[2] Krishna is the Original Supreme Personality of Godhead

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 4/27/01 9:15:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

vidvan writes:

 

>

> 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]

 

Since Madhvacharya is concise, it is entirely credible that [1] and [2]

ought to be split. Thank you for this explanation. Somehow the dvaitins are

elsewhere able to extract meaning from Madhva's brevity and shastra only when

it suits their polemical purposes. Now it is worth investigating whether the

following passages can also be properly translated:

 

1. Sri Madhva's comments in BG 10.41

2. Sri Jayatirtha's comments on it

(both of which are at http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/gita/bg1041.html )

3. The prakasika commentary which I posted (but have no translation for).

 

If it could be shown that Sri Jayatirtha or the author of the other comment

contradict Sri Madhva, that would be an interesting finding. Also, it would

be worth defending our interpretations of all passages (consistent with our

view) and refuting theirs in terms of those interpretive rules of nyaya etc.

 

 

Gerald Surya

[Guest guest]

The subject matter of the interpretation of SB 1.3.28 is briefly discussed

by Shriila Krishnadaasa Kaviraaja Gosvaamii in CC, Aadi-liila, chapter2:

 

Refuting the idea that SB 1.3.28 merely states that Krishna is an

incarnation of Naaraayana, and that Naaraayana is svayam bhagavaan,

Krishnadaasa Kaviraaja quotes one Ekaadashii-tattva, chapter 13:

 

anuvaadam anuktvaa tu na vidheyam udiirayet |

na hyalabdhaaspada.m ki~nchit kutrachit pratitiShThati ||

 

One should not state a predicate before its subject, for it cannot thus

stand without proper support (CC, Aadi, 2.74).

 

anuvaada naa kahiyaa naa kahi vidheya |

aage anuvaada kahi pashchaad vidheya ||

 

If I do not state a subject, I do not state a predicate. First I speak the

former and then I speak the latter (CC, Aadi, 2.75).

 

'vidheya' kahiye taare, ye vastu aj~naata |

'anuvaada' kahi taare, yei haya j~naata ||

 

The predicate of a sentence is what is unknown to the reader, whereas the

subject is what is known to him (CC, Aadi, 2.76).

 

He then give the example that in the sentence "This vipra is a greatly

learned man,vipra" is the subject and the predicate is his erudition. The

man being a vipra is known, but his erudition is not known. Hence the person

is identified first, and then his erudition.

 

Similarly, in SB 1.3.28, all these incarnations "ete chaamsha...." are

known, being described previously. But of whom they are incarnation from is

not known.

 

Thus, ete chaamsha kalaaH pumsaH: the subject is "ete" or all these

incarnations just mentioned, and chaamsha kalaaH pumsaH is predicate,

referring to the fact that they are all plenary portions of the Supreme.

Then in the next part of the sentence: kR^iShNas tu bhagavaan svayam,

Krishna is the subject, and that fact that He is svayam bhagavaan is

predicate.

 

Interestingly enough, Srila Prabhupada translates Aadi liila, 2.80 as

meaning that the avataaras are plenary portions of the purusha-avataara. I

recall seeing this interpretation given in Krishna-sandarbha, but it was not

clear from Srila Prabhupada's translation of SB 1.3.28. If the verse is

actually saying that the avataaras are only portions of the purusha avataara

(i.e. Kshiirodaakashaayi Vishnu), then is it not also logical to suggest

that "kR^iShNas tu bhagavaan svayam" could simply mean that Krishna is fully

Bhagavaan like the purusha avataara? This may be the puurva-pakshin that

Krishnadaasa Kaviraaja has tried to defeat.

 

Or is it that the translation "all these are plenary portions of the purusha

(Naaraayan), and Krishna is also fully Naaraayana" defeated on the grounds

that Naaraayana would logically be the subject of the second half of the

sentence (i.e. - that which is known)?

 

 

yours,

 

K

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 5/4/01 7:58:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

krishna writes:

 

> If the verse is

> actually saying that the avataaras are only portions of the purusha

avataara

> (i.e. Kshiirodaakashaayi Vishnu), then is it not also logical to suggest

> that "kR^iShNas tu bhagavaan svayam" could simply mean that Krishna is

fully

> Bhagavaan like the purusha avataara? This may be the puurva-pakshin that

> Krishnadaasa Kaviraaja has tried to defeat.

 

The 2nd purusa avatara has been described earlier in the chapter 1.3.5 as

"nidhAnam" or the source of multifarious forms, but it is clear that even He

(Garbhodakasayi) has His source from the first form (Karanadakasayi)

described still earlier. Now this first purusa form has not anywhere in the

chapter been identified with the original form in Vaikuntha, Lord Narayana.

Rather, based on the translation of 1.3.1, a distinction has been made

between a still higher form (bhagavan, implicitly not in this material

world) and the first purusaavatara (paurusam rupam).

 

Therefore Krsnastu bhagavan svayam is, I think, saying that Krishna is

identical to that form who expands as the purusa-avatara. We know from

elsewhere that the sequence of expansion is Krishna, Balarama, Sankarsana,

Narayana, Maha-Sankarsana and then the first purusa avatara. So the verse

1.3.1 not making distinctions between all these Vaikuntha forms but I would

guess collectively referring to all of them as "Bhagavan". (I doubt its

specifically singling out Maha-Sanksarsana.) Therefore, when we come to

1.3.28, all its explicitly saying is that Lord Krishna is not any kind of

expansion, He is that form who expands into the material energy as the first

purusa-avatara. This is consistent with the Sri Vaishnava viewpoint who

believe that Lord Narayana and Lord Krishna are identical.

 

 

 

>

> Or is it that the translation "all these are plenary portions of the

purusha

> (Naaraayan), and Krishna is also fully Naaraayana" defeated on the grounds

> that Naaraayana would logically be the subject of the second half of the

> sentence (i.e. - that which is known)?

 

Interesting. If "pumsah" refers to the Purusa avataras (and "ete" refers to

their expansions), then the word Bhagavan of 1.3.1 has not been addressed in

line 1 of 1.3.28. So Krishnas tu Bhagavan svayam is also not explicitly

making any distinctions among Narayana, MahaSankarsana, and Krishna. It

merely seems to be identifying Krishna with that Bhagavan of 1.3.1.

 

Unless the first line of the verse "ete camsa kala pumsa" could somehow be

construed to include the Bhagavan mentioned in 1.3.1 then it is not clear how

the verse is making any distinction between the bhagavan (Narayana) and

svayam bhagavan (Krishna).

 

The purvapakshin is stating that Krishna expands from Narayana, which is

obviously not the case even according to some Sri Vaishnavas.

Gerald Surya

[Guest guest]

> Therefore Krsnastu bhagavan svayam is, I think, saying that Krishna is

> identical to that form who expands as the purusa-avatara. We know from

 

No, the verse is saying that Krishna is the Original Supreme Personality of

Godhead, from whom all else is expanded. The specific words used here are

"bhagavaan svayam." Literally this means "the Bhagavaan Himself," or in

other words, the other forms are merely forms of or expansions of this

Bhagavaan. The other possibility for interpretation would be to suggest that

the avataaras mentioned previously are somehow less than Bhagavaan, which is

not acceptable to any Vaishnava commentator. "svayam bhagavaan" cannot be

taken to refer to all of the Vaikuntha forms, and even were it so, Srila

Prabhupada states in his commentary to this verse that such a description is

not found in regards to any other Vishnu-tattva besides Krishna:

 

"In this stanza the word svayam is particularly mentioned to confirm that

Lord Krishna has no other source than Himself. Although in other places the

incarnations are described as bhagavaan because of their specific functions,

nowhere are they declared to be the Supreme Personality. [i take this to

mean, "Original Supreme Personality" - K] In this stanza the word svayam

signifies the supremacy as the summum bonum." - SB 1.3.28 purport

 

> elsewhere that the sequence of expansion is Krishna, Balarama, Sankarsana,

> Narayana, Maha-Sankarsana and then the first purusa avatara. So the verse

> 1.3.1 not making distinctions between all these Vaikuntha forms but I

would

> guess collectively referring to all of them as "Bhagavan".

 

That doesn't make a lot of sense, since the verse is explicitly saying that

Krishna is the svayam bhagavaan. You can't seriously mean that Krishna

should be taken to refer to all of the Vaikuntha forms? It cannot be that

svayam bhagavaan refers to all of the Vaikuntha forms - the usage is

singular and only one form of the Lord is mentioned.

 

Also, Srila Prabhupada's purport makes it very clear what the Gaudiiya

Vaishnava viewpoint is. The question I raised is simply how we can assume

that the purusha-avataaras are expanded from Krishna when "pumsaH" in SB

1.3.28 is taken to mean the purusha-avataaras and not Krishna Himself. But

regardless of one's doubts, we need to be clear on what the Gaudiiya

Vaishnava position is.

 

See again Srila Prabhupada's purport to 1.3.28: "The summum bonum Krishna is

one without a second. He Himself has expanded Himself in various parts,

portions and particles as svayam-ruupa, svayam-prakaasha, tad-ekaatmaa,

praabhava, vaibhava, vilaasa, avataara, aavesha, and jiivas...." Krishna is

one without a second. All other forms of Krishna are expansions of Him. If

Srila Prabhupada had stated that there was more than one svayam bhagavaan,

or more than one svayam-ruupa, then you would have a case. But because he

explicitly says otherwise, your interpretation cannot be construed as

consistent with Gaudiiya Vaishnava siddhaanta in this regard.

 

(I doubt its

> specifically singling out Maha-Sanksarsana.) Therefore, when we come to

> 1.3.28, all its explicitly saying is that Lord Krishna is not any kind of

> expansion, He is that form who expands into the material energy as the

first > purusa-avatara.

 

It does explicitly state that Krishna is not merely an avataara. But it does

not explicitly state that He is only one among many Vaikuntha forms who

expand into the material energy. It clearly says that Krishna is the

Bhagavaan Himself.

 

This is consistent with the Sri Vaishnava viewpoint who

> believe that Lord Narayana and Lord Krishna are identical.

 

Not true. First of all, when Sri Vaishnavas say "Naaraayana" they really do

not refer to any specific form of the Lord. Their concept of the Supreme

Godhead is a formless Brahman that takes transcendental forms to please the

devotees. I do not agree with that, but that is their view. When Gaudiiyas

say "Naaraayana," they refer to the four-handed forms of the Lord, including

the Purusha-avataaras. Thus it is not really possible to say that the Sri

Vaishnava and Gaudiiya viewpoints are identical. The fact that they are not

identical can be seen by the extremely roundabout interpretation they give

for SB 1.3.28 to evade the straightforward meaning. They cite "chatra

nyaayam" as their logic to interpret "ete" as referring only to the

shakti-aveshas and vibhuutis among the list of Vishnu-avataaras, and then go

on to say that while "Krishna" does refer to our two-handed Krishna, that

this is only saying that He is fully Naaraayana (as opposed to the

shakti-aveshas and vibhuutis, who are not). This they argue because the

sages supposedly have a sentimental attachment to hearing about Krishna, and

so a doubt supposedly enters their mind about Krishna's divinity.

 

Actually, this interpretation is also not very believable. For one thing,

these sages at Naimishaaranya were no doubt accomplished scholars, and to

suggest that Suta Gosvami was merely speaking for their benefit is

speculation. We know from multiple sources that Shriimad Bhaagavatam is the

last word on Vedaanta realization. Suta Gosvami explicitly confirms that the

questions of the sages pertain to Krishna (see my previous postings on this

subject). Furthermore, there is no question of Krishna's divinity (in

contrast to the shaki aveshas) because His divinity was understood from the

very beginning of the Bhaagavatam and is more or less confirmed by the sages

themselves.

 

> Interesting. If "pumsah" refers to the Purusa avataras (and "ete" refers

to

> their expansions), then the word Bhagavan of 1.3.1 has not been addressed

in

> line 1 of 1.3.28.

 

That's not true. It has been addressed by the statement that Krishna is the

svayam bhagavaan.

 

So Krishnas tu Bhagavan svayam is also not explicitly

> making any distinctions among Narayana, MahaSankarsana, and Krishna.

 

But the rest of the Bhaagavatam *does* make such a distinction:

 

For example Bhiishma states that Krishna is the original Naaraayana:

 

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).

 

Lord Brahmaa counts "Vishnu" among the many fragments of the Supreme Lord:

 

aha.m bhavo yaj~na ime prajeshaa dakShaadayo ye bhavadaadayashcha |

svarlokapaalaaH khagalokapaalaa nR^ilokapaalaastalalokapaalaaH || bhaa

2.6.43 ||

gandharvavidyaadharachaaraNeshaa ye yakSharakShoraganaaganaathaaH |

ye vaa R^iShiiNaam R^iShabhaaH pitR^INaa.m

daiyendrasiddheshvaradaanavendraaH |

anye cha ye pretapishaachabhuutakuuShmaaNDayaadomR^igapakShyadhiishaaH ||

bhaa 2.6.44 ||

yatki~ncha loke bhagavanmahasvadojaHsahasvad balavat kShamaavat |

 

shriihR^iivibhuutyaatmavad adbhutaarNa.m tattva.m para.m ruupavad asvaruupam

|| bhaa 2.6.45 ||

 

aham - myself (Brahmaajii); bhavaH - Lord Shiva; yaj~naH - Lord Vishnu;

ime - all these; prajaa-iishaH - the father of the living beings;

dakSha-aadayaH - Daksha, Mariichi, Manu, etc.; ye - those; bhavat -

yourself; aadayaH cha; and the bachelors (Sanat-kumaara and his brothers);

svarloka-paalaaH - the leaders of the heavenly planets; kagaloka-paalaaH -

the leaders of space travellers; nR^iloka-paalaaH - the leaders of mankind;

talaloka-paalaaH - the leaders of the lower planets; gandharva - the

residents of Gandarvaloka; vidyaadhara - the residents of the Vidyaadhara

planet; chaaraNa-iishaaH - the leaders of the Chaaranas; ye - as also

others; yakSha - the leaders of the Yakshas; rakSha - demons; uraga -

snakes; naaga-naathaaH - the leaders of Naagaloka (below the earth); ye -

others; vaa - also; R^iShiiNaam - of the sages; R^iShabhaaH - the chief;

pitR^INaam - of the forefathers; daitya-indra - leaders of the atheists;

siddha-iishvara - leaders of the Siddhaloka planets (spacement);

daanava-indraaH - leaders of the non-Aaryans; anye - besides them; cha -

also; ye - those; preta - dead bodies; pishaacha - evil spirits; bhuuta -

jinn; kuuShmaaNDa - a special type of evil spirit; yaadaH - aquatics;

mR^iga - animals; pakShi-adhiishaaH - giant eagles; yat - anything; kim

cha - and everything; loke - in the world; bhagavat - possessed of bhaga, or

extraorindary power; mahasvat - of a special degree; ojaH-sahasvat -

specific mental and sensual dexterity; balavat - possessed of strength;

kShamaavat - possessed of forgiveness; shrii - beauty; hrii - ashamed of

impious acts; vibhuuti - riches; aatmavat - possessed of intelligence;

adbhuta - wonderful; arNam - race; tattvam - specific truth; param -

transcendental; ruupavat - as if the form of; asva-ruupam - not the form of

the Lord.

 

I myself [brahmaa], Lord Shiva, Lord Vishnu, great generators of living

beings like Daksha, and Prajaapati, yourselves [Naarada and the Kumaaras],

heavenly demigods like Indra and Chandra, the leaders of the Bhuurloka

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

planets, the leaders of the Gandharva planets, the leaders of the

Vidyaadhara planets, the leaders of the Chaaranaloka planets, the leaders of

the Yakshas, Rakshas, and Uragas, the great sages, the great demons, the

great atheists, and the great spacemen, as well as the dead bodies, evil

spirits, satans, jinn, kuushmaandas, great aquatics, great beasts and great

birds, etc. - in other words, anything and everything which is exceptionally

possessed of power, opulence, mental and perceptual dexterity, strength,

forgiveness, beauty, modesty, oopulence, 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 (bhaagavata puraaNa 2.6.43-45).

 

I'm sure you would agree that any given verse in the Bhaagavatam has to be

interpreted within the overall context of the Bhaagavatam, as well as the

overall context of the Vedas themselves.

 

If you go to the Gaudiya Vaishnava verse list (

achintyaVerses/index.htm ),

specifically to (

achintyaVerses/Krishna_svayam_bhagavaan

..htm ), you will see numerous verses archived which distinguish Krishna from

other forms of the Godhead, and not merely the avataaras mentioned in 1st

skandha, 3rd adhyaaya.

 

> The purvapakshin is stating that Krishna expands from Narayana, which is

> obviously not the case even according to some Sri Vaishnavas.

> Gerald Surya

 

No, because Sri Vaishnavas hold that Krishna is merely one form that the

formless Brahman takes to please His devotees. Their concept of Naaraayana

is more or less equal to this concept of a formless Brahman.

 

yours,

 

Krishna

[Guest guest]

Haribol

 

In a message dated 5/5/01 3:03:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

krishna writes:

 

>

> > Therefore Krsnastu bhagavan svayam is, I think, saying that Krishna is

> > identical to that form who expands as the purusa-avatara. We know from

>

> No, the verse is saying that Krishna is the Original Supreme Personality of

> Godhead, from whom all else is expanded. The specific words used here are

> "bhagavaan svayam." Literally this means "the Bhagavaan Himself," or in

> other words, the other forms are merely forms of or expansions of this

> Bhagavaan.

 

Yes, I agree. But the "all else" (ete) explicitly addressed in the chapter

are the Purusas and Their expansions. Note the property of Bhagavan mentioned

in 1.3.1 (namely that He expands into the purusas) is not a direct property

of the example of Bhagavan mentioned in 1.3.28 (Krishna). Therefore,

although we know from Gaudiya sources that Krishna is the source of all

Vaikuntha expansions, the straightforward narrative understanding of SB 1.3

does not say that. It just says that "Krishna is not an expansion, but the

Bhagavan (who originally expands into the purusas) Himself." It is only a

deeper Gaudiya interpretation of "svayam" which brings the unique position of

Krishna across.

 

>The other possibility for interpretation would be to suggest that

> the avataaras mentioned previously are somehow less than Bhagavaan, which

is

> not acceptable to any Vaishnava commentator.

 

All Vaishnavas have their conceptions of "original form" vs "expanded forms"

although they may not use those exact words. The Sri Vaishnavas say that all

six opulences are present in full in the original form and only two opulences

are present in the purusa avatars. The Madhvas also admit the idea of

mula-rupa. So what is the problem with this interpretation?

 

 

"svayam bhagavaan" cannot be

> taken to refer to all of the Vaikuntha forms, and even were it so, Srila

> Prabhupada states in his commentary to this verse that such a description

is

> not found in regards to any other Vishnu-tattva besides Krishna:

 

I didn't exactly say it refers to "all Vaikuntha forms" but only the certain

set preceding MahaVishnu. Again I am not disputing the Gaudiya

interpretation of "svayam", I'm just saying that the word svayam could be

read as "oneself", emphasizing that Krishna is the same as the *Bhagavan*

(of 1.3.1) *Himself*. Here is a dictionary definition of svayam:

 

Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon

 

 

--

Entry svayam

 

Meaning ind. (prob. orig. a nom. of 1. {sva} , formed like {aham}) self ,

one's self (applicable to all persons e.g. myself , thyself , himself &c.) ,

of or by one's self spontaneously , voluntarily , of one's own accord (also

used emphatically with other pronouns [e.g. {ahaM svayaM tat kRtavAn} , `" I

myself did that "'] ; sometimes alone [e.g. {svayaM tat kRtavAn} , `" he

himself did that "' ; {svayaM tat kurvanti} , `" they themselves do that "']

[1278,3] ; connected in sense with a nom. [either the subject or predicate]

or with instr. [when the subject] or with a gen. , and sometimes with acc. or

loc. ; often in comp.) RV. &c. &c.

 

"Svayam" can mean oneself, or in this case "Himself."

 

> > elsewhere that the sequence of expansion is Krishna, Balarama,

Sankarsana,

> > Narayana, Maha-Sankarsana and then the first purusa avatara. So the verse

> > 1.3.1 not making distinctions between all these Vaikuntha forms but I

> would> guess collectively referring to all of them as "Bhagavan".

>

> That doesn't make a lot of sense, since the verse is explicitly saying that

> Krishna is the svayam bhagavaan. You can't seriously mean that Krishna

> should be taken to refer to all of the Vaikuntha forms? It cannot be that

> svayam bhagavaan refers to all of the Vaikuntha forms - the usage is

> singular and only one form of the Lord is mentioned.

 

Yes, but that singular form of "Bhagavan" has been mentioned as having a

property of expanding into the purusas. Plus, Balarama has also, in some way,

been called "Bhagavan" (1.3.23). Therefore, the term Bhagavan (if it is to be

read consistently with the whole chapter) means "all the Vaikuntha forms

preceeding the purusas". I am not saying it means all Vaikuntha forms, since

the avataras are also Vaikuntha forms, and that would defeat the point of the

verse.

 

>

> Also, Srila Prabhupada's purport makes it very clear what the Gaudiiya

> Vaishnava viewpoint is. The question I raised is simply how we can assume

> that the purusha-avataaras are expanded from Krishna when "pumsaH" in SB

> 1.3.28 is taken to mean the purusha-avataaras and not Krishna Himself.

 

The translation of 1.3.1 says "Bhagavan expands into the first purusa" and

1.3.28 says "Krishna is Bhagavan Himself". Therefore, the purusas are

Krishna's. expansions.

 

>> Therefore, when we come to

> > 1.3.28, all its explicitly saying is that Lord Krishna is not any kind of

> > expansion, He is that form who expands into the material energy as the

> first > purusa-avatara.

>

> It does explicitly state that Krishna is not merely an avataara. But it

does

> not explicitly state that He is only one among many Vaikuntha forms who

> expand into the material energy. It clearly says that Krishna is the

> Bhagavaan Himself.

 

Yes, and what is "Bhagavan"? He is the one who expands as the purusas.

 

 

> This is consistent with the Sri Vaishnava viewpoint who

> > believe that Lord Narayana and Lord Krishna are identical.

>

> Not true.

 

Although Sri Vaishnavas believe that the formless aspect of God is the

highest, they still have a concept of "original form". One learned Sri

Vaishnava guru named Venkat in Pomona, NY says that Lord Krishna and Lord

Narayana are both the original form of God (just as we say that Lord Caitanya

and Lord Krishna are both the original form.) And SB 1.3.28 together with

1.3.1 can be seen to reflect this.

 

> So Krishnas tu Bhagavan svayam is also not explicitly

> > making any distinctions among Narayana, MahaSankarsana, and Krishna.

>

> But the rest of the Bhaagavatam *does* make such a distinction:

 

Neither of the two verses you cited relate to the Lord of Vaikuntha, Narayana.

 

> For example Bhiishma states that Krishna is the original Naaraayana:

> 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);

 

The Narayana mentioned in this verse is according to the Word-for-Word a

reference to the Purusa avataras (who are the only one's known to lie on

water). So all SB 1.9.18 is saying is that Krishna is not an expansion of the

Purusas. It says nothing regarding the Lord of Vaikuntha Narayana. Is there

another Bhagavatam verse which does make a distinction?

 

 

> Lord Brahmaa counts "Vishnu" among the many fragments of the Supreme Lord:

aha.m bhavo yaj~na bhaa 2.6.43-45 "[Yajna-Vishnu, etc.] 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."

 

Vishnu here is Ksirodakasayi Vishnu. Even some Sri Vaishnavas accept that

Vishnu is an expansion of Narayana-Krishna. So even this verse does not

relate to this discussion of Narayana vs Krishna.

 

> I'm sure you would agree that any given verse in the Bhaagavatam has to be

> interpreted within the overall context of the Bhaagavatam, as well as the

> overall context of the Vedas themselves.

 

Yes, and is there a single verse in the Bhagavatam which has clearly

distinguished Krishna from Narayana?

 

Again, the purvapakshin in CC is stating that Krishna expands from Narayana,

which is obviously not the case even according to some Sri Vaishnavas, even

though they accept that God is ultimately formless.

 

Gerald Surya