Krishnas tu bhagavan svayam- 3

[Guest guest]

RG writes: Considering his explanation that (this demon) attained liberation

from the pastimes of child (Krishna), but when he was in the form of Kalanemi or

other forms did not attain liberation from the Lord's activities in other

circumstances, (Parasara) said , "ayam hi bhagavan" (Krishna is certainly the

Supreme Personality of Godhead).

 

 

In this passage Parasara did not mention the Lord's two associates that took

birth three times in the world. These two associates are not thought to take

birth in every kalpa for then they would fall down in every kalpa. That is not

an acceptable idea.

 

RG also analyses the issue of gradation between various forms of the Lord. He

says:

 

It may be said:

 

Because He is the Supreme Lord, all His forms are perfect and complete.

Still, He does not show all His potencies in His forms.

When a small measure of His potencies is manifest, (His form) is called

amsa-avatara. When by His wish many different potencies are manifest, (His form

is called) purna-avatara.

Opulence, sweetness, mercy, and strength are prominent among His many

potencies.

(The different forms of the Supreme Lord are considered) more or less complete

according to the extent to which His various potencies are manifest or not

manifest.

A small lamp and a great fire are equally effective in burning a house or

something else, but only the great fire brings relief from the sufferings of

cold weather. In the same way, the more the Supreme Lord manifests His

transcendental qualities, the more the devotees and living entities in general

find relief from the cycle of birth and death.

 

JG shows how the subject matter of SB is to establish Krishna as the Supreme

personality of godhead:

 

According to sage Jaimini there are 6 processes for analyzing a text to know

the intention of the book.

1- sruti - direct assertion by the word itself

2- lingam - indication - the capacity of the word to indicate (two types

- according to the sense or by the word itself)

3- väkya - the syntetic connection of the statements

4- präkaram – context

5- sthänam – order

6- samäkya - designation.

By analyzing SB in the light of all these 6 tools the purpose is to explain

Krishna as the svayam bhagavän.

 

Sruti is that which is not depending on anything else. It is independent. It

does not need support for anything else. This statement Krishnas tu bhagavän

svayam is sruti or direct assertion that Krishna is svayam bhagavän. The sruti

is stronger than the others.

 

The meaning of the sruti are also supported by lingam or indication - it is

not directly said. (SB 10.13.46) : ‘all the vatsa-pälas and the cows themselves,

they all turned into Lord Vishnu’. Then Brahma realized that Krishna is the

Supreme.

(SB10.14.32) Brahmä:

aho bhägyam aho bhägyam nanda-gopa-vrajaukasäm

yan-mitram paramänandam pürnam brahma sanätanam

‘In the house of Nanda M., paramänanda pürnam brahma sanätanam is there’.]

From the pastimes of Krishna one comes to the conclusion that ‘krishnas tu

bhagavan svayam.’ but this is not imagination because the sruti statement

already exists. Here we have the sruti and the lingam.

 

Väkya. Ex: ‘Give him this rasagolla’. then the question is ‘to whom?’ This

statement called akAnksa. It does not have the complete meaning. It needs

something else to complete. A statement is yogya, that means it is not a

useless statement if it has capability to convey something. (ayogya is a

statement that although grammatically correct does not have proper meaning). And

also the statement has to be related to some other. väkya means to analyze the

statements in the light of these considerations. It has to have some meaning

that binds all these statements together. Ex:(SB1.7.7)

 

yasyäm vai srüyamänäyäm krishne parama-purushe

bhaktir utpadyate pumsam soka-moha-bhayäpahä

 

‘By hearing this one develops bhakti to Krishna Who is parama-purusha , and he

becomes free from soka, moha and bhaya.’(here yasyäm is related to the previous

statement that is ‘SB’, and bhakti is related with Krishna.)

 

Prakaram- If one is told ‘Get the rope for the sacrifice’. But one does not

know if it is from a horse or an ass. But there is another statement somewhere

which says that the ‘rope is from the horse’. The two statements have to come

together. In (SB 1.7.4) it is said:

bhakti-yogena manasi samyakpranihite ’male

apasyat purusham pürnam mäyamca tad-apäsrayam

 

The akanksha here is - ‘Who is this pürna-purusa?’ The answer comes in the

text 7

- krishne parama-purushe. The meaning comes from the context.

 

Sthäna - to come to a conclusive meaning basing on the order of various

statements. The question and answer have to be related. For example in the

question in (SB 1.1.2) and in the answer (SB 1.2.5) we conclude that the

sätvata-pati and the one born from Devaki is Krishna because in the answer,

Suta G. says that the questions are about Krishna - Krishna-samprasna. This

comes by sthäna, order, or how things are placed.

 

Samäkya- designation, to have same meaning. In the first sloka of the third

chapter the words bhagavän and paurusham are found. In the conclusion of this

series of verses, in the text 28, the words bhagavän and pumsam are there.

purusha and pumsam have the same meaning and does not apply to Krishna, Who is

mentioned specifically as bhagavän svayam.

 

One more way is AbhyAsa- repetition. Krishna appears explicitly in the first,

tenth and eleven cantos. In the second there is the dialog between Brahmä and

Närada. In the third there is the talk between Vidura and Uddhava. In the fourth

canto there is the verse speaking about Nara-Näräyana rishis affirming that they

are expansions of Krishna(SB4.1.59). And also vidura asks questions to Maitreya

about Prithu M. and says that he is an incarnation of Lord Krishna. In the fifth

there is a verse spoken by Sukadeva G. to ParIkshit M. (SB 5.6.18):

 

räjan patir gurur alam bhavatäm yadünäm

daivam priyam kula-patim kva ca kinkaro vam

astv evam anga bhagavän bhajatäm mukundo

muktim dadati karhicit sma na bhakti-yogam

 

In the sixth canto in the description of Näräyana kavaca given by Visvarüpa to

Indra, all names of Krishna are there. In the seventh there is the dialog

between Närada muni and King Yudhishthira, just after the sacrifice in which

Sishupala was killed.

In the eight canto there is the story of Kälanemi, a demon killed by Lord

Vishnu. He did not get liberation , instead he appeared again as Kamsa. When the

demon was killed by Krishna he got liberation.

In the twelfth canto - (SB12.11.26).

 

By abhyäsa, repetition, in the SB, it is proved that Krishna is the

müla-bhagavat. This stantard is to be accepted because it is also used in the

Vedänta-sütra - änandamayo ’bhyasät. The question is: when the word änandamaya

is used it refers to jIva or Brahman? The answer is given here - änandamaya

refers to Brahman because in many instances in the Vedas, repeatedly, this word

has been used as related with Brahman.

Because Krishna is repeatedly spoken this puräna is called Bhägavatam. This

book could have the name - Sri Krishna Puräna, but it was the intention of

Vyäsadeva to show explicitly Who is the svayam bhagavän. It is not that Krishna

is just explained in the book but He is explained in the most wonderful way -

sarva-äscaryatayä.

 

To end, some quotations regarding how the form of Krishna is superior to all

other forms (Most of these verses are quotes by Srila JG and RG):

 

Padma purana Patala Khanda

 

 

Lord Shiva speaking to Parvati

 

 

Vrajendra santataisvaryam vraja bAlaika vallabham

Yauvanodbhinna kaisoram vayasAdbhuta vigraham (69.85)

 

AnAdim Adim sarveshAm nandagopa priyAtmajam

Srutimrugyamajam nityam gopIjana manoharam (69.86)

 

ParamdhAma param rUpam dvibhujam gokuleshvaram

BallavInandanam dhyayennirguNaika kAraNam (69.87)

 

nakhendu kiraNasreNi pUrNa bhahmaika kAraNam (69.102)

 

kecit vadanti tasyAmsAm brahma cid rupam advayam

TadrushAmsAm mahA vishnum pravadanti manIshinah(69.103)

 

 

Vyasadeva to Lord Vishnu:

 

tvAm aham drashtum icchAmi caksurbhyAm madhusUdana |

yat tat satyam param brahma jagad-yonim jagat-patim |

vadanti veda-SirasaS cakshusham nAtha me’stu tat (73.12-13)|

 

Lord Vishnu replies:

paSya tvam darSayisyAmi svarUpam veda-gopitam |

tato’pasyam aham bhUpa bAlam kAlAmbuda-prabham |

gopa-kanyAvritam gopam hasantam gopa-bAlakaih |

kadamba-mAla AsInam pIta-vAsasam acyutam (73.17-19)

 

Vyasadeva to Ambarisa:

 

tato mAm Aha bhagavAn vrindAvana-carah svayam |

yad idam me tvay drishtam rUpam divyam sanAtanam |

nishkalaM nishkriyam SAntam sac-cid-Ananda-vigraham |

pUrNam padma-palASAkSam nAtah parataram mama |

idam eva vadany ete vedAh kAraNa-kAraNam |

satyam vyApi parAnandam cid-ghanam SAsvatam Sivam

nityAm me mathurAm viddhi vanam vrindavanam tathA |

yamunAm gOpa kanyasca tatha gopala balakAm

mamAvatAro nityO ayamatra mA samsayamkritAh: | (73.23-27)

 

 

bhuja dvaya vrita krishNo na kadAcit chaturbhuja: (77.43)

 

svarNasya nAshonahi vidyate tathA matysyAdi nAsho apI na krishna vichyuti

(77.50)

 

RG also quotes a verse from brahmanda purana:

 

santi bhürIni rüpäni mama pürnäni shad-gunaih |

bhaveyus täni tulyäni na mayä gopa-rüpinä

 

Although I appear in many different forms, all full in six opulences, none of

these forms is equal to My form as the cowherd boy Krsna.

 

There are numerous other arguments offered by both Srila rupa and Jiva

goswamis in establishing Krishna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The

above explanation is a miniscule portion of their arguments.Those who are unable

to digest or accept certain facts due to strong prejudiced faith in their belief

will keep criticising.This cannot be avoided.

 

dasa

Narasimhan

 

 

 

Talk is cheap. Use Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates

starting at 1¢/min.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna prabhu,

 

> There are numerous other arguments offered by both Srila rupa

and Jiva goswamis in establishing Krishna as the Supreme Personality

of Godhead. The above explanation is a miniscule portion of their

arguments.Those who are unable to digest or accept certain facts due

to strong prejudiced faith in their belief will keep

criticising.This cannot be avoided.

>

> dasa

> Narasimhan

>

 

Looks like someone has posted your series on dvaita list, and they

will sooner or later try to rebut it. Sumeet Chandra has already

started. (http://dvaita.info/pipermail/dvaita-list_dvaita.info/2006-

March/001500.html)

 

Regards,

Anant

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Anant,

 

Hare Krishna. Thanks for the info. I'm aware of the same. Anyway, what I sent

was squarely meant for achintya discussion, but since it has somehow found its

way to dvaita list and is going to face some dissection, better we too discuss

it. Personally, i would not like to visit a group like the dvaita list were

personal bashing is the norm. They don't even respect their own acharyas!

Anyway, I was sending some replies to some more devotees. we can continue our

discussion here.

 

I personally have no issue with the dvaita list.My posting was only to

highlight the fact that JG & RG have sufficiently analysed all these points, had

gone through all the predecessor and contemporary Madhva acharya works to the

extent of quoting portions from them to make certain points, before making their

statements.

 

Krishna susarla Prabhu, pls advise if its alright to post refutations from

dvaita list in 'achintya' for discussion sake.

 

My replies follow.

 

dasa

Narasimhan

[Guest guest]

achintya, "anantshenoy2000"

<anantshenoy2000 wrote:

>

>

> Looks like someone has posted your series on dvaita list, and they

> will sooner or later try to rebut it. Sumeet Chandra has already

> started. (http://dvaita.info/pipermail/dvaita-

list_dvaita.info/2006-

> March/001500.html)

 

I am unclear as to why Narasimhan's Svayam bhagavan postings have

ended up on the Dvaita List, when the Achintya List rules (which

everyone here received on subscribing), have this to say about cross-

posting messages:

 

"12) All messages posted on the achintya list are the property of

their authors. Unauthorized reposting of such messages outside of

achintya, whether in whole or in part, is grounds for dismissal from

the list."

 

Does anyone have a problem understanding this? It appears to be

plain and simple English to me.

 

This rule was put into place not to stifle debate, but because of

the reality that moderation standards on certain other lists allow

for lengthy and condescending insults in the name of "debate." As an

example, here are some excerpts of the "rebuttals" to the svayam

bhagavan posting on the Dvaita List:

 

-----

"See above. trust me you can only come to conclusion

like GVs have about Krishna being original form of God

when your logical relection on sastra is flawed. This

is just a small sample."

 

"I think before rebutting other traditional schools

like Ramanuja's or Madhva's, Gaudiyas should actually

do some homework on their ability to reflect hard on

sastras."

 

"And please now don't tell me in typical Gaudiya style

that i an untrained, young boy, who is fraught with

several flaws of kali yuga am no one to point out an

error in Jiva Goswami's work."

 

"Remember at the end of the day:

Truth remains truth just because it is so, and not

because some x,y,z..... in past or present has said

that it is so."

 

"Unfortunately, if that is the aim, then you and your correspondent

have not come within a mile of earning a passing grade. The points

made before have not even begun to be addressed specifically; all

you have done is spout some more unconvincing dogma."

 

"It is only people who are not Vedantins

in any measure, and who have no tradition of studying the prasthAna-

traya

(or depth of scholarship in these texts) who accept such a ludicrous

position."

----

 

It was precisely to prevent this sort of childish behavior that we

have this rule about not cross-posting articles without the original

author's permission. Is it so much to ask? Keep debates objective,

focused, and respectful. In other words, keep them off the Dvaita

List (or any other list for that matter). Unless of course, the

original author consented, which as far as I know, is not the case

here.

 

If Narasimhan gave Bharathi Desai (bharathivadiraja)

permission to cross post this to the Dvaita list, then there is no

problem. If not, then this is a violation of Achintya rules, and

someone had better start doing some explaining. Write to me at

achintya-owner.

 

The Moderator

[Guest guest]

achintya, ranganathan narasimhan <simhan74

wrote:

>

> Krishna susarla Prabhu, pls advise if its alright to post

refutations from dvaita list in 'achintya' for discussion sake.

>

> My replies follow.

 

Since it is a foregone conclusion that the Dvaita list replies will

lack in a certain standard of etiquette, my advice is not to post the

replies verbatim, but simply to paraphrase the objections sans the

nastiness, and then give your reply.