Guest guest Posted May 10, 2005 Report Share Posted May 10, 2005 Hari Bol A humble request to moderator to kindly intervene. Those who wish to respond may be asked to do so as a personal email if the moderator agrees, if not atleast I would not to read responses to this query. Thank you for your understanding this request. pranams sukanya shankar - "Janaki & Sampath Kumar" <janasampath <> Tuesday, May 10, 2005 10:49 AM Parathvam of Sriman Narayana Vs. Krishna Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha Srimathe Vedhantha Desikaya Namaha Srimath VaraVara Munaye Namaha Respected Sri Vaishnava Baghavathas Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan Sampath Kumar. This is my first question in this scholarly forum. In our SriVaishnava Sidhantham it is established that Sriman Narayanan residing in Vaikunta Lokam is parathvam and Krishna is avatharam (Vibhavam) of Sriman Narayanan and Krishna is an expansion of Sriman Narayanan. However, there are other schools of Vaishnavism (especially Gaudia Vaishnavism) which staunchly advocate that Krishna is the parathvam and Narayanan is a subform of Krishna. Even though both these schools accept Sriman Narayanan and Krishna, why this fundamental difference arise and which is correct? Kindly accept adiyen's appologies if my question is inappropriate. Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan Sampath Kumar... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2005 Report Share Posted May 10, 2005 To add to this question, Madhwas have a different philosophy. If both (Ramanujacarya & Madhwacharya) are inspired by the same lord, why is there difference in their philosophy ? Even Vishnu Swami and Vallabhacharya differ from each other & with other Vaishnava Acharyas. Janaki & Sampath Kumar <janasampath wrote: Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha Srimathe Vedhantha Desikaya Namaha Srimath VaraVara Munaye Namaha Respected Sri Vaishnava Baghavathas Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan Sampath Kumar. This is my first question in this scholarly forum. In our SriVaishnava Sidhantham it is established that Sriman Narayanan residing in Vaikunta Lokam is parathvam and Krishna is avatharam (Vibhavam) of Sriman Narayanan and Krishna is an expansion of Sriman Narayanan. However, there are other schools of Vaishnavism (especially Gaudia Vaishnavism) which staunchly advocate that Krishna is the parathvam and Narayanan is a subform of Krishna. Even though both these schools accept Sriman Narayanan and Krishna, why this fundamental difference arise and which is correct? Kindly accept adiyen's appologies if my question is inappropriate. Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan Sampath Kumar... / Make your home page Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2005 Report Share Posted May 10, 2005 Adiyen Request bhagawatas who are close to acharyas back home and get answers to this important question and this needs to be answered "professionally". I had requested Sri Anbil Mama to do something about this. He is busy currently. I am sure sri Anand Karalapakkam had done some research on this. I am sure Sri M.S Srihari and others who are in India can offer assistance here. If anyone can contact them, they will be able to write a thorough reply. I feel that this is a "delicate issue" since we are handling a difference among vaishnavas. This should not try to destroy our unity as vaishnvas as a whole community. We should respect all vaishnavas or else we will go against our sincere principles: tvad britya britya paricharaka britya.... ( being a servant of HIS servants is an important characteristic of a vaishnava). I urge you not to indulge in criticizing other schools or disrespect other vaishnavas. We don't need more sin. However our srivaishnavas have to understand the subtleties clearly. Neither these minor issues should not be taken as reasons for leaving camps NOR should be used for recruiting weak minded people into a any particular sect. In short, Srimannarayana and Srikrishna are the one and the same identical person as per the shastras. Note that Sri Vedantadesika has done research as to which mantram is most encompassing and decided that "moolamantram, which speaks of Narayana" as ultimate all encompassing mantram even in comparison with mantrams that involve "vasudeva or Vishnu etc." .. The proofs offered by other schools regarding differences between goloka, vaikunta etc. are only attempts to highlight their eka bhakti to lord Krishna. Even among our own alwars, they have shown immense bhakti to a particular form such as Sri Ranganatha or Sri Venkatesa etc. The pramanas cited by others from bramha vaivarta purana, radhopanisad, etc. only help to exemplify pure Bhakti as the highest goal. Even srivaishnava doctrines agree that in vaikuntam one experiences this nitya bhakti or eternal bhakti. It is ridiculous to imagine that madhurya bhakti cannot be explained in vaikuntam. Sri Nammalwars' dozens of verses on madhurya bhakti and how he does prapatti to Sri Srinivasar and attains vaikuntam are sufficient to erase this misconception. If one wants to experience Lord as Krishna or prema bhakti, that can be granted in Vaikunta also. The shastras are clear regarding the superiority of vaikuntam as place of apunaravritti or place from where there is no return. Goloka can be thought of a place within vaikunta, since there are rigvedic passages such as "yatra gavo bhuri shringah ayasah - (please check this quote since I am trying to write from memory) - meaning: in vaikuntam, there are cows with big horns. Note: some schools have misunderstood vaikunta from where jayavijaya fell due to curse. There can be no curse or anger in vaikuntam. No such thoughts can bother those who have reached vaikuntam other than being immersed in the complete experience of srimannarayana (paripurna bramha ananda anubhavam). Hence the vaikunta mentioned in the puranas is a lower place within prakrithi mandalam (or matter) called karya vaikuntam, where jayavijaya were door keepers. The shores of this ksheerabdhi is where devas go and fall at the feet of the Lord to get protection from asuras. Hence the statements from Bramha Samhita, bramha vaivarta purana quoted only by the gaudiya vaishnavas, which may indicate goloka as different or higher than vaikunta have to be understood only in the sense that the madhurya bhakti is of a state of bhakti for a soul. If they want to use these statements to enhance their bhakti to sri krishna, let them do it. We should understand this properly. These statements in puranas have nothing to do with belittling the status of vaikunta to another place called goloka / brindavana. These kind of polemic battles exist only to keep people within their systems but do not have any other significance. Note puranic or smriti evidence should not be taken as primary. Note the verse from taittiriya mahanarayana Upanishad - which starts from ambasya pare bhuvanasya madhye...has a state ment: na tasyese kaschana tasya nama mahadyasah...meaning: HE ( srimannarayana) does not have anyone as his ruler! Hence he is known as Mahad Yasah. Don't tell me some puranic statement will nullify this vedic statement to make Srimannarayana as being born out of Krishna and Krishna is the ruler of Srimannarayana who resides in each anda as the caretaker of that anda and there are several vaikunta planets etc.....All these are wonderful smrti texts are to guide people to have faith in SriKrishna. Srivaishnava view is that Sri Krishna and Srimannararayana is one and the same: esa narayanah sriman ksirarnava niketanah naga paryakam utrsrijya hyagato madhuram purim. "This Sri Krishna is none other than Srimannarayana who has left his snake bed ( adisesa) to come to the city of Mathura ". Sri Vedanta Desika states in yadavabhudayam: Devaki danuja sthuna divyam dhama vrajankanam Rama Radhadayascheti Rasi bhedena Bhidyase Meaning: O lord Krishna, you are the one and same person being different only due to being in two camps: Up there in Divya dhama : vaikunta or here in Vraja ( brindavan), whether in the womb of Devaki or in the pillar from where SriNarasimha appeared, whether it is with Rama (or Sri Lakshmi there in Vaikuntam) or with Radha here in Vraja. I don't have enough knowledge to write all details. There may be errors in this small article too. I pray to knowledgeable people to correct this article or clarify the issues presented. Adiyen Krishna Kashyap [] On Behalf Of Janaki & Sampath Kumar Tuesday, May 10, 2005 7:50 AM Parathvam of Sriman Narayana Vs. Krishna Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha Srimathe Vedhantha Desikaya Namaha Srimath VaraVara Munaye Namaha Respected Sri Vaishnava Baghavathas Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan Sampath Kumar. This is my first question in this scholarly forum. In our SriVaishnava Sidhantham it is established that Sriman Narayanan residing in Vaikunta Lokam is parathvam and Krishna is avatharam (Vibhavam) of Sriman Narayanan and Krishna is an expansion of Sriman Narayanan. However, there are other schools of Vaishnavism (especially Gaudia Vaishnavism) which staunchly advocate that Krishna is the parathvam and Narayanan is a subform of Krishna. Even though both these schools accept Sriman Narayanan and Krishna, why this fundamental difference arise and which is correct? Kindly accept adiyen's appologies if my question is inappropriate. Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan Sampath Kumar... Links Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2005 Report Share Posted May 10, 2005 Dear Bhagavatas: As rightly pointed out by sshankar, any further discussions on the subject may be had in private mails. Moderator. ================================================================ Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha Srimathe Vedantha Desikaya Namaha Srimath VaraVara Munaye Namaha Dear Sri. Krishna Kashyap Adiyen salute you for your wonderful explanation to the question adiyen have raised. Also, at the outset, adiyen would like to clearly state that it is not in anyway my intention to trigger a discussion tilting on the side of critizing other vishnava systems. As you have aptly pointed out the pramanas namely Vedas and Upanishads should be the ultimate concluding statements and not merely puranas or smritis. It is needless to say that all SriVaishnavas in this esteemed forum will be delighted, if our scholars provide a detailed reply to this issue. As you have rightly mentioned, understanding these subtle delicate issues clearly makes one stronger in their system and also build our tolerance of other systems. However, in my humble opinion this is not a minor issue. Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan Sampath Kumar.. --- Krishna Kashyap <krishna wrote: > Adiyen Request bhagawatas who are close to acharyas > back home and get > answers to this important question and this needs to > be answered > "professionally". I had requested Sri Anbil Mama to > do something about > this. He is busy currently. I am sure sri Anand > Karalapakkam had done > some research on this. I am sure Sri M.S Srihari and > others who are in > India can offer assistance here. If anyone can > cotact them, they will > be able to write a thorough reply. I feel that this > is a "delicate > issue" since we are handling a difference among > vaishnavas. This should > not try to destroy our unity as vaishnvas as a whole > community. We > should respect all vaishnavas or else we will go > against our sincere > principles: tvad britya britya paricharaka > britya.... ( being a servant > of HIS servants is an important characteristic of a > vaishnava). I urge > you not to indulge in criticizing other schools or > disrespect other > vaishnavas. We don't need more sin. > > However our srivaishnavas have to understand the > subtleties clearly. > Neither these minor issues should not be taken as > reasons for leaving > camps NOR should be used for recruiting weak minded > people into a any > particular sect. > > In short, > > Srimannarayana and Srikrishna are the one and the > same identical person > as per the shastras. Note that Sri Vedantadesika has > done research as to > which mantram is most encompassing and decided that > "moolamantram, which > speaks of Narayana" as ultimate all encompassing > mantram even in > comparison with mantrams that involve "vasudeva or > Vishnu etc." > . > The proofs offered by other schools regarding > differences between > goloka, vaikunta etc. are only attempts to highlight > their eka bhakti to > lord Krishna. Even among our own alwars, they have > shown immense bhakti > to a particular form such as Sri Ranganatha or Sri > Venkatesa etc. The > pramanas cited by others from bramha vaivarta > purana, radhopanisad, etc. > only help to exemplify pure Bhakti as the highest > goal. Even > srivaishnava doctrines agree that in vaikuntam one > experiences this > nitya bhakti or eternal bhakti. It is ridiculous to > imagine that > madhurya bhakti cannot be explained in vaikuntam. > Sri Nammalwars' dozens > of verses on madhurya bhakti and how he does > prapatti to Sri Srinivasar > and attains vaikuntam are sufficient to erase this > misconception. If one > wants to experience Lord as Krishna or prema bhakti, > that can be granted > in Vaikunta also. The shastras are clear regarding > the superiority of > vaikuntam as place of apunaravritti or place from > where there is no > return. Goloka can be thought of a place within > vaikunta, since there > are rigvedic passages such as "yatra gavo bhuri > shringah ayasah - > (please check this quote since I am trying to write > from memory) - > meaning: in vaikuntam, there are cows with big > horns. Note: some > schools have misunderstood vaikunta from where > jayavijaya fell due to > curse. There can be no curse or anger in vaikuntam. > No such thoughts can > bother those who have reached vaikuntam other than > being immersed in the > complete experience of srimannarayana (paripurna > bramha ananda > anubhavam). Hence the vaikunta mentioned in the > puranas is a lower place > within prakrithi mandalam (or matter) called karya > vaikuntam, where > jayavijaya were door keepers. The shores of this > ksheerabdhi is where > devas go and fall at the feet of the Lord to get > protection from asuras. > Hence the statements from Bramha Samhita, bramha > vaivarta purana quoted > only by the gaudiya vaishnavas, which may indicate > goloka as different > or higher than vaikunta have to be understood only > in the sense that the > madhurya bhakti is of a state of bhakti for a soul. > If they want to use > these statements to enhance their bhakti to sri > krishna, let them do it. > We should understand this properly. These statements > in puranas have > nothing to do with belittling the status of vaikunta > to another place > called goloka / brindavana. These kind of polemic > battles exist only to > keep people within their systems but do not have any > other significance. > Note puranic or smriti evidence should not be taken > as primary. Note the > verse from taittiriya mahanarayana Upanishad - which > starts from ambasya > pare bhuvanasya madhye...has a state ment: na > tasyese kaschana tasya > nama mahadyasah...meaning: HE ( srimannarayana) does > not have anyone as > his ruler! Hence he is known as Mahad Yasah. Don't > tell me some puranic > statement will nullify this vedic statement to make > Srimannarayana as > being born out of Krishna and Krishna is the ruler > of Srimannarayana > who resides in each anda as the caretaker of that > anda and there are > several vaikunta planets etc.....All these are > wonderful smrti texts are > to guide people to have faith in SriKrishna. > Srivaishnava view is that > Sri Krishna and Srimannararayana is one and the > same: esa narayanah > sriman ksirarnava niketanah naga paryakam utrsrijya > hyagato madhuram > purim. "This Sri Krishna is none other than > Srimannarayana who has left > his snake bed ( adisesa) to come to the city of > Mathura ". Sri Vedanta > Desika states in yadavabhudayam: > > Devaki danuja sthuna divyam dhama vrajankanam > Rama Radhadayascheti Rasi bhedena Bhidyase > > Meaning: O lord Krishna, you are the one and same > person being different > only due to being in two camps: Up there in Divya > dhama : vaikunta or > here in Vraja ( brindavan), whether in the womb of > Devaki or in the > pillar from where SriNarasimha appeared, whether it > is with Rama (or Sri > Lakshmi there in Vaikuntam) or with Radha here in > Vraja. > > I don't have enough knowledge to write all details. > There may be errors > in this small article too. I pray to knowledgeable > people to correct > this article or clarify the issues presented. > > Adiyen > Krishna Kashyap > > > > > [] > On Behalf Of Janaki & Sampath Kumar > Tuesday, May 10, 2005 7:50 AM > > Parathvam of Sriman Narayana > Vs. Krishna > > Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha > Srimathe Vedhantha Desikaya Namaha > Srimath VaraVara Munaye Namaha > > Respected Sri Vaishnava Baghavathas > > Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan Sampath Kumar. This is my > first question in this > scholarly forum. > > In our SriVaishnava Sidhantham it is established > that Sriman Narayanan > residing in Vaikunta Lokam is parathvam and Krishna > is avatharam > (Vibhavam) of Sriman Narayanan and Krishna is an > expansion of Sriman > Narayanan. However, there are other schools of > Vaishnavism (especially > Gaudia Vaishnavism) which staunchly advocate that > Krishna === message truncated === Discover Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! http://discover./online.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2005 Report Share Posted May 11, 2005 Dear Bhagavatas: I would like to clarify our stand. When a member posts a query relevant to SrivaishNava Sampradayam, it is approved for the first time for information of others and provide food for thought for scholars in the group. They might be ponder over and give an authoritative reply based on PramaaNams from Satvika scriptures - to the questioner. This is NOT for triggering a debate or discussion, which more often than not, takes an ugly turn. We wish to reiterate that "Sri Ranga Sri" is primarily a Journal and NOT a discussion forum. Unfortunately, it has been our experience that often times, some members while professing to reply, project their opinions and speculations without authentic PramaaNams that not only scares away the genuine questioner but also go contrary to the mission statement of the Journal. That is why, in the interest of maintaining the quality of the Journal, we encourage further disussions in private and close the topic in "Sri Ranga Sri" Journal. That is why also, we have opened a new site "SRS_Satangam" where these discussions can be freely accommodated subject, of course, to the norms of decency and mutual respect. Hope this helps. Moderator ===================================================================== Dear Sukanya Shankar Thank you for responding to my question. However, it is unclear to me as to why the responses should be discussed as private emails? The very purpose of having a group like this is to share the knowledge of elders and scholars in a common forum. Moreover, the question which I raised is of fundamental significance and explanations in a disciplined and scholarly manner from different schools will be a great boon to our individual understanding and mutal appreciation. Is that something we are scared of to switch to private conversations? Many subjects asked in these forums are always not in everyone's favorite list and I am not sure if we can start applying the 'private email' criteria to everything. However, as one who is ready to face any amount of impediments in my quest to serve all vaishnavas, I remain. Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan Sampath Kumar... --- Sampth Kumar Padmanaban <janasampath wrote: > Dear Bhagavatas: > As rightly pointed out by sshankar, > any further discussions on the subject may be > had in private mails. > Moderator. > ================================================================ > > > > Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha > Srimathe Vedantha Desikaya Namaha > Srimath VaraVara Munaye Namaha > > Dear Sri. Krishna Kashyap > > Adiyen salute you for your wonderful explanation to > the question adiyen have raised. Also, at the > outset, > adiyen would like to clearly state that it is not in > anyway my intention to trigger a discussion tilting > on > the side of critizing other vishnava systems. > > As you have aptly pointed out the pramanas namely > Vedas and Upanishads should be the ultimate > concluding > statements and not merely puranas or smritis. > > It is needless to say that all SriVaishnavas in this > esteemed forum will be delighted, if our scholars > provide a detailed reply to this issue. As you have > rightly mentioned, understanding these subtle > delicate > issues clearly makes one stronger in their system > and also build our tolerance of other systems. > However, in my humble opinion this is not a minor > issue. > > Adiyen > > Ramanuja Dasan > Sampath Kumar.. > > > --- Krishna Kashyap <krishna wrote: > > > Adiyen Request bhagawatas who are close to > acharyas > > back home and get > > answers to this important question and this needs > to > > be answered > > "professionally". I had requested Sri Anbil Mama > to > > do something about > > this. He is busy currently. I am sure sri Anand > > Karalapakkam had done > > some research on this. I am sure Sri M.S Srihari > and > > others who are in > > India can offer assistance here. If anyone can > > cotact them, they will > > be able to write a thorough reply. I feel that > this > > is a "delicate > > issue" since we are handling a difference among > > vaishnavas. This should > > not try to destroy our unity as vaishnvas as a > whole > > community. We > > should respect all vaishnavas or else we will go > > against our sincere > > principles: tvad britya britya paricharaka > > britya.... ( being a servant > > of HIS servants is an important characteristic of > a > > vaishnava). I urge > > you not to indulge in criticizing other schools or > > disrespect other > > vaishnavas. We don't need more sin. > > > > However our srivaishnavas have to understand the > > subtleties clearly. > > Neither these minor issues should not be taken as > > reasons for leaving > > camps NOR should be used for recruiting weak > minded > > people into a any > > particular sect. > > > > In short, > > > > Srimannarayana and Srikrishna are the one and the > > same identical person > > as per the shastras. Note that Sri Vedantadesika > has > > done research as to > > which mantram is most encompassing and decided > that > > "moolamantram, which > > speaks of Narayana" as ultimate all encompassing > > mantram even in > > comparison with mantrams that involve "vasudeva or > > Vishnu etc." > > . > > The proofs offered by other schools regarding > > differences between > > goloka, vaikunta etc. are only attempts to > highlight > > their eka bhakti to > > lord Krishna. Even among our own alwars, they have > > shown immense bhakti > > to a particular form such as Sri Ranganatha or Sri > > Venkatesa etc. The > > pramanas cited by others from bramha vaivarta > > purana, radhopanisad, etc. > > only help to exemplify pure Bhakti as the highest > > goal. Even > > srivaishnava doctrines agree that in vaikuntam one > > experiences this > > nitya bhakti or eternal bhakti. It is ridiculous > to > > imagine that > > madhurya bhakti cannot be explained in vaikuntam. > > Sri Nammalwars' dozens > > of verses on madhurya bhakti and how he does > > prapatti to Sri Srinivasar > > and attains vaikuntam are sufficient to erase this > > misconception. If one > > wants to experience Lord as Krishna or prema > bhakti, > > that can be granted > > in Vaikunta also. The shastras are clear > regarding > > the superiority of > > vaikuntam as place of apunaravritti or place from > > where there is no > > return. Goloka can be thought of a place within > > vaikunta, since there > > are rigvedic passages such as "yatra gavo bhuri > > shringah ayasah - > > (please check this quote since I am trying to > write > > from memory) - > > meaning: in vaikuntam, there are cows with big > > horns. Note: some > > schools have misunderstood vaikunta from where > > jayavijaya fell due to > > curse. There can be no curse or anger in > vaikuntam. > > No such thoughts can > > bother those who have reached vaikuntam other than > > being immersed in the > > complete experience of srimannarayana (paripurna > > bramha ananda > > anubhavam). Hence the vaikunta mentioned in the > > puranas is a lower place > > within prakrithi mandalam (or matter) called karya > > vaikuntam, where > > jayavijaya were door keepers. The shores of this > > ksheerabdhi is where > > devas go and fall at the feet of the Lord to get > > protection from asuras. > > Hence the statements from Bramha Samhita, bramha > > vaivarta purana quoted > > only by the gaudiya vaishnavas, which may indicate > > goloka as different > > or higher than vaikunta have to be understood only > > in the sense that the > > madhurya bhakti is of a state of bhakti for a > soul. > > If they want to use > > these statements to enhance their bhakti to sri > > krishna, let them do it. > > We should understand this properly. These > statements > > in puranas have > > nothing to do with belittling the status of > vaikunta > > to another place > > called goloka / brindavana. These kind of polemic > > battles exist only to > > keep people within their systems but do not have > any > > other significance. > > Note puranic or smriti evidence should not be > taken > > as primary. Note the > > verse from taittiriya mahanarayana Upanishad - > which > > starts from ambasya > > pare bhuvanasya madhye...has a state ment: na > > tasyese kaschana tasya > > nama mahadyasah...meaning: HE ( srimannarayana) > does > > not have anyone as > > his ruler! Hence he is known as Mahad Yasah. Don't > > tell me some puranic > > statement will nullify this vedic statement to > make > > Srimannarayana as > === message truncated === httpVU<!/smallbusiness./resources/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 2005 Report Share Posted May 12, 2005 SRIMATE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA As per vedic scriptures Sriman Narayana is the paratvam. Sri Nammalvar says in his TIRUVAIMOZHI that sriman Narayana HIMSELF came as Sri Krishna with HIS power & glory intact.ANGU VAITU ENGU PIRANDA PIRAN.Hence unlike some of His other avatarams ,Sri Krishnavataram is a poornavataram. Srimad Bhagvatam says KRISHNASTU BHAGVAN SWAYAM.The goudiya people have interpreted this sentence to mean that SriKrishna is not a avataram OF Sriman Narayana. Also Jayadeva sings in his GEETA GOVINDAM that Krishna took all the other avatarams. As far as we srivaishnavites are concerned, krishna is the greatest avatara of SRIMAN NARAYANA where all His glories were explicit. dasan On Tue, 10 May 2005 Janaki & Sampath Kumar wrote : >Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha >Srimathe Vedhantha Desikaya Namaha >Srimath VaraVara Munaye Namaha > >Respected Sri Vaishnava Baghavathas > >Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan Sampath Kumar. This is my first question in this >scholarly forum. > >In our SriVaishnava Sidhantham it is established that Sriman Narayanan >residing in Vaikunta Lokam is parathvam and Krishna is avatharam >(Vibhavam) of Sriman Narayanan and Krishna is an expansion of Sriman >Narayanan. However, there are other schools of Vaishnavism (especially >Gaudia Vaishnavism) which staunchly advocate that Krishna is the >parathvam and Narayanan is a subform of Krishna. Even though both >these schools accept Sriman Narayanan and Krishna, why this >fundamental difference arise and which is correct? > >Kindly accept adiyen's appologies if my question is inappropriate. > >Adiyen > >Ramanuja Dasan > >Sampath Kumar... > > > Links > > > > > > 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.