Re:[2] Krishna is the Original Supreme Personality of Godhead

[Guest guest]

"S. HariKrishna" <krishna wrote on 27-Apr-01 03:26:54:

>

>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.

 

Hari Krishna Prabhu has nicely shown Shruti support for Krishna being

the original form of the Lord. Apart from this, it is to be stated that

the SB teaches us what the Shruti means. It is a nir.naayaka-shaastra,

in technical terms (term used by the Dvaitins actually, in relation to

Vedaanta-suutra).

 

The Vedaanta-suutra is accepted by both the South Indian Tattva-

vaada sampradaaya as well as the Gau.diiya sampradaaya as nir.naayaka-

shaastra, an explanatory work. In other words, Vedaanta-suutra

*determines* or explains the meaning of Shruti, etc. This point is also

accepted by both the South Indian Tattva-vaada line (BNK Sharma's

History of Dvaita Vedanta School based on several verses from Skanda

Puraa.na which are quoted by Shrii Madhva in his Bhaa.shya on VS 1.1.1)

as well as the Gau.diiya line.

 

Shriila Baladeva accepts in his introduction to Vedaanta-suutra in the

Govinda-bhaa.shya (immediately after the two ma^ngalaachara.na verses)

that the suutras determine the meaning of Veda:

 

dvaapare vede.shu samutsannesu... bhagavaan puru.shottama.h k.ri.sh.na-

dvaipaayana.h san taan uddh.ritya vibabhaaja. tad-artha-nir.net.riin

chatur-laksa.niim brahma-miimaamsaam aavishchakaara ity asti kathaa

skaandii.

 

"In Dvaapara-yuga, when the Vedas were scattered... Bhagavaan, the

Supreme Person, becoming K.ri.sh.na Dvaipaayana, rescuing them, divided

them. He manifested Brahma-miimaamsaa in four chapters which determine

their (Vedas') meaning. Such is the narration in the Skanda Puraa.na."

 

Other portions of the Veda are considered by both lines to be nir.neya-

shaastras or "shaastras which are explained" (by the VS).

 

So the point asserted by both lines is that one can't give more weight

to interpretations of a or some shruti text(s) than to the Vedaanta-

suutra, because the texts are what are being *explained*, their

meanings deliberated upon in the Vedaanta-suutra. So the Vedaanta-

suutra has decisively higher importance. We learn from the VS what the

Shruti teaches. We can't "jump over" the VS to try to understand what

the Shruti teaches. Especially in dealing with advaitins, Dvaitins

assert this firmly, as VS teaches dualism frankly.

 

Now, the Shriimad-Bhaagavatam presents the meaning of the Vedaanta-

suutra ("artho 'yam brahma-suutraanaam" -- Garu.da Puraa.na). This is

accepted by none other than Shrii Madhva himself in his comment on SB 1.

1.1 as well as by Shrii Jiiva Goswami in his Tattva-sandarbha.

 

So, if Vedaanta-suutra has more weight than Shruti, being nir.naaya-

shaastra, then the Shriimad-Bhaagavatam, which presents the meaning of

the Veddaanta-suutra, is also a nir.naaya-shaastra, and hence

definitely more weight has to be given to its statements. Just as one

can't "jump over" the VS to try to understand the Shruti, one should

not try to jump over the SB as well.

 

Your servant,

Vidvan-Gauranga Das

[Guest guest]

"S. HariKrishna" <krishna wrote on 27-Apr-01 03:26:54:

>

>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.]

 

Dear Vaishnavas,

 

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

 

Regarding the South Indian Tattva-vaadis' own contentions, I shall

quote and examine the original comment of Shrii Madhva on the ete

chaamsha-kalaa.h verse in his Bhaagavata-taatparya-nir.naya in an

attempt to determine

 

- if the Tattvavaadis' interpretation of Shrii Madhva's comment is

justifiable or not,

 

- and also if the above mentioned Tattvavaadi interpretation of the

verse is in accordance with the comment of Shrii Madhva or not.

 

Kindly correct me where ever I go wrong.

 

The verse runs thus:

 

ete chaamsha-kalaa.h [OR svaamsha-kalaa.h] pumsa.h 

k.ri.sh.nas tu bhagavaan svayam

indraari-vyaakulam lokam 

m.ri.dayanti yuge yuge (SB 1.3.28)

 

ete - all these; cha - and; amsha - plenary portions; [OR svaamsha -

plenary portions;] kalaa.h -  portions of the plenary portions; 

pumsa.h - of the Supreme;  k.ri.sh.na.h -  Lord Krishna; tu -

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

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

 all the planets; m.ri.dayanti - 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."

 

Shrii Madhva states as his comment (I have divided the comment and its

translation into five parts and numbered them as such. This is for the

purpose of referring to the respective portions of the comment):

 

"[1] ete proktaa.h avataaraa.h [2] muula-ruupii k.ri.sh.na.h

svayam eva.

 

'[3] jiivaas tat-pratibimbaamshaa [4] varaahaadyaa.h svayam hari.h

[5] d.rishyate bahudhaa vi.sh.nur aishvaryaadika eva tu'

 

iti brahma-vaivarte."

 

This Sanskrit text, I have got from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati

Thakura's Bengali edition of the Shrimad Bhagavatam.

 

"[1] These [ete] (refers to) the incarnations spoken of (previously in

this chapter).

 

[2] The original form [muula-ruupii] is certainly (eva) Krishna Himself

[svayam].

 

(It is stated) in the Brahma-vaivarta (Puraa.na):

 

'[3] Jiivas are His reflected portions.

 

[4] Varaaha and others are Hari Himself [svayam].

 

[5] But Vi.sh.nu, the possessor of opulences, etc. is certainly

perceived variously.'"

 

I have translated muula-ruupii as "original form". Actually, ruupii

means "one who takes on a form or forms" or "one who possesses a form

or forms". So ruupii would mean He who assumes or displays various

forms. And muula-ruupii would mean the original person who assumes

various forms. Please note that it is a singular nominative masculine

form.

 

The above translation, especially of [1] and [2] will not be acceptable

to the Tattvavaadiis. They put together [1] and [2] into one sentence

as: "These [ete] incarnations spoken of are certainly the

original possessor of forms, Krishna Himself (svayam)."

 

Their logic is this:

 

(a) "Varaaha and others" = Hari Himself (svayam Hari) [4]

 

(b) The incarnations spoken of = Muula-ruupii Krishna

Himself (svayam Krishna) {from [1] and [2] taken together, Tattvavaadii

contention}

 

© Svayam in [4] = Svayam in [2]

 

Therefore, "Varaaha and others" = Muula-ruupii Krishna.

 

But this logic is fallacious because one could also conclude that "the

incarnations spoken of" = Hari Himself, which is absurd

because several of "the incarnations spoken of" in this chapter are

jiivas (who are reflected portions of the Lord referred to in [3])

empowered by the Lord. Shrii Madhva also comments in regard to P.rithu,

for instance, that he is an empowered incarnation, in other words, he

is a jiiva. Jiivas are definitely, according to the Tattvavaadii's own

theology, are certainly ABSOLUTELY DIFFERENT (atyanta-bhinna) from Hari

Himself and can never be Hari (svayam). So "the incarnations described

previously" cannot be Hari Himself. In other words (b) is wrong.

 

If (b) is wrong, and it is an admitted fact that the Acharya doesn't

make mistakes, then the only way to understand the Acharya's statement

rationally is to

 

- split [1] and [2] as two separate statements, as I have done, and

 

- admit that the the sense of "svayam" in [4] and [2] are NOT exactly

the same. In other words, the word "svayam", though having the same

meaning of "Himself" has different connotations in [2] and [4].

 

If you split [1] and [2] as two separate statements, the meaning is

clear and straightforward.

 

[1]: ete = proktaa.h avataaraa.h

 

"These [ete] (refers to) the incarnations spoken of (previously in

this chapter)."

 

[2]: muula-ruupii = k.ri.sh.na.h svayam eva,

 

"The original form [muula-ruupii] is certainly (eva) Krishna Himself

[svayam]."

 

Now let us examine the senses in which the word "svayam" is used in [4]

and [2].

 

(i) Sense of the word "svayam" in [4]:

 

Statement [4] definitely contrasts statement [3]. In other words,

in [3], the Acharya states that jiivas are separated parts of the Lord,

being His "reflected portions". Shrii Madhva proves with shaastric

evidence elsewhere that the jiivas are "bhinna-amshas", *separated*

portions. [4] refers to "svaamshas" or personal portions. In contrast

with the jiivas who are merely His "reflected" portions, these SVA-

amshas are definitely the Lord "Himself" (svayam). [Note the sense of

svayam ("Himself") here.]

 

For instance, if a person named Vishnudas were to go into a hall of

mirrors, and we were to distinguish between the many reflections of

Vishnudas from Vishnudas himself, we would say, "Those [pointing to

Vishnudas's reflections] are his reflected images, but [pointing to

Vishnudas] this is Vishnudas *Himself*."

 

In conclusion, "svayam" in [4] distinguishes the svaamshas from the

bhinnaamshas.

 

(ii) Sense of the word "svayam" in [2]:

 

This is simple. The sense of svayam in [2] is "muula-ruupii".

 

Muula-ruupii = K.ri.sh.na.h svayam eva.

 

The original person who assumes various forms (muula-ruupii) =

certainly Krishna Himself.

 

The sense of [1] and [2] is thus: The "incarnations spoken of" in the

chapter are incarnations, either empowered bhinnaamshas or svaamshas,

but the original person who assumes various forms (muula-ruupii) is

certainly Krishna Himself, which is the teaching of the Gau.diiya

Vaishnava line.

 

So the senses of "svayam" in [2] and [4] are different.

 

And this interpretation/translation of Shrii Madhva does not contradict

the Acharya's other comments on the chapter or the verses of the

chapter.

 

Even if the verse is taken as ete svaamsha-kalaa.h pumsa.h..., the

meaning of the Acharya's comment doesn't change. Svaamsha-kalaa.h would

then mean "both svaamshas and the kalaas or empowered bhinnaamshas",

referring to "these" (ete). This only strengthens my contention that

[1].

 

In that case,

 

[1]: ete = proktaa.h avataaraa.h

 

"These [ete] (refers to) the incarnations spoken of (previously in

this chapter)" which consist of both the svaamshas and the kalaas (or

empowered bhinnaamshas).

 

The Acharya has NOT stated, "ete proktaa.h svaamshaa.h avataaraa.h",

"These [ete] (refers to) the *svaamsha-incarnations spoken of

(previously in this chapter)".

 

In other words, the word avataaraa.h would *NECESSARILY* have to

include the empowered bhinnaamshas (kalaas) and not merely the

svaamshas, and the Tattvavaadi interpretation of the statement of Shrii

Madhva would remain absurd as demonstrated previously.

 

Apart from all this, historically, Shrii Madhva Acharya is the first

acharya who has used the word "muula-ruupii" to describe Krishna. So,

we are indebted to him for revealing the true hidden glory of the

original muula-ruupii Krishna!

 

Therefore, Shriila Baladeva Vidyaabhuu.sha.na very aptly states:

 

aanandatiirtha-muni-naamaa sukha-maya-dhaamaa yatir jiiyaat

samsaaraar.nava-tara.nim yam iha janaa.h kiirtayanti budhaa.h

 

"May the Yati named Anandatiiirtha Muni [shrii Madhva], the abode of

full bliss, be victorious. Learned people in this world glorify him as

the boat to cross over the ocean of material existence."

 

Kindly correct me where ever I have gone wrong.

 

Your servant,

Vidvan-Gauranga Das