Krishna is the Original Supreme Personality of Godhead

April 22, 2001

For the full context of this discussion, see:

http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/gita/bg1041.html

The followers of Madhva object to the idea that Lord Krishna is the Original

Supreme Personality of Godhead (SB 1.3.28). They give a very different

interpretation to the verse, which is discussed in detail in the above URL

The sum and substance of it is that they believe the Bhaagavatam verse:

ete chaa.mshakalaaH pu.msaH kR^iShNas tu bhagavaan svayam |

indraarivyaakula.m loka.m mR^iDayanti yuge yuge || bhaa 1.3.28 ||

ete - all these; cha - and; a.msha - plenary portions; kalaaH - portions of

the plenary portions; pu.msaH - of the Supreme; kR^iShNaH - Lord Krishna;

tu - but; bhagavaan - the Personality of Godhead; svayam - in person;

indra-ari - the enemies of Indra; vyaakulam - disturbed; lokam - all the

planets; mR^iDayanti - gives protection; yuge yuge - in different ages.

All of the above-mentioned incarnations are either plenary portions or

portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord Shrii Krishna is the

original Personality of Godhead. All of them appear on planets whenever

there is a disturbance created by the atheists. The Lord incarnates to

protect the theists (bhaagavata puraaNa 1.3.28).

.... to be saying something different from what it is actually saying. The

sum and substance of the Tattvavaadi interpretation is that the verse means

that Krishna and the other avataaras are all svayam bhagavaan.

Here is the relevant excerpt from the URL above (my comments will follow in

the next message):

"Therefore, in summary, the correct interpretation of the Bhâgavata

statement is to say that Krishna and other avatAra-s are ALL the self-same

Lord, not that Krishna alone is. Srimad Âchârya explains this by saying that

the word `tu' does not specify special meaning to distinguish Krishna from

other avatAra-s. Its meaning is `eva' = is. It comes with the word "svayaM"

= himself. Therefore the whole sentence means Varaha, etc., are are svAMsha

kalA-s. What does it mean? kR^ishhnaH = the great person, svayameva =

himself, ete = Varaha, etc. It is of note that here the word `kR^ishhNa' is

not used to refer to the avatAra of Krishna (either the two-armed one or the

four-armed one, for those silly enough to make distinctions there); it is

referring to the mUla-rUpa. [kR^ishhNo muktairijyate = `kR^ishhNa' is

worshipped by mukta-s.]

Why should the meaning be like this? There are two reasons for this:

1> This has Shruti support as stated.

2> The other meaning does not have support, and makes no sense.

Srimad Acharya says in the sentence `anyastu' that there is one reason in

support of the claim that the other meaning is not proper -- it fails to

excuse Krishna from the burden of being a mere fragment. For the

interpretation of `ete svAMshakalAH puMsaH kR^ishhNastu' would have to be

"they are all fragments, as is even Krishna." This is what is indicated by

`udbabarhAtmanaH keshau' (plucked his hairs).

When it is said that Krishna is the amshi (the whole), and that Varâha,

etc., are amsha-s, there is another problem -- in the subsequent verse of

the Bhâgavata, it is said: `indrArivyAkulaM lokaM mR^iDayanti yuge yuge' --

when there is trouble from enemies of Indra, "they" protect Yuga after Yuga.

Here, the verb mR^iDayanti is in the plural form, and so also should the

subject be. Yet, in your interpretation, we came across only Krishna for the

subject. For mR^iDayanti (they protect) -- a plural, the subject should be

plural and an interpretation with the singular subject-word `kR^ishhNa' is

also not possible for this reason. It cannot be said that the referent is

the plural "fragments" referred to earlier: when some subject is brought in

between, for the meaning after this subject, the reference given before

cannot be used. If you say that propriety rather than proximity is a concern

in interpretation here, then we say that we will demonstrate propriety

without sacrificing proximity, so that that argument does nothing to save

your interpretation. "

S. HariKrishna

Cleveland, OH

Achintya List URL:

achintya

April 22, 2001

Hare Krishna. Jaya Prabhupada!

Dear devotees (and especially Gerald Surya and Mukunda Datta dasa, with whom

I've been having this discussion from time to time),

The Maadhvas say:

>"Therefore, in summary, the correct interpretation of the Bhâgavata

> statement is to say that Krishna and other avatAra-s are ALL the self-same

> Lord, not that Krishna alone is. Srimad Âchârya explains this by saying

that

> the word `tu' does not specify special meaning to distinguish Krishna from

> other avatAra-s. Its meaning is `eva' = is. It comes with the word

"svayaM"

> = himself. Therefore the whole sentence means Varaha, etc., are are

svAMsha

> kalA-s. What does it mean? kR^ishhnaH = the great person, svayameva =

> himself, ete = Varaha, etc.

According to Srila Jiva Gosvami, the word "tu" in the shloka introduces the

contrast between Krishna and the other avataaras mentioned earlier in the

chapter (specifically, the Purusha avataaras, Raama, Narasimha, Vyaasa,

etc). The idea is that Krishna has been described in the list of avataaras,

and just to point out the distinction between Him and the other avataaras,

it is said "ete chaamsha kalaaH pumsaH kR^iShNas tu bhagavaan svayam" - All

these (avataaras) are portions or portions of plenary portions of the Lord,

but Krishna is the svayam bhagavaan. In other words, he is trying to remove

the doubt that Krishna is one of the avtaaras, and instead specify that He

is the original Godhead from whom the other avataaras expand.

The word "tu" means "but." Monier-Williams Sanskrit-English dictionary gives

the following meanings: "but,though,nevertheless,however." I have

never seen "tu" taken to mean "is" as the Maadhvas do. How reasonable is

this to simply assign another meaning to the word, which is not even

standard, and thus come to a completely different interpretation (which they

then use to try to refute ours)?

It is of note that here the word `kR^ishhNa' is

> not used to refer to the avatAra of Krishna (either the two-armed one or

the

> four-armed one, for those silly enough to make distinctions there); it is

> referring to the mUla-rUpa. [kR^ishhNo muktairijyate = `kR^ishhNa' is

> worshipped by mukta-s.]

This statement seems strangely self-contradictory. On one hand, they say

that Krishna is not the svayam bhagavaan, of whom other avataaras are

expansions. But on the other hand they do say the "Krishna" refers to the

"muula-ruupa." Who is that "muula-ruupa?" It is Krishna without a doubt. If

they say that this "muula-ruupa" is some other form of the Lord, then what

is their pramaana?

"Krishna" in SB 1.3.28 can only refer to the two-handed form of the Lord

with peacock feather, flute, who appears in Mathura, etc. Why? Because of

the following:

1) The interpretation of Krishna as meaning the two-handed form of the Lord

is the most straightforward meaning. No one would think of the name

"Krishna" and instinctively think about the four-handed Vishnu form of the

same name, at least not without clear and explicit context.

2) The overall context of the Bhaagavatam necessitates this meaning. Proof:

In SB 1.1.1, Vyaasa writes "om namo bhagavate vaasudevaaya," giving respects

to Lord Krishna, son of Vasudeva. Even if it is argued that this refers to

the Chatur-vyua, still there is other evidence:

In SB 1.1.12, when the sages at Naimisharanya question Suta Gosvami, they

make reference to the anticipated subject matter - devakyam vasudevasya -

The Supreme Personality of Godhead born to Devakii as the son of Vasudeva.

This also supports our interpretation of SB 1.1.1

SB 1.1.23: The sages ask that since Lord Krishna has departed to His own

abode, now where have the religous principles gone to take shelter? The

words are "svam kastham adhunopete" - again a clear reference to Lord

Krishna. No other Krishna had just recently departed (the setting being the

beginning of Kali Yuga).

SB 1.2.5: Suta Gosvami responds to the sages' nonsectarian questions by

confirming that Lord Krishna is indeed the subject matter of what is to be

spoken.

There is other evidence within the Bhaagavatam also that Krishna is the

original Supreme Personality of Godhead (or "muula-ruupa" as the Dvaitins

would have it). For example, in SB 1.9.18, Lord Krishna is described as the

"aadyaH naaraayaNaH" or "first Naaraayana" by Bhiishma:

eSha vai bhagavaan saakShaadaadyo naaraayaNaH pumaan |

mohayanmaayayaa loka.m guuDhashcharati vR^iShNiShu || bhaa 1.9.18 ||

eShaH - this; vai - positively; bhagavaan - the Personality of Godhead;

saakShaat - original; aadyaH - the first; naaraayaNaH - the Supreme Lord

(who lies down on the water); pumaan - the supreme enjoyer; nohayan -

bewildering; maayayaa - by His self-created energy; lokam - the planets;

guuDhaH - who is inconceivable; charati - moves; vR^iShNiShu - among the

Vrishni family.

This Shrii Krishna is no other than the inconceivable, original Personality

of Godhead. He is the first Naaraayana, the supreme enjoyer. But He is

moving amongst the descendants of King Vrishni just like one of us, and He

is bewildering us with His self-centered energy (bhaagavata puraaNa 1.9.18).

In SB 1.9.31, as Bhiishma is departing from his body, it states that he

fixed his eyes upon "aadipuruShe kR^iShNe" or the "The first Purusha,

Krishna." Granted that the verse says that Bhiishma saw Him as the

four-handed form, but in SB 1.9.24 Bhiishma has made it clear that he

considers this four-handed form to be his worshipable Deity. It does not

mean that the Krishna being spoken about in the Bhaagavatam is the

four-handed form.

SB 2.6.43-45: Here the speaker Lord Brahmaa counts himself along with Shiva

and Vishnu and others to be fragments of the Supreme Lord. Clearly Vishnu is

not in the same class as Shiva, Brahmaa, et al. The only sensible

interpretation to offer without sacrificing Lord Vishnu's supremacy is that

Vishnu, although the Supreme Lord, is a form of Krishna.

SB 10.13.18 - 56. This is the pastime in which Lord Brahmaa is bewildered by

Lord Krishna. After stealing away the cowherd boys, Brahmaa is suprised to

see that Lord Krishna has expanded Himself to produce all the same cowherd

boys. Then the cowherd boys become Vishnu-tattvas, all emanating from Lord

Krishna Then at the conclusion of it Lord Brahmaa says to Krishna:

naaraayaNastva.m na hi sarvadehinaam aatmaasyadhiishaakhilalokasaakShii |

naaraayaNo'.nga.m narabhuujalaayanaat tachchaapi satya.m na tavaiva maayaa

|| bhaa 10.14.14 ||

naaraayaNaH - the Supreme Lord Naaraayana; tvam - You; na - not; hi -

whether; sarva - of all; dehinaam - embodied living beings; aatmaa - the

Supersoul; asi - You are; adhiisha - O supreme controller; akhila - of all;

loka - planets; saakShii - the witness; naaraayaNaH - Lord Shrii

Naaraayaana; a.ngam - the expanded plenary portion; nara - from the Supreme

Personality; bhuu - originating; jala - of the water; ayanaat - because of

being the manifesting source; tat - that (expansion); cha - and; api -

indeed; satyam - true; na - not; tava - Your; eva - at all; maayaa -

illusory energy.

Are You not the original Naaraayana, O supreme controller, since You are the

Soul of every embodied being and the eternal witness of all created realms?

Indeed, Lord Naaraayana is Your expansion, and He is called Naaraayana

because He is the generating source of the primeval water of the universe.

He is real, not a product of Your illusory Maayaa (bhaagvata puraaNa

10.14.14).

Small wonder that the Maadhvas consider these verses interpolation, since it

nicely refutes their point of view!

I would appreciate any comments on these points.

yours,

> S. HariKrishna

> Cleveland, OH

> Achintya List URL:

> achintya

April 25, 2001

"S. HariKrishna" <krishna wrote on 23-Apr-01 06:59:18:

[...]

>I would appreciate any comments on these points.

Very good points!

I wanted to add this:

This topic of svaamsha-amshii is elaborately deliberated upon by

Shriila Ruupa Gosvaamii Prabhupaada in Shrii Laghu-bhaagavataam.rita,

which was commented upon by Shriila Baladeva Vidyaabhuu.sha.na.

Other Vai.sh.navas have repeatedly misunderstood and/or misrepresented

the Gau.diiya position in relation to "K.ri.sh.nas tu bhagavaan svayam".

The correct Gau.diiya position is that K.ri.sh.na, in any of His

svaamsha-forms, possesses the same energies and qualities as Himself.

So, constitutionally (svaruupata.h), there is no difference between

Himself and His svaamshas. However, there is a gradation in the

manifestation of His qualities (shakti-praaka.ta-taaratamya or gu.na-

praka.ta-taaratamya) in His various svaamshas.

This point is made by Shriila Ruupa Gosvaamii Prabhupaada in Laghu-

bhaagavataam.rita. The same is summarized by Shrii Baladeva Vidyaabhuu.

sha.na in his Giitaa-bhuu.sha.na-bhaa.shya thus: svaamshatvam

anabhivya~njita-sarvashaktitvam. Svaamsha is a form where all potencies

of the Personality of Godhead are not manifested, though these

potencies do factually exist in Him in that svaamsha-form as well.

In his commentary on the ete chaamsha verse, Shriila Baladeva asks the

question: since Bhagavat-tattva is one unbroken principle, how can we

speak of portions of such an unbroken principle? He answers it thus:

because of the gradation in manifestation of His potencies. (nanu

nirbhedasyaikasya bhagavat-tattvasya katham tad-bhaava.h [amshaamshii-

bhaava] iti chech chakti-vyakti-taaratamyaad iti g.rihaa.na.)

He also gives the example of a vipra who knows several shaastras, but

when he exhibits his knowledge of all shaastras, he is known as a

knower of all shaastras; and when the same person exhibits his

knowledge of only one or two shaastras, he is known as a knower of only

a few shaastras. (yathaikasya viprasya kvachid udg.rihiita-sarva-

shaastrasya sarvaj~natva.m; kvachid udg.rihiita-dvy-eka-shaastrasya

tasyaiva ki^nchid-chaastraj~natva.m, tadvat.)

In this connection, it is to be understood that amshii, or the Original

Personality, refers to that form in which He always exhibits all of His

potencies. But amsha, or portion, refers to that form in which He

always exhibits those few potencies as are required [by Him for His own

purposes] (tatraamshitvam sarvadaavirbhaavita-sarva-shaktitvam;

amshatvam tu sarvadaavirbhaavita-yathaa-prayojana-ki^nchit-shaktitvam

bodhyam.)

Shriila Vishvanaatha Chakravartii .Thaakura also states the same point

using slightly different words. He also quotes from Laghu-bhaagavataam.

rita to the same effect.

I fiind this explanation extremely rational. If there were no gradation

in the Lord's manifestation of His qualities/energies, why are the

words "sva-AMSHA" used at all? Certainly, "sva-muurti" or "sva-ruupa"

would be more clear and better to contrast against the jiivas who are

"bhinna-amshas". But the usage of "sva-AMSHA" demonstrates that our

aachaaryas' explanation of amsha-amshii features is rational.

YS,

VGDas

April 26, 2001

Dear devotees,

The Maadhvas say (http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/gita/bg1041.html):

> "Therefore, in summary, the correct interpretation of the Bhâgavata

> statement is to say that Krishna and other avatAra-s are ALL the self-same

> Lord, not that Krishna alone is. Srimad Âchârya explains this by saying

that

> the word `tu' does not specify special meaning to distinguish Krishna from

> other avatAra-s. Its meaning is `eva' = is. It comes with the word

"svayaM"

> = himself. Therefore the whole sentence means Varaha, etc., are are

svAMsha

> kalA-s. What does it mean? kR^ishhnaH = the great person, svayameva =

> himself, ete = Varaha, etc. It is of note that here the word `kR^ishhNa'

is

> not used to refer to the avatAra of Krishna (either the two-armed one or

the

> four-armed one, for those silly enough to make distinctions there); it is

> referring to the mUla-rUpa. [kR^ishhNo muktairijyate = `kR^ishhNa' is

> worshipped by mukta-s.]

> Why should the meaning be like this? There are two reasons for this:

>

> 1> This has Shruti support as stated.

> 2> The other meaning does not have support, and makes no sense.

Regarding the theory that Krishna is not the Svayam Bhagavaan, and that SB

1.3.28 really means something else entirely, the Tattvavaadiis say that

their view has shruti support, and that our view has no support and "makes

no sense."

Regarding the latter of the two conclusions, I think one can reasonably ask

who is empowered to decide when one can reject shaastric teachings when they

"make no sense." It is a basic principle of Vedaanta that Vedas are the

topmost pramaana (shabda pramaana). To reject some portions because they do

not seem logical to the conditioned soul essentially puts the conditioned

soul in a higher position than the Veda. In that case, one might as well

reject the Vedas as the pramaana, and simply go to he who presumes to

arbitrate over what is and is not true from them. It has already been shown

in my previous posting that the Bhaagavatam fully supports the idea that

Lord Krishna is the Svayam Bhagavaan, or Original Supreme Personality of

Godhead. It is unlikely that these shlokas can be explained away in

convincing manner, since their meaning is fairly straightforward.

Now regarding the theory that "kR^iShNas tu bhagavaan svayam" has no shruti

support, we say no. The Maadhvas hold that one should judge the correctness

of any scripture on the basis of whether or not it has support from shruti

(Veda Samhitaas, Braahmanas, Aaranyakas, Upanishads). Gaudiiya Vaishnavas do

not theoretically disagree with this, but Srila Jiva Gosvami proves in

Tattva-Sandarbha that Puraanas and Mahaabhaarata are on the same level as

Vedas, especially Shriimad Bhaagavatam. Still, we can find shruti pramaana

if that is not acceptable to justify the correct view:

In Gopaala-taapanii Upanishad, Lord Brahmaa asks Bhagavaan:

sa hovaachaabjayonir yo'vataaraaNaa.m madhye shreShTho'vataaraH ko bhavati

yena lokaas tuShTaa devaas tuShTaa bhavanti ya.m smR^itvaa muktaa asmaat

sa.msaaraat bhavanti katha.m vaasyaavataarasya brahmataa bhavati || GTU

2.33-34 ||

saH - he; uvaacha - said; abhayoniH - Brahmaa; yaH - who; avataaraaNaam - of

incarnations; madhye - in the midst; shreShThaH - the best; avataaraH -

incarnation; kaH - who?; bhavati - is; yena - by whom; lokaH- all living

entities; tuShTaH - are satisfied; devaH - the demigods; tuShTaH - are

satisfied; bhavanti - become; yam - whom; smR^itvaa - having remembered;

muktaH - liberated; asmaat - from this; sa.msaaraat - world of birth and

death; bhavanti - become; katham - how is it?; vaa - of; asya - of this;

avataarasya - incarnation; brahmataa - superiority; bhavati - is.

Brahmaa said: Among Your many incarnations, which is the best , the one that

makes humans and demigods happy, the one that, remembering Him, they become

liberated from repeated birth and death? Why is this incarnation the best

(gopaala-taapanii upaniShad 2.33-34)?

Lord Naaraayana answers by first describing Mathuraa district, how it is

transcendental to the Earth just as a lotus stays afloat in water. Then He

says:

vishvaruupa.m para.m jyotiH svaruupa.m rupavarjitam hR^idaa maa.m sa.msmaran

brahman matpada.m yaati nishchitam || GTU 2.55 ||

vishva-ruupam - the source of all incarnations; param - supreme; jyotiH -

splendid; svaruupam - spiritual form; ruupa-varjitam - without any material

form; hR^idaa - within his heart; maam - Me; sa.msmaran - continually

remembers; brahman - O Brahma; mat - My; padam - spiritual abode; yaati -

attains; nishchitam - without any doubt.

O Brahmaa, he who with all his heart mediates on Me, whose form is the

resting place of all forms, whose form is supremely powerful and splendid,

whose form is wonderful, and who has no material form, goes to My abode. Of

this there is no doubt (gopaala-taapani upaniShad 2.55).

Here Vishvanaatha Chakravarti Thaakura says that "vishvaruupam" refers to

the Lord as the source of all avataaras (as opposed to the viraat-purusha,

or Univeral form). That this person is Krishna (as opposed to another form

of Krishna) is supported by preceding and following context.

mathuraamaNDale yas tu jambudviipe sthito'pi vaa yo'rchayet pratimaa.m maa.m

cha sa mepriyataro bhuvi || GTU 2.56 ||

mathuraa - of Mathuraa; maNDale - in the district of; yaH - one who; tu -

certainly; jambudviipe - on this earth; sthitaH - staying; api - also; vaa -

or; yaH - who; archayet - worships; pratimaam - in the form of the deity;

maam - Me; cha - also; saH - he; me - of My; priiyataraH - very dear;

bhuvi - on this earth.

O Brahmaa, a resident of this earth planet who remains in the district of

Mathuraa and worships Me as I appear in the form of the Deity, becomes very

dear to Me (gopaala-taapanii upanishad 2.56).

Here again, it is clear that Lord Krishna is being referred to because

verses 49-53 refer to Lord Gopaala by name.

tasyaam adhiShThitaH kR^iShNaruupii puujyas tvayaa sadaa || GTU 2.57 ||

tasya.m - in that district of Mathuraa; adhiShThitaH - staying; kR^iShNa -

of Krishna; ruupii - in the form; puujyas tvayaa - by you; sadaa - always.

You should always worship Me as Krishna in Mathuraa (gopaala-taapanii

upanishad 2.57).

Since the question was which avataara was best (sreShThaH), the Lord

answering that this is Krishna should make one wonder why distinguish

between Krishna and other avataaras? The answer is simple if one accepts

that Krishna is the Original Supreme Personality of Godhead.

Also, Lord Brahmaa concludes that this form as a gopa is the Lord's original

form:

o.m gopaalaaya nijaruupaaya o.m tat sad bhuur bhuvaH svas tasmai vai namo

namaH || GTU 2.107 ||

o.m - om; gopalaaya - appearing as a cowherd boy; nija - in His own;

ruupaaya - form; o.m - om; tat - that; sat - eternal; bhuuH bhuvaH svaH -

the upper, middle, and lower planetary systems; tasmai - to Him; vai -

certainly; namaH namaH - I offer my respectful obeisances.

Om. Obeisances to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, whose original form is

that of a cowherd boy. Om tat sat. Bhuur Bhuvah and Svah. Obeisances,

obeisances to Him (gopaala-taapanii upanishad 2.107).

In the Krishna Upanishad a similar verse is found:

goparuupo hariH saakShaan maayaavigrahadhaaraNaH durbodha.m kuhaka.m tasya

maayayaa mohita.m jagat || KrU 1.10 ||

gopa - of a gopa; ruupaH - the form; hariH - Lord Hari; saakShaat -

directly; maayaa-vigraha-dhaaraNaH - manifesting His form with the aid of

His Yogamaayaa potency; durbodham - difficult to understand; kuhakam -

cheating; tasya - of Him; maayayaa - by the illusory potency; mohitam -

bewildered; jagat- the world.

The Supreme Personality of Godhead appeared in His original form as a

cowherd boy. Cheated and bewildered by His illusory potency, the world could

not understand His true identity (kR^iShNa upaniShad 1.10).

All of these translations are by Kushakratha dasa, by the way. Here he

translates "goparuupo hariH saakShaan" as referring to the original form,

somehow deriving from saakShaat which means "directly, witnessed," etc.

I think it is also reasonable to ask what shruti pramaanas that Maadhvas can

offer to prove that it is in fact Krishna who comes from (expands from)

Vishnu. While I have heard many claims that such pramaanas exist, I rarely

see them. Even if they did exist, Gaudiiyas would probably interpret them as

referring to the Lord who takes avataara through His form as

Kshiirodaakashaayi Vishnu. It is well known that the demigods go this form

of Vishnu to pray for Lord's descent, such as just prior to Raama-liila,

Krishna-liila, etc.

Furthermore, the "distinction" of Krishna and other forms is also seen in

other places as well. For example Bhagavad-gita:

aha.m sarvasya prabhavo mattaH sarva.m pravartate |

iti matvaa bhajante maa.m budhaa bhaavasamanvitaaH || giitaa 10.8 ||

aham - I; sarvasya - of all; prabhavaH - the source of generation; mattaH -

from Me; sarvam - everything; pravartate - emanates; iti - thus; matvaa -

knowing; bhajante - become devoted; maam - unto Me; budhaaH - the learned;

bhaava-samanvitaaH - with great attention.

I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates

from Me. The wise who perfectly know this engage in My devotional service

and worship Me with all their hearts (bhagavad-giitaa 10.8).

Krishna here is the speaker, and Srila Prabhupada comments that the demigods

come from Naaraayana, and this Naaraayana is a plenary expansion of Lord

Krishna.

Another example can be found in 11th chapter. Krishna first displays His

universal from to Arjuna, then His four-handed form, and finally His

two-handed form. Then Arjuna says that his mind is relieved at seeing this

form, and Krishna replies:

shriibhagavaanuvaacha

sudurdarshamida.m ruupa.m dR^iShTvaanasi yanmama |

devaa apyasya ruupasya nitya.m darshanakaa.nkShiNaH || giitaa 11.52 ||

shrii-bhagavaan uvaacha - the Supreme Personality of Godhead said;

su-durdarsham - very difficult to see; idam - this; ruupam - form;

dR^iShTavaan asi - as you have seen; yat -which; mama - of Mine; devaaH -

the demigods; api - also; asya - this; ruupasya - form; nityam - eternally;

darshana-kaa.nkShiNaH - aspiring to see.

The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: My dear Arjuna, this form of Mine

you are now seeing is very difficult to behold. Even the demigods are ever

seeking the opportunity to see this form, which is so dear (bhagavad-giitaa

11.52).

.... indicating how difficult it is to see this form as Lord Krishna. The

fact that the demigods are described as eternally wanting to see this form

proves that the form as Krishna is being referred to, and not the Universal

Form. In Shriimad Bhaagavatam 10th Canto, when the Lord takes up residence

in Devakii's womb, the demigods are described as offering prayers because of

wanting to see Him there. On the other hand, the universal form is described

as being very fearsome, devouring people, demigods, etc., and it is unlikely

that the demigods are wanting to see this form above all other forms.

So in conclusion the concept that Lord Krishna is Svayam Bhagavaan has solid

scriptural support, contrary to the arguments of the puurva-pakshins.

your servant,

Krishna Susarla

April 30, 2001

HKS:

>>If you say that propriety rather than proximity is a

concern

>> in interpretation here, then we say that we will demonstrate propriety

>> without sacrificing proximity, so that that argument does nothing to save

>> your interpretation. "

>In an attempt once again to try to find fault with Srila Prabhupada's

>straightforward translation, the Maadhvas propose the above grammatical

>rule.

The above is a translation paraphrase of the following from Sri Jayatirtha

from the same website:

| sannidhimanatikramya yogyAnvayastUktaH

Without giving up sannidhi, we will demonstrate yogyatA. yogyatA with

sannidhi is better in comparison with yogyatA without sannidhi.

The rules regarding yogyatA and sannidhi are explained a little at this

site:

http://www.iskcon.org/main/twohk/philo/roots/systems/nyaya.htm

Yogyata, the second condition, means "fitness." It refers to the

appropriateness of the words in a sentence, to the absence of contradiction

in its terms. For example, sentences like "Moisten with fire,", or "He is

frustrated because of his inner peace," make no sense because there is a

contradiction between fire and moistening, between frustration and peace.

Fire has no ability to moisten anything, and inner peace cannot engender

frustration. Therefore, although these sentences may be grammatically

correct, they do not express valid knowledge.

Sannidhi, the third condition, means "proximity." It is very important for

words to be used within the limits of an appropriate time and space. If the

duration of their use is prolonged, then words no longer have the capacity to

give the desired meaning. For example, if someone who desires to make a

statement speaks one word today, another word tomorrow, and a third the day

after, his efforts at effective communication are certain to fail. The same

holds true for the written word. If someone writes one word on page one,

another on page three, one more on page five, and another on page ten, then

his meaning will not be communicated effectively. Continuity of time and

space is therefore essential for a sentence to convey meaning.

GS

April 30, 2001