Diffeerence in potency / rasa

October 15, 2004

>And, yes, I know the statement about the thousand names of Vishnu equal to

>three names of Rama equal to one name of Krishna.

>The question is "equal in what way"? If one distinguishes between names of

>God, that is an offense. Not different potency; the difference is in rasa.

Dear urmila Mataji,

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

I kindly request your grace to please give some reference, I mean pramana to

your above statement "not different potency; the difference is in rasa"

May be with your pramana I may be able to understand. (I checked out nama

cintamanih krishnas caitanya rasa vigraha... but still I did not get a

clarification)

As I clearly understand from below statement,Srla Prabhupada does not use

the word 'rasa'. And even if the unit of measurement is called say 'rasa'

then it is still numerical, krishna is 3 times rasa of Rama. If we take

rasa to mean rasa, then how to understand the rasa of Krishna is 3 times to

that of Rama. We still end up with numbers. Is it not?

Another, Krishna has got many names: nämnäm akäri bahudhä nija-sarva-saktis.

So of all the names, two names are very important: Räma and Kåñëa. Therefore

in the Hare Kåñëa mantra, the Räma and Kåñëa are there, and Kåñëa's potency,

Hare. So in the çästra it is said that one thousand names of Viñëu... There

is Viñëu's one thousand names, viñëu-sahasra-näma. If one chants Viñëu's

names-there are thousands-that is equal to one name Räma. And three times

chanting the name of Räma is equal to one "Kåñëa." Therefore we should take

advantage to chant Hare Kåñëa. Although there are many names of Kåñëa, Kåñëa

is the chief name, mukha, and Lord Caitanya chanted Hare Kåñëa, Hare Kåñëa,

Kåñëa Kåñëa, Hare Hare/ Hare Räma, Hare Räma, Räma Räma, Hare Hare. So we

should follow Lord Caitanya's footsteps. Although Kåñëa has got many names,

we should, by following the footsteps of Lord Caitanya Mahäprabhu, we should

take advantage of chanting this Hare Kåñëa mantra. Go on.----------Srila

Prabhupada Conversation.

We may take purnam adaah purnam idam ... to explain "if one distinguishes

between names of God that is an offence". At the same time simultaneously

we cannot neglect the statement "Krishnastu Bhagavan Svayam". Although

there are many candles Krishna is the original candle. And also Lord

Krishna has got 64 qualities compared to Lord Narayana's 60 qualities. Even

though God is one at the same time He has many forms, and They are all God

still at the same time They are simultaneously different also, like 60, 64

qualities and 3 times etc, Is it not? I understand giving our own mundane

interpreting is an offence but, but if Sastra explains to us, we may accept

those numbers with out interpreting, and that is not an offence?

Sorry if I have missed something from your previous texts which may answer

my above query, but please kindly do answer.

Thank you for your time in your busy schedules.

Hare Krishna,

Your humble servant,

Bhadra Govinda Dasa.

October 15, 2004

The text to which I'm responding is at the bottom of the message.

Please accept my obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!

You have asked for pramana. Of course, we have three pramanas that work in

harmony and under the primary pramana of sabda....

In trying to understand the statement that a thousand names of Visnu are

equal to three names of Rama which are equal to one name of Krisna, I

discovered that the statement is quoted without there ever being an

explanation of "equal in

what way?"

Is it potency? spiritual power? the extent to which the Lord is present in

those names? No, clearly not.

Here are some interesting quotes in this regard:

"Or any name glorifying the name of the Lord. That is kirtana. But this Hare

Krsna mantra is especially recommended in this age, and Lord Caitanya

personally chanted, so we should follow. Although every name of Krsna is as

potent as the name Krsna... Visnu name, or there are thousands and thousands

of names... Namnam akari bahudha. Bahudha means there is no counting.

Innumerable names. And each name has the same potency like Krsna"

Initiation Lecture -- Boston, December 26, 1969

"Similarly, there is no difference between the immediate expansion of the

Lord and His secondary expansion. The Lord's names are considered in exactly

the same way; since the Lord is absolute, His name, His form, His pastimes,

His paraphernalia and His quality all have the same potency."

SB 3.21.32purport

"You should immediately see that the sankirtana, Hare Krsna, is Krsna and

Radha. Hara and Krsna. Radha-Krsna or Sita-Rama or Laksmi-Narayana. Any form

of the Lord Visnu."

lecture, Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.7.19 -- Vrndavana, September 16, 1976

"So either you chant Visnu name or Lord Rama name or Lord Krsna's name,

there is no difference"

lecture Srimad-Bhagavatam 3.26.35-36 -- Bombay, January 12, 1975

"The potency of the Supreme Personality of Godhead is so great that if

another Godhead is expanded, both of them are of the same potency."

lecture Sri Brahma-samhita, Verse 33 -- New York, July 27, 1971

So, what to do? How to reconcile the statements about seeming difference

with equality, especially when the second offense can be understood as

making an differentiation between names of God? And, it is *not* a fact that

oneness and difference applies here...the Lord and His expansions, His

names, are only non-different.

In considering how to come to the correct understanding that harmonizes all

statements, the following is helpful:

"If one understands this chapter through the process of philosophical

speculation, he will come to an understanding of devotional service." Bg

14.1 purport

"As for the difference between mental speculation and philosophical

speculation, we take it that everything is known by the psychological action

of the mind, so that philosophical speculation is the same as mental

speculation if it is merely the random or haphazard activity of the brain to

understand everything and making theories, "if's" and "maybe's." But if

philosophical speculation is directed by Sastra and Guru, and if the goal of

such philosophical attempts is to achieve Visnu, then that philosophical

speculation is not mental speculation. It is just like this: Krishna syas in

Bhagavad-gita that "I am the taste of water." Philosophical speculation in

the accepted sense then means to try to understand, under the direction of

Sastra and Guru, just how Krishna is the taste of water. The points of

Bhagavad-gita, though they are simple and complete, can be understood from

unlimited angles of vision. So our philosophy is not dry, like mental

speculation. The proper function of the brain or psychological activity is

to understand everything through Krishna's perspective or point-of-view, and

so there is no limit to that understanding because Krishna is unlimited, and

even though it can be said that the devotee who knows Krishna, he knows

everything (15th Chapter), still, the philosophical process never stops and

the devotee continues to increase his knowledge even though he knows

everything. Try to understand this point, it is a very good question."

Letter to: Chaturbhus -- Bombay 21 January, 1972

Taking into consideration all the above, and many similar quotes, I

consulted with leading devotees and devotee scholars about what the

difference could be....the conclusion of some was simply to say they didn't

know or understand, but others said that the difference is in attainment and

understanding of rasa. This conclusion is supported in the following

exchange:

Tamala Krsna: Prabhupada, in the Caitanya-caritamrta, it's very clear that

if one does not accept Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu, then actually he cannot

worship Krsna properly.

Prabhupada: That's a fact.

Tamala Krsna: Now just to carry on with Acyutananda Maharaja's point, it

would seem then that the Ramanujis and the Madhvites, they don't accept

Caitanya Mahaprabhu as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. So how can they

possibly...

Prabhupada: Therefore they cannot understand the higher rasas.

Tamala Krsna: Oh.

Prabhupada: Unnata-ujjvala-rasam, they cannot understand.

Tamala Krsna: No, they can understand santa-rasa.

Prabhupada: Yes.

Tamala Krsna: Dasya-rasa.

Prabhupada: That's all.

Tamala Krsna: But not sakhya.

Prabhupada: Not more than that. They cannot meditate. There is no paternal

rasa or madhurya-rasa in their community.

Conversation with Devotees -- March 31, 1975, Mayapur

If you feel that my conclusion is in error, I'd be more than happy to

discuss other possible understandings--and there may be more than one

"correct" understanding--that harmonizes all the seemingly opposing points.

Your servant, Urmila devi dasi

-

"Bhadra Govinda (das) JPS (Singapore - SG)"

<Bhadra.Govinda.JPS (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

"Bhadra Govinda Dasa" <raganuga (AT) cyberway (DOT) com.sg>; "Gregory Jay"

Cc: "(Arcana) Deity Worship" <Deity.Worship (AT) pamho (DOT) net>; "India (Continental

Committee) Open (Forum)" <India.Open (AT) pamho (DOT) net>; "Tattvavit (das) ACBSP

(BBT)" <Tattvavit.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

Friday, October 15, 2004 11:14 AM

Diffeerence in potency / rasa

> >And, yes, I know the statement about the thousand names of Vishnu equal

> >to

>>three names of Rama equal to one name of Krishna.

>

>>The question is "equal in what way"? If one distinguishes between names of

>>God, that is an offense. Not different potency; the difference is in rasa.

>

> Dear urmila Mataji,

>

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

>

> I kindly request your grace to please give some reference, I mean pramana

> to

> your above statement "not different potency; the difference is in rasa"

>

> May be with your pramana I may be able to understand. (I checked out

> nama

> cintamanih krishnas caitanya rasa vigraha... but still I did not get a

> clarification)

>

> As I clearly understand from below statement,Srla Prabhupada does not use

> the word 'rasa'. And even if the unit of measurement is called say 'rasa'

> then it is still numerical, krishna is 3 times rasa of Rama. If we take

> rasa to mean rasa, then how to understand the rasa of Krishna is 3 times

> to

> that of Rama. We still end up with numbers. Is it not?

>

> Another, Krishna has got many names: nämnäm akäri bahudhä

> nija-sarva-saktis.

> So of all the names, two names are very important: Räma and Kåñëa.

> Therefore

> in the Hare Kåñëa mantra, the Räma and Kåñëa are there, and Kåñëa's

> potency,

> Hare. So in the çästra it is said that one thousand names of Viñëu...

> There

> is Viñëu's one thousand names, viñëu-sahasra-näma. If one chants Viñëu's

> names-there are thousands-that is equal to one name Räma. And three times

> chanting the name of Räma is equal to one "Kåñëa." Therefore we should

> take

> advantage to chant Hare Kåñëa. Although there are many names of Kåñëa,

> Kåñëa

> is the chief name, mukha, and Lord Caitanya chanted Hare Kåñëa, Hare

> Kåñëa,

> Kåñëa Kåñëa, Hare Hare/ Hare Räma, Hare Räma, Räma Räma, Hare Hare. So we

> should follow Lord Caitanya's footsteps. Although Kåñëa has got many

> names,

> we should, by following the footsteps of Lord Caitanya Mahäprabhu, we

> should

> take advantage of chanting this Hare Kåñëa mantra. Go on.----------Srila

> Prabhupada Conversation.

>

> We may take purnam adaah purnam idam ... to explain "if one distinguishes

> between names of God that is an offence". At the same time simultaneously

> we cannot neglect the statement "Krishnastu Bhagavan Svayam". Although

> there are many candles Krishna is the original candle. And also Lord

> Krishna has got 64 qualities compared to Lord Narayana's 60 qualities.

> Even

> though God is one at the same time He has many forms, and They are all God

> still at the same time They are simultaneously different also, like 60, 64

> qualities and 3 times etc, Is it not? I understand giving our own

> mundane

> interpreting is an offence but, but if Sastra explains to us, we may

> accept

> those numbers with out interpreting, and that is not an offence?

>

> Sorry if I have missed something from your previous texts which may

> answer

> my above query, but please kindly do answer.

>

> Thank you for your time in your busy schedules.

>

> Hare Krishna,

>

> Your humble servant,

> Bhadra Govinda Dasa.

>

October 16, 2004

Dear Bhadra Govinda Prabhu,

Please accept my obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!

You wrote:

> Based on the available evidence so far if we do not have an explanation

> of

> "equal in what way?" then we must just repeat sastra as it is...

> So if Sastra says Krishna is 3 times Rama, Srila Prabhupada says Krishna

> is

> 3 times Rama, and if I say Krishna is 3 times Rama, what is wrong? Now I

> may not understand, but after some time I will understand how Krishna is

> 3

> times Rama.

Prabhu, this is the Deity worship conference, not a philosophical

exchange conference. We chant mantras as part of Deity worship, but we are

going off track here, it seems. So I think this will be my last posting on

the subject. :-) The point

I originally wanted to make is that to distinguish between names of God is

an offense to the name, as Prabhupada explains it in the second canto. If

you choose--as you do here--to simply say that you will accept a statement

without understanding, and that the understanding will come to you later,

and I say that I have some understanding after much research and consulting

with Vaisnavas, well, that's ok. Both points of view can co-exist, correct?

You do not have to accept my understanding; however, you have not provided a

different one, other than to say it is inscrutable.

My understanding is based on Prabhupada's statements that all names of God

have equal potency but that we chant Hare Krsna (indicating Radha and Krsna)

in order to fulfill the order of Lord Caitanya. And, in many places in

addition to that conversation I quoted in another text, Prabhupada indicates

that the special mercy

of Lord Caitanya is the understanding of Vrindavana and those three of the

five primary rasas.

You wrote:

> Similarly different expansions and incarnations are one with Krihsna but

> They are also different in so many ways. They are different in form also.

> For example Narasimha is half lion half man, Vamana is dwarf, Matsya is

> in

> fish form etc,. They are all one, but different also. Their forms are

> different for example. Their pastimes are different.

By the way, if you can find a reference for acintya bedabeda tattva applying

to Krishna and His plenary expansions (plenary means full, complete), that

would be most interesting. Krishna and His plenary expansions are

non-different, although They do display Their own moods, pastimes, and so

forth, and the Visnu expansions never manifest four qualities that Krishna

does, just like a person at work will never, ever, manifest qualities that

he or she shows at home to the spouse, parents, and so forth. But Krishna is

always the same person. We worship one God, not many. Those who are devotees

of Krishna see their Lord when He expands, incarnates, etc. They see their

Lord, albeit showing a particular mood, etc. (Prahlad is described in the

fifth canto as a devotee of Krsna, for example) *All* moods, etc. are in

Krishna, and when He expands and incarnates in various ways, He shows some

of those moods; but He is never a different person. However, we jivas and

the Lord *are* different individuals, although at the same time, being part

of Krishna, we are the same as Him.

If one calls on the name of Visnu, understanding it as a name of Visnu and

not of Krishna (say Keshava which can indicate either, or even "natha") then

how can one express the rasas of intimate friendship, parental love, and

conjugal love when addressing the Lord when He's in that mood? One cannot,

anymore than the president's wife can express her conjugal relationship with

her husband at a formal state dinner when she calls him "Mr. President." But

if one calls on a name of Krishna understanding it to be the original form,

the fountainhead, the Lord in His realm of Vrindavana, then all

relationships are possible.

SB 3.9.11

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.

As far as explaining the specific numbers used for comparison of names, I

cannot say. I suppose that understanding will come to me later :-) But even

if one chants names of Visnu three thousand times, if one has the mentality

of worshipping Visnu and not Krishna, then one will achieve Visnu, not

Krsna.

Here's something else "fun" for those of you who are interested :-) in

understanding the mahamantra (if you only read the first ones, there will be

a very incomplete idea....)

CC Antya 3.257:

"The holy name of Lord Rama certainly gives liberation, but the holy name of

Krsna transports one to the other side of the ocean of nescience and at last

gives one ecstatic love of Krsna.

PURPORT

In an indirect way, this verse explains the chanting of the Hare Krsna

maha-mantra. The Hare Krsna maha-mantra -- Hare Krsna, Hare Krsna, Krsna

Krsna, Hare Hare/ Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare -- includes

both the holy name of Lord Krsna and the name of Lord Rama. Lord Rama gives

one the opportunity to be liberated, but simply by liberation one does not

get actual spiritual benefit. Sometimes if one is liberated from the

material world but has no shelter at the lotus feet of Krsna, one falls down

to the material world again. Liberation is like a state of convalescence, in

which one is free from a fever but is still not healthy. Even in the stage

of convalescence, if one is not very careful, one may have a relapse.

Similarly, liberation does not offer as much security as the shelter of the

lotus feet of Krsna. It is stated in the sastra:

ye 'nye 'ravindaksa vimukta-maninas

tvayy asta-bhavad avisuddha-buddhayah

aruhya krcchrena param padam tatah

patanty adho 'nadrta-yusmad-anghrayah

"O Lord, the intelligence of those who think themselves liberated but who

have no devotion is impure. Even though they rise to the highest point of

liberation by dint of severe penances and austerities, they are sure to fall

down again into material existence, for they do not take shelter at Your

lotus feet." (Srimad-Bhagavatam 10.2.32) Yusmad-anghrayah refers to the

lotus feet of Krsna. If one does not take shelter of Krsna's lotus feet, he

falls down (patanty adhah), even from liberation. The Hare Krsna

maha-mantra, however, gives liberation and at the same time offers shelter

at the lotus feet of Krsna. If one takes shelter at the lotus feet of Krsna

after liberation, he develops his dormant ecstatic love for Krsna. That is

the highest perfection of life.

CC Adi 5.132:

In this connection we may mention an incident that took place between two of

our sannyasis while we were preaching the Hare Krsna maha-mantra in

Hyderabad. One of them stated that "Hare Rama" refers to Sri Balarama, and

the other protested that "Hare Rama" means Lord Rama. Ultimately the

controversy came to me, and I gave the decision that if someone says that

the "Rama" in "Hare Rama" is Lord Ramacandra and someone else says that the

"Rama" in "Hare Rama" is Sri Balarama, both are correct because there is no

difference between Sri Balarama and Lord Rama. Here in Sri

Caitanya-caritamrta we find that Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami has stated the

same conclusion:

yei yei rupe jane, sei taha kahe

sakala sambhave krsne, kichu mithya nahe

If someone calls Lord Ramacandra by the vibration Hare Rama, understanding

it to mean "O Lord Ramacandra!" he is quite right. Similarly, if one says

that Hare Rama means "O Sri Balarama!" he is also right. Those who are aware

of the visnu-tattva do not fight over all these details.

SB 7.15.45purport

One cannot attain the goal of life without the mercy of Balarama. Sri

Narottama dasa Thakura therefore says, nitaiyera karuna habe, vraje

radha-krsna pabe: when one receives the mercy of Balarama, Nityananda, one

can attain the lotus feet of Radha and Krsna very easily.

My comment: So.....first we learn that Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare

Hare can

only get us liberation, then that Rama can indicate Balarama, and then that

Balarama's mercy is essential to attain the lotus feet of Radha and Krsna,

which is surely more than liberation! And, there are clear indications that

Rama in the mahamantra can refer to

Krishna as seen in the following quotes:

Letter to: Arundhati -- Hamburg 9 September, 1969

Regarding your question, "What does Rama mean in Hare Rama? Is this Balarama

or Lord Ramacandra?'', you can take it both ways, because there is no

difference between Ramacandra and Balarama. Generally it means Krishna,

because Rama means enjoyer.

CC Madhya 2.65:

he deva -- O Lord; he dayita -- O most dear; he bhuvana-eka-bandho -- O only

friend of the universe; he krsna -- O Lord Krsna; he capala -- O restless

one; he karuna-eka-sindho -- O only ocean of mercy; he natha -- O My Lord;

he ramana -- O My enjoyer; he nayana-abhirama -- O most beautiful to My

eyes; ha ha -- alas; kada -- when; nu -- certainly; bhavita asi -- will You

be; padam -- the dwelling place; drsoh me -- of My vision.

TRANSLATION

"'O My Lord! O dearest one! O only friend of the universe! O Krsna, O

restless one, O only ocean of mercy! O My Lord, O My enjoyer, O beloved to

My eyes! Alas, when will You again be visible to Me?'"

PURPORT

This is text 40 of the Krsna-karnamrta.

CC Adi 6.71

ha natha ramana prestha

kvasi kvasi maha-bhuja

dasyas te krpanaya me

sakhe darsaya sannidhim

SYNONYMS

ha -- O; natha -- My Lord; ramana -- O My husband; prestha -- O My most dear

one; kva asi kva asi -- where are You, where are You; maha-bhuja -- O

mighty-armed one; dasyah -- of the maidservant; te -- You; krpanayah -- very

much aggrieved by Your absence; me -- to Me; sakhe -- O My friend;

darsaya -- show; sannidhim -- nearness to You.

TRANSLATION

"O My Lord, O My husband, O most dearly beloved! O mighty-armed Lord! Where

are You? Where are You? O My friend, reveal Yourself to Your maidservant,

who is very much aggrieved by Your absence."

PURPORT

This verse is quoted from Srimad-Bhagavatam (10.30.39). When the rasa dance

was going on in full swing, Krsna left all the gopis and took only Srimati

Radharani with Him. At that time all the gopis lamented, and Srimati

Radharani, being proud of Her position, requested Krsna to carry Her

wherever He liked. Then Krsna immediately disappeared from the scene, and

Srimati Radharani began to lament.

(And, finally, if one accepts Bhaktivinoda as an authority :-), )

Bhajana Rahasya, chapter 1:

In the sixteen word Hare Krsna mantra there are eight pairs of names.

Corresponding to these eight pairs, Caitanya Mahaprabhu has recited the

eight slokas of the Siksastaka.

The first pair of names Hare Krsna signifies the subduer of ignorance and

the performance of nama-sankirtana with faith.

The second pair Hare Krsna means Krsna's names are invested with all

potencies. One should have attachment for bhajana by taking shelter of the

holy names in the association of sadhus. Gradually by performing bhajana,

anarthas (unwanted contaminations) are destroyed. As anarthas are removed,

nistha (firm faith) develops.

The third pair Krsna Krsna indicates the company of pure devotees and

becoming fixed in firm faith throughout the day and night.

By the fourth pair Hare Hare unmotivated devotion is awakened along with a

taste for nama-sankirtana.

The fifth pair Hare Rama represents the taste for pure service along with

rememberance of the holy names as prescribed in the Siksastaka.

In the sixth pair Hare Rama chanting in the beginning stage of

transcendental emotion leads to material detachment and complete attachment

to Krsna.

The seventh pair Rama Rama awakens attachment for the mellow of conjugal

rasa, the shelter of Radha's lotus feet, and feelings of separation.

The eighth pair Hare Hare leads to attainment of the goal of life loving

service to Radha and Krsna following in the mood of the gopis of Vrndavana

throughout the eight divisions of day and night (asta-kala).

Chant the Hare Krishna mahamantra and be happy! Your servant, Urmila devi

dasi

October 17, 2004

Dear Urmila Mataji,

Please accpet my humble obeisancces. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

> In trying to understand the statement that a thousand names of Visnu are

> equal to three names of Rama which are equal to one name of Krisna, I

> discovered that the statement is quoted without there ever being an

> explanation of "equal in what way?"

Exactly.

Based on the available evidence so far if we do not have an explanation of

"equal in what way?" then we must just repeat sastra as it is. Why should

we then say "equal in rasa and not in potency or vice versa" etc,.?

Srila Prabhupäda: There is no difference. Suppose I say that this is a

pencil. If you say to him, "There is a pencil," and if he says to another

man, "This is a pencil," then what is the difference between his instruction

and my instructions?

So if Sastra says Krishna is 3 times Rama, Srila Prabhupada says Krishna is

3 times Rama, and if I say Krishna is 3 times Rama, what is wrong? Now I

may not understand, but after some time I will understand how Krishna is 3

times Rama.

Mataji, none of the interesting quotes that you have given here support

clearly

your statement, that the difference is in "rasa" and not in

"strength/potency". If it is rasa then why sastra uses a number Krishna is

3 times Rama and Rama is 1000 times Vishnu.

Let us take the statement 'the jiva is qualitatively one with the Lord but

quantitatively different"

Qualitatively we are one, being part and parcel of the Supreme Absolute

Truth, but quantitatively we are different. Therefore simultaneously, we are

one and different. This is called acintya-bhedäbheda-tattva. Acintya, we

cannot conceive in our present status of life that one thing can be equal

and different from another. But if we think over it little soberly, we can

understand. -----------Srila Prabhupada.

However we cannot say that jiva has all the 64 qualities of Krishna. The

sastra says jiva has 50 qualities. So we just accept and repeat. This way

we understand.

Similarly "if God is one Guru is also one". It means that the business of

all gurus is the same. But we all know that all gurus are simultaneously

different in so many ways also.

Similarly different expansions and incarnations are one with Krihsna but

They are also different in so many ways. They are different in form also.

For example Narasimha is half lion half man, Vamana is dwarf, Matsya is in

fish form etc,. They are all one, but different also. Their forms are

different for example. Their pastimes are different.

With one candle one may light a second candle, with the second a third and

then a fourth, and in this way one can light up thousands of candles, and no

candle is inferior to another in distributing light. Every candle has the

full potential candlepower, *but there is still the distinction* that one

candle is the first, another the second, another the third and another the

fourth.----Srila Prabhupada.