Some doubts

[Guest guest]

To all Vaisnavas,

 

All glories to srila Prabhupada! I put forward some

doubts which I request the vaisnava community to

clear.

1)In The Bhagavad Gita, There are various places where

Krishna establishes his positions as the Supreme

Personality of Godhead and at the end in the 18.66

establishes surrender to him as the final instruction.

Here Srila Prabhupada says the one should only

meditate on the form of the Lord as Shyamasundara in

particular.

I have heard in various lectures( I do not

wish to name who's lectures & where) simply to avoid

confusion that it is Vasudeva Krishna Krishna Who

speaks the Bhagavad Gita-I have also heard it in

various Vraja Lila descriptions by devotees from

Vraja.

But then if it is Vasudeva Krishna who is speaking

the Gita then is he not the Supreme Personality of

Godhead & not Shyama sundara krishna.

 

2) I have also read in SB that Krishna simultaneously

appeared in both Mathura & Vraja as Vasudeva & Shyama

sundara forms respectively & when he had to leave

Vraja with Akrura, Shyama sundara form stayed behined

& his expansion left for Mathura..(this also has

connection with the 1st doubt). But how do I

understand Lilas like the seperation from Krishna

explained by the Gopis when they come to Kurukshetra &

subsequently the background for the form of

Jagannatha.

If Krishna never left Vrindavana, then

how is the seperation explaind..that too for so many

years?

 

 

Your servant

 

R.Narasimhan

 

 

 

Check out Shopping and Auctions for all of

your unique holiday gifts! Buy at

or bid at http://auctions.

[Guest guest]

On Sun, 16 Dec 2001, ranganathan narasimhan wrote:

> Here Srila Prabhupada says the one should only

> meditate on the form of the Lord as Shyamasundara in

> particular.

However, even if he does (though I don't see it in 18.66),

this isn't a principle. In his purport to BhAgavatam 3.20.25, Srila

Prabhupada writes:

"Here the words bhaktAnAm anurUpAtma-darzanam mean that

the Personality of Godhead manifests His multiforms according to the

desires of the devotees. For example, HanumAnjI (VajraGgajI) wanted to

see the form of the Lord as the Personality of Godhead RAmacandra,

whereas other VaiSNavas want to see the form of RAdhA-KRSNa, and

still other devotees want to see the Lord in the form of LakSmI-NArAyaNa.

The MAyAvAdI philosophers think that although all these forms are

assumed by the Lord just as the devotees desire to see Him, actually

He is impersonal. From Brahma-saMhitA, however, we can understand

that this is not so, for the Lord has multiforms. It is said in the

Brahma-saMhitA, advaitam acyutam. The Lord does not appear before

the devotee because of the devotee's imagination. Brahma-saMhitA

further explains that the Lord has innumerable forms: rAmAdi-mUrtiSu

kalA-niyamena tiSThan. He exists in millions and millions of forms. There

are Lord are innumerable. In the BhAgavatam it is stated that as the

waves in the sea cannot be counted but appear and disappear

continually, the incarnations and forms of the Lord are innumerable.

A devotee is attached to a particular form, and it is that form which

he worships. We have just described the first appearance of the boar

within this universe. There are innumerable universes, and somewhere

or other the boar form is now existing. All the forms of the Lord are

eternal. It is the devotee's inclination to worship a particular form, and

he engages in devotional service to that form. In a verse in the RAmAyaNa,

HanumAn, the great devotee of RAma, said, 'I know that there is no

difference between the SItA-RAma and LakSmI-NArAyaNa forms of

the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but nevertheless, the form of RAma

and SItA has absorbed my affection and love. Therefore I want to see

the Lord in the forms of RAma and SItA.' Similarly, the GauDIya

VaiSNava loves the forms of RAdhA and KRSNa, and KRSNa and

RukmiNI at DvArakA. The words bhaktAnAm anurUpAtma-darzanam

mean that the Lord is always pleased to favor the devotee in the

particular form in which the devotee wants to worship and render

service unto Him."

From this and similar references (such as Bhagavatam 2.3.22), I

understand that although Srila Prabhupada naturally emphasizes Sri Sri

Radha-Krsna most, he certainly doesn't prohibit, nor even discourages,

worship of any other bonafide form of Bhagavan. Rather, he encourages

them, if less directly. Like his unprecedented and astonishing preaching

accomplishments, this broadminded and transcendentally realized spirit (by

dint of which he built a house in which the entire world can live) is one

of the many wonderful qualities that distinguishes Srila Prabhupada from

all other Gaudiya Vaisnava preachers.

 

 

 

> But then if it is Vasudeva Krishna who is speaking

> the Gita then is he not the Supreme Personality of

> Godhead & not Shyama sundara krishna.

However, Syamasundara and Vasudeva are both Krsna. All other

Visnu-tattvas are also Krsna. Sahajiyas don't like to hear this, but

Srila Prabhupada consistently emphasizes the transcedental oneness of the

Lord's multiforms much more than their transcedental distinctions; he does

so with very good reason. In this, he also follows Srila Krsnadasa Kaviraja

Gosvami (please see Caitanya-caritamrtam, Madhya-lila, 9.155). In general,

one will not be able to appreciate the transcedental distinctions between

the various forms of the Lord until first realizing the essential nature

of any one of them; put another way, one cannot realize rasa before one

realizes tattva--particularly atma-tattva. This is one reason there are

nine cantos prefacing the Lord's confidential pastimes in the Bhagavatam,

and why Srila Prabhupada preached from Bhagavad-gita rather than, say,

Gopi-gita. As does Srila Prabhupada's mature realization, pragmatic

compassion also permeates his general presentation of Lord Caitanya's

teachings.

 

 

 

> 2) I have also read in SB that Krishna simultaneously

> appeared in both Mathura & Vraja as Vasudeva & Shyama

> sundara forms respectively

This is true. It has been mentioned in Srila Baladeva

Vidyabhusana's Aisvarya-kadambini and other smrtis, including

Srila Prabhupada's books (please see his purport to Bhagavatam

10.3.47). I hope this helps.

 

Hare Krsna!

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri M.tandy,

Hare Krishna. Thank you very much

prabhu, for the clarification. But yet my doubt is not

yet cleared.

1)The purpose of my question is that, the GV

generally, while preaching use such statements such as

"mattah parataram nanyat", "aham sarvasya prabhavo",

"aham his sarva devanam..man mana bhava mad bhakto"

& "sarva dharman parityajya" etc..and extend the same

to indicate that one shud only surrender to Krishna as

the Supreme personality of Godhead and not even Sriman

Narayana or Lord Vishnu.

 

In such emphatic statements, though we initially

say that Krishna & Vishnu are the same, still

ultimately, the GV say that we shud only surrender to

Shyamasundara Krishna. I've heard one Srila

Prabhupada's lecture in which he says the till we are

liberated, even the Radha-Krishna worship we perform

is actually to Lakshmi Narayana. But that apart, can

the usage of the above quotes from The BG regarding

Krishna as the speaker and that one shud only

surrender to him as the supreme personality stand

scrutiny?

 

2) can someone clear my second doubt, about the

Seperation of the Lord & how is it explained if

Krishna never left Vrindavana.?

 

3)can someone provide any quotes from sastras

regarding Krishna's appearance as He is once in the

day of Brahma.There are a number of statements in

other Puranas, regarding Krishna to be an incarnation

of expansion of Vishnu, or that Vishnu plucked two

hairs from his body & one is Sri Krishna & the Other

Balarama. Hence could it be so that these are

references to plenary portions of Vishnu and not Sri

Krishna of Goloka.

 

Hare Krishna.

 

R.Narasimhan.

 

 

 

 

Check out Shopping and Auctions for all of

your unique holiday gifts! Buy at

or bid at http://auctions.

[Guest guest]

achintya, ranganathan narasimhan <simhan74> wrote:

 

> of expansion of Vishnu, or that Vishnu plucked two

> hairs from his body & one is Sri Krishna & the Other

> Balarama. Hence could it be so that these are

> references to plenary portions of Vishnu and not Sri

> Krishna of Goloka.

 

I think this latter point is mentioned in Vishnu Puraana, and if

memory serves, Srila Jiva Gosvami deals with it in Bhagavat

Sandarbha. Remind me again if I haven't given you a more specific

answer by the end of the week, but Jiva Gosvami rejects the literal

understanding of the "two hairs" analogy and interprets it

differently, in a way that is more consistent with the Bhaagavatam's

position. Again, I'll try to provide more specific details by the end

of the week.

 

yours,

 

- K

 

p.s. These kinds of questions are exactly what Achintya is for. Keep

it up!

[Guest guest]

--- krishnasusarla <krishna wrote:

 

> I think this latter point is mentioned in Vishnu

> Puraana, and if

> memory serves, Srila Jiva Gosvami deals with it in

> Bhagavat

> Sandarbha. Remind me again if I haven't given you a

> more specific

> answer by the end of the week, but Jiva Gosvami

> rejects the literal

> understanding of the "two hairs" analogy and

> interprets it

> differently, in a way that is more consistent with

> the Bhaagavatam's

> position.

 

True Prabhu, this is referred to by Jiva Goswami

among other references in various sastras which state

Krishna to be an avatara of vishnu.. but even there he

deals using the Paribhasa sutra..actually I had a hard

copy of the same which somehow got misplaced.. I will

be grateful if the same can be answered or sent as an

attachment to my ID. also if I am not mistaken, it is

Krishna Sandarbha..

 

As many references regarding Krishna's supreme

position is welcome since there are some people who

vehemently opine as if all our acharyas have kept us

under illusion by spreading some unauthentic

religion..and we have to defend ourselves..

 

Ironically, such questions never arise in any part of

the world other than India, the land of Krishna..

 

Thanks..

R.Narasimhan.

 

 

 

Check out Shopping and Auctions for all of

your unique holiday gifts! Buy at

or bid at http://auctions.

[Guest guest]

> True Prabhu, this is referred to by Jiva Goswami

> among other references in various sastras which state

> Krishna to be an avatara of vishnu.. but even there he

> deals using the Paribhasa sutra..actually I had a hard

> copy of the same which somehow got misplaced.. I will

> be grateful if the same can be answered or sent as an

> attachment to my ID. also if I am not mistaken, it is

> Krishna Sandarbha..

 

You are right, it was Krishna Sandarbha. Also, his use of the paribhaasha

suutra (SB 1.3.28) is based on *objective* scriptural evidence

substantiating the Bhaagavatam as the topmost puraana:

 

puraaNeShu tu sarveShu shriimadbhaagavata.m param |

yatra pratipada.m kR^iShNo giiyate bahudharShibhiH || Pa P, U Kh 193.3 ||

 

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

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

uttara-khaNDa 193.3).

 

There are other pieces of evidence available on the GV verse list, located

in the bookmarks section of the Achintya web page (www.achintya.org).

 

> As many references regarding Krishna's supreme

> position is welcome since there are some people who

> vehemently opine as if all our acharyas have kept us

> under illusion by spreading some unauthentic

> religion..and we have to defend ourselves..

 

We should defend ourselves, and with reference to scripture. But there is

just one point I wanted to make -- it isn't Srila Prabhupada's view that we

not worship any other form of Krishna. I'm aware of only one statement of

his, in his Bhagavad-Gita purports, where he says something to the effect

how we should only worship Krishna, and we shouldn't even bother to worship

other forms. But everything else I have read indicates that this was not his

literal view - he himself visited other temples of Vishnu and offered

obeisances. And his writings, one finds nothing but caustic remarks directed

towards those who would distinguish between Krishna and other forms of

Krishna.

 

I'm really not sure what he meant in that one specific Gita purport - we

should look for it and discuss it more. But it is clear that he isn't going

to back down from the idea of Krishna being svayam bhagavaan, and neither

should we. Incidentally, the GV verse list also has lots of verses on this

point.

 

> Ironically, such questions never arise in any part of

> the world other than India, the land of Krishna..

 

Actually, they arise a lot on the internet, by people practicing Vaishnavism

in USA.

 

More to come later,

 

- K

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, ranganathan narasimhan wrote:

> 1)The purpose of my question is that, the GV

> generally,

I think we would need to be more specific about who/what the "GV"

refers to, because I for one see a distinct difference of emphasis between

Srila Prabnhupada's preaching in general, and that of some other Gaudiya

Vaisnavas. Secondly, the Gaudiya sampradaya is by no means monolithic,

and there is also some difference of opinion among its acaryas even on

philosophical issues.

 

 

 

> while preaching use such statements such as

> "mattah parataram nanyat", "aham sarvasya prabhavo",

> "aham his sarva devanam..man mana bhava mad bhakto"

> & "sarva dharman parityajya" etc..and extend the same

> to indicate that one shud only surrender to Krishna as

> the Supreme personality of Godhead and not even Sriman

> Narayana or Lord Vishnu.

As I indicated before, I don't see that Srila Prabhupada is so

exclusive.

 

 

 

> In such emphatic statements, though we initially

> say that Krishna & Vishnu are the same, still

> ultimately, the GV say that we shud only surrender to

> Shyamasundara Krishna.

Maybe if you would kindly supply a sample of representative quotes

from standard (i.e., universally recognized) GV authorities, we could

discuss it further. I'm also still not sure who GV is.

 

 

 

> I've heard one Srila

> Prabhupada's lecture in which he says the till we are

> liberated, even the Radha-Krishna worship we perform

> is actually to Lakshmi Narayana.

Yes, this is in his books too, in many places.

 

 

 

> can the usage of the above quotes from The BG regarding

> Krishna as the speaker and that one shud only

> surrender to him as the supreme personality stand

> scrutiny?

If we're trying to argue that one can only worship Krsna, I don't

think so. But again, it's not even clear to me that Prabhupada would even

argue like this, as the references I quoted earlier suggest.

 

 

 

> 2) can someone clear my second doubt, about the

> Seperation of the Lord & how is it explained if

> Krishna never left Vrindavana.?

Hesitantly, I'll try.

The manner in which Srila Prabhupada deals with Bhramara-gita (i.e.

Bhagavata 10.46,47) in his Krsna book noticeably differs from the usual Braj

interpretations. That may be significant, but I'm not as much aware of what

Gaudiya acaryas wrote about it to be able to comment. It's worth reading his

Krsna book again, or looking through the Bhagavatam to see how the acaryas

explain it. According to Jiva Gosvami, Krsna's pastimes take place in two

ways--prakata (manifest), and aprakata (unmanifest). Only the former are

eternal from a worldly perspective, and it is only in this world that

they are displayed to human vision. The latter are eternal, but are never

visible within our worldly existence. However, Kavikarnapura feels that

the Lord's pastimes in this world are superior to the aprakata-lila

because of the variety of special tastes created by dint of being

carried out within worldly existence. However, neither of us is likely

qualified to go much deeper into that topic, only hinted at in Gita 4.9,

because these transcendental rasas are beyond the capacity of material

imagination. So for now, we'll may just have to accept on the basis

of this logic that Krsna left Vrndavana without doing so, and that the

gopis felt intense separation in His presence.

 

 

 

> 3)can someone provide any quotes from sastras

> regarding Krishna's appearance as He is once in the

> day of Brahma.There are a number of statements in

> other Puranas, regarding Krishna to be an incarnation

> of expansion of Vishnu, or that Vishnu plucked two

> hairs from his body & one is Sri Krishna & the Other

> Balarama. Hence could it be so that these are

> references to plenary portions of Vishnu and not Sri

> Krishna of Goloka.

Aside from what Krishna Susarla already said, not every purana or

smriti is equally revered; if Visnu Purana or another bonafide smrti says

something that doesn't appear to be harmonious with the Bhagavatam, a

Gaudiya Vaisnava would probably intrerpret it in light of the conclusions of

Srimad Bhagavatam--assuming that we have an accurate reading of these

other smrtis to begin with, which we sometimes don't.

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, H. Krishna Susarla wrote:

> > As many references regarding Krishna's supreme

> > position is welcome since there are some people who

> > vehemently opine as if all our acharyas have kept us

> > under illusion by spreading some unauthentic

> > religion..and we have to defend ourselves.

 

It may not be logically convincing, but Srila Prabhupada's

purport to Bhagavatam 10.8.21 nonetheless seems to make a fairly strong

statement in favor of Krsna, or rather, Rama-kesava:

 

Text 10.8.21:

 

"After a short time passed, both brothers, Rama and Krsna, began to crawl on

the ground of Vraja with the strength of Their hands and knees and thus enjoy

Their childhood play."

 

Purport:

 

"One brahmana devotee says:

srutim apare smrtim itare bharatam anye bhajantu bhava-bhitah

aham iha nandam vande yasyalinde param brahma

'Let others, fearing material existence, worship the Vedas, the Vedic

supplementary puras and the Mahabharata, but I shall worship Nanda Maharaja,

in whose courtyard the Supreme Brahman is crawling. For a highly exalted

devotee, kaivalya, merging into the existence of the Supreme, appears no

better than hell (narakayate). But here one can simply think of the

crawling of Krsna and Balarama in the courtyard of Nanda Maharaja and

always merge in transcendental happiness. As long as one is absorbed in

thoughts of krsna-lila, especially Krsna's childhood pastimes, as Pariksit

Maharaja desired to be, one is always merged in actual kaivalya. Therefore

Vyasadeva compiled Srimad-Bhagavatam. Lokasyajanato vidvan cakre

satvata-samhitam (Bhag. 1.7.6). Vyasadeva compiled Srimad-Bhagavatam,

under the instruction of Narada, so that anyone can take advantage of this

literature, think of Krsna's pastimes and always be liberated.

srutim apare smrtim itare bharatam anye bhajantu bhava-bhitah

aham iha nandam vande yasyalinde param brahma"

[Guest guest]

In Srimad-Bhagavatam, 3.9.4, the acarya after which the Brahma

sampradaya is named prayed to Garbhodakasayi-visnu as follows:

 

"This present form, or any transcendental form expanded by the

Supreme Personality of Godhead, Sri Krsna, is equally auspicious for all

the universes. Since You have manifested this eternal personal form upon whom

Your devotees meditate, I therefore offer my respectful obeisances unto

You. Those who are destined to be dispatched to the path of hell neglect

Your personal form because of speculating on material topics."

 

Later, lord Brahma continues with this famous verse (3.9.11):

 

"O my Lord, Your devotees can see You through the ears by the

process of bona fide hearing, and thus their hearts become cleansed, and

You take Your seat there. You are so merciful to Your devotees that You

manifest Yourself in the particular eternal form of transcendence in which

they always think of You."

 

PURPORT

"The statement here that the Lord manifests Himself before the devotee in

the form in which the devotee likes to worship Him indicates that the Lord

becomes subordinate to the desire of the devotee--so much so that He

manifests His particular form as the devotee demands. This demand of the

devotee is satisfied by the Lord because He is pliable in terms of the

transcendental loving service of the devotee. This is also confirmed in

Bhagavad-gita (4.11): ye yatha mam prapadyante tams tathaiva bhajamy aham.

We should note, however, that the Lord is never the order supplier of the

devotee. Here in this verse it is particularly mentioned: tvam

bhakti-yoga-paribhavita. This indicates the efficiency achieved through

execution of matured devotional service, or prema, love of Godhead. This

state of prema is achieved by the gradual process of development from

faith to love. On faith one associates with bona fide devotees, and by such

association one can become engaged in bona fide devotional service, which

includes proper initiation and the execution of the primary devotional

duties prescribed in the revealed scriptures. This is clearly indicated

herein by the word sruteksita. The sruteksita path is to hear from bona

fide devotees who are conversant with Vedic wisdom, free from mundane

sentiment. By this bona fide hearing process, the neophyte devotee becomes

cleansed of all material rubbish, and thus he becomes attached to one of

the many transcendental forms of the Lord, as described in the Vedas.

This attachment of the devotee to a particular form of the Lord is due to

natural inclination. Each and every living entity is originally attached

to a particular type of transcendental service because he is eternally the

servitor of the Lord. Lord Caitanya says that the living entity is

eternally a servitor of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Sri Krsna.

Therefore, every living entity has a particular type of service

relationship with the Lord, eternally. This particular attachment is

invoked by practice of regulative devotional service to the Lord, and thus

the devotee becomes attached to the eternal form of the Lord, exactly like

one who is already eternally attached. This attachment for a particular

form of the Lord is called svarupa-siddhi. The Lord sits on the lotus heart

of the devotee in the eternal form the pure devotee desires, and thus the

Lord does not part from the devotee, as confirmed in the previous verse.

The Lord, however, does not disclose Himself to a casual or unauthentic

worshiper to be exploited. This is confirmed in Bhagavad-gita (7.25):

naham prakasa sarvasya yoga-maya-samavrtah. Rather, by yoga-maya, the Lord

remains concealed to the nondevotees or casual devotees who are serving their

sense gratification. The Lord is never visible to the pseudodevotees who

worship the demigods in charge of universal affairs. The conclusion is

that the Lord cannot become the order supplier of a pseudodevotee, but He

is always prepared to respond to the desires of a pure, unconditional

devotee, who is free from all tinges of material infection."