is Krsna an incarnation of Maha-Vishnu?

[Guest guest]

Kindly comment on the verse from Bhagvatam 10.89.58 :

 

[Lord Mahā-Viṣṇu said:] I brought the brāhmaṇa's sons here because I wanted to see the two of you, My expansions, who have descended to the earth to save the principles of religion. As soon as you finish killing the demons who burden the earth, quickly come back here to Me.

 

 

Here Maha Vishnu is saying that Krishna and Arjuna are his incarnations, not the other way round.

 

thanks

Radhey Radhey

[Guest guest]

 

Kindly comment on the verse from Bhagvatam 10.89.58 :

 

[Lord Mahā-Viṣṇu said:] I brought the brāhmaṇa's sons here because I wanted to see the two of you, My expansions, who have descended to the earth to save the principles of religion. As soon as you finish killing the demons who burden the earth, quickly come back here to Me.

 

 

Here Maha Vishnu is saying that Krishna and Arjuna are his incarnations, not the other way round.

 

thanks

Radhey Radhey

 

The other way round will be Maha-Vishnu was an incarnation of Krishna and Arjuna combined.

 

It is mentioned in dozens of places in Puranas that Krishna was an avatar of Vishnu. Among the popular ten avatars, he was the eight avatar coming right after Rama. This is a well known thing and is indisputed.

 

What sets the Krishna avatar apart from other avatars is the divinity aspect was more in him than the others according to a verse in the Bhagavatam. However, this idea is disputed by the Madhva school who maintain that all avatars are equal in divinity.

 

Om

[Guest guest]

abc,

 

In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says that He is the source of everthing spiritual & material. Therefore, He is the source of Lord Visnu as well. Sri Krishna is not an incarnation, rather He is the source of all incarnations.

 

 

The other way round will be Maha-Vishnu was an incarnation of Krishna and Arjuna combined.

 

It is mentioned in dozens of places in Puranas that Krishna was an avatar of Vishnu. Among the popular ten avatars, he was the eight avatar coming right after Rama. This is a well known thing and is indisputed.

 

What sets the Krishna avatar apart from other avatars is the divinity aspect was more in him than the others according to a verse in the Bhagavatam. However, this idea is disputed by the Madhva school who maintain that all avatars are equal in divinity.

 

Om

[Guest guest]

 

abc,

 

In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says that He is the source of everthing spiritual & material. Therefore, He is the source of Lord Visnu as well. Sri Krishna is not an incarnation, rather He is the source of all incarnations.

 

It is a very simple thing. Please explain the dozens of verses in the Puranas including the one posted above which clearly list Krishna as an avatar of Vishnu.

 

Selective interpretations where you only see what you like to see and ignore the rest will give you an incorrect picture. I will wait to see how you try to explain away the reference provided by the person who raised this question.

 

Om

[Guest guest]

Well, the quote provided by the original poster should be viewed in the proper context. If his quote is evidence that Krishna is an incarnation of Visnu, then we must also accept that Arjuna is an incarnation of Visnu, as stated in the quote! But that is not the case.

 

Anyway, my knowledge is limited so I can't tell why some scriptures say the opposite. Can you provde references to those verses?

 

 

It is a very simple thing. Please explain the dozens of verses in the Puranas including the one posted above which clearly list Krishna as an avatar of Vishnu.

 

Selective interpretations where you only see what you like to see and ignore the rest will give you an incorrect picture. I will wait to see how you try to explain away the reference provided by the person who raised this question.

 

Om

[Guest guest]

 

Well, the quote provided by the original poster should be viewed in the proper context. If his quote is evidence that Krishna is an incarnation of Visnu, then we must also accept that Arjuna is an incarnation of Visnu, as stated in the quote! But that is not the case.

 

Anyway, my knowledge is limited so I can't tell why some scriptures say the opposite. Can you provde references to those verses?

 

If your knowledge is limited, then if I were you, I would not make confident assertions.

 

Every Purana that lists the avatars of Vishnu always without exception lists Krishna as an avatar of Vishnu. Start with the Bhagavata Purana where the avatars of Vishnu are listed in at least 2 different places. One is mentioned above and the other list appears in the third chapter of the first Canto. In both places, Krishna is listed as Vishnu's avatar. Another reference I have is Garuda Purana 1.86.10. Again, Krishna is mentioned as an avatar of Vishnu.

 

Check the Vishnu Purana, believed to be the most authentic of all Puranas. In chapter I of Book 5 Maitreya asks Parashara "I desire to hear a description of Vishnu who came down upon earth, and was born in the family of Yadu". Parashara described how times were troubled and the devas went to Hari seeking a solution. Hari tells them that he will incarnate on earth as the eight son of Devaki and put an end to their troubles.

 

There is not a single reference in scripture where Vishnu is an avatar of Krishna. Vishnu incarnated as Krishna on earth to control evil during troubled times and to re-establish correct Dharma. I suggest you widen your horizons by spending some time to read more and get a bigger picture. Then you can make confident assertions on discussion forums as you will then be able to justify your position.

 

Om

[Guest guest]

ABC ... thank you for the references you have provided. Your advice is indeed good and well taken. I must read more.

 

 

If your knowledge is limited, then if I were you, I would not make confident assertions.

 

Every Purana that lists the avatars of Vishnu always without exception lists Krishna as an avatar of Vishnu. Start with the Bhagavata Purana where the avatars of Vishnu are listed in at least 2 different places. One is mentioned above and the other list appears in the third chapter of the first Canto. In both places, Krishna is listed as Vishnu's avatar. Another reference I have is Garuda Purana 1.86.10. Again, Krishna is mentioned as an avatar of Vishnu.

 

Check the Vishnu Purana, believed to be the most authentic of all Puranas. In chapter I of Book 5 Maitreya asks Parashara "I desire to hear a description of Vishnu who came down upon earth, and was born in the family of Yadu". Parashara described how times were troubled and the devas went to Hari seeking a solution. Hari tells them that he will incarnate on earth as the eight son of Devaki and put an end to their troubles.

 

There is not a single reference in scripture where Vishnu is an avatar of Krishna. Vishnu incarnated as Krishna on earth to control evil during troubled times and to re-establish correct Dharma. I suggest you widen your horizons by spending some time to read more and get a bigger picture. Then you can make confident assertions on discussion forums as you will then be able to justify your position.

 

Om

[Guest guest]

This is true that Krishna is Vishnu avatar.

The HKs however claim otherwise because they take everything too literally at times. Just like the blue color of Krishna and not the dark dusky or 'shyam' color.

Krishna is Vishnu avatar / Vishnu, and Vishnu is Iswara. That's why Krishna says in BG that he is the source of everything. This finer point is missed by HKs. This is my humble opinion.

Om Namo Narayanaya

 

Regards,

 

YK.

 

 

If your knowledge is limited, then if I were you, I would not make confident assertions.

 

Every Purana that lists the avatars of Vishnu always without exception lists Krishna as an avatar of Vishnu. Start with the Bhagavata Purana where the avatars of Vishnu are listed in at least 2 different places. One is mentioned above and the other list appears in the third chapter of the first Canto. In both places, Krishna is listed as Vishnu's avatar. Another reference I have is Garuda Purana 1.86.10. Again, Krishna is mentioned as an avatar of Vishnu.

 

Check the Vishnu Purana, believed to be the most authentic of all Puranas. In chapter I of Book 5 Maitreya asks Parashara "I desire to hear a description of Vishnu who came down upon earth, and was born in the family of Yadu". Parashara described how times were troubled and the devas went to Hari seeking a solution. Hari tells them that he will incarnate on earth as the eight son of Devaki and put an end to their troubles.

 

There is not a single reference in scripture where Vishnu is an avatar of Krishna. Vishnu incarnated as Krishna on earth to control evil during troubled times and to re-establish correct Dharma. I suggest you widen your horizons by spending some time to read more and get a bigger picture. Then you can make confident assertions on discussion forums as you will then be able to justify your position.

 

Om

[Guest guest]

I worship Krishna as God, it's all fine with me, if he is an incarnation of God, then you worship God through him, i think.

Anyway, it is all about what's in your heart.....

[Guest guest]

TRUE.

 

 

I worship Krishna as God, it's all fine with me, if he is an incarnation of God, then you worship God through him, i think.

Anyway, it is all about what's in your heart.....

[gHari]

One must remember that Lord Krishna is not just the incarnation that manifested through Mahavishnu 5,000 years ago, but He is also the original all-encompassing Sri Krsna upon whose existence everything else and everyone else exist. In a way the incarnation of Lord Krishna comes from Mahavishnu, yet in another way Mahavishnu is an expansion of Sri Krsna. This is how the apparent paradox in scripture is to be understood. This is explained more clearly in the following Srimad-Bhagavatam verse:

http://vedabase.net/sb/1/3/28/en

 

 

[HerServant]

 

One must remember that Lord Krishna is not just the incarnation that manifested through Mahavishnu 5,000 years ago, but He is also the original all-encompassing Sri Krsna upon whose existence everything else and everyone else exist. In a way the incarnation of Lord Krishna comes from Mahavishnu, yet in another way Mahavishnu is an expansion of Sri Krsna. This is how the apparent paradox in scripture is to be understood. This is explained more clearly in the following Srimad-Bhagavatam verse:

http://vedabase.net/sb/1/3/28/en

 

 

 

God requires that we have faith in Him. When we experience God we feel the urge share our experience. If someone cannot experience Him identically or similarly, then we are surprised. Sometimes a person who experiences God in a way different than ours will raise an objection about our experience. They may feel the need to defend God, but God does not need our defense as history has shown, this will often to lead to offense.

 

Scripture tells us that if God reveals Himself as Krsna to one, and MahaVisnu to another, their is no conflict between the two realized souls.

 

I read some writings by Jagadguru Swami Sri Bharati Krsna Tirthaji Maharaja, the former pontifical head Sankaracharya of Jagganath Puri in the 1940s and 50s. He was very learned having multiple PhD's in various fields study including the sciences, theology, and mathematics.

 

He made a very interesting observation, as he was schooled in many scriptures of India and the Bible as well. He said "no matter which (religious) path we choose, after careful study, we arrive at faith. That is, in any path, there will be elements or principles, or tenets, that must be accepted on faith. No amount of investigation or study will help us reconcile paradox."

 

Now, faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not. -- Hebrews 11:1

 

Here, the Holy Scripture teaches us that faith transcends our logic and description, and yet it means the same to all denominations.

 

Therefore, the original question of this thread should be honestly considered by any devotee of any sect.

 

My personal belief is that the nama rupa explanation of Holy Names is the correct one. That is, I believe that the Holy Names (nama) convey/contain the revelation of God's Divine Form (rupa). At the higher level, that the Holy Name is the Divine Form. Name is Form, Form is Name. Names are Personal.

 

Since we have been given so many Holy Names, Krsna, Vasudeva, Bhagavan, Narayana, Mahavisnu, Jesus, Hare, Eloi, Hari, Eli, we can understand all of the mighty revelations of the One Who Is, Ya! So realizing Jesus as YahShua, The One Who Is that Saves, is Seeing God Himself as the Savior. That is Who He Is. Realizing God as Krsna, the All Attractive, is seeing the God of Love attracting Love, realizing God as Ya is seeing God as The omnipresent and omniscient Being, Realizing God as Paramatma is seeing God in our hearts and in the heart of every living entity.

 

This is why, I go to my big brother Jesus and with Him, call God's Name, Abba, "Daddy".

 

Om Shanti,

HerServant and yours.

[Guest guest]

Dear friend,

 

Like one devotee said, it is also important what your accepted perception is. Perception if perceived by physical five senses alone and without Lord's mercy, is incomplete. And perception is attached too ones belief and convincement too.

Then you accept one variant over the other explaining - though this is true one way, BUT - on the other way - this is the truth and we believe this. We believe this because this is what our sampradaya says and its accepted set of scriptures say.

Vishnu (and every other God) as expansion of Krsna is a largely accepted Gaudiya viewpoint based on their understanding of SB and BG. Good enough.

Most other viewpoints understand Krsna as expansion of MahaVishnu which is again well backed by scriptures. Arjuna is shown by Lord Shri Krsna his universal form or the universal form of Lord MahaVishnu.

There are viewpoints that see all the three Brahma, Vishnu, Rudra as expansions and different aspects of Lord Sadashiva and there are scriptures that back this as well. Shri Shiva Gita (in PadmaPurana) tells of Lord SadaShiva showing his universal form to Ramachandra where in Ramachandra also sees Vishnu's all ten avataras including the Krsna avatara and his killing of demon king kamsa.

 

Having said that, of course, I will not get into the infamous and endless argument on "who is higher", original and actual "godhead" and quotations, but this is a perception and a multifaceted truth. Different scriptures differ and devotees largely differ due to the angle of viewpoint under influence of internal belief samskara and influence of one's sampradaya.

And then we hungrily run to find acknowledgements in scriptures to strengthen and keep our beliefs and shoo off anything o ranyone that can shake it stating otherwise. Because belief is what we rely on.

Only rare realized souls know it all as a result of Guru's and Lord's mercy and scriptural knowledge backed by direct perception.

And I don't consider myself one of them. I just like to adhere to the common Hindu/Sanatana belief of Vishnu Avatara. Krsna a fully manifested avatara of MahaVishnu, thus God himself. See it either way. He is God! Lord Shri Krsna is Vishnu. Krsna is Narayana. Rest is a matter of believing.

Om!

 

YK

[Guest guest]

 

Dear friend,

 

Like one devotee said, it is also important what your accepted perception is. Perception if perceived by physical five senses alone and without Lord's mercy, is incomplete. And perception is attached too ones belief and convincement too.

Then you accept one variant over the other explaining - though this is true one way, BUT - on the other way - this is the truth and we believe this. We believe this because this is what our sampradaya says and its accepted set of scriptures say.

Vishnu (and every other God) as expansion of Krsna is a largely accepted Gaudiya viewpoint based on their understanding of SB and BG. Good enough.

Most other viewpoints understand Krsna as expansion of MahaVishnu which is again well backed by scriptures. Arjuna is shown by Lord Shri Krsna his universal form or the universal form of Lord MahaVishnu.

There are viewpoints that see all the three Brahma, Vishnu, Rudra as expansions and different aspects of Lord Sadashiva and there are scriptures that back this as well. Shri Shiva Gita (in PadmaPurana) tells of Lord SadaShiva showing his universal form to Ramachandra where in Ramachandra also sees Vishnu's all ten avataras including the Krsna avatara and his killing of demon king kamsa.

 

Having said that, of course, I will not get into the infamous and endless argument on "who is higher", original and actual "godhead" and quotations, but this is a perception and a multifaceted truth. Different scriptures differ and devotees largely differ due to the angle of viewpoint under influence of internal belief samskara and influence of one's sampradaya.

And then we hungrily run to find acknowledgements in scriptures to strengthen and keep our beliefs and shoo off anything o ranyone that can shake it stating otherwise. Because belief is what we rely on.

Only rare realized souls know it all as a result of Guru's and Lord's mercy and scriptural knowledge backed by direct perception.

And I don't consider myself one of them. I just like to adhere to the common Hindu/Sanatana belief of Vishnu Avatara. Krsna a fully manifested avatara of MahaVishnu, thus God himself. See it either way. He is God! Lord Shri Krsna is Vishnu. Krsna is Narayana. Rest is a matter of believing.

Om!

 

YK

 

Amen brother! This is the beauty of faith .. no religion or sampradaya can claim it as their own!

 

HerServant and yours, Om shanti!

[radhagovind]

 

Kindly comment on the verse from Bhagvatam 10.89.58 :

 

[Lord Mahā-Viṣṇu said:] I brought the brāhmaṇa's sons here because I wanted to see the two of you, My expansions, who have descended to the earth to save the principles of religion. As soon as you finish killing the demons who burden the earth, quickly come back here to Me.

 

 

Here Maha Vishnu is saying that Krishna and Arjuna are his incarnations, not the other way round.

 

thanks

Radhey Radhey

From what i know and have read, shri krishna is the source of all. He resides in golok with shrimati radharani. He expands into all, at first he expands into lord anant who then expands into maha-vishnu. Maha-vishnu expands into all of many universes and then that same vishnu puts another form of vishnu as we all know into that universe. then bramha is created and things start to expand.

 

Vishnu and krishna are not very different. Just as a candle can light another candle and they both burn at same speed and give off same amount of light, krishna is the two-hand form while vishnu is the 4-hand version of the same lord. THings however are not that clear since many think that shri krishna is an incarnation rather than seperate.

[Yofu]

The answer to the original question is found in Sanatana Siksa, which is found in Sri Chaitanya Caritamrta, Madhya-lila Chapters 20-24. Herein, it is stated that Maha-visnu comes from Sri Krishna.....

[Guest guest]

 

The answer to the original question is found in Sanatana Siksa, which is found in Sri Chaitanya Caritamrta, Madhya-lila Chapters 20-24. Herein, it is stated that Maha-visnu comes from Sri Krishna.....

So we can overide Shastra and Vedas and Puranas with Chaitanya Charitamrita then...? We thought Chaitanya Charitamrita dealt basically with Lord Chaitanya's pastimes and understanding him and was written in Kaliyuga.

[Yofu]

 

So we can overide Shastra and Vedas and Puranas with Chaitanya Charitamrita then...? We thought Chaitanya Charitamrita dealt basically with Lord Chaitanya's pastimes and understanding him and was written in Kaliyuga.

 

It is obvious that you haven't read these chapters, since the Vedas and Puranas are quoted in these chapters to show Sri Krishna is the source of Maha Vishnu.

 

Sri Caitanya-caritamrta is sastra. I like said, read it!

[Guest guest]

Are you saying because it was written in Kali Yuga, it isn't authentic or accurate?

 

 

So we can overide Shastra and Vedas and Puranas with Chaitanya Charitamrita then...? We thought Chaitanya Charitamrita dealt basically with Lord Chaitanya's pastimes and understanding him and was written in Kaliyuga.

[Guest guest]

 

It is obvious that you haven't read these chapters, since the Vedas and Puranas are quoted in these chapters to show Sri Krishna is the source of Maha Vishnu.

 

Sri Caitanya-caritamrta is sastra. I like said, read it!

The scriptures clearly state Krishna as avatara of Vishunu.

Now of course it can be concluded otherwise in modern day scriptures.

Its a matter of a certain point of view. Puranas and Vedas are original scriptures. This is not. It is fabrication written later on. it may be good no doubt.

But hey, the gaudiyas can dismiss Mahabharata as "fabricated" and parts of Padma Purana that do not align with their exact line of philosophy as fabricated, then what's the harm in considering CC as a non original scripture? It is written in Kaliyuga alright!! Who denies that?

[Guest guest]

 

It is obvious that you haven't read these chapters, since the Vedas and Puranas are quoted in these chapters to show Sri Krishna is the source of Maha Vishnu.

Sri Caitanya-caritamrta is sastra. I like said, read it!

 

Sri Krishna says he's the source of everything in Gita. This is widely accepted.

But is Shri Krishna the Vishnu avatar saying this because he's a fully manifested Vishnu avatara and there is no difference in him being Vishnu himself or Krsna comes first and then Vishnu is a purely matter of understanding. The Gaudiyas being attached to the Krishna name try to prove Krishna as the source of everything. So be it. But we can call him Vishnu? To find differences is the essence of BhedaBhed Philosophy. Its a philosophy of bhedaBhava! In material terms Bhed Bhava also gives birth to BairBhava which is conflicting. it doesn't comprehend the uniting factor of Krsna and Vishnu, but rather focus more on the 'differences'. Krishna is widely accepted avatar of Vishnu. Krishna is Vishnu and Vishnu is Krishna. No Chaitanya Charitamrita can override the Vedas and Purans and Upanishads. Tomorrow another saint will write another book overiding the Vedas. Should we accept that over the Vedas then?

And of course it is written in Kaliyuga. That doesn't mean that it should not be accepted. But the fact has been accepted and established for ages, much before CC came into existence. Now we don't change that just because someone wants a different point of view.

[Guest guest]

 

Are you saying because it was written in Kali Yuga, it isn't authentic or accurate?

Deborah, Gaudiyas go around the world proving all scriptures as fabricated, why should I believe the authenticity of a 300 year old book?

Shiva MahaPuran is fabricated, Mahabharata is fabricated, all other Gitas and commentaries are fabricated, Shiva Gita that is an integral part of Padma Purana that you love to quote from is also fabricated that was written ages ago. But 200-300 years old books are genuine? They are music to your years. fine! But why should the whole world believe their authenticity? Just because they are stating Vishnu is Krishna's avatara?? When was this avatara born out of krishna or expanded out? It is a kaliyuga book alright that HKs have elevated to an equivalent of Gita. I'm not saying it bad or not authentic. I have nothing against CC. What is your definition of authentic anyways? What accuracy are you trying to seek here?

Krishna avatara's time is there. If the case is otherwise, then what does the book say on Vishnu's avataran from Krishna?

I haven't read it from cover to cover, but that is not the question. The question is if shiva Purana and Mahabharata can be considered fabricated, then what ground does this "scripture" hold?

Ramcharitmanas written by Goswami Tulsidas and endoresed by Rama and Shiva is not accepted by HKs. It was written much earlier. Then why should we accept CC???

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

Deborah, Gaudiyas go around the world proving all scriptures as fabricated, why should I believe the authenticity of a 300 year old book?

 

YK, can you cite some examples of this wild generalization? This has not been part of my (limited) experience at all. My Gurudev and his acknowledged representatives have never, to my knowledge, dismissed any scripture as being fabricated.

 

To the actual issue at hand: YK, you've pointed out that earlier Vedic scripture is consistent in depicting Krishna as an avatar of Vishnu; you've also acknowledged that each manifestation of Bhagavan is full and complete. So, my question is: why do we belabor this point? When we are talking about things that are sat, chit, ananda, how can there be any question of primacy (in terms of time, or position)? At this point, it becomes an exercise in semantics.

 

So, let's not talk about who's higher or comes first. Rather, let's talk about the true goal of life: service to the Divine. In what manner can we serve and please Maha-Vishnu? Awe, reverence? But, isn't it said in scripture that the Lord is more pleased by our love and devotion in the mood madhurya (paramour), vatsalya (parental), etc., rather than awe and reverence?

 

Wouldn't having everybody around you groveling all the time get old really fast?

 

The Vaishnava doesn't care who's first and who's higher. The Vaishnava wants to please his Master/Lover/Best Friend. The Gopis don't even care to think of Krishna as God.

 

With my obeisances,

--MMd

[Shakti-Fan]

When Sri Visnu desires to experience lila he becomes Laxmi Narayana. From the tattvic viewpoint Narayana and Krsna are one, they are both Bhagavan, the Personality of Godhead. Krsna as the enternal predominating moiety of Srimati Radharani, the predomined moiety, is considered both higher and therefore original because of rasik analysis. The union and separation of Krsna, the gopis and the supreme gopi is colored by parakiya bhava or paramour love. The relationship of Laxmi Narayana is married love or svakiya bhava. The paramour love is much deeper and involves intense separation. This is the opinion of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and the experts in His line.

[Guest guest]

 

YK, can you cite some examples of this wild generalization? This has not been part of my (limited) experience at all. My Gurudev and his acknowledged representatives have never, to my knowledge, dismissed any scripture as being fabricated.

 

To the actual issue at hand: YK, you've pointed out that earlier Vedic scripture is consistent in depicting Krishna as an avatar of Vishnu; you've also acknowledged that each manifestation of Bhagavan is full and complete. So, my question is: why do we belabor this point? When we are talking about things that are sat, chit, ananda, how can there be any question of primacy (in terms of time, or position)? At this point, it becomes an exercise in semantics.

 

So, let's not talk about who's higher or comes first. Rather, let's talk about the true goal of life: service to the Divine. In what manner can we serve and please Maha-Vishnu? Awe, reverence? But, isn't it said in scripture that the Lord is more pleased by our love and devotion in the mood madhurya (paramour), vatsalya (parental), etc., rather than awe and reverence?

 

Wouldn't having everybody around you groveling all the time get old really fast?

 

The Vaishnava doesn't care who's first and who's higher. The Vaishnava wants to please his Master/Lover/Best Friend. The Gopis don't even care to think of Krishna as God.

 

With my obeisances,

--MMd

 

Dear MMD, Obeisances.

 

I haven't agreed that each avatara of Vishnu is complete in itself or came with full opulences except shri Krishna. Other avataras came with specific purposes to save the world.

As far as teh bhakti goes, I must agree that the Vaishna should not care who is higher lower etc, because he care about his loving devotional relation with his Guru/Lord. that is and and should be most important.

The Gopis did that and didn't know or care of Krishna was God or not.

But as we see in everyday life, the top most agenda that I face from my Gaudiya Vaishnava brothers is how to defeat this philosophy that philosophy, put down that form of God, perch ones own sampradaya over the others, that how soon can you come and join our clan etc etc..

This is what I face each time i try to have a normal healthy spiritual discussion or even satsanga with devotees.

So there is propaganda and there is bnhakti. Propaganda issues put more emphasis on issues like defeating, argumentations, higher lower etc.

bhakti is bhakti!! When I meet a bhakta, I don't really care what sampradaya he belongs to or what his line of sadhna is or what mantra he chants! really!

I would consider Mahavishu or Krsna at par. Its just a matter of one's love and attachment and bhakti. Krsna came and delivered that unconditional love and devotion unto us fallen souls.

As far as awe, reverence is concerned, then I don't devoid my sadhna practice of bhakti and devotional bhava. Its the basis. Of course, devotional bhava has to be there. But i wouldn't erase the yogic methods and mantra sadhna. I may agree that it is not for everybody. But emotions are. Its a world of emotions. I agree with you on this. Love is what moves the Lord.

I wish you Love,

Hare Krsna!

 

P.S. my comments on CC is largely due to the rejection of all other scriptures by the HKs except ones that don't line up with their own philosophy. I have given examples of many including Mahabharata and quoted extensively from it and shiva Purana and shiva Gita. But the devotees could never give any explaination on them. They simply rejected them as fabricated. Regards.