VISHNU vs KRISHNA

[mahakala]

 

He wouldn't that would be offensive. However, he claims he is the source of the source (MahaVishnu).

 

BG Chapter 10 Verse 8

"I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who know this perfectly engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts."

 

BG Chapter 10 Verse 8

"I am the original generating cause of all causes, everything emanates from Me; comprehending this the spiritually intelligent endowed with devotional sentiments become devoted unto Me."

 

AumShanti

 

There is nothing explicit in these vereses to indicate Krsna is the source of Vishnu.

 

If you imply that the verses you quoted "everything emanates from Me " etc includes the creation of Vishnu by Krsna, then are you suggesting that Vishnu has a begining ?

[mahakala]

 

That verse should not be taken literally. There are loads of verses in the Vedas if taken literally one would come up with ridiculous conclusions. Why did Vyasadeva use Vishnu instead of Krishna? Perhaps, for poetic reasons...Vishnu is an alternate name for Krishna. So that verse does nothing to prove that Krishna is an incarnation of Vishnu.

 

Then why take the krsna tu bhagavan svayam verse literally, perhaps, for poetic reasons, Krsna was used instead of Vishnu/Narayana as Krsna is an alternate name for Visnu et al

[mahakala]

 

So that verse does nothing to prove that Krishna is an incarnation of Vishnu.

 

AumShanti, are you in denial ? Those verese from SB clearly and explicits states that the pastimes narrated in Canto 10 and 11 is on the incarnation of Visnu.

And NOT the pastimes of Krsna in canto 10 /11 are on the incarnation of Krsna..

 

I have earlier given the Jesus and God analogy perhaps that will help you to digest the truth.

[Guest guest]

 

AumShanti, are you in denial ? Those verese from SB clearly and explicits states that the pastimes narrated in Canto 10 and 11 is on the incarnation of Visnu.

And NOT the pastimes of Krsna in canto 10 /11 are on the incarnation of Krsna..

 

I have earlier given the Jesus and God analogy perhaps that will help you to digest the truth.

 

Then the burden is on you to prove your interpretation.

There is also a verse in Bhagavatam that says jivas have been trapped in Maya for endless time. Are we take this verse literally too? NO, because jivas have a choice between maya and the spiritual worlds. Also, the Puranas are filled with admonitions such as one who does not fast on a certain holiday is certain to go to hell. Are we take those verses literally too? NO.

 

Anyway, BG 7.7 is more than clear enough:

“Mattah parataram nanyat” ("There is no truth superior to Me.")

 

What more do you need? Krishna slapping you on the face?

[Guest guest]

 

AumShanti

 

There is nothing explicit in these vereses to indicate Krsna is the source of Vishnu.

 

If you imply that the verses you quoted "everything emanates from Me " etc includes the creation of Vishnu by Krsna, then are you suggesting that Vishnu has a begining ?

 

No, MahaVishnu doesn't have a beginning. Take the essence of Krishna's words. By him saying "everything emanates from Me" means that no one is superior to him and that includes MahaVishnu.

[Guest guest]

If you disagree with me on scriptural interpretation then we can compare Vishnu to Krishna on the basis of rasa-theory. Certainly, whose pastimes are greater is the greater being? No?

 

Anyway, Caitanya is a predicated avatar in the Vedas. Whatever he says is the Absolute Truth. According to him, no one is higher than Krishna and no one is greater than him.

[Guest guest]

There is a pasttime where Krishna and Arjuna visit MahaVishnu and Krishna offers his obeisances to him. Again, this is not sufficient evidence to indicate that MahaVishnu is ontologically superior to Krishna.

[mahakala]

 

If you disagree with me on scriptural interpretation then we can compare Vishnu to Krishna on the basis of rasa-theory. Certainly, whose pastimes are greater is the greater being? No?

 

Anyway, Caitanya is a predicated avatar in the Vedas. Whatever he says is the Absolute Truth. According to him, no one is higher than Krishna and no one is greater than him.

 

Rasa theory - give me a non Gaudiya pramanam to support it - that Krsna has more qualities than Narayana !!!

[vrajavasi]

Radhe krishna,

 

The main purpose for which I study Shrimad Bhagavatham is that it would enhance my krishna bhakthi. Shrimad Bhagawathakyoyam prathyakshaha krishna eva hi..

Every discussion from Shrimad Bhagawatham I engage in is in the form sharing ideas and it can never be in the form of any debate. Because I no that I am not a vidwan and neither I recite Shrimad Bhagawatham for the purpose of improving my vidwat.

That krishna is an avatar of vishnu is a general and traditional perception and this can be supported by many scriptural quotations. If Gaudiya sampradaya teaches that krishna is the supreme and he is all pervasive - it should have been done by the sampradaya pravarathakas of this sampradaya (specially the six goswamis)- who are very learned and liberated people and whom I rever much although what is taught to me differ. As such, I can consider their interpretation to be one another interpretation from a noble soul.

The nature of every shloka and every shabdha delivered by vyasacharya is so powerful that even Sandhi vichcedas would provide different interpretations. An addition or deletion of even a single alphabet like "cha" or "thu" would give altogether modified interpretations. But this is for those who are interested in debates which per se I dont feel on a wrong side - so far as it is helpful in further study of granthas and enhancement of knowledge rather than individual clash.

Yes only from the platform of sharing my views I give below the following :

Dwithiya skanda, adyaya 5

 

"Narayana paraa veda deva naraayanangajaha"

Naarayana paraa loka Naaraayana paraa makhaha

 

Naaraayana paro yogo Naarayana param thapaha

Naaraayana param gnyanam Naarayana paraa gathihi

 

you can straight away infer the purport

 

But you go to Prathama skanda, adyaya 2

 

Vaasudeva paraa veda Vaasudeva makhaha

vaasudeva paraa yoga vaasudeva paraha kriyaha

 

Vaasudeva param gnyanam vaasudeva param thapaha

vaasudeva paro dharmo vaasudeva paraa gathihi

 

A straight interpretation - vasudevasya putraha - vaasudevaha here could mean shri krishna - and further interpretation accordingly.

 

At the end of dashama skanda, go through santhaana gopaalam where krishna goes to vaikunta alongwith arjuna paying obeisances there to shriman narayana.

 

Dashama skanda, 89 adyaya

"Vavanda Aatmanam anantham achyuto jishnuscha tath darshana jaathasaadhwasaha

Taavaaha bhuma parameshtinaam prabhuhu badhdhanjali sasmithamoorjaya gira"

 

"Pibatha Bhagawatham rasamaalayam muhuraho rasikaha bhuvi bhavukaha"

 

Although, Shrimad Bhagawatham has been taken by vidwans in vidwath sathas, basically the grantha is for rasikas who enjoy reciting, sharing and hearing verses from it

 

Radhe krishna

[Guest guest]

 

Rasa theory - give me a non Gaudiya pramanam to support it - that Krsna has more qualities than Narayana !!!

 

Sufficient evidence has been provided to conclude that Krishna is ontologically superior to Vishnu.

This verse is more than clear enough:

"Mattah parataram nanyat” ("There is no truth superior to Me.")

 

If one out of bhakti to Vishnu wishes to consider him the Supreme Truth then that is not offensive. But BG (PART OF THE VEDAS) is more than clear enough for any pure minded soul to understand.

 

"Rasa theory - give me a non Gaudiya pramanam to support it - that Krsna has more qualities than Narayana !!!"

 

Perhaps, someone else on this board can help you on this. As far as I am concerned it is obvious who is ontologically superior.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

This is dealt with in Shat Sandarbhas, but I don't have time to look it up right now. Perhaps after a couple days.

[kanishta]

of all this debate....when in reality in the spiritual realm there is no difference between the source and the avatar? (as documented in the Vedas). one may worship any form of the Supreme Lord and achieve the abode of that Lord. So, if you are a worshipper of Lord Narayan, all glories to you! Whether its Vishnu or Krishna, both are in the category of Vishnu-tattva.

 

now....as to why we cherish our beloved Shyamsundar soooooo much. While the aishwarya and magnificence and wonderfulness of Vishnu is beyond our calculation, it is also an undeniable fact that the sweetness and lusciousness of Shri Krishna's qualities and leelas are unmatched, in any other God or avatar, in any Sanatan Dharma sampradaya or any other religion. This, i firmly believe, is NOT a Gaudiya concoction.

 

Haribol!

[mahakala]

kanista

 

I feel this dicussion is going off topic - please note this thraed is on who is the avatara of whom.

 

As to your claim on Krsna's sweetness , leelas etc - to each his/her own, and you cant comment on others' devotional propensities.

[vrajavasi]

Radhe krishna,

 

yes mahakala, you are right in your perspective. Being a krishna bhaktha, I am also biased towards the subject. when i recite bhagavatha, when i get verses which straight away say Naraayana as the supreme, involuntarily my mind look at those verses which say things otherwise.

To put in nutshell, puraana pramaanam for krishna as the supreme - yes

shruthi pramaanam for krishna as supreme to vishnu - nil

its simply because whereas you find the name of vishnu in shruthi, you dont find the name of krishna.

But that need not be the basis of an obstacle for a person engaged in krishna bhakthi. Since it is clearly explained in bhagawatham that krushnasthu bhagawan swayam.

Bhagawath geetha comprising of 700 shlokas is a part of Mahabharatham comprising of 1,00,000 shlokas. Bhagawath geetha is not part of shruthi (vedas)

 

Radhe krishna

[Yegan]

 

 

 

Quote: AumShanti

 

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0"> He wouldn't that would be offensive. However, he claims he is the source of the source (MahaVishnu).

 

BG Chapter 10 Verse 8

"I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who know this perfectly engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts."

 

BG Chapter 10 Verse 8

"I am the original generating cause of all causes, everything emanates from Me; comprehending this the spiritually intelligent endowed with devotional sentiments become devoted unto Me." </td> </tr> </tbody></table>

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

AumShanti

 

There is nothing explicit in these vereses to indicate Krsna is the source of Vishnu.

 

If you imply that the verses you quoted "everything emanates from Me " etc includes the creation of Vishnu by Krsna, then are you suggesting that Vishnu has a begining ?

 

 

1. Support of Krishna as being the source of avatar

Dear Mahakala,

Since we agree that the general hindus accept BG, so lets focus on BG instead on SB.

From what you mention above;

How do you interpret "everything emanates from me" then? How is this verse not explicit to you? Please explain.

Not only that Maha Vishnu has NO begining but You, myself and all jivas have NO begining.

One more quote from BG indicating that Krishna is GOD:

“Furthermore, O Arjuna, I am the generating seed of all existences. There is no being, moving or unmoving, that can exist without me” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 10.39)

Unless one can show that Maha Vishnu is not a being then the above does not apply to HIM. If not then it a strong indication that Krishna is the source of avatar.

How do you interpret the verse below;

"There is no truth beyond Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread" (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 7.7)

To me, its clear that Krishna is the source of avatar. If you disagree, please put your arguments forward.

2. Is Krishna really the source of all avatar?

When Krishna is saying "Me" / "I",in the above verses could there be a possibility that the "Me" or "I" is actually refering to Maha Vishnu?

I personally dont think so, however it is something which is debatable.

 

[mahakala]

What ever Krsna says in the Gita cannot be taken out of context, it has to be reconciled with the upanishads and Brahma sutras. For these reason, BG was accepted as authoritative by Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhva acharyas.

 

I have shown in Bhagavatam Cantos 10 and 11, how Krsna is described to be the incarnation of Vishnu. So everything that Krsna says in the Gita has to be seen in that light as an avatara and so there is no contradiction in his statement in BG Chpt 7 text 7 Chapter 10 text 8 etc

 

There is nothing superior to Me, the ME is Vishnu/Narayana unless you prove that Vishnu and his incarnation Krsna are 2 different entities.

 

 

 

1. Support of Krishna as being the source of avatar

 

From what you mention above;

How do you interpret "everything emanates from me" then? How is this verse not explicit to you? Please explain.

 

Not only that Maha Vishnu has NO begining but You, myself and all jivas have NO begining.

 

 

You said Maha Vishnu etc have "No begining"

 

then Please reconcile this statement in the Moksa-dharma where Krsna says,

 

prajāpatiḿ ca rudraḿ cāpy

aham eva sṛjāmi vai

tau hi māḿ na vijānīto

mama māyā-vimohitau

 

"The patriarchs, Śiva and others are created by Me, though they do not know that they are created by Me because they are deluded by My illusory energy."

 

If Shiva was created by Krsna, show me evidence where Krsna claims to have created Vishnu / Narayana ?

 

If you claim Krsna is different from Vishnu / Narayan, please support your claim with a verse showing the difference and not ambigious texts with ME ( No truth beyond Me. Everything rests upon Me, etc).

 

Nārāyaṇa Upaniṣad

 

4) Then it is said, eko vai nārāyaṇa āsīn na brahmā na īśāno nāpo nāgni-samau neme dyāv-āpṛthivī na nakṣatrāṇi na sūryaḥ:

 

In the beginning of the creation there was only the Supreme Personality Nārāyaṇa.

 

 

2. Is Krishna really the source of all avatar?

When Krishna is saying "Me" / "I",in the above verses could there be a possibility that the "Me" or "I" is actually refering to Maha Vishnu?

 

I personally dont think so, however it is something which is debatable.

 

So you claiming Krsna is different from Maha Vishnu, according to Madhva its a serious offence to see a bedha in the 2, if you belong to the Madhava- gaudiya lineage

 

source : http://vedabase.net/bg/10/8/en

[Yegan]

 

What ever Krsna says in the Gita cannot be taken out of context, it has to be reconciled with the upanishads and Brahma sutras. For these reason, BG was accepted as authoritative by Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhva acharyas.

Dear Mahakala,

Show me evidence that Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhva acharyas, accepted BG as authoritative because it has to reconciled with upanishads and Brahma sutras.

In case you cannot, then the following verses below to me clearly shows that Krishna is the source of avatar and are not taken out of context.

“Furthermore, O Arjuna, I am the generating seed of all existences. There is no being, moving or unmoving, that can exist without me” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 10.39)

"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"

(Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 10.8)

"There is no truth beyond Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread"

(Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 7.7)

 

I have shown in Bhagavatam Cantos 10 and 11, how Krsna is described to be the incarnation of Vishnu. So everything that Krsna says in the Gita has to be seen in that light as an avatara and so there is no contradiction in his statement in BG Chpt 7 text 7 Chapter 10 text 8 etc

If you accept the SM cantos 10 and 11, then you should also accept the verse below:

ete cāḿśa-kalāḥ puḿsaḥ

kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam

indrāri-vyākulaḿ lokaḿ

mṛḍayanti yuge yuge

(SM 1.3.28)

 

 

"All of the above-mentioned incarnations are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa 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."

This perfectly match with statement in BG Chpt 7 text 7 Chapter 10 text 8 .

 

 

 

There is nothing superior to Me, the ME is Vishnu/Narayana unless you prove that Vishnu and his incarnation Krsna are 2 different entities.

 

How have you arrived to the conclusion that the ME is Vishnu/Narayan? The "ME" most probably means krishna since it is Krishna who is talking.

If Visnu and Krishna are the same entity then "ME" refers to both krishna and Vishnu. Then the question of who is the avatar of whom does not arise.

 

 

You said Maha Vishnu etc have "No begining"

 

then Please reconcile this statement in the Moksa-dharma where Krsna says,

 

prajāpatiḿ ca rudraḿ cāpy

aham eva sṛjāmi vai

tau hi māḿ na vijānīto

mama māyā-vimohitau

 

"The patriarchs, Śiva and others are created by Me, though they do not know that they are created by Me because they are deluded by My illusory energy."

"Siva and others created by Me" - Creation in the sense that the soul takes a material body/covering. Since the outer covering is of material in nature,thats why there is illusory energy. That is how I understand it.

As such, there is NO such thing as begining.

na tv evaham jatu nasam

na tvam neme janadhipah

na caiva na bhavisyamah

sarve vayam atah param (BG 2.12)

"In fact there was never a time when I was not, or you or these kings were not, nor is it a fact that hereafter we shall cease to be."

na jayate mriyate va kadacin

nayam bhutva bhavita va na bhuyah

ajo nityah sasvato 'yam purano

na hanyate hanyamane sarire( BG 2.20)

"For the soul there is never birth nor death. Nor, having once been, does he ever cease to be. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing, undying and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain."

If Shiva was created by Krsna, show me evidence where Krsna claims to have created Vishnu / Narayana ?

 

 

Depends on the interpretation of "others" and "created".

 

If you claim Krsna is different from Vishnu / Narayan, please support your claim with a verse showing the difference and not ambigious texts with ME ( No truth beyond Me. Everything rests upon Me, etc).

 

First off, I never claimed that krsna is different from Vishnu nor have I claimed they are the same.

 

 

Nārāyaṇa Upaniṣad

 

4) Then it is said, eko vai nārāyaṇa āsīn na brahmā na īśāno nāpo nāgni-samau neme dyāv-āpṛthivī na nakṣatrāṇi na sūryaḥ:

 

In the beginning of the creation there was only the Supreme Personality Nārāyaṇa.

In the begining of material world yes, there was only the Supreme Personality Narayana. So?

 

 

So you claiming Krsna is different from Maha Vishnu, according to Madhva its a serious offence to see a bedha in the 2, if you belong to the Madhava- gaudiya lineage

 

source : http://vedabase.net/bg/10/8/en

Again Im not claiming anything. I dont have any authority or vedic knowledge to do so. If you think I made such claim please show me where.

[mahakala]

Getting tough and demanding huh

 

Show me evidence that Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhva acharyas, accepted BG as authoritative because it has to reconciled with upanishads and Brahma sutras.

I am stating the obvious, all three acharyas accepted the prasthana trayam as their authority. Its pseudo-vedantists, who have problems with valid pramanas.

 

 

In case you cannot, then the following verses below to me clearly shows that Krishna is the source of avatar and are not taken out of context.

“Furthermore, O Arjuna, I am the generating seed of all existences. There is no being, moving or unmoving, that can exist without me” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 10.39)

 

 

If you accept the SM cantos 10 and 11, then you should also accept the verse below:

ete cāḿśa-kalāḥ puḿsaḥ

kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam

indrāri-vyākulaḿ lokaḿ

mṛḍayanti yuge yuge

(SM 1.3.28)

 

You crack me up, My refernence to SB , is to show that one SB verse can't taken out off context to the rest. Also refer to my post # 8 in this thread

 

 

How have you arrived to the conclusion that the ME is Vishnu/Narayan? The "ME" most probably means krishna since it is Krishna who is talking.

If Visnu and Krishna are the same entity then "ME" refers to both krishna and Vishnu. Then the question of who is the avatar of whom does not arise.

 

You are going in circles, read Srimad Bhagavatm Canto 10 to 11 for the answer.

 

Canto 10 http://vedabase.net/sb/10/1/en

 

Canto 11 http://vedabase.net/sb/11/31/en

 

 

Siva and others created by Me" - Creation in the sense that the soul takes a material body/covering. Since the outer covering is of material in nature,thats why there is illusory energy. That is how I understand it.

 

This is what, Srila Prabhupad had to say on Shiva.

 

"In the beginning of the creation there was only the Supreme Personality Nārāyaṇa. There was no Brahmā, no Śiva, no water, no fire, no moon, no stars in the sky, no sun." (Mahā Upaniṣad 1) In the Mahā Upaniṣad it is also said that Lord Śiva was born from the forehead of the Supreme Lord. Thus the Vedas say that it is the Supreme Lord, the creator of Brahmā and Śiva, who is to be worshiped.

 

 

First off, I never claimed that krsna is different from Vishnu nor have I claimed they are the same.

 

 

You said - I never claimed that krsna is different from vishnu

 

then you say - nor have I claimed they are the same

 

If they are not the same then are they are different ?

Please reconcile the contradicton.

 

 

In the begining of material world yes, there was only the Supreme Personality Narayana. So?

 

Really !! check this out to find out more on Narayana

 

Srimad Bhagavatam 12.12.3

 

atra sańkīrtitaḥ sākṣāt

sarva-pāpa-haro hariḥ

nārāyaṇo hṛṣīkeśo

bhagavān sātvatām patiḥ

 

TRANSLATION

 

This literature fully glorifies the Supreme Personality of Godhead Hari, who removes all His devotees' sinful reactions. The Lord is glorified as Nārāyaṇa, Hṛṣīkeśa and the Lord of the Sātvatas.

 

source : http://vedabase.net/sb/12/12/3/en

 

Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 11:31:27

 

ya etad deva-devasya

viṣṇoḥ karmāṇi janma ca

kīrtayec chraddhayā martyaḥ

sarva-pāpaiḥ pramucyate

 

TRANSLATION

 

A person who with faith engages in chanting the glories of these various pastimes and incarnations of Viṣṇu, the Lord of Lords, will gain liberation from all sins.

 

http://vedabase.net/sb/11/31/27/en

 

Quote:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0>Originally Posted by mahakala

So you claiming Krsna is different from Maha Vishnu, according to Madhva its a serious offence to see a bedha in the 2, if you belong to the Madhava- gaudiya lineage

source : http://vedabase.net/bg/10/8/en

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

 

 

Refer to your earlier comment

 

 

One more quote from BG indicating that Krishna is GOD:

“Furthermore, O Arjuna, I am the generating seed of all existences. There is no being, moving or unmoving, that can exist without me” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 10.39)

 

Unless one can show that Maha Vishnu is not a being then the above does not apply to HIM. If not then it a strong indication that Krishna is the source of avatar.

 

 

You have explicitly said I (Krsna) does not apply to HIM - (Maha Vishnu). This implies I is not the same (different) as (from) HIM.

[Guest guest]

Haribol....

 

let us clear up a few things

 

firstly, as stated before, there is NOOOO difference between the source and the avatar - there cannot be, and if there is, it would be against Sanatan Dharma. The Vedas state that that which arises from Brahman IS Brahman, without any diminution in power/qualities/etc.

 

secondly, avatars arent "created" as we think of in the material sense. The Vedanta Sutras state that any philosophy in which an avatar is "created" from the source, has to be false. The reason is that a soul is never "created". Hence, we in the Gaudiya line use the term "expansion", and some use the term "manifestation", "descension", etc.

 

in my humble opinion, i still fail to see the value of this debate. whoever you believe in, whether it is Krishna or Vishnu, believe in with firm faith. It is a serious offense to criticise or to try to put down any divinity; if you are a Krishna bhakt, it is considered nama-aparadha (an extremely serious offense) to criticize any divinity. Likewise, imho, the very title of this thread "Vishnu VS Krishna" is inappropriate. There is NO "VERSUS". If you believe Vishnu to be the source, then all glories to you, but the minute you put that "vs" you are criticizing your own God.

 

if you are a Vishnu devotee, then all glories to you and your faith All glories to all Vaishnavas!

 

Haribol.

[Yegan]

Dear Mahakala,

 

 

Getting tough and demanding huh

 

I am stating the obvious, all three acharyas accepted the prasthana trayam as their authority. Its pseudo-vedantists, who have problems with valid pramanas.

Good that you have had a second thought and removed/edited "shows ur ignorance" in your original post.

There is no question of getting tough or demanding, its sharing and discussing information/knowledge. So please keep ur comment for urself.

Stating the obvious- What is obvious to you might not be obvious to others.

And to you, the BG is not considered as prasthana trayam?

 

 

You crack me up, please scroll and read my post # 8 under this thread

Good to know that I can crack you.

As to your post 8, what r u trying to convey?

Are you trying to say that you do not accept the SB 1.3.28 as authority? Please try to be specific for me to comprehend you better.

As to your request in post 8, asking to quote the appropriate verse from BG claiming Krishna as supreme from a non Gaudiya/ Valalbha source, I think this has already been done.

“Furthermore, O Arjuna, I am the generating seed of all existences. There is no being, moving or unmoving, that can exist without me” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 10.39)

"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"

(Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 10.8)

"There is no truth beyond Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread"

(Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 7.7)

To me, Bhagavad Gita is Bhagavad Gita, there is no Gaudiya or Non Gaudiya Bhagavad Gita. The verses do not change whether one is in the Gaudiya line or not.

How have you arrived to the conclusion that the ME is Vishnu/Narayan? The "ME" most probably means krishna since it is Krishna who is talking.

If Visnu and Krishna are the same entity then "ME" refers to both krishna and Vishnu. Then the question of who is the avatar of whom does not arise.

 

 

You are going in circles,

read Srimad Bhagavatm Canto 10 to 11 for the answer.

 

You have not answered my question, How did you arrive to the conclusion that "ME" is Vishnu/Narayan?

I can say the same thing to you: You are going in circles read,

SB 1.3.28

BG 10.39, 10.8, 7.7

 

 

This is what, Srila Prabhupad had to say on Shiva.

 

"In the beginning of the creation there was only the Supreme Personality Nārāyaṇa. There was no Brahmā, no Śiva, no water, no fire, no moon, no stars in the sky, no sun." (Mahā Upaniṣad 1) In the Mahā Upaniṣad it is also said that Lord Śiva was born from the forehead of the Supreme Lord. Thus the Vedas say that it is the Supreme Lord, the creator of Brahmā and Śiva, who is to be worshiped.

Yes, so?

 

 

 

First off, I never claimed that krsna is different from Vishnu nor have I claimed they are the same.

 

 

You said - I never claimed that krsna is different from vishnu

then you say - nor have I claimed they are the same

 

If they are not the same then are they are different ?

Please reconcile the contradicton.

 

No offence, but to me there is a difference between claiming something and have an opinion on something.

There is no contradiction on what I said. I have NOT said/claimed that Vishnu is same as krishna nor that he is different from Krishna. Where is the contradiction?

MY OPINION which is NOT a claim, can either be that both(Maha Vishnu and Krishna) are same OR different.

I have already expressed my opinion on this isuue in post 40, which again is NOT a claim.

For argument sake, they can be same and yet different. This is something which we cannot comprehend. I did once heard a verse in this line but I cannot remember it properly right now.

 

Really !! check this out to find out more on Narayana

Srimad Bhagavatam 12.12.3

atra sańkīrtitaḥ sākṣāt

sarva-pāpa-haro hariḥ

nārāyaṇo hṛṣīkeśo

bhagavān sātvatām patiḥ

TRANSLATION

This literature fully glorifies the Supreme Personality of Godhead Hari, who removes all His devotees' sinful reactions. The Lord is glorified as Nārāyaṇa, Hṛṣīkeśa and the Lord of the Sātvatas.

 

source : http://vedabase.net/sb/12/12/3/en

 

Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 11:31:27

 

ya etad deva-devasya

viṣṇoḥ karmāṇi janma ca

kīrtayec chraddhayā martyaḥ

sarva-pāpaiḥ pramucyate

 

TRANSLATION

 

A person who with faith engages in chanting the glories of these various pastimes and incarnations of Viṣṇu, the Lord of Lords, will gain liberation from all sins.

Once again what are you trying to convey?

You have explicitly said I (Krsna) does not apply to HIM - (Maha Vishnu). This implies I is not the same (different) as (from) HIM.

From that verse I have said that there is a strong INDICATION that krishna is the source of avatar.

This is NOT a claim but an OPINION (The word INDICATION, shows clearly that its an opinion not a claim)

Even if my OPINION is that Krishna is the source of all avatar, I have not made any claim that Krishna and maha Vishnu are different nor are they same.

I believe (which is not a claim) that krishna is the source of all avatar, because I have faith in what gurus in Gaudiya Vaishnava line says. And I have quoted some verses to express this belief and faith in a "logical" manner.

You have come forward with very nice and "logical" verses as well which support your arguments that Maha Vishnu is the source of all avatars.

I believe that krishna and maha vishnu have lots of similarities with each other.

I am right now feeling that Im very wrong to have engaged in this particular discusiion. I will finish off with what Guest has beautifully said.

in my humble opinion, i still fail to see the value of this debate. whoever you believe in, whether it is Krishna or Vishnu, believe in with firm faith. It is a serious offense to criticise or to try to put down any divinity; if you are a Krishna bhakt, it is considered nama-aparadha (an extremely serious offense) to criticize any divinity. Likewise, imho, the very title of this thread "Vishnu VS Krishna" is inappropriate. There is NO "VERSUS". If you believe Vishnu to be the source, then all glories to you, but the minute you put that "vs" you are criticizing your own God.

 

if you are a Vishnu devotee, then all glories to you and your faith All glories to all Vaishnavas!

 

Mahakala, please accept my sincere apologies if I have offended you.

I no longer want to discuss this particular issue as long as there is the potential of offending each other.

All glories to all Vaishnavas!

 

[JLdd]

Hare Krsna,

 

Well, there are in fact many quotes that can be made either way. This is a Krsna forum though, so I am making the assumption that especially the ISKCON devotees following Srila Prabhupada in believing that Krsna is the source of everything. So for us, the mind will not be changed by presenting us with so many other quotes. Most of us have converted TO Krsna Consciousness and were not raised that way. Krsna IS the K in ISKCON. We are not in the ISVisnuCON. To us Krsna is the first and is without an equal. I just listened to SP saying that Krsna is the Supreme being. "Isvara Parmama Krsna, sat cit ananda vigraha..." He is full of all six opulences. He is the SUPREME being, no one is equal to Him. There is NO RIVAL. No one is equal to or greater than Him. Since SP is my guru, that settles the question in my mind. Everything else is academics.

 

Is that a bit dogmatic? Absolutely, SP also says that anyone who disagrees with his guru is a fool.

YS

JayaLalita dd