bhagavan and the purusas

[Guest guest]

Dear Prabhus,

 

There is confusion in other sampradayas about the meaning of SB1.3.28: krsnas tu

bhagavan svayam. In Gaudiya Vaishnavaism, one sees the truth of Krishna's

supremacy as a core principle of the Bhagavatam. This truth is also embedded in

the most important section, the five chapters of rasa-lila. This section

describing the highest activity of God represents the core of the entire

scripture for many reasons, and therefore, any statement therein about Krishna's

status would be naturally very important.

 

Specifically, the pastime's conclusion makes a statement about Lord Krishna's

status in relation to Lord Vishnu: "avatirno hi bhagavan, amsena jagad-isvarah"

SB 10.33.26. A common way to understand this is Bhagavan/Jagad-isvara has

appeared along with His expansion Balarama. However, this would make the two

terms for the Lord Bhagavan and Jagad-isvara rather repetitive and not so

informative.

 

Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura, as translated by Bhanu Swami and Mahanidhi

Swami, gives a better way to understand them. Both bhagavan and jagad-isvarah

are certainly in the nominative case but amsena directly describes jagad-isvara

only, so the sloka says "bhagavan--jagad-isvara by expansion--has appeared" or

in other words "Svayam Bhagavan, whose expansion is jagad-isvara (Vishnu), has

appeared."

 

This gradation of Bhagavan and the Purusa reflects the Bhagavatam's initial

statement at 1.3.1 that Bhagavan expands as the three Vishnu/Purusa forms and

this also tallies with the Gaudiya understanding of SB 1.3.28 that the pumsah

(the Purusas who control the world) are only expansions, not bhagavan svayam.

 

Any comments?

 

ys

Gerald Surya

 

 

GS

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

This gradation of Bhagavan and the Purusa reflects the Bhagavatam's

initial statement at 1.3.1 that Bhagavan expands as the three

Vishnu/Purusa forms and this also tallies with the Gaudiya

understanding of SB 1.3.28 that the pumsah (the Purusas who control

the world) are only expansions, not bhagavan svayam.

==============================================

 

 

sb 10.85.31

 

O Soul of all that be, the creation, maintenance and destruction of

the universe are all carried out by a fraction of an expansion of an

expansion of Your expansion. Today I have come to take shelter of

You, the Supreme Lord.

 

PURPORT: Srila Sridhara Svami explains this verse as follows: The

Lord of Vaikuntha, Narayana, is but one expansion of Sri Krishna.

Maha-Vishnu, the first creator, is Lord Narayana's expansion. The

total material energy emanates from Maha-Vishnu's glance, and of that

total material energy the three modes of nature are divided portions.

Thus it is Sri Krishna, acting through His expansions, who generates,

sustains and dissolves the universe.

 

11.6.16

 

My dear Lord, the original purusha-avatara, Maha-Vishnu, acquires His

creative potency from You. Thus with infallible energy He impregnates

material nature, producing the mahat-tattva. Then the mahat-tattva,

the amalgamated material energy, endowed with the potency of the

Lord, produces from itself the primeval golden egg of the universe,

which is covered by various layers of material elements.

 

 

sb 2.4.23

 

May the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who enlivens the materially

created bodies of the elements by lying down within the universe, and

who in His purusòa incarnation causes the living being to be subjected

to the sixteen divisions of material modes which are his generator,

be pleased to decorate my statements

 

3.2.15

 

The Personality of Godhead, the all-compassionate controller of both

the spiritual and material creations, is unborn, but when there is

friction between His peaceful devotees and persons who are in the

material modes of nature, He takes birth just like fire, accompanied

by the mahat-tattva.

 

Purport: ...When Lord Krishna appears on a mission, all His plenary

portions accompany Him. When He appeared as the son of Vasudeva,

there were differences of opinion about His incarnation. Some

said, "He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead." Some said, "He is

an incarnation of Narayana," and others said, "He is the incarnation

of Kshirodakasayi Vishnu." But actually He is the original Supreme

Personality of Godhead -- krishnas tu bhagavan svayam -- and

Narayana, the purushas and all other incarnations accompany Him to

function as different parts of His pastimes. Mahad-amsa-yuktah

indicates that He is accompanied by the purushas, who create the

mahat-tanva. It is confirmed in the Vedic hymns, mahantam vibhum

atmanam

 

10.41.1

 

Sukadeva Gosvami said: While Akrura was still offering prayers, the

Supreme Lord Krishna withdrew His form that He had revealed in the

water, just as an actor winds up his performance.

 

---

withdrew his vishnu form

---

 

10.86.54

 

Even My own four-armed form is no dearer to Me than a brahmana.

Within himself a learned brahmana comprises all the Vedas, just as

within Myself I comprise all the demigods.

 

10.85.4

 

You are the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who manifest as the Lord

of both nature and the creator of nature [Maha-Vishnu]. Everything

that comes into existence, however and whenever it does so, is

created within You, by You, from You, for You and in relation to You

 

10.85.18

 

You are not our sons but the very Lords of both material nature and

its creator [Maha-Vishnu]. As You Yourself have told us, You have

descended to rid the earth of the rulers who are a heavy burden upon

her.

 

10.87.46

 

Sri Narada said: I offer My obeisances to Him of spotless fame, the

Supreme Lord Krishna, who manifests His all-attractive personal

expansions so that all living beings can achieve liberation.

 

PURPORT

 

Srila Sridhara Svami remarks that Narada's addressing Sri Narayana

Rishi as an incarnation of Lord Krishna is perfectly appropriate, in

accordance with the following statement of Srimad-Bhagavatam

(1.3.28): ete camsa-kalah pumsah/ krishnas tu bhagavan svayam. "All

of the above-mentioned incarnations [including Narayana Rishi] are

either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the

Lord, but Lord Sri Krishna is the original Personality of Godhead."

 

In his commentary on this verse, Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti has Lord

Narayana Rishi asking, "Why do you offer obeisances to Krishna

instead of Me, your guru, who am standing here before you?" Narada

explains his action by saying that Lord Krishna assumes all-

attractive incarnations like Sri Narayana Rishi to end the

conditioned souls' material life. By offering obeisances to Lord

Krishna, therefore, Narada honors Narayana Rishi and all other

manifestations of Godhead as well.

 

This prayer of Narada's is the essential nectar he has extracted from

the personified Vedas' prayers, which themselves were churned from

the sweet ocean of all secrets of the Vedas and Puranas. As the

Gopala-tapani Upanishad (Purva 50) recommends, tasmat krishna eva

paro devas tam dhyayet tam rasayet tam bhajet tam yajed iti. om tat

sat: "Therefore Krishna is the Supreme Godhead. One should meditate

on Him, relish the taste of reciprocating loving exchanges with Him,

worship Him and offer sacrifice to Him."

 

 

11.11.20

 

My dear Uddhava, an intelligent person should never take to

literatures that do not contain descriptions of My activities, which

purify the whole universe. Indeed, I create, maintain and annihilate

the entire material manifestation. Among all My pastime incarnations,

the most beloved are Krishna and Balarama. Any so-called knowledge

that does not recognize these activities of Mine is simply barren and

is not acceptable to those who are actually intelligent.

 

11.15.30

 

My devotee becomes unconquerable by meditating on My opulent

incarnations, which are decorated with Srivatsa and various weapons

and are endowed with imperial paraphernalia such as flags, ornamental

umbrellas and fans.

 

11.27.5

 

O lotus-eyed one, O Supreme Lord of all lords of the universe, please

explain to Your devoted servant this means of liberation from the

bondage of work.

[Guest guest]

achintya, Mrgerald@a... wrote:

>

> Specifically, the pastime's conclusion makes a statement about

Lord Krishna's status in relation to Lord Vishnu: "avatirno hi

bhagavan, amsena jagad-isvarah" SB 10.33.26. A common way to

understand this is Bhagavan/Jagad-isvara has appeared along with His

expansion Balarama. However, this would make the two terms for the

Lord Bhagavan and Jagad-isvara rather repetitive and not so

informative.

>

 

At the risk of sounding like I'm playing devil's advocate, how is it

repetitive? Bhagavaan and Jagad-iishvara describe different

attributes of the Lord - one saying that He is the posessor of all

opulences while the other saying that He is the controller of the

universe. Even if it is argued that one implies the other, one could

argue that a devotee relishes the glorification of the Lord and

would even offer seemingly repetitive descriptions within the same

statement to make the point.

 

> Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura, as translated by Bhanu Swami

and Mahanidhi Swami, gives a better way to understand them. Both

bhagavan and jagad-isvarah are certainly in the nominative case but

amsena directly describes jagad-isvara only, so the sloka

says "bhagavan--jagad-isvara by expansion--has appeared" or in other

words "Svayam Bhagavan, whose expansion is jagad-isvara (Vishnu),

has appeared."

>

 

In that case, should it not be:

 

....bhagavAn amshena jagadIshvarena?

 

i.e. "Bhagavaan with expansion that is jagad-iishvara..."

 

 

yours,

 

hks

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/13/2006 8:41:27 PM Eastern Standard Time,

krishna_susarla writes:

 

>At the risk of sounding like I'm playing devil's advocate, how is it

repetitive? Bhagavaan and Jagad-iishvara describe different

attributes of the Lord - one saying that He is the posessor of all

opulences while the other saying that He is the controller of the

universe. Even if it is argued that one implies the other, one could

argue that a devotee relishes the glorification of the Lord and

would even offer seemingly repetitive descriptions within the same

statement to make the point.

 

 

Both are options, but the context of differentiating Bhagavan and the

purusas as done originally at 1.3.1, provides a strong framework for continuing

the

same line of thought throughout. This differentiation would be especially

relevant for someone who is especially trying to focus meditation on one

aspect exclusively.

 

 

 

 

> Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura, ... so the sloka

says "bhagavan--jagad-isvara by expansion--has appeared" or in other

words "Svayam Bhagavan, whose expansion is jagad-isvara (Vishnu),

has appeared."

>

 

In that case, should it not be:

 

....bhagavAn amshena jagadIshvarena?

 

i.e. "Bhagavaan with expansion that is jagad-iishvara..."

 

Good point. I don't know how answer your point but Srila Visvanatha

Cakravarti Thakura does the same thing at 10.2.14: paraH pumAn amshena sAkSad

bhagavAn, wherein paraH pumAn (the purusa) is the expansion of sAksAd bhagavAn.

 

Gerald Surya

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

achintya, Mrgerald@a... wrote:

 

> Both are options, but the context of differentiating Bhagavan and

the

> purusas as done originally at 1.3.1, provides a strong framework

for continuing the

> same line of thought throughout. This differentiation would be

especially

> relevant for someone who is especially trying to focus meditation

on one

> aspect exclusively.

 

I understand where that is coming from. I only pointed out that it

seens hardly redundant to say that Bhagavaan and Jagad-iishvara

refer to the same Vishnu-tattva in the verse. In other words, I

wouldn't think that, looking at the verse, that "bhagavAn"

and "jagadIshvara" must be referring to two different forms because

of redundancy.

 

Certainly we could argue that differentiation between svayam

bhagavAn and the puruSha-avatAras is being maintained here. But

given that this was brought up in one chapter 9 skandhas earlier,

with hardly any allusion to this in between, is it really going to

be obvious that the verse in question should be interpreted in the

same light?

 

> > Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura, ... so the sloka

> says "bhagavan--jagad-isvara by expansion--has appeared" or in

other

> words "Svayam Bhagavan, whose expansion is jagad-isvara (Vishnu),

> has appeared."

> >

>

> In that case, should it not be:

>

> ...bhagavAn amshena jagadIshvarena?

>

> i.e. "Bhagavaan with expansion that is jagad-iishvara..."

>

> Good point. I don't know how answer your point but Srila

Visvanatha

> Cakravarti Thakura does the same thing at 10.2.14: paraH pumAn

amshena sAkSad

> bhagavAn, wherein paraH pumAn (the purusa) is the expansion of

sAksAd bhagavAn.

>

 

I wonder if there are other examples of this type of Sanskrit

construction. I know that nominative sentences do exist in the

form "A is B" with both "A" and "B" declined in the nominative. I

don't think I've seen this type of construction where a nominative

was used to describe something that is grammatically instrumental.

Does anyone by any chance have a reference to Panini that describes

this?

 

yours,

 

hks

[Guest guest]

 

krishna_susarla krishna_susarla

>Certainly we could argue that differentiation between svayam

bhagavAn and the puruSha-avatAras is being maintained here. But

given that this was brought up in one chapter 9 skandhas earlier,

with hardly any allusion to this in between, is it really going to

be obvious that the verse in question should be interpreted in the

same light?

 

Why not? Krishna was mentioned as Bhagavan distinct from the Purusas

at that point, so why wouldn't that be recalled in the canto on Krishna?

 

>I wonder if there are other examples of this type of Sanskrit

construction. I know that nominative sentences do exist in the

form "A is B" with both "A" and "B" declined in the nominative. I

don't think I've seen this type of construction where a nominative

was used to describe something that is grammatically instrumental.

Does anyone by any chance have a reference to Panini that describes

this?

 

Is it possible that the verb "is" or words "who is" can be simply understood

within those verses in which case both nouns should be nominative?

(i.e. Bhagavan [who is] Jagad-isvara by expansion incarnated;

or svayam bhagavan [who is] the para puman by expansion ...)

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 Mrgerald wrote:

>

> krishna_susarla krishna_susarla

>> Certainly we could argue that differentiation between svayam

> bhagavAn and the puruSha-avatAras is being maintained here. But

> given that this was brought up in one chapter 9 skandhas earlier,

> with hardly any allusion to this in between, is it really going to

> be obvious that the verse in question should be interpreted in the

> same light?

>

> Why not? Krishna was mentioned as Bhagavan distinct from the Purusas

> at that point, so why wouldn't that be recalled in the canto on Krishna?

 

I just came across another example of this in Srila Sanatana Gosvami's

commentary on Srimad-Bhagavatam, 10.8.12. In it, he quotes the phrase,

"Vrajesa-sutayoh" as proof of the common knowledge that both Krsna and Balarama

are the sons of Nanda Maharaja. That's a verse appearing 13 chapters later,

which he evidently assumes we will know, probably because it is from the popular

Gopika-gita, and hence he doesn't explicitly identify the exact reference. This

sort of thing happens a lot.

 

 

 

> Is it possible that the verb "is" or words "who is" can be simply understood

> within those verses in which case both nouns should be nominative?

> (i.e. Bhagavan [who is] Jagad-isvara by expansion incarnated;

> or svayam bhagavan [who is] the para puman by expansion ...)

 

I haven't been following this thread and don't know what text you're referring

to here, but what you've described above sounds exactly like the function of

sasthi-tatpurusa bahuvrihis, an essential standard of Sanskrit expression. The

verb is generally only implied, and these are extremely common constructions.

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

BG 10.42

 

But what need is there, Arjuna, for all this detailed knowledge? With

a single fragment of Myself I pervade and support this entire universe.

 

===

similarly:

===

 

http://bhagavatam.net/2/6/43-45/en1

 

I myself [brahma], Lord Siva, Lord Vishnu, great generators of living

beings like Daksha and Prajapati, yourselves [Narada and the Kumaras],

heavenly demigods like Indra and Candra, the leaders of the Bhurloka

planets, the leaders of the earthly planets, the leaders of the lower

planets........in other words, anything and everything which is

exceptionally possessed of power, opulence, mental and perceptual

dexterity, strength, forgiveness, beauty, modesty, opulence, and

breeding, whether in form or formless -- may appear to be the specific

truth and the form of the Lord, but actually they are not so. They are

only a fragment of the transcendental potency of the Lord.

 

PURPORT

 

Those in the list given above, beginning from the name Brahmaji, the

first living creature within the universe, down to Lord Siva, Lord

Vishnu, Narada and other powerful demigods, men, supermen, sages,

rishis, and other lower creatures of extraordinary strength and

opulence, including the dead bodies, satans, evil spirits, jinn,

aquatics, birds and beasts, may appear to be the Supreme Lord, but

factually none of them is the Supreme Lord; every one of them

possesses only a fragment of the great potencies of the Supreme Lord.