Sri KrishnA and Sriman nArAyAnA

[Guest guest]

Sriman nArAyanAya namaha

Sri krishnAya namaha

Srimathe rAmAnujAya namaha

Sri vedAntadesikAya namaha

 

It is interesting to learn that another school of vaishnavam has an

inverted concept of Sriman nArAyanA versus Sri Krishna. It is easy

to develop a prema on the Bhagavan in one form and identify that

form

alone as the primary cause of all. That is how all the theistic

religions try to distinguish themselves from the others. But taking

one and the same form and its manifestations and inverting the

historical

order of occurrence of its incarnations seems puzzling.

In this context adiyen would like to add a few of my thoughts on the

views of Gaudiya school from the north from the point of view of the

Sri vaishnava school as well as the vedism of the south.

This is in response to someone having asked me to examine what

Gaudiya

school has to say (through Brahma Samhita accepted by that school )

and provide my answers to a few questions.

 

One should understand that vEda vyAsA attempted to reinforce Sriman

nArAyana consciousness through Sri krishnAvatAram. The Vedic

sampradAyam believes that the God does manifest occasionally on the

earth to reestablish the dharma and root out adharma. The vedas

portray various gods of ancient times, and the vedAntha unifies the

God in Brahmam, and Sri Vaishnavas firmly believe, and even Adi

Sankara

opines, that it is sufficient to worship Sriman nArAyanA in our

times, and identify Sriman nArAyanA as the protective power (vishnu)

and satvic Lord capable of granting all the wishes in this life and

providing the moksham eventually. This is the sum of all religious

thought having a basis in the vedAntha. The schools that accept

the vedas and upanishads should not question the primary conclusion

expressed here since all have strong foundation in the prAsthAna

trayam and the significant basis in the Gita.

 

When Sri Krishna portrays himself to Arjuna in a form that he can

easily comprehend and not be afraid of, Sri Krishna portrays

himself as Sri nArAyana with chakra, radiant kiritA, etc.

He does not protray himself as the Sri Krishna playing the flute.

The frightening form that Sri arjuna sees is not a terrible form of

Krishna but the viswam and all the elements portrayed in the vedas

and upanishads and the authoritative purAnas. Also many lilas of

Sri Krishna portray Him as superior to all the limited manifestations

such as Indra. And When Sri Krishna was born, his original rupam

seen

by Devaki was that of Sriman nArAyana as authentically portrayed

in the vedam. Thus Sri Bhagavad Gita, and other two in the

prasthana

trayam are properly interpreted by the Sri vaishnava sampradayam,

and this accommodates the vishnu doctrine without being too much in

conflict with the vedas and vedanthA. Other sampradayas that have

taken Sri Bhagavatham, Gita and a few other minor works as their

basis have only limited justification for their existence since any

authentic Indian theistic vedic sampradAyam should consider the

whole vedas, the itihAsAs, and the purAnas (including bhAgavatam),

Gita and the brahma sutras and try to answer a few strong questions

and try to establish themselves after resolving many conundrums

posed

by the knowledge starting with the vedas. Sri Vaishnava sampradAyam

attempts to accomplish this difficult task and has resolved

the difficulties by reinforcing the concrete tenets of Gita,

vedas, and brahma sutras. The brahma sutras provide a basis for

taking the vedantha and its unitary belief in brahman as the material

and efficient cause of all; the Gita provides a basis for seeing

Sri Krishna as the brahmam that manifests Itself as Sriman nArAyanA

when Sri Arjuna wants a rupam that is not frightening; and the vedas

and repeated incantations of 'Harihi Om' in it indicate that

the protecter be invoked to safeguard all the great things we have.

 

Though Sri vaishnavAs worship Sriman nArAyAna as the sole object of

desire, His avatAras are not discarded; the dasAvatAras and more are

accepted as the physical expansions of the Lord and many a time the

objects of our prema. In this context, the authentic vedic

sampradAyam is also not left high and dry: we do not discard the

vedas

since in its core it is polytheistic. The vedas do form the core of

knowledge, and Sri vaishnavas would like to keep it as the basis of

their knowledge.

 

Many a debate among the mimAmsakAs tried to resolve the meaning

of polytheism in the vedas, and they have concluded

that such multifarious worship is not needed, and hence one should

put our faith in the brahmam(atAto brahmajigyAsA),

sat (ekam sat vipra bahuta vadanti), and the Protector.

In specific, the mimAmsAs have tried to identify what the brahmam

closely corresponds to: is it indra, agni, sUrya, sOma, kuberA,

yamA, varuna, etc. Here is the secret from the exegesis.

These deities are limited by karma and hence they have limited

sovereignty. We are left to consider Siva or nArAyanA as possible

limiting forms of the brahmam. According to Scriptures Siva or

Rudra

terminate in chaturmukha who in turn is expressed by equivalent

terms

hiranyagarbha, prajApati, and svayambhu. Only Sriman nArayana does

not seem to terminate in other attributed limited manifestations.

Thus it is proper to identify Sriman nArAyanA as the brahmam.

This is the Isvara gyanA taught in the Sri vaishnava exegesis.

In this context, we can deduce from the fact that Sri Krishna

reduces his cosmic form to divine Sriman Narayana (as seen by

Arjuna)

and manifests himself as Arjuna's friend for a long time,

and as the charioteer in the battlefield, Sri Krishna does not

come before Sriman nArAyana, but it is other way around. At least

this is what mostly accepted in the vedic circles.

 

In this context, it is difficult for me to accept some tenets of

Gaudiya vaishnavam. One of its followers provoked me specifically by

asking me to provide Sri vaishnavas' answers to the following:

1) Gayatri is manifested from flute of Sri Krishna.

2) divya mangala vigraha of the Lord is impersonal/formless brahman.

3) Above Sriman Narayana's Vaikuntha is Sri Krishna's Goloka.

4) Shiva is transformation of Vishnu for the purpose of destruction.

5) Maha Vishnu or Narayana in ShirAbdi sayAnam a portion of

a portion of Krishna.

 

My answer to questions of this sort should be obvious to the reader

from what has been said so far and what remains to be said in the

following.

 

The very purpose of mahAbharatam, Gita and rAmAyanA is to illustrate

vedic concepts and to reinforce our faith in the protective aspect

of the Lord manifested as Sri rAma and Sri krishna. Sri rAmAvatAram

illustrates the upanishadic principles such as mAthru devo bhava,

pithru devo bhava, AchArya devo bhava, satyam vada, dharman chara,

etc. Sri rAmAvatAram also illustrates caranAgati and the power of

Sri pAtukA. Thus Sri vaishnavas believe in the patukAs of the Lord

(exemplified in the chatAri) as well as those of the achAryas. And

Sri vedAntha Desika chose Lord's pAdukas and wrote pAdukA sahasram to

win the competition started by a miscreant. The role of

mAhAbharatam

is to demonstrate power of the Lord through Sri krishnAvatAram.

( For illustrative purposes as well as to establish a dharma,

krishnAvatAram was needed ). But some faithful reversed some roles

by propounding contradictory thoughts through something titled as

brahma samhita. But this literary freedom is contradictory to

the main beliefs associated with krishnAvatAram.

 

For some it seems to be difficult to understand the order of the

cosmic expansion portrayed in the Gita. But the vedam is clear.

It says:

'nArAyanAya vidmahe vasudevAya dimahe tanno vishnu prachodAyAt'

And vedam also sees the Lord in colors of the opposite camps:

'rutagum satyam param brahma purusham **krishna pingalam**

Urdvaretam virubAksham viswa rUpAyavai namo namaha'.

 

Srimad Bhagavatam would amplify this Sriman nArAyanA-Sri vAsudevA

aspect by mentioning the same concept in two different ways

as follows:

 

nArAyana parA vedA devA nArAyanAngajAha

nArAyana parA lokA nArAyana para makhaha

nArAyana paro yogo nArAyAna param tapaha

nArAyana param gyanam nArAyana para gatihi (Bhagavatam: 2:5.15-16)

 

vAsudeva parA vedA vasudeva parA makhaha

vAsudeva parA yogA vasudeva parah kriyaha

vAsudeva param gyAnam vAsudeva param tapaha

vAsudeva paro dharmo vasudeva para gatihi (Bhagavatam: 1:2.28-29)

 

Srimad Bhagavatam sees the Lord both as Sriman nArAyana and as

Sri vAsudeva -- in equal breath -- just like the vedam would.

The rishi does not extend this word play by mentioning Sri Krishna

in the same fashion. Is Sri Krishna the Sri vAsudeva we are talking

about? The main vedam does not talk about this explicitly; but the

upanishads, purAnAs and bhAgavatam are clear about this. In fact

Sri Krishna gAyatri from the tripAd mahAnArAyanopanishad

can be stated as:

"dAmodarAya vidmahe vAsudevAya dimahi tanna krishna prachchodayAt.'

Sri vAsudevA is identified with the creator mentioned

in the Purusha sukhtam and nArAyana sukhtam by the following

slokam in Bhagavatam:

 

paSyantyado rupam adabhra cakshushA

sahasra padoru bhujAnanAdbhutam

sahasra mUrdha SravanAkshi nAsikam

sahasra maulyambara kuNdallollasat (Bhagavatam 1:3.4)

 

The vedic obsession with sahasra sIrsha purusha is evident here

as well. Moreover, Sri Krishna is portrayed as purAvatAram

in the following slokam:

 

rushayo manavo deVa manu putra mahaujasah

kalAh sarve harereva sa prajapatayah smritAha

ete camSa kalAh pumsaha krishnas tu bhagavAn svayam

indrari vyAkulam lokam mridayanti yuge yuge (Bhagavatam 1:3.27-28)

 

Thus when performing hArati to Sri Krishna we say

'itam vishnur vichakrame tretA nitate patam samuta masya bAgum sure'.

 

However it is mentioned no where in the purAnAs or vedas that

Sriman nArAyana is an expansion of Sri Krishna.

 

Coming to the minor points, the slokas from the Bhagavatam

can be interpreted as follows: it illustrates the KrishnAvatAram

as purnAvatAram while comparing the mortals and demigods with

various auspicious amsams of the Lord. And Bhagavatam unequivocally

says 'Krishnas tu bhagavAn svayam' - Sri Krishna is sAkshAt

Bhagavan ( Sriman nArAyana and Sri vAsudeva ). The slokam does not

say the opposite - 'Sri vAsudeva is sakshat Krishna.'

 

Moreover we can straightforwardly interpret that the veda

and the gayatri mantram embedded in it are about the Lord.

When we get past the internal inconsistencies of the vedAs,

and see all the multifarious demigods in it as all refering to any

one of the sahasra lakshanAs of the Lord, we can take the vedas as

the unitary knowledge revealing Sriman nArayAna and Sri vAsudeva

in its core. Sri mahAbhAratam, Gita, and Srimad bhAgavatam

illustrate the purnAvatram of the Lord in the form of Sri Krishna.

So the order of cosmic expansion is clear. Many other discordant

interpretations of other schools of vaishnavam can be easily

disposed of simply as faith or as unnecessary inversion of

facts taught in the vedas and purAnAs. But their faith in

Sri Krishna is respectable since He is certainly the purnAvatAram

we have admired and worshipped for several millenia.

 

deva na: subamAtanotu

 

dAsan

V. Varadarajan