Parathvam of Sriman Narayana Vs. Krishna - I

[Guest guest]

SrI:

SrImathE rAmAnujAya nama:

SrI krishNa parabrahmaNE nama:

SrImAn nArAyaNa charaNau saraNam prapadyE

 

dear vaishNavAs,

 

SrImAn sampath kumAr rised a point which haunted me also some time

earlier. I understand that I am extremely unqualified to speak on

matters of this depth, hence instead, I would like to eloberate the

question framed by SrImAn sampath kumAr. Please feel free to

disagree with me if you see anything absurd in my presentation.

 

Here we have two positions infront of us, a SrI vaishNava assertion

of SrImAn nArAyaNa as the one and only Supreme Lord whose vaibhava

form is SrI krishNa, on ther hand vallabha and gaudiya vaishNavAs

assertion of SrI krishNa as the One and only Supreme Lord whose

purusha or vilAsa avatAra is SrImAn nArAyaNa. For anyone it so

appears that both the parties have their favour for one specific

form of bhagavAn and are arguing in the support of their cause. It

is also true to some extent, but inherently there is a big

difference even about the relative positions on the para form and

the avatAra form of bhagavAn. Let me make it clear.

 

For a SrI vaishNava: The Supreme Lord SrimAn nArAyaNa appeared on

earth in His full opulances as SrI krishNa, and KrishNa being

absolutely non-different from SrImAn nArAyaNa in all respects

including all rasAs. The other avatArAs of SrimAn nArAyaNa and SrI

krishNa avatAr are different in the sense that Lord chose to

manifest all His vibhUtIs to attract the jIvAs in KrishNa avatAr.

All the other avatArAs of bhagavAn also possess all vibhUtis but are

not manifested by the Lord, because of His own free will. The para

tattva, ie., SrImAn nArAyaNa manifests all His opulances in SrI

vaikuntha, the paramapatham (the highest abode), so also SrI krishNa

on earth. For that matter, SrI krishNa's original form (swakam

roopam) is four armed rather than His two armed soumya roopam(SrImad

bhagavad geetha 11.50). Even the gOpis in vrindAvan got the bhAgyam

of conceiving the Lord so closely by their unparallelled bhakti

towards the nArAyaNa ashTAkshari mantra. We can see references in

SrImad bhAgavatam, how the residents of vrindAvan devoted to Lord

nArAyaN. It just proves that by worshipping SrImAn nArAyaNa with a

specific rasa, one conceives the Lord in that rasa. Because the

brajabAsis are so ardent devotees of SrimAn nArAyaNa, the Supreme

Lord manifested as one among them. That is to say that, worship of

SrImAn nArAyaNa gives us the highest bliss of associating with the

Lord in whatever rasa we approach Him. All of this is to assert the

fact that SrImAn nArAyaNa is dealing with devotees of all rasAs, as

He does in SrI vaikuntha also. Hence, SrI krishNa and SrImAn

nArAyaNa are absolutely at the same platform for SrI vaishNavAs,

although one form is para and the other is vaibhava.

 

vallabha gaudiya sAmpradAyAs: SrI KrishNa, the Supreme Person, the

para tattva, the primordial Lord, manifests different vilAsa or

purusha avatArAs to maintain the material creations. Although,

vilAsa forms also have full potencies as Sri krishNa Himself, some

of them are unmanifest, as the Lord chooses so. SrImAn nArAyaNa is

also one of the purusha avatArAs, although capable of exhibiting all

the rasAs doesnot exhibit them in His paramAtma form, which is not

complete realisation of bhagavAn. Only the realisation of SrI

krishNa form in His two armed form carrying flute along with SrImati

rAdhika is the complete realisation. There is even a difference in

the quantity of bliss one experiences by krishNa realisation in

vrindAvan and SrImAn nArAyaNa realisation in SrI vaikuntha.

Moreover, SrI krishNa's abode gOlOka vaikuntha is beyond many many

vaikuntha planets. Especially, SrImAn nArAyaNa form *lack* four

principle characteristics which only Lord KrishNa possess. (based

bhakti rasAmrita sindhu, written by a gaudiya AchArya, SrI rUpa

gOswAmi)

 

Here I end the eloberation of respective positions of the view

points. The main point I tried to bring forth from the above

discussion is that, in the case of SrI vaishNavAs, although they

argue that SrI krishNa is a vaibhava avatAra of SrImAn nArAyaNa,

they nevertheless agree that if one realises the supremacy of SrI

krishNa, one gets the highest bliss. Where as in the case of

gaudiyAs, they argue that, because SrImAn nArAyaNa is just one of

the vilAsa avatArAs of the Lord, there is still more to realise even

after one realises the Supremacy of SrImAn nArAyaNa. Only when one

does become devotee of krishNa form of bhagavan, the one becomes

fully realised. But they do not envy the realisation of nArAyaNa,

just that they do not suggest it.(brihad bhAgavata katha, gOpa

kumAra story, written by a gaudiya AchArya).

 

Whaever I presented here now is what I understood from my analysis,

hence it is prone to have errors. If there are any ambiguities or

illogical comments, please correct me. I shall continue on this

subject in one more mail.

 

dAsOham,

SrIperumbUdUru vEnkaTa vinOd.

 

 

 

 

ramanuja, "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...