Krishnas tu bhagavan svayam - 5

[Guest guest]

>More to the point, in the Vedanta it is the universal practice that one's

>fundamental tenets are derived from the prasthAna-traya texts of the

>Vedas, the 'Bharata, and the Brahma Sutra. Not one of these, even

>according to you, says anywhere that Krishna is the original form and the

>source of other forms of Vishnu. 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.

 

well, talking of the prasthana-traya texts, as far as vedanta sutras is

concerned, the sutras mention neither Vishnu, nor Narayana nor Krishna. Hence,

to draw whether Vishnu is Krishna's origin or Krishna is Vishnu's origin is not

possible unless one takes the aid of other sastras.

 

As far as Srutis are concerned, the avatara concept is not defined well and

hence, one can only establish Narayana or vishnu or vasudeva to be the Supreme

and nothing more. This is exactly the point of Gaudiyas too that Narayana is

supreme.Who questions that?

 

This brings us to the Smrtis, the Bhagavad Gita, Bharata, Ramayana, Puranas,

Agamas to decide.

 

Now among these, with Bhagavad Gita one cannot draw any direct and

straightforward conclusion other than that Krishna is Supreme , which is easily

apparent as He is the speaker in statements like "Mattah parataram nAnyat" or

"aham sarvasya prabhavah" or " MAm ekam SaraNam vraja". One can also conclude

that Narayana is supreme and krishna being his avatara is non-different and

hence also supreme, for which one will again refer to other granthas starting

with Mahabharata itself to explain that he is an avatara of Narayana etc.

If you would need another grantha to clarify statements of this

grantha, then what's the value of Bhagavad Gita as Pramana?

 

If you think the statements of Sruti and Gita contradict and have to be

reconciled, we don't feels so, because, according to us, the Narayana of the

Sruthis IS Krishna and both talk of His supremacy.

 

Regarding the puranas, it might seem that each purana is talking of one

personality, and by samanvaya one can conclude that it is vishnu or Narayana.

The Padma Purana mentions clearly how one is to be guided, which is naturally

the easiest way and best way.

 

purANeShu tu sarveShu shrImadbhAgavatam param |

yatra pratipadam kRiShNo gIyate bahudharShibhiH ||

 

Among all the Puraanas, ShrImad-Bhaagavatam is the best. In every line

great sages glorify Lord Krishna in various ways (padma puraaNa,

uttara-khaNDa 193.3).

 

Hence, it is srimad Bhagavatham which is the top-most pramana to be consulted

on this matter. It also says why it is so glorious. Because of the Subject

matter, which is Krishna.

 

We have now statements of Mahabharata pitted against the statements of

Bhagavata. but Bharata statements does not prove against Krishna being the

origin of Vishnu.Any such statements have been taken by JG and explained how its

easy to jump and conclude that Krishna is an avatara and how the confidential

meaning is to be understood in consonace with Bhagavatham.

 

Also, with Bhagavatham as the guide, all those statements can easily be

reconciled.

 

Regarding the agamas, we can give equally conclusive statements which prove

that Krishna is the supreme and is the origin of Vishnu and all other avataras

as they can.

 

so, we started where we began, even the so called follower of Prasthana traya

has to come to the Puranas and itihasas to decide, which was exactly what the GV

acharyas too did.

 

>Says who? If you notice, as I pointed out before, Narayana is already

>stated to have existed earliest of all (so that He cannot be a derivative).

>Your imagination about "expansions" is unfounded and cannot be

>granted; it is the position (of *all* classical Vedantic traditions, I might

>add) that these are all verily Vishnu Himself (as stated in numerous

>places in the shaastra), and you have done nothing but re-state your

>discredited dogma. To carry conviction, you would need to find at

>least one sadAgama authority (not the ex cathedra postulation of one

>of your deluded gurus whom we don't accept) that says unambiguously

>and specifically that Narayana is originated from Krishna. Of course,

>then you would also have to explain how Narayana is also stated to be

>the first.

 

Says Bhagavatham and many other puranas.Will revert with the quotations.

 

>Unfortunately, your position in this regard is rejected by Bhagavan Himself

>directly in the Bhagavad Gita (chapter 16, verses 18 through 20) wherein

>He says that those who hate Him are repeatedly given demonic births,

>and finally reach the lowest position after certainly failing to reach Him.

 

>Why, too, would Krishna unambiguously ask Arjuna to be His devotee

>(cf. `manmanA bhava madbhakto madyAjI mAM namaskuru'), rather

>than saying, "Love me or hate me, it's all the same to me"? In fact,

>Krishna even requires that His teaching not be revealed to those who

>hate Him, thus showing His disdain for the notion that hatred is a path

>to salvation.

 

This too is discussed by JG in KS. This is exactly the reason why Krishna is

so wonderful and Lord Brahma and Parasara Muni are astonished.The goal acheived

by one who serves favorably is the highest. But Krishna is so wonderful that

even those who are inimical are liberated, though not attaining the same

destination as the devotees.If they meditate on Krishna, Krishna considers that

and grants them liberation.

 

Krishna tells Arjuna to become His devotee because, Arjuna is His dear frined

and the devotee reaches Krishna and serves Him.

 

They have not begun to address my quotes so far. Some more for them to figure

out:

 

Varaha Samhita (2.53,55)

 

dhvaja-vajrAnkuSAmbhoja-karAnghri-tala-Sobhitam |

nakhendu-kiraNa-SreNI pUrNa-brahmaika-kAraNam ||2.53||

 

They who are learned say that Lord Maha-Visnu is a part of a plenary part of

Lord Krsna, and the Impersonal Brahman is the effulgence of Lord Krsna'

transcendental body.

kecid vadanti tad-rashmi brahmA cid-rUpam avyayam |

tad-amSAmSam mahA-vishNum pravadanti manIshiNaù ||2.55||

The palms of Lord Krsna's hands and the soles of His feet are decorated with

the markings of the flag, thunderbolt, lotus flower, and rod for controlling

elephants. The effulgence of Lord Krsna's fingernails and toenails is the sole

origin of the Brahman effulgence.

 

 

Varaha Samhita (2.73-80)

 

tad-amSu-koti-koty-amSAs tasya kandarpa-vigrahAh |

jagan-moham prakurvanti tad-aNdAntara-samhitAh ||73||

 

All the Kamadeva's that enchant the universes are only a trillionth part of a

single ray of Radha‘-Krsna's splendor.

 

tat-prakASasya koty-amSAraSmayah sUrya-vigrahAh |

tad-deha-vilasat-kAnti-koti-koty-amSa-candramAh |

tac-chyAma-deha-kiraNaih parAnanda-rasAmåtaih ||74-75||

 

The hosts of suns are millions of rays of Thier splendor. The moons are

millions and millions of rays of the glistening splendor of Their transcendental

bodies.

 

parAtma-nitya-cid-rUpA nirguNasyaika-kAraNam |

tad-amSu-koti-koty-amSA jIvAs tat-kiraNAtmakAh ||76||

 

The eternal spiritual forms of Lord Paramatma which are beyond the three modes

are manifest fromthe nectar bliss of the Lord's dark splendor. The individual

spirit-souls (jivas are a trillionth part of a single ray of His splendor.

 

tad-anghri-pankaja-SrIman-nakha-candra-maNi-prabham |

tad-amSu-pUrNa-brahmaiva kAraNam veda durgamam ||77||

 

The Brahman effulgence which even the personified Vedas approach with

difficulty is a portion of the luster of the divine couple's beautiful

candramani-jewel lotus toe-nails

 

tad-anga-saurabhAnanta-koty-amSA viSva-mohanAh |

tat-sparSa-pushpa-gandhAdi-nAnA-saurabha-santamam ||78||

 

The flowers great variety of fragrances come fromthe touch of a millionth part

of a fragment of the divine couple's charming transcendental forms.

 

tat-priyA-prakåtis tv AdyA rAdhikA tasya vallabhA |

tat-kalA-koti-koty-amSo durgAdyA tri-guNAtmikA |

tasyAnghri-rajasah sparSAt koti-vishNuh prajApate ||79-80||

Lord Krsna's original potency is His beloved Radhika. From a

trillionth part of a fraction of Her effulgence are manifested Durga‘-devi and

other demigoddesses in this world of three modes. In the same way fromthe touch

of the pollen of Lord Krsna's lotus feet millions of Visnus are manifested.

 

 

Varaha Samhita (2.154-5)

sarva-devasya mantrANAm vishNu-mantras tu jIvanam |

SrI-vishNoh sarva-mantrANAm kåshNa-mantras tu kAraNam ||154||

sarveshAm kåshNa-mantrANAm kaiSoram atihaitukam |

kaiSoram sarva-mantrANAm hetuS cUrAmaNir manuh ||155||

 

"Among the mantras invoking various deities those mantras invoking Lord Visnu

are the best. They are the life and soul of all mantras. Of those mantras

invoking Lord Visnu those specifically directed to Lord Krsna are the best.

They are the origin of all other visnu-mantras. Of all mantras invoking Lord

Krsna those specifically addressed to His kaisora age are the best. They are

the origin of all other Krsna-mantras. They are the crest-jewel of all mantras.

 

 

Varaha Samhita ( 2.157-161)

 

tad-bAhye tu pravAlAdi-prAcIraih sumanoharaih |

pushpodyAnam ca nAnAbhiS caturdikshu samujjvalaih ||157||

Outside the walls of Sri Sri Radha-Krsna's abode, in the four directions are

splendid charming gardens of many kinds of blossoming flowers.

 

Suklam caturbhujam vishNum paScime dvAra-pAlakam |

Sankha-cakra-gadA-padma-kirItAdi-vibhUshitam ||158||

A four-armed, white-complexioned Lord Visnu, holding a conch, disc, club, and

lotus, wearing a crown on His head, and various ornaments on His body, is the

doorkeeper of the western gate.

 

raktam caturbhujam vishNum Sankha-cakra-gadAdharam |

kirIta-kuNdalAdyaiS ca Sobhitam vanamAlinam ||159||

A four-armed, red-complexioned Lord Visnu, holding a conch, disc, and club,

and wearing a splendid crown and glistening earrings, is the doorkeeper at the

northern gate.

 

gauram caturbhujam vishNum Sankha-cakrAmbujAyudham |

kirIta-kuNdalAdyaiS ca Sobhitam vanamAlinam ||160||

A four-armed, golden-complexioned Lord Visnu, holding a conch, disc, and lotus

flower is the doorkeeper at the eastern gate. He wears a garland of sylvan

flowers and He is beautifully decorated with crown, earrings, and other valuable

gems.

 

pUrva-dvAre dvAra-pAlam gauram vishNum prakIrtitam |

kåshNa-varNam caturbAhum Sankha-cakrAdi-bhUshitam |

dakshiNa-dvAra-pAlam ca SrI-vishNum kåshNa-varNakam ||161||

A four-armed, dark-complexioned Lord Visnu, decorated with conch, disc, and

other ornaments, gaurds the southern gate.

 

dasan

Narasimhan

 

 

 

Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using

Messenger with Voice.

 

 

[Guest guest]

achintya, ranganathan narasimhan

<simhan74 wrote:

 

> well, talking of the prasthana-traya texts, as far as vedanta

sutras is concerned, the sutras mention neither Vishnu, nor Narayana

nor Krishna. Hence, to draw whether Vishnu is Krishna's origin or

Krishna is Vishnu's origin is not possible unless one takes the aid

of other sastras.

>

> As far as Srutis are concerned, the avatara concept is not

defined well and hence, one can only establish Narayana or vishnu

or vasudeva to be the Supreme and nothing more. This is exactly the

point of Gaudiyas too that Narayana is supreme.Who questions that?

>

 

I was going to make this point as well. I don't know where in the

shrutis (those acceptable to the Maadhvas) it is supposedly stated

that Vishnu is the svayam bhagavaan (or muula-ruupa or whatever the

equivalent Maadhva nomenclature is) while Krishna is the

expansion/avataara. If the prasthana-traaya don't say one way or

another, then what is the harm of taking a position based on the

Bhaagavatam? If the Bhaagavatam is automatically unacceptable on the

count of not being shruti, then should it not automatically follow

that Maadhvas should also reject all other accounts of Vishnu's

activities on the same logic? I don't see any Maadhvas having a

problem with, say, the stories of Krishna, Narasimha, etc although

these have no basis in shruti.

 

Over and over again I heard Gaudiiyas being lambasted that

their "kR^iShNas tu bhagvaAn svayam" position is not consistent with

shruti or not based in shruti. But I have yet to see where in shruti

the opposite position is articulated. I am not making this point as

an expert Vedaantin, but simply as someone who is trying to follow

the logic of the objectors.

 

K