of Lord Vishnu or incarnation of Krsna himself ? - or like Jesus, God incarnated as Jesus to sacrifice himself to himself ?

This verse says Krsna is the source of creation nothing to claim he is Superior to Vishnu . Parameshvara - Lord Shiva ? All that I am asking - show where Krishna claims that he superior or greater than Vishnu