Bhagavan Svayam: New Update on Gosai Chaitanya Dvaita Section

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna

 

http://www.gosai.com/dvaita_fs.html

 

Kindly go and check point E on above page.

 

The Supreme Position of Sri Krshna as the Source of All Incarnations

[bhagavan Svayam] • NEW •

 

 

Your Servant Always

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "sumeet1981" <sumeet1981> wrote:

>

> Hare Krishna

>

> http://www.gosai.com/dvaita_fs.html

>

> Kindly go and check point E on above page.

>

> The Supreme Position of Sri Krshna as the Source of All

Incarnations

> [bhagavan Svayam] • NEW •

>

 

Some of these arguments of the Maadhva/Sharmites make no sense, and

it's about time that someone called their bluff. For example, why

would Sharma think that the gauDIya interpretation of SB 1.3.28 has

Krishna as the subject? Obviously it is not the subject of mRdayanti,

since the latter is plural. The subject of mRdayanti is the ete

chAmsa kalAH pumsaH mentioned earlier, which is also plural.

 

There is no problem with grammatical syntax in the gauDIya

interpretation. On the contrary, is it is mAdhva interpretation that

is lacking in grammatical coherence. For example, the mAdhvas say

that the ete chAmsa kalAH refers not to the various avatAras of the

Lord, but rather to the Manus, siddhas, rishis, etc mentioned in SB

1.3.27. But, SB 1.3.28 states that these amshas are the ones who come

down in every yuga when the enemies of Indra flourish. Obviously,

this cannot be a reference to those "amshas," because it is the Lord

Himself who comes in every yuga for the purpose of paritrAnAya

sAdhUnAm... etc. So, the mAdhvas take it that Krishna is the subject

of mRdayanti - but this makes no sense because kR^iShNaH is clearly

singular, and thus it cannot be the subject of mR^idayanti.

 

The author of this paper is correct. There is no reason to think that

kR^iShNaH refers to some other form of the Lord - the most obvious

and common meaning should be considered first. The TattvavAdi

interpretation, like the Sri Vaishnava one, is needlessly circuitous

in this regard.

 

I also agree that Sharma's/Madhva's use of the Vishnu purANa quote is

an eyebrow raiser. Who ever heard of the Lord having white hairs?

This is a case where the most literal interpretation must not be

accepted as correct, for it would violate other pramANas establishing

that the Lord's body is vishuddha sattva. Furthermore, we all know

that the bhAgavatam is the last of the purANas to be compiled by shrI

vedavyAsa. Thus, it is not appropriate to use the vishNu purANa to

reinterpret the bhAgavatam. Rather, the statements of viShNu purANa

should be understood in light of what is clearly written in the

bhAgavatam, since the bhAgavatam, and not the viShNu purANa, is

vyAsa's last word on vedAnta, and is considered the best among

purANas. Thus, I agree with shrIla jIva gosvAmI's interpretation of

the viShNu purANa verse in question.

 

I don't see where Sharma and mAdhvas are coming from in insisting

that the gauDIya interpretation somehow breaks the flow of thought.

The gauDIya interpretation is straightforward and requires fewer

assumptions - its beauty is in its simple elegance.

 

Though in other regards, I am surprised that this paper even brings

up Brahma-saMhitA. Obviously, mAdhvas don't accept its authority, nor

do they accept shrI caitanya's divinity or consequent authority. What

is the point of bringing this up? I think those initial paragraphs

are a distraction from this paper's main point.

 

yours

 

K

[Guest guest]

I agree with Krishna Susarla's view. the initial stress on authenticity of

Brahma Samhita and Mahaprabhu's being Krishna is distractive and gives an

impression of a sentimental presentation. Regarding kesau, Jiva Goswami gives 6

possible reasons as to how it doesn't refer to Krishna being the hair of

Ksirodakasayi Vishnu.

 

One sri Vaishnava claims that it refers to the hair wettened by

milk and hence appears white in colour. But I doubt of any sastric pramanas for

that.There is no end to simple speculation.

 

 

Srila Raghava Goswami in his Krishna Bhakti Ratna Prakasa analyses as follows:

 

 

Now our opponents may say: In the Visnu Purana when Brahma prayed to Him, the

Personality of Godhead Ksirodakasayi Visnu gave to Brahma two hairs that became

Balarama and Krsna. The Visnu Purana (5.1.59-60) says:

 

"After hearing these prayers, the Supreme Personality of Godhead plucked from

Himself a white and black hair and gave them to Brahma."

 

"The Lord then said to the demigods: ‘These two hairs will descend to the earth

and remove the earth’s burden of distress’." This is the doubt.

 

The devotees of Lord Krsna reply: This statement of the Visnu Purana is couched

in general words and does not specifically name Lord Krsna as the incarnation of

Visnu’s hairs. Sri Krsna is the origin of everything. He appears only by His own

will. Everything that exists has been expanded from Him. From whom was He

expanded? He was not expanded from anyone else. In the statement ‘These two

hairs will descend to the earth and remove the earth’s burden of distress" the

two incarnations are Lord Visnu and Lord Balarama. It is Lord Visnu, who is in

charge of maintaining the material creation, that killed the demons and removed

the earth’s burden. Lord Krsna Himself does not kill the demons. Srimad

Bhagavatam (10.38.22) says: "No one is especially dear to Lord Krsna. No one is

His special friend. No one is not dear to Him. No one is His enemy. No one is

ignored by Him. He sees everyone with an equal eye." Furthermore, Sri

Krsnacandra is beyond the grip of the material energy and its three

modes. He is perfectly situated in Supreme transcendental bliss. Therefore the

dual number in the word mat-kesau (My two hairs) refers to Lord Visnu and Lord

Balarama. Srimad Bhagavatam (10.2.13) describes the meaning of Lord Balarama’s

name in the following words: ‘Balarama will be called Rama because of His

ability to please all the inhabitants of Gokula, and He will be known as

Balabhadra because of His extensive physical strength."* Because it can be used

for destruction, physical strength is connected to the mode of ignorance. In the

Govinda-Vrndavana-sastra Lord Balarama says to the Supreme Personality of

Godhead:

 

"Because of Your illusory potency I am overcome by the mode of ignorance. O Lord

of the universe, I do not understand the truth about You."

 

Because Lord Balarama is the reservoir of all strength, the incarnation of

Ananta Sesa is expanded from Him. Lord Balarama descended to the earth planet to

kill the demons. These two may be the two hairs referred to here. Lord

Krsnacandra, however, is the original form of the Personality of Godhead, and He

appears whenever and wherever He likes. Therefore in the previously quoted

passage of Srimad Bhagavatam (10.1.23): "The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Sri

Krsna, who has full potency, will personally appear as the son of Vasudeva"

should be understood as a metaphor.

 

On the pretext of giving two hairs to Brahma, Lord Ksirodakasayi Visnu actually

intended to say: "Sri Krsna, Supreme Personality of Godhead, the crest jewel of

all forms of Godhead and the master of Divya-Vrndavana, appears by His own wish.

He will now appear on the earth planet, accompanied by His two expansions Visnu

and Balarama." This is also confirmed by Srimad Bhagavatam (10.33.26): "The

Supreme Personality of Godhead, the master of the universes, has now appeared

with His own expansion.‘ Although the Supreme Personality of Godhead expands in

many forms, He remains a single person. This is confirmed in the

Govinda-Vrndavana-sastra: "The Supreme Personality of Godhead is one. He is the

self-effulgent Supreme Master. He is the creator and destroyer of all the

universes."

 

At this point the question may be raised: Why does the Supreme Personality of

Godhead bring His plenary expansions with Him when He appears in the material

world? The answer is given in Srimad Bhagavatam (10.33.26): ‘The Supreme Lord

appears to establish the principles of religion and silence those who are

irreligious."

 

At this point someone may further ask: "You have said that the Supreme

Personality of Godhead descended with two expansions: Visnu and Balarama. You

then proceed to substantiate that statement by quoting the phrase ‘avatirno hi

bhagavan amsena’ from Srimad Bhagavatam (10.33.26). The word ‘amsena’ in this

verse is singular, but yet you say the Lord appeared with two expansions. Are

you not, therefore, contradicting the statement of the Bhagavatam, which

mentions only one expansion?

 

The answer to this question is that the word ‘amsena’ is in the singular to

indicate the expansions of the Lord taken together as a group, which is then

treated in the singular. Actually the Lord appears with innumerable expansions

and opulences. This is confirmed by the following statement of Sri Krsna-yamala:

‘The Supreme Personality of Godhead descends to this world accompanied by 64

expansions and opulences."

 

 

 

Dasa

 

Narasimhan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Just as an FYI, here are the viSNu purANa verses in question:

 

eva sastUyamAnastu bhagavAn parameshvaraH |

ujjahArAtmanaH keshau sitkRSNau mahAmune || VP 5.1.59 ||

 

uvAca ca surAnetau matkeshau vasudhAtale |

avatIryya bhuvo bhArakle shahAniM kariSyataH || VP 5.1.60 ||

 

This occurs in the context of the chapter describing Krishna's

pastimes, near the beginning when the demigods are beseeching the

Lord to incarnate and deal with the demons there.

 

achintya, ranganathan narasimhan

<simhan74> wrote:

> I agree with Krishna Susarla's view. the initial stress on

authenticity of Brahma Samhita and Mahaprabhu's being Krishna is

distractive and gives an impression of a sentimental presentation.

Regarding kesau, Jiva Goswami gives 6 possible reasons as to how it

doesn't refer to Krishna being the hair of Ksirodakasayi Vishnu.

>

 

This is described in shrI kR^iShNa sandarbha anucchedas 55 and

onward. The Vishnu-plucking-two-hairs verse is present also in

mahAbhArata. But the arguments against their literal interpretation

are the same. Here are the arguments given by shrI jIva gosvAmI:

 

1) shrIdhar svAmI states in his commentary to bhAgavatam 2.7.26 that

kesha means also "splendor." Thus, the verse really means that the

Lord appears in His (orignal) splendid forms (as Krishna and

Balaraama)

 

2) The interpretation that Vishnu has white hair on His body

contradicts many pramaanas saying that the Lord's body is beyond the

influence of time.

 

3) The interpretation that Krishna and Balaraama are mere hairs of

Vishnu contradicts SB 1.3.28.

 

4) Even if one wants to interpret these as literally hairs of Vishnu,

still neither Krishna nor Balaraama are specifically named. One could

also argue that the hairs represent Vaasudeva and Sankarshana. Taken

in this way, Lord Vishnu is saying that He will send His expansions

of Vaasudeva and Sankarshana to fulfill the request of the demigods.

(I guess this is valid since Vaasudeva and Sankarshana still

correspond to Krishna and Balaraama - thus context is maintained

while arguing that the hairs are not directly Krishna and Balaraama)

 

5) Vopadeva, in his muktAphalaTIkA, explains keshau as ka + Ishau. ka

in this case means "blissful" while Ishau refers to the two Lords.

Thus, according to him the verse is saying that Vishnu will send the

two blissful forms Krishna and Balaraama. (i'm not sure how he

explains the plucked part, but the point is that Krishna and

Balaraama are referred to in this interpretation, but not as hairs of

Vishnu but rather as blissful Lords)

 

6) The interpretation that Krishna and Balaraama are two hairs of

Vishnu is also contradicted by Hari-vamsha:

 

kasyA~ncid giriguhAyAM bhagavAn svamUrtiM nikSipya garuDaM ca

tatrAvasthApya svayam atrAgata |

 

....which says that the Lord, after instructing the demigods,

travelled on Garuda to certain mountain cave where He assumed His own

form (as Krishna) and then descended to earth in that form. jIva says

this verse begins with "sa devAnabhnuj~nAya...." and the Nag

Publishers index gives this as 1.22.46. However, I could not locate

this verse in the text, possibly because the index may be inaccurate.

 

7) Even inferior demigods are free from the defects of old age.

Therefore there is no way the Lord can have white hairs. (note:

Doesn't Advaita AchArya have white hairs? I guess his point is that

the Lord's forms which are not known to have white hairs will not

develop white hairs with time, therefore if They do not have them at

any time then they never have them, specific appearances in elderly

looking individuals notwithstanding)

 

8) Other purANic references describing the descent of Krishna and

Balaraama, though referring to them as black and white, generally do

not describe them as hairs of anyone.

 

9) Even if it is agreed that they are not hairs of Vishnu, but rather

expansions of Vishnu, jIva gosvAmI disagrees based on other

references describing Lord as svayam bhagavAn, Adi-puruSa, etc.

 

10) There are other faulty statements in the purANas (jIva gives some

examples from garuDa purANa, a sAttvik purANa) which are not

acceptable no matter how you slice it. Even if the viSNu purANa means

what the pUrva-pakshins say it means, it can ultimately be considered

false and not to be accepted, just as a statement from the garuDa

claiming that Vishnu was forced by karma to assume ten incarnations

on Earth (quoted in kRSNa sandarbha - 67 ). The point is that,

regardless of the source, some statements are so ludicrous that they

should not be accepted.

 

11) shrImad bhAgavatam is the topmost purANa, and therefore it must

be understood to grasp spiritual truths (rather, I suppose, than

using inferior purANa-s to reinterpret the bhAgavatam).

 

12) The skAnda purANa, prabhAsa-khaNDa, in the story of candra-

kalan^kApatti-kAraNa, states that Krishna is Vishnu Himself. This

refutes the idea that Krishna is a hair of Vishnu.

 

13) Another alternative meaning of kesha is explained as follows in

the mahAbhArata, in the viSNu-sahasra-nAma:

 

aMshavo ye prakAshante mama te keShasaMj~NitAH |

sarvaj~nAH keshavaM tasmAn nAmAhur munisattama ||

 

.... which explains that the effulgence of the Lord's transcendental

body is known by the word Kesha, hence He is called Keshava.

 

14) On the grounds that kesha should mean "effulgence" as it is used

by Naarada in the moksha-dharma to describe the Lord's appearance in

a variety of forms and colors, statement of viSNu purANa saying that

the Lord will appear as white and black Keshas should be understood

to mean that the Lord will appear in White and Black forms as

Vaasudeva and Sankarshana. jIva gosvAmI later quotes a number of

pramANas to establish that Vaasudeva and Sankarshana appeared first,

to be joined later by Krishna and Balaraama who were the original

forms who united with Their expansions. This is too complicated for

me to reproduce here - see anuccheda 85.