RE: Question :BhagavAn svayam - 1

[Guest guest]

Sri:

Srimate Sri Lakshmi Nrusimha Para Brahmane namaha

Srimate Sri Lakshmi Nrusimha Divya pAdukA sevaka Srivan Shatakopa -

Sri nArAyaNa Yateendra mahAdesikAya namaha

 

Dear Sri rAm gopAlswAmy & other devotees ,

namo nArAyaNA. Kindly accept adiyen’s pranAmams.

 

Sri rAm gopAlswAmy wrote :

 

shriimad bhaagavta-puraaNam talks about various incarnations of bhagavaan

(including kR^shhNaavataara) and says:

 

" ete ca amsha kalaaH pumsaH kR^shhNaH tu bhagavaan svayam |

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^******

indra-ari vyaakulam lokam mR^Dayanti yuge yuge || " [1.3.28]

 

"All of the above-mentioned incarnations are either plenary portions or

portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord shrii KR^shhNa

is the original Personality of Godhead. All of them appear on planets

whenever there is a disturbance created by the atheists.

The Lord incarnates to protect the theists."

 

 

It seems to be apparently inconsistent with paaN^caraatra.

Is not, according to paaN^caraatra, shriiman-naaraayaNa is the Original_

Personality of Godhead and shrii. kR^shhNa is a vibhava-avataara ?

 

I wonder what the word "svayam" means in the above context.

 

[ Also, dhyaana-shlokam for shriimad bhagavad giita itself says,

"... paarthaaya pratibodhitaaM bhagavataa naaraayaNena svayaM.."

Is the dhyaana-shlokam universally accepted as authentic ?

]

 

Have raamaanujaacarya, or vedaanta-deshika commented on this point

in their granta-s ?

[also curious what shrii.yaamuna says in his work, "mahaa-purushha-nirnaya" ]

 

-----------------------

 

Various issues are being addressed here by our dear devotee

Sriman rAm GopAlswAmy , who in the past has come up with very

interesting questions that has given lot of oppurtunities for

all of us to know about the sampradAyam much better .

 

1. Qtn : By the above Srimad BhAgavatham (SB) verse can one come

to the conclusion that KrishNA is the actual God & nArAyaNA

is secondary ( "expansion ?" ) to Him ?

 

Ans : This verse doesn’t even mention about nArAyaNA . Usage of

"KrishNA" here can _atbest_ be considered in

"comparison" with other vibhava avatArams (incarnations).

The verse simply says that in comparison with the

above mentioned avatArams , KrishNA is actually

bhagavAn whereas others are amsAs of Him . This doesn’t (

even in the remotest sense ) imply that nArAyaNA is

an amsA of KrishNA or something like that .

 

Please note that previously , KrishNA was also listed

as one of the incarnation of Hari (nArAyaNA) by Sage SUtar .

Actually the sages request Sage sUtar to describe various

incarnations of Lord Hari ( SB 1.1.13 & 1.1.18 ) . So , the best

extrapolation from this verse that one can obtain is that ,of all

the incarnations (avatArams) that so far has been listed by

Sage sUtar , KrishNA is the perfect avatAram ( ie. Poorna

avatAram ie. Svayam ) of nArAyaNA & all other avatArams

are only amsAs of nArAyaNA , ie. KrishNA is non-different

from nArAyaNA since KrishNA is svayam bhagavAn &

all other avatArams are not same as nArAyaNA since they

are only His amsAs .

 

Even if one makes the extrapolation of the greatest order &

gives an interpretation which cannot be derived from this verse

like "nArAyaNA is also an amsA of KrishNA" it contradicts

hundreds of pramAnams from VedAs (including Upanishads ) ,

IthihAsa purAnAs , Divya prabandham , pAncarAtrA etc . So ,

such type of claim is obviously not supported by Scriptures .

 

2. Qtn: If the word "ete" is interpreted to mean _all_ the incarnations

that has been described so far by Sage SUtar , it leads to

a conclusion that KrishNA is the _only_ poorna avatAram of

nArAyaNA & all other avatArams like nrusimhA , rAmA are

only His amsAs . This obviously contradicts hundreds of

pramAnams . What then is the exact purport of this verse ?

 

Ans : adiyen is giving the answer to this question based on the

Srimad BhAgavatham series appearing in "Nrusimha PriyA" .

The section pertaining to our discussion was written by

late Sri atthi nrusimhAchAryA (vaikuNThavAsi) . Now , it is

continued by Sri SthalasayanAchAryA. This tamil series has

been released in a book format by "Sri Nrusimha PriyA Trust"

during 1995 , which has the description of Srimad

BhAgavatham till 3rd Canto , Ch 23 .

 

 

The answer to the question lies in the "chatri nyAyam" used

in sanskrit . It is described as follows :

"chatrinO gacchanti" => a group of people having

umbrellAs are going . Actually , not everyone in that group

needs to hold an umbrellA . But that group is reffered to,

asif everyone is holding the UmbrellA because many are

holding it => generalization is done. This is the

"chatri nyAyam " .

 

All avatArams of the type NrusimhA , RAmA are Poorna

avatArams only , since they are taken by the same

nArAyaNA . In this verse , "chatri nyAyam" is employed

ie. Eventhough all the poorna avatArms ( no umbrellA)

seems to be grouped with that of many other avatArams

(anupravesA etc; with umbrellA ) by the word "ete" , its

actual import from the application of "chatri nyAyam" is

that the word "ete" refers to the amsa avatArams

( with umbrella) only . So , the comparison of

KrishNAvatAram is strictly not with all the avatArams

that has been listed before , but only with other amsa

avatArams . If one fails to recognize the "chatri nyAyam "

employed , it leads him into a contradiction .

 

 

3. Qtn : Can this be further explained in the light of the "context" in

which Sage sUtar uttered this verse ?

 

Ans : Actually , the sages were very eager to know about many

things . First of all , they payed their salutations to Sage

sUtar who was a great rishi having immense knowledge

& the fruit of that knowledge viz. ardent devotion unto

Sriman nArAyaNA . Sage sUtar was in such a position

because he did lot of kainkaryams to his achAryA

& got his blessings (in form of kAlakshebams etc) . Since

the katAkshA of a sadAchAryA ( AchAryA of a Sat

sampradAyam ie. SampradAyam starting with Sriman

nArAyaNA ) fell unto Sage sUtar , he could understand

all the imports of the vedAs correctly & easily ( All

these things are in a way told by the sages themselves

to Sage sUtar while glorifying him )

 

Sages told Sage sUtar that , since the kali yugA will be

filled with people who have mandha buddhi (lack of spiritual

knowledge ) & short life, aisvaryam etc & will be

immersed in samsArA , the upadesam of the sAram

(essence) of scriptures needs to be done (ie. Kali yugA

people have mandha buddhi => perform lot of speculations

instead of understanding the tattvA properly under the

guidance of a "sadAchAryA " => they can’t understand the

essence of vedAs ) . They wanted to know the things which

would be of ultimate benifit to all the jIvAtmAs , acts that

needs to be followed by jIvAtmAs so that it will please

bhagavAn , __about the incarnation of bhagavAn as

son of Devaki__, leelAs performed by bhagavAn in various

incarnations , glories of nAma sankeertanam , glories of

parama bhAgavathOthamAs whose mere katAkshA will

sanctify a person .

 

The sages being ardent devotees of KrishNAvatAram ,

which got winded up quite recently , they eagerly asked

Sage sUtar to especially describe that avatAram in detail

in which bhagavAn as KrishNA alongwith BalarAmA did

various super human acts . They also wanted to know

the person unto whom dharmA has taken shelter off

after the departure of KrishNA to Sri VaikuNTham .

 

So , among all the vibhava avatArams , their __focus__ is

on KrishNAvatAram , though they wanted to know

about all the avatArams of bhagavAn Sriman nArAyaNA .

 

Sage sUtar after briefly explaining about nArAyaNA’s

svaroopam , He being antaryAmi of chit & achit , He being

the sarIrI of chit & achit (ie. Chit & achit are His sarIrA) &

allied tattvAs , starts enlisting various avatArams of

Sriman nArAyaNA viz. Yoga nidrA form , BrahmA , 4 kumArAs ,

Naradar , Nara NArAyaNA , KapilA , DattAtreyA , ya~jnA (son

of son of sage ruchi & his wife Ahuti ) , King rushabA ,

King pruthu , matsyavatAram , koormAvatAram , Dhanvantari ,

Mohini , NrusimhA , vAmanA , parasurAmA , VyAsA , rAmA ,

BalarAmA , KrishNA , BuddhA & Kalki .

 

Then Suta pourAnikar continued that the number of

incarnations of Sriman nArAyaNA (Hari) are

innumerable like thousands of rivulets flowing from a

river & goes on to say that RishIs & devAs (demigods),

Manus & prajApatis are all amsAs of Lord Hari

(1.3.26-27) .

 

Now the stage is set for the verse 1.3.28 in our

discussion. Note that there were innumerable amsAvatArAs

that has been enlisted in comparison with the svayam

avatArAs.

 

The word "ete" if applies to all the incarnations enlisted

sofar , then by "chatri nyAyam" we can understand the

actual purport of the verse .

 

Alternatively, if we look at the previous two verses

( 1.3.26 & 1.3.27 ) , the focus is on the innumerable

avatArAs which are like rivulets from a river & enlisted

rishis , manus etc who all are basically amsAvatArAs.

So, obviously , SUtar wants to reiterate that they are

only amsAvatArAs (ie. They are not same as nArAyaNA)

& are different from His svayam avatArams . Now , a

good representative from the list of poorna avatArams has

to be chosen in order to differentiate from the amsAvatArams.

SUtar chose "KrishNA" because all the sages were His

ardent devotees & their focus was also with that avatAram.

KrishNA is also well known for the shadguna paripoornam .

 

 

Alternatively , the sages being KrishNA’s ardent devotees,

(obvious from their questions) shouldn’t be made anxious

since while enlisting various avatArams of Lord Hari ,

innumerable number of amsAvatArams were mentioned &

esp. in verses 26 & 27 this was openly enlisted ie. Sages

should be assured that their darling KrishNA is

neverthless "svayam bhagavAn" Sriman nArAyaNA &

is not a amsAvatArA . So , Suta pourAnikar chose to use

"KrishnA" in the verse 28.

 

4. Qtn : Is there any commentry available on Srimad BhAgavatham

by Sri Vaishnava AchAryAs ?

 

Ans : There are atleast 3 known commentries in Sanskrit .

 

a. A commentry attributed to Sri Krishna Guru , disciple of

Sri SomayAji AndAn (pre Desikan period) .

 

b. "SukhapakshyA" by the stAlwart Sudarsana sUri of

"SrutaprakAsikA" fame .

 

c. "BhAgavatha tAtparya chandrikA " by

Sri Venkata KrishnamAchAryA ( probably Late 18th Century ) .

 

adiyen doesn’t know whether the famous

"VeerarAghaveeyam" is different from the third one .

Neverthless it is also there .

 

Srimad RangapriyA swAmi has translated "Uddhava

GeetA" into KannadA if adiyen remembers rightly (

Sri Krishna Kalale has mentioned this ) .

 

Ongoing tamil series in Nrusimha PriyA is also there.

Someone should seriously consider publishing the

sanskrit commentries of our poorvAchAryAs which are

simply lying as manuscripts . Once it comes out ,

some bhAgavathA(s) should translate it into Tamil ,

English & other languages for the benifit of all

bhAgavathAs. Many Nectar among nectars are being

neglected somehow. The bhagavad anubhavam

obtained from AzhwAr's Divya Prabandham is more than

thousand times the bhagavad anubhavam that one can

possibly obtained from Srimad BhAgavatham . So , this

granthA is not given that much importance in our

sampradAyam . Also , Vishnu purAnam is much superior to

Srimad BhAgavatham while explaining tattvAs ( very crucial

to interpret many Upanishadic passages ) . SarIra sarIrI

bhAvA , nArAyanA tattvam , Sri tattvam etc are well

established in Sri Vishnu purAnam . Moreover , it is

much shorter than SB though containing almost the same thing

. Infact SB of vyAsar is the expansion of VP of his father

ParAsarar.

 

Neverthless , SB is another nectar & invaluable

commentries of our most merciful AchAryAs should be

made available to everyone so that the true tattvam is

understood by all the interested baddha jIvAtmAs .

 

--- to be cont ---

 

namo nArAyaNA

adiyen

anantha padmanAbha dAsan

sarvam sri krishNArpanamastu