Guest guest Posted April 19, 2000 Report Share Posted April 19, 2000 SrI: SrImatE SrI Lakshmi Nrusimha Para BrahmaNE namaha SrImatE SrI Lakshmi Nrusimha Divya pAdukA sEvaka SrIvaNN- Satakopa SrI nArAyaNa Yateendra mahAdESikAya namaha Dear devotees, namO nArAyaNA. This posting is regarding the validity of the teaching of Gaudiya VaishnavAs (GVs) that "KrishNa is the original Personality of Godhead and Lord nArAyaNa , other avatArams/forms are His expansions". They quote the following verse from Srimad BhAgavatham to uphold their theory : " ete ca amsha kalaaha pumsaha krishNastu bhagavaan svayam | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^****** indra-ari vyaakulam lokam mr^Dayanti yuge yuge || "[1.3.28] Translation by Sri A.C.BhaktivEdAnta swAmi : "All of the above-mentioned incarnations are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord srI KrishNa 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." ------------- Please note that the person nArAyaNa is not the form of nArAyaNa. Lord's divine body is made of the tattva named "Suddha Sattva". It has its own characteristics. Lord as such is a chEtana, different from Suddha-sattva. Whenever God/ParamAtma/BhagavAn etc is referred, it refers to the DivyAtma Swaroopa which as a chEtana has all other things like divine form etc as its attributes. Thus, Lord nArAyaNa is not someone who is restricted to 4 hands. adiyEn will post an article on this issue soon. Qtn 1: By the above Srimad BhAgavatham (SB) verse can one come to the conclusion that KrishNa is the actual God and nArAyaNa is secondary ( "expansion ?" ) to Him ? Whenever GVs say "nArAyaNa", they refer to the four handed form of PerumAL. 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 (bhagavAn svayam) whereas others are amsAs of Him . This doesn’t (even in the remotest sense ) imply that nArAyaNa( either as a person or as a form) is an amsA of KrishNa or something like that . 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 (someone inferior) of KrishNA" it contradicts many pramAnams from VedAs (including Upanishads), IthihAsa-purANas, pAncarAtrA etc. So, such type of claim is obviously not supported by Scriptures. For instance, MahOpanishad (1.1) says " yekO ha vai nArAyaNa aasIt" { "Only nArAyaNA existed (in the beginning ie. during praLayam) }". This means that, the "person" nArAyaNA ( who has _inseparable_ attributes viz. chit <which is eternal ie. can't be destructed > and achit <which is eternal>, which were in their sookshma state during the praLayam, was the only one existing). --------------------- Qtn 2 : What does the "above mentioned avatArams" ( "ete" ) stand for ? The whole issue of understanding this verse lies in the interpretation given to the word "ete" (ie. "above mentioned"). In the previous two verses (1.3.26-27), sUtar says 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. Now the question arises as to whether, all these incarnations ( rishis, manus and others) are actually "svayam bhagavAn" ie. nArAyaNa Himself. To clarify that, sUtar is telling in the verse 1.3.28 that rishIs, anya dEvatAs (dEvAs), manus and others ( " above mentioned avatArams") are not "svayam bhagavAn" ( not " nArAyaNA Himself), but KrishNa is bhagavAn Himself. So, obviously, SUtar wants to reiterate that rishis and others are only amsAvatArAs (ie. They are not same as nArAyaNa) and are different from PerumAL's svayam avatArams (like KrishNa). In svayam avatArams like nrusimha, rAma, krishNa, it is the same person(nArAyaNA) who is taking different forms. But, in amsAvatArams, nArAyaNa simply bestows extrordinary powers to a jIvAtma to achieve certain things (but, this is also counted as a type of "avatAram", though it is not PerumAL who is directly taking the avatAram, as in the case of svayam avatArams). We shall later discuss in this posting as to why "KrishNa" was chosen here by sUtar for the clarification. ------------------------- 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. This leads to the following question : Qtn 3: If the word "ete" ("above mentioned") is interpreted to mean _all_ the incarnations that has been enlisted so far from the beginning by Sage SUtar( instead of referring it to only the avatArams like manus, rishis and others enlisted in the previous verse 1.3.27) it leads to a conclusion that KrishNa is the _only_ poorna avatAram of nArAyaNa & all other avatArams like nrusimha , rAma ( which were also listed previously to verse 1.3.28) are only His amsAvatArAs. This obviously contradicts hundreds of pramAnams. Still, Can a sensible interpretation be given, if "ete" can be interpretted this way ? adiyen is giving the answer to this particular question based on the Srimad BhAgavatham series appearing in "Sri 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. This usage, though addresses the group as a whole, it doesn't convey that everyone in that group has an umbrella. Thus, according to "chatri nyAyam", eventhough the adressing be done to the whole group, asif everyone has the same characteristic (eg: holding the umbrella), still, it needn't convey that _everyone_ in that group has that characteristic ie. the intention is to just refer to those who actually posses that characteristic (holding an umbrella), though adressing is done to the whole group as such. Lets see how "chatri nyAyam" is employed in this verse (1.3.28). All avatArams of the type Nrusimha , RAma are Poorna avatArams only, since they are taken by the same person nArAyaNa. Eventhough all the poorna avatArms ( no umbrella) seems to be grouped with that of many other avatArams (anupravesa / amsAvatAra etc; with umbrellA ) by the word "ete", its actual import from the application of "chatri nyAyam" is that the word "ete" refers only to the amsa avatArams (with umbrella). So, the comparison of KrishNAvatAram is strictly not with _all_ the avatArams that has been listed before, but only with other amsa avatArams. The word "ete", though addresses the whole group of avatArams that has been listed so far, the intention is to refer to only those avatArams that are amsAvatArams (with umbrella). If one fails to recognize the "chatri nyAyam " employed, it leads him/her into a contradiction . -------------- The next issue is to whether his can be further explained in the light of the "context" in which Sage sUtar uttered this verse ? 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 and 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 and got his blessings (in form of kAlakshebams etc). Since the katAkshA of a sadAchAryA fell unto Sage sUtar , he could understand all the imports of the vedAs correctly and 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, lack of aisvaryam etc & will be immersed in samsAra (materialistic pleasures) , 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 divyAtma svaroopam , He being antaryAmi of chit & achit, etc, starts enlisting various avatArams of Sriman nArAyaNa viz. Yoga nidra form , Brahma , 4 kumArAs, Narada , Nara NArAyaNa , Kapila , DattAtreya , ya~jna (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. If the word "ete" is interpreted to refer to the amsAvatArams of the verse 1.3.27, then, it makes proper sense. Even if the word "ete" be interpreted to apply to all the incarnations enlisted sofar, then by "chatri nyAyam" we can understand the actual implication of the word "ete" (ie. it refers only to the amsAvatArAs listed so far). Now, a good representative from the list of poorna avatArams has to be chosen in order to differentiate from the amsAvatArams. The question is to why was "KrishNa" selected here and said as "krishNAstu bhagavAN svayam" and not "rAmA is bhagavAn svayam" OR "nrusimha is bhagavAn svayam", etc, though krishNa, rAma, nrusimha are all the same nArAyaNa (poorna avatArams ; svayam bhagavAn; not amsAvatArAs) ?? SUtar chose "KrishNa" because all the sages were very much eager to know a lot about KrishNA ie. the focus of their questions was with that avatAram. Also, KrishNA is well known for the shadguna paripoornam. Also, the sages being KrishNA’s ardent devotees (ie. who wishes to relish the pastimes KrishNA ; pretty obvious from their questions to sUtar), should be doubly assured that their darling KrishNa is neverthless "svayam bhagavAn" Sriman nArAyaNa and is not a amsAvatAra (namba krishnan svayam bhagavAn; manu, rishi, pruthu ...avAlalAm pOla amsAvatAram illai ). So, Suta pourAnikar chose to use "Krishna" in the verse 1.3.28 instead of other svayam avatArams like rAmA and nrusimha. --------- adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan anantapadmanAbhan. krishNArpaNam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2000 Report Share Posted April 19, 2000 Anand Karalapakkam <kgk > Please note that the person nArAyaNa is not the form of > nArAyaNa. Lord's divine body is made of the tattva named > "Suddha Sattva". It has its own characteristics. Lord as > such is a chEtana, different from Suddha-sattva. Whenever > God/ParamAtma/BhagavAn etc is referred, it refers to the > DivyAtma Swaroopa which as a chEtana has all other things > like divine form etc as its attributes. I would like to see explicit shaastric pramaanams giving the distinction between the Lord and His suddha-sattva body as mentioned here. Thus, Lord nArAyaNa > is not someone who is restricted to 4 hands. adiyEn will > post an article on this issue soon. What question is there of the Lord being "restricted" if His body is made of suddha-sattva? There are many statements in the Upanishads to the effect that everywhere are the Lord's hands, eyes, etc. Bhaagavatam 10.2.18 also describes that wherever Krishna is, He is accompanied by His "Achyutaamshas." It would seem to me that the idea that the Lord must be still superior to His body is based on the fallacious reasoning based on experience of baddha-jiivas that having form implies restriction. > Qtn 1: By the above Srimad BhAgavatham (SB) verse can one > come to the conclusion that KrishNa is the actual God and > nArAyaNa is secondary ( "expansion ?" ) to Him ? > This verse doesn't even mention about nArAyaNa. Usage That is true. But the verse very clearly states that Krishna is the svayam bhagavaan, or Bhagavaan in person. This is in contrast to the other avataaras (such as Raama, Narasimha, Varaaha, Vaamana) listed previously in the same adhyaaya who are "amsha kalaaH pumsaH." That there is a contrast between these other forms of the Lord and Krishna is very clear from the Sanskrit. Also, the beginning of this list includes the purusha form of the Lord - see 1.3.1. Hence even this form of the Lord is "amsha kalaaH" compared to Krishna, if we take this literally. > The verse simply says that in comparison with the > above mentioned avatArams , KrishNa is actually > bhagavAn (bhagavAn svayam) whereas others are amsAs of Him . > This doesn't (even in the remotest sense ) imply that > nArAyaNa( either as a person or as a form) is an amsA of > KrishNa or something like that . However, there are other statements in the Bhaagavatam in which Naaraayana is again taken as a form of Krishna. For example, when Bhiishma is lying on his bed of arrows, he says: eSha vai bhagavaan saakShaadaadyo naaraayaNaH pumaan | mohayanmaayayaa loka.m guuDhashcharati vR^iShNiShu || bhaa 1.9.18 || Here Krishna is described as the original (saakShaat), the first Naaraayana (aadyaH naaraayaNaH). A similar remark is made by Lord Brahmaa in the 10th skandha, 14th adhyaaya. This is the chapter in which Lord Brahmaa stole the gopas and placed them in seclusion, only to see that Krishna Himself had expanded to reproduce all the gopas, thus "bewildering" Lord Brahmaa. When asking for forgiveness for his mistake, Brahmaa says: naaraayaNastva.m na hi sarvadehinaam aatmaasyadhiishaakhilalokasaakShii | naaraayaNo'.nga.m narabhuujalaayanaat tachchaapi satya.m na tavaiva maayaa || bhaa 10.14.14 || Are You not actually Naaraayana, since You are (the life and) soul of all embodied beings? (Nay,) You are their Prompter as well as the Witness of all creatures. (The celebrated) Lord Naaraayana, so-called because He has His abode in things produced out of Nara (God) as well as in the waters evolved out of Him, *constitutes a form of Yours* (bhaagvata puraaNa 10.14.14). Here, the words "naaraayaNo'.nga.m" or "expanded portion of Naaraayana" again drive home the idea that Naaraayana is a form of Krishna. So it seems that the Bhaagavatam supports this idea very clearly. > 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 (someone inferior) of > KrishNA" it contradicts many pramAnams from VedAs > (including Upanishads), IthihAsa-purANas, pAncarAtrA etc. What Vedas and Upanishads would those be? > For instance, MahOpanishad (1.1) says " yekO ha vai nArAyaNa > aasIt" { "Only nArAyaNA existed (in the beginning ie. during > praLayam) }". This means that, the "person" nArAyaNA ( who has > _inseparable_ attributes viz. chit <which is eternal ie. can't > be destructed > and achit <which is eternal>, which were in > their sookshma state during the praLayam, was the only one > existing). But Naaraayana and Krishna are the same person! I don't see how this can be used to support the view you are advocating. If the "only Naaraayana existed" part is taken to mean that Krishna did not exist at that time, then that is tantamount to saying that the form of Krishna is not eternal. Anyway, using this pramaana to prove what you say would be like me quoting Bhagavad-Giitaa where Krishna says, "aha.m sarvasya prabhavo mattaH sarva.m pravartate / etc" ("I am the source of all creation and everything in the world moves because of Me; knowing thus the wise, full of devotion, constantly worship Me."). Using your logic, if Krishna is the source of everything, then Naaraayana is not. Therefore Krishna is even the source of Naaraayana. Would you accept this? I don't think so. Hence, I think your interpretation of Mahopanishad cannot be used to contradict the statements in the Bhaagavatam in which Naaraayana is seen as another form of Krishna. There are many statements which name a specific form of Vishnu as being the source of everything. If we interpret them so literally then they would all contradict each other. > Qtn 2 : What does the "above mentioned avatArams" ( "ete" ) > stand for ? > > The whole issue of understanding this verse lies in the > interpretation given to the word "ete" (ie. "above mentioned"). > > In the previous two verses (1.3.26-27), sUtar says 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. > > Now the question arises as to whether, all these incarnations > ( rishis, manus and others) are actually "svayam bhagavAn" ie. > nArAyaNa Himself. To clarify that, sUtar is telling in the verse > 1.3.28 that rishIs, anya dEvatAs (dEvAs), manus and others ( " > above mentioned avatArams") are not "svayam bhagavAn" ( not > " nArAyaNA Himself), but KrishNa is bhagavAn Himself. So, > obviously, SUtar wants to reiterate that rishis and others > are only amsAvatArAs (ie. They are not same as nArAyaNa) and > are different from PerumAL's svayam avatArams (like KrishNa). But anyone can see that this interpretation is very roundabout. There are three main flaws in the argument that the "ete chaamsha kalaaH pumsaH" verse is simply attempting to contrast entities in the jiiva category (anya devatas, Manus, rishis, etc) with Naaraayana: First of all, why would Krishna be specifically named? Of all the avataaras of the Lord who appear and act in human-like ways, there are certainly others who could have been referred to. There would have been no need to name Krishna. Instead, Suuta could have said, "the Manus, Rishis, and anya devatas are all amshas of the Lord, but the other avataaras like Raama, Narasimha, Vaamana, Krishna, and so on are svayam bhagavaan or Naaraayana Himself." Secondly, there are other "avataaras" mentioned in the chapter who are devotees of Vishnu, not Naaraayana Himself. These include the Kumaaras, Naarada, and others. It is not only in verse 1.3.27 where "avataaras" are mentioned who are not Naaraayana. Why would the verse *only* contrast Manus/rishis/anya-devatas with Naaraayana? That implies then that even Naarada, Kumaaras and so on are also Naaraayana, since they were not included in the contrast. Third, verse 1.3.27 *already* says that the Manus, rishis, and so on are "kalaH sarve harer..." or amshas of Lord Hari. If verse 1.3.28 were merely contrasting Naaraayana with these amshas, then it would be redundant. > In svayam avatArams like nrusimha, rAma, krishNa, it is the > same person(nArAyaNA) who is taking different forms. But, in > amsAvatArams, nArAyaNa simply bestows extrordinary powers to > a jIvAtma to achieve certain things (but, this is also counted > as a type of "avatAram", though it is not PerumAL who is directly > taking the avatAram, as in the case of svayam avatArams). This definition of amsha seems to preclude the possibility that other forms of Naaraayana can be referred to as amshas. But in Bhaagavatam 10.2.18 referred to earlier, Krishna is said to be accompanied by His "Achyuta amshas." > 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. But "perfect avataaram of Naaraayana" is *nowhere* stated in the Sanskrit of the verse in question. And in fact other pramaanas I have provided from the Bhaagavatam show Naaraayana as a form of Krishna. > This leads to the following question : > > Qtn 3: If the word "ete" ("above mentioned") is interpreted to > mean _all_ the incarnations that has been enlisted so far from > the beginning by Sage SUtar( instead of referring it to only the > avatArams like manus, rishis and others enlisted in the previous > verse 1.3.27) it leads to a conclusion that KrishNa is the _only_ > poorna avatAram of nArAyaNa & all other avatArams like nrusimha , > rAma ( which were also listed previously to verse 1.3.28) are only > His amsAvatArAs. The specific language used by the Bhaagavatam in verse 1.3.28 is that Krishna is "svayam bhagavaan." I'm not sure of the possible shades of meaning you might assign to the term "poorna avataaram," but "svayam bhagavaan" means literally Bhagavaan Himself. Description of the other avataaras of Naaraayana as amshas makes sense if They are not thought of as amshas in the sense that the Manus, rishis, and anya-devatas are amshas. Bhaagavatam 10.2.18 makes reference to "Achyutaamshas" who accompany Lord Krishna. Surely if the Bhaagavatam says it, then it cannot be wrong. Hence, the statement that other avataaras of the Lord are "amshas" should not be taken to mean they are like jiivas, who are also described in different context as amshas. > Lets see how "chatri nyAyam" is employed in this verse (1.3.28). > All avatArams of the type Nrusimha , RAma are Poorna avatArams > only, since they are taken by the same person nArAyaNa. > Eventhough all the poorna avatArms ( no umbrella) seems to be > grouped with that of many other avatArams (anupravesa / amsAvatAra > etc; with umbrellA ) by the word "ete", its actual import from the > application of "chatri nyAyam" is that the word "ete" refers only > to the amsa avatArams (with umbrella). So, the comparison of > KrishNAvatAram is strictly not with _all_ the avatArams that has > been listed before, but only with other amsa avatArams. The word > "ete", though addresses the whole group of avatArams that has been > listed so far, the intention is to refer to only those avatArams > that are amsAvatArams (with umbrella). If one fails to recognize > the "chatri nyAyam " employed, it leads him/her into a > contradiction . Believe it if you want, but this is a very hard pill to swallow. Even if the "ete" refers to the whole group, and yet only to the "amshaavataaras" or empowered avataaras, my original objections still apply. Also, the "chaatri nyaayam" concept would seem to imply that the group of persons being referred to all share something in common (such as all requiring the umbrella for cover, though in fact only a few are carrying umbrella). But the amshaavataaras and poornaavataaras (as you have defined them) are as different as night and day - one group are jiivas while the other consists of different forms of the omnipotent, omniscient, all-pervading Lord. It seems unlikely that "ete" would refer to the whole group consisting of two categories of *very,* *different* avataaras when only one of the groups is actually intended. > SUtar chose "KrishNa" because all the sages were very much eager > to know a lot about KrishNA ie. the focus of their questions was > with that avatAram. Also, KrishNA is well known for the shadguna > paripoornam. Also, the sages being KrishNA's ardent devotees (ie. > who wishes to relish the pastimes KrishNA ; pretty obvious from > their questions to sUtar), should be doubly assured that their > darling KrishNa is neverthless "svayam bhagavAn" Sriman nArAyaNa > and is not a amsAvatAra (namba krishnan svayam bhagavAn; manu, > rishi, pruthu ...avAlalAm pOla amsAvatAram illai ). So, Suta > pourAnikar chose to use "Krishna" in the verse 1.3.28 instead of > other svayam avatArams like rAmA and nrusimha. First of all, if they were already devotees of Lord Krishna, then there would be no doubt in their minds that Krishna was "amshaavataaram." Secondly, the sages who posed the questions to Suuta ask their questions in a general way (i.e. what is the greatest good for all men, what is the essence of all scriptures, etc) but refer to Krishnaavataaram in passing (such as for example, by referring to Suuta as he who knows the purpose of Krishnaavataaram in verse 1.1.12,). They never came forth and actually asked to be told about Krishna, though their words seemed to indicate that they thought this was where the answers would be. And Suuta *confirms* that their questions are specifically related to Krishna (verse 1.2.5), a specific response to a series of very general questions. Was Suuta just buttering them up? Were the sages of Naimisharanya, despite all their knowledge of Vedas, so enamored of one particular avataara that they could not hear the truth objectively? Highly unlikely. Even in the very first verse of the Bhaagavatam, Vyaasa Himself offers obeisances to Krishna as son of Vasudeva (om namo bhagavate vaasudevaaya). And surely the realizations of Vyaasa, who is the celebrated compiler of the Vedas, cannot be so subjective! It's beyond the scope of this post to show it, but the Bhaagavatam clearly makes itself out to be the essence of the Vedas, and that scripture meant to explain the truth of the Vedaanta-suutra. With such high expectations in mind, I find it unlikely that Vyaasa would have written in such a way as to let His most precious work be subjected to the arbitrary sentiments of individual devotees. If Krishna is said to be svayam bhagavaan, then I would take it to mean that He is svayam bhagavaan, period, and not that the statement was meant for a specific group of devotees with specific expectations. Bhaagavatam has all the characteristics of a saattvik puraana which means, according to A.S. Raghavan (author of _Vishishtaadvaita_) that it is a specific response to very general questions and hence is devoid of sectarianism. Besides which, it was the last of the Puraanas to be written/compiled, and it was done so after Vyaasa compiled Vedaanta-suutra. This is all described in 1st skandha. Vyaasa was feeling despondent in spite of compiling so many other scriptures including Vedaanta-suutra and Mahaabhaarata, and realized that He needed to specifically elaborate on the glories and qualities of the Lord. The result was Shriimad Bhaagavatam, which even Vyaasa writes is the essence of the shrutis (1.4.7)! regards, Krishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2000 Report Share Posted April 20, 2000 Sri: Sri Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha Sri Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrIvaN- SatakOpa SrI nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESikAya namaha Dear SrI HarikrishNa, namO nArAyaNa. Thanks for your questions. Many of your questions arise from your unawareness of the distinction between the metaphysical entity Brahman/God and the other metaphysical entity Suddha Sattva, as established in ViSishtAdvaita. First of all, the nature of Brahman has to be understood. Then, one has to understand the appropriate names that can be designated for that Brahman. The most important of the names turns out to be nArAyaNa, since it explains a lot about Brahman and its relationship between all other metaphysical entities which are sentient and non-sentient. Thus, the word "nArAyaNa" as used in Upanishads and SrI VaishNava works is not some "avatAra" of Brahman etc with a particular specific form, but verily the all pervading Brahman, which is madeup of jn~yAna and also has jn~yAna. Brahman takes up many forms and there are specific names assigned to such forms taken by Brahman ie. Brahman characterized by a specific form is also given a name. For example, rAma, KrishNa, vAmana are all names of Brahman associated with a particular form. nArAyaNa is also a name of a sub-vyUha avatAra of Brahman. But, its also to be understood that, these names verily denote the person who is "Brahman". It is Brahman, who is the person, and not its form. So, when one says that krishNa is the Supreme Person, it refers to the Brahman only, who is also called as nArAyaNa. No one is objecting the fact that KrishNa is svayam BhagavAn ie.KrishNa is indeed the Brahman itself having taken a particular form. I will prepare a detailed document on the various issues involved in your questions. The document will have appropriate pramAnas to answer your questions. The above stated points, which are very brief, will also be elaborated in detail in that document. Since this by itself will turn out to be a very large document, I would first of all post certain cursory articles on certain issues like Lord and His divine form, Swaroopa jn~yAna, dharmabhUta jn~yAna, Suddha Sattva etc to explain the stand of ViSishtAdvaita in these issues. These articles will not dwell deeply into various pramAnas, but will serve the purpose of understanding the philosophy of ViSishtAdvaita in general on these issues. I will then answer your questions in detail based on pramAnas and the cursory articles will help to give a good background of the technical terms and concepts that will be employed in that final document. In the final document, the stand taken by ViSishtAdvaitins on these issues (which will be mentioned in the cursory articles) will be elaborated based on the various pramAnas. I will also give all the needed references for you - be it works of SrI Vaishnava AchAryas Or otherwise. After going through the cursory articles, please do feel free to write to me, about any specific details you want me to address in the final document. That will also help me to prepare the appropriate contents of the document. Since I have a quite hectic schedule, it will take some time for me to prepare the final document. Please excuse me for that. Since I would like the document to be thorough in its treatment, I need more time also. But, I will post the cursory articles quite soon. Thanks for your understanding. Hope that bhagavd sankalpam and the blessings of AchAryas will make adiyEn write these articles. adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan, anantapadmanAbhan. krishNArpaNam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.