Avinash Posted August 10, 2007 Report Share Posted August 10, 2007 Bhagavatam mentions Narad as an incarnation. Is Narad a complete incarnation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahnava Nitai Das Posted August 10, 2007 Report Share Posted August 10, 2007 He is an empowered incarnation (shaktyaveshavatara). Empowered with the Lords bhakti. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gHari Posted August 10, 2007 Report Share Posted August 10, 2007 From http://vedabase.net/sb/1/3/8/en In the millennium of the ṛṣis, the Personality of Godhead accepted the third empowered incarnation in the form of Devarṣi NArada, who is a great sage among the demigods. He collected expositions of the Vedas which deal with devotional service and which inspire nonfruitive action. From the purport of http://vedabase.net/sb/1/3/28/en [...] "The Lord’s empowered incarnation Närada and plenary incarnation Varäha, as well as indirectly empowered Lord Buddha, created faith in the mass of people." [...] From the last paragraph at http://vedabase.net/tlc/7/en The four yuga-avatAras are also described in SrImad-BhAgavatam. In the Satya-yuga, the incarnation of God is white; in the TretA-yuga He is red; in the DvApara-yuga, He is blackish; and in the Kali-yuga He is also blackish, but sometimes, in a special Kali-yuga, His color is yellowish (as in the case of Caitanya MahAprabhu). As far as the zaktyAveza-avatAras are concerned, they include Kapila and RSabha, Ananta, BrahmA (sometimes the Lord Himself becomes BrahmA), CatuHsana (the incarnation of knowledge), NArada (the incarnation of devotional service), King PRthu (the incarnation of administrative power), and ParazurAma (the incarnation who subdues evil principles). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guruvani Posted August 10, 2007 Report Share Posted August 10, 2007 In Teachings of Lord Chaitanya, Srila Prabhupada explains it like this based upon shastric siddhanta: The saktyavesa incarnations are of two kinds--direct and indirect. When the Lord Himself comes, He is called saksat, or a direct saktyavesa-avatara, and when He empowers some living entity to represent Him that living entity is called an indirect or avesa incarnation. Examples of indirect avataras are the four Kumaras, Narada, Prthu and Parasurama. These are actually living entities, but there is specific power given to them by the Supreme Personality of Godhead. So, the avesa avatars are indirect incarnations representing a specific power or opulence of Krishna or Vishnu. Narada is one such indirect incarnation. Sometimes when shastra refers to "incarnation of Godhead" it simply means that a jiva soul has been empowered with certain powers, abilities or qualities that are superhuman and Godly. When a living being possesses a Godly power, then he is called an incarnation or shaktyavesha incarnation of Godhead. This means that Godhead is manifesting specific powers through a certain living being or devotee of Godhead. Any given human being could become an incarnation of Godhead if Godhead chose to manifest Godly power through that human being. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerServant Posted August 10, 2007 Report Share Posted August 10, 2007 prahladah--Prahlada; ca--also; asmi--I am; daityanam--of the demons; kalah--time; kalayatam--of subduers; aham--I am; mrganam--of animals; ca--and; mrga-indrah--the lion; aham--I am; vainateyah--Garuda; ca--also; paksinam--of birds. TRANSLATION Among the Daitya demons I am the devoted Prahlada; among subduers I am time; among the beasts I am the lion, and among birds I am Garuda, the feathered carrier of Visnu. - BG 10:30 So Krsna didn't really mean exactly what He said? I take Krsna as the highest authority. The word shakta-avesya appears nowhere in any bonafide or authorized scripture HS and yours Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahnava Nitai Das Posted August 10, 2007 Report Share Posted August 10, 2007 prabhu kahe,—caturali chada, sanatana saktyavesavatarera suna vivarana Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu replied, “O Sanatana, you must give up your intelligent tricks. Now just try to understand the description of the saktyavesa-avataras. saktyavesavatara krishnera asankhya ganana dig-darasana kari mukhya mukhya jana “There are unlimited saktyavesa-avataras of Lord Krishna. Let Me describe the chief among them. saktyavesa dui-rupa—‘mukhya’, ‘gauna’ dekhi sakshat-saktye ‘avatara’, abhase ‘vibhuti’ likhi “Empowered incarnations are of two types—primary and secondary. The primary ones are directly empowered by the Supreme Personality of Godhead and are called incarnations. The secondary ones are indirectly empowered by the Supreme Personality of Godhead and are called vibhuti. ‘sanakadi’, ‘narada’, ‘prithu’ ‘parasurama’ jiva-rupa ‘brahmara’ avesavatara-nama “Some saktyavesa-avataras are the four Kumaras, Narada, Maharaja Prithu and Parasurama. When a living being is empowered to act as Lord Brahma, he is also considered a saktyavesa-avatara. vaikunthe ‘sesha’—dhara dharaye ‘ananta’ ei mukhyavesavatara—vistare nahi anta “Lord Sesha in the spiritual world of Vaikuntha and, in the material world, Lord Ananta, who carries innumerable planets on His hoods, are two primary empowered incarnations. There is no need to count the others, for they are unlimited. sanakadye ‘jnana’-sakti, narade sakti ‘bhakti’ brahmaya ‘srishti’-sakti, anante ‘bhu-dharana’-sakti “The power of knowledge was invested in the four Kumaras, and the power of devotional service was invested in Narada. The power of creation was invested in Lord Brahma, and the power to carry innumerable planets was invested in Lord Ananta. seshe ‘sva-sevana’-sakti, prithute ‘palana’ parasurame ‘dushta-nasaka-virya-sancarana’ “The Supreme Personality of Godhead invested the power of personal service in Lord Sesha, and He invested the power to rule the earth in King Prithu. Lord Parasurama received the power to kill rogues and miscreants. jnana-sakty-adi-kalaya yatravishto janardanah ta avesa nigadyante jiva eva mahattamah “‘Whenever the Lord is present in someone by portions of His various potencies, the living entity representing the Lord is called a saktyavesa-avatara—that is, an incarnation invested with special power.’ ‘vibhuti’ kahiye yaiche gita-ekadase jagat vyapila krishna-sakty-abhasavese “As explained in the Eleventh Chapter of the Bhagavad-gita, Krishna has spread Himself all over the universe in many personalities through specific powers, known as vibhuti. yad yad vibhutimat sattvam srimad urjitam eva va tat tad evavagaccha tvam mama tejo-‘msa-sambhavam “‘Know that all opulent, beautiful and glorious creations spring from but a spark of My splendor.’ atha va bahunaitena kim jnatena tavarjuna vishtabhyaham idam kritsnam ekamsena sthito jagat “‘But what need is there, Arjuna, for all this detailed knowledge? With a single fragment of Myself I pervade and support this entire universe.’ eita kahilun sakty-avesa-avatara balya-pauganda-dharmera sunaha vicara “Thus I have explained specifically empowered incarnations. Now please hear about the characteristics of Lord Krishna’s childhood, boyhood and youth. isvarera avatara e-tina prakara amsa-avatara, ara guna-avatara saktyavesa-avatara—tritiya e-mata amsa-avatara—purusha-matsyadika yata "There are three categories of incarnations of Godhead: partial incarnations, qualitative incarnations and empowered incarnations. The purushas and Matsya are examples of partial incarnations." brahma vishnu siva—tina gunavatare gani sakty-avesa—sanakadi, prithu, vyasa-muni "Brahma, Vishnu and Siva are qualitative incarnations. Empowered incarnations are those like the Kumaras, King Prithu and Maha-muni Vyasa [the compiler of the Vedas]." amsa-saktyavesa-rupe dvi-vidhavatara balya pauganda dharma dui ta’ prakara "His incarnations are of two kinds, namely partial and empowered. He appears in two ages—childhood and boyhood." jnana-sakty-adi-kalaya yatravishto janardanah ta avesa nigadyante jiva eva mahattamah “A living entity who is specifically empowered by the Lord with knowledge or strength is technically called avesa-rupa.” gunavatara, ara manvantaravatara yugavatara, ara saktyavesavatara "There are incarnations that control the material qualities [guna-avataras], incarnations associated with the reign of each Manu [manvantara-avataras], incarnations in different millenniums [yuga-avataras] and incarnations of empowered living entities [saktyavesa-avataras]." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerServant Posted August 10, 2007 Report Share Posted August 10, 2007 I wasn't aware of this scripture .. what is the source? prabhu kahe,—caturali chada, sanatanasaktyavesavatarera suna vivarana Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu replied, “O Sanatana, you must give up your intelligent tricks. Now just try to understand the description of the saktyavesa-avataras. saktyavesavatara krishnera asankhya ganana dig-darasana kari mukhya mukhya jana “There are unlimited saktyavesa-avataras of Lord Krishna. Let Me describe the chief among them. saktyavesa dui-rupa—‘mukhya’, ‘gauna’ dekhi sakshat-saktye ‘avatara’, abhase ‘vibhuti’ likhi “Empowered incarnations are of two types—primary and secondary. The primary ones are directly empowered by the Supreme Personality of Godhead and are called incarnations. The secondary ones are indirectly empowered by the Supreme Personality of Godhead and are called vibhuti. ‘sanakadi’, ‘narada’, ‘prithu’ ‘parasurama’ jiva-rupa ‘brahmara’ avesavatara-nama “Some saktyavesa-avataras are the four Kumaras, Narada, Maharaja Prithu and Parasurama. When a living being is empowered to act as Lord Brahma, he is also considered a saktyavesa-avatara. vaikunthe ‘sesha’—dhara dharaye ‘ananta’ ei mukhyavesavatara—vistare nahi anta “Lord Sesha in the spiritual world of Vaikuntha and, in the material world, Lord Ananta, who carries innumerable planets on His hoods, are two primary empowered incarnations. There is no need to count the others, for they are unlimited. sanakadye ‘jnana’-sakti, narade sakti ‘bhakti’ brahmaya ‘srishti’-sakti, anante ‘bhu-dharana’-sakti “The power of knowledge was invested in the four Kumaras, and the power of devotional service was invested in Narada. The power of creation was invested in Lord Brahma, and the power to carry innumerable planets was invested in Lord Ananta. seshe ‘sva-sevana’-sakti, prithute ‘palana’ parasurame ‘dushta-nasaka-virya-sancarana’ “The Supreme Personality of Godhead invested the power of personal service in Lord Sesha, and He invested the power to rule the earth in King Prithu. Lord Parasurama received the power to kill rogues and miscreants. jnana-sakty-adi-kalaya yatravishto janardanah ta avesa nigadyante jiva eva mahattamah “‘Whenever the Lord is present in someone by portions of His various potencies, the living entity representing the Lord is called a saktyavesa-avatara—that is, an incarnation invested with special power.’ ‘vibhuti’ kahiye yaiche gita-ekadase jagat vyapila krishna-sakty-abhasavese “As explained in the Eleventh Chapter of the Bhagavad-gita, Krishna has spread Himself all over the universe in many personalities through specific powers, known as vibhuti. yad yad vibhutimat sattvam srimad urjitam eva va tat tad evavagaccha tvam mama tejo-‘msa-sambhavam “‘Know that all opulent, beautiful and glorious creations spring from but a spark of My splendor.’ atha va bahunaitena kim jnatena tavarjuna vishtabhyaham idam kritsnam ekamsena sthito jagat “‘But what need is there, Arjuna, for all this detailed knowledge? With a single fragment of Myself I pervade and support this entire universe.’ eita kahilun sakty-avesa-avatara balya-pauganda-dharmera sunaha vicara “Thus I have explained specifically empowered incarnations. Now please hear about the characteristics of Lord Krishna’s childhood, boyhood and youth. isvarera avatara e-tina prakara amsa-avatara, ara guna-avatara saktyavesa-avatara—tritiya e-mata amsa-avatara—purusha-matsyadika yata "There are three categories of incarnations of Godhead: partial incarnations, qualitative incarnations and empowered incarnations. The purushas and Matsya are examples of partial incarnations." brahma vishnu siva—tina gunavatare gani sakty-avesa—sanakadi, prithu, vyasa-muni "Brahma, Vishnu and Siva are qualitative incarnations. Empowered incarnations are those like the Kumaras, King Prithu and Maha-muni Vyasa [the compiler of the Vedas]." amsa-saktyavesa-rupe dvi-vidhavatara balya pauganda dharma dui ta’ prakara "His incarnations are of two kinds, namely partial and empowered. He appears in two ages—childhood and boyhood." jnana-sakty-adi-kalaya yatravishto janardanah ta avesa nigadyante jiva eva mahattamah “A living entity who is specifically empowered by the Lord with knowledge or strength is technically called avesa-rupa.” gunavatara, ara manvantaravatara yugavatara, ara saktyavesavatara "There are incarnations that control the material qualities [guna-avataras], incarnations associated with the reign of each Manu [manvantara-avataras], incarnations in different millenniums [yuga-avataras] and incarnations of empowered living entities [saktyavesa-avataras]." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerServant Posted August 10, 2007 Report Share Posted August 10, 2007 OK .. I found your reference in CC (sorry I missed it ) Bhaktivedanta VedaBase: Sri Caitanya Caritamrita Madhya 20.376 atha va bahunaitena kim jnatena tavarjuna vishtabhyaham idam kritsnam ekamsena sthito jagat SYNONYMS atha va -- or; bahuna -- much; etena -- with this; kim -- what use; jnatena -- being known; tava -- by you; arjuna -- O Arjuna; vishtabhya -- pervading; aham -- I; idam -- this; kritsnam -- entire; eka-amsena -- with one portion; sthitah -- situated; jagat -- universe. TRANSLATION "'But what need is there, Arjuna, for all this detailed knowledge? With a single fragment of Myself I pervade and support this entire universe.' Who is the single fragment is Krsna referring to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murali_Mohan_das Posted August 10, 2007 Report Share Posted August 10, 2007 OK .. I found your reference in CC (sorry I missed it ) Who is the single fragment is Krsna referring to? Mahavishnu perhaps? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerServant Posted August 11, 2007 Report Share Posted August 11, 2007 "'But what need is there, Arjuna, for all this detailed knowledge? With a single fragment of Myself I pervade and support this entire universe.' - Sri Caitanya Caritamrita Madhya 20.376 So the conclusion of any discussion on distinction between avatars is the above quote? And to Arjuna himself, what to speak of us fallen sinners? Krsna is telling Arjuna that this knowledge is of no use as His Fragment is the same as Himself. Also He is saying there is no distinction in this single quote among the avatar .. simultaneous oneness and difference WITHIN the Godhead is not the SAME as simultaneous oneness and difference in the jiva soul This is clearly a fact as the Lord's nama rupa (names and forms) are innumerable. This verse makes it clear that Shakta avesya is the One and indifferent with Krsna. The conditioned soul is lifted up to jiva Tattva But Jesus stooped down to become like us and be jiva tattva. Man cannot comprehend God EVER EVER EVER. Hence He reveals Himself to us in nama rupa. Each revelation of nama rupa is simultaneously one and different from others. Even the nama rupa of shakta avesya and other avatars ... one and different. Not to God .. but to our limited understanding of Him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted August 11, 2007 Report Share Posted August 11, 2007 But Jesus stooped down to become like us and be jiva tattva. Not sure of this as I am not sure of how you mean this. Jesus is always jiva-tattva, before Earth, during His time here, and after Earth. He does not undergo change in being by manifesting a presence in the manifest world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerServant Posted August 11, 2007 Report Share Posted August 11, 2007 Not sure of this as I am not sure of how you mean this. Jesus is always jiva-tattva, before Earth, during His time here, and after Earth. He does not undergo change in being by manifesting a presence in the manifest world. This the is Christina theology of the christian saddhus from the beginning of Christianity. That He was with God (Visnu tattva) before stepping into time as True Man (Jiva Tattva). In fact this is the very core to the teaching of Trinity. For 17 centuries and beyond the credo (summary of belief for christians) is of Jesus that He is "True God AND True Man" In sanskrit terms this means He is Visnu tattva and Jiva Tattva Which is why he is called by catholic sannyasis as Balarama. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerServant Posted August 11, 2007 Report Share Posted August 11, 2007 >>> The theology of Sri Baladeva, the Second Person of the Godhead, and how both Jesus and Sri Nityananda Rama are considered in the Catholic and Vaishnava Traditions to be Incarnations of Sri Baladeva.by HH Bhaktananda gosvami First let us clarify the Vaishnava doctrine of simultaneous oneness-and-difference in the Godhead. Both the Catholic teaching of the Trinity and the teachings of Gaudiya Vaishnavism affirm that there are real differences between the Persons of the Godhead. Still, “God is One”. In fact the Hebrew word for this mysterious Oneness of God is ECHAD and the Sanskrit Name of Sri Krishna-Baladeva-Vishnu-Paramatma is EKA. Hebrew ECHAD and Sanskrit EKA both mean ONE and are both Names of God. In fact, in ancient times the Vaishnavas were called EKANTINS because they worshiped the ONE GOD (were MONOTHEISTS). Their ONE GOD was called EKA-NATHA, EKA-DEVA and similar names. So despite the fact that this ONE / EKA God was worshiped with countless Names and in countless Forms (NAMA-RUPA) according to His countless loving relations with His devotees, the Supreme Mystery of His Oneness was well-grasped by His devotees. Thus His Monotheism was the supreme model of religious unity-in-diversity, and it promoted harmonious, sattvic mutual appreciation, cooperation and peaceful religious social order among His devotees. The question is, If God is One, Why is He manifest so differently to His different devotees? This goes to the HEART of the divine revelation of the TRIUNE PERSONAL-GOD-WHO-IS-LOVE. We are persons, but as persons we are limited. Although GODHEAD IS UNLIMITED, within the mystery of the Godhead there is also a limit of PERSONHOOD, because the PERSONS / PURUSHAS ARE UNLIMITED EXCEPT BY EACH OTHER’S CO-ETERNAL EXISTENCE! Thus there is REAL, ETERNAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SRI KRISHNA, SRI BALADEVA, AND THEIR EXPANSION OF PARAMATMA IN THE MATERIAL UNIVERSES. THEN OF COURSE THERE IS REAL ETERNAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM AND THEIR SHAKTIS! In fact, this realness of difference within the Unity of the GODHEAD and in the unity of Godhead with Shakti / Shekinah is the ultimate cause of LOVE. BECAUSE THERE IS AN ETERNAL PLURALITY OF PERSONS WITHIN THE GODHEAD, IT CAN BE SAID THAT GOD IS LOVE. This ‘Fountain Fullness’ PLENUM (Latin) PURNAM (Sanskrit) of Godhead’s Divine Love creatively over-flows (as Saint Bonaventure said) from the Godhead as the source of all God’s Self-giving creative generosity. Because this Eternal and Unlimited Fountain Plenum / Purnam of Divine Love Originates in the PERSONS OF THE GODHEAD and flows forth from Them in unity with Their Shakti, Who is also PERSONAL, we as beings are also persons who exist to love and be loved! We are eternal personal beings, because the Persons of the Godhead have shared Their being-ness with us! However, the Supreme Personality of Godhead is unlimited, and we are limited. In our eternal limitedness, we are not able to experience the Plenitude of the Godhead. The Plenum / Purnam of Godhead cannot be known fully to any finite being. Thus it has been revealed that even in the Highest PARADISE (Hebrew PARDES, Sanskrit PARA-DESHA, the ‘desha’ of PARA KRISHNA), the devotees of God have very specific (limited) RASA RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE LORD. Now, if this specificity is there in the ULTIMATE PERSONAL REALITY, why should it not also be there in every other personal reality? Love comes from persons and is directed to persons. According to Vedic Divine Revelation even the Medium of exchange of this Divine Love is A PERSON. Sometimes Catholic theologians will say that the Holy Spirit is the Mediator of the Love between the Father and the Son. Jesus also said “Where two or more are gathered in MY NAME, there I AM in the midst of them”. God is the Giver and Receiver of Love and also the Gift Itself...the Mediator of Divine Love. He is the very GIVING-UP or sacrifice of Love. Thus as Mediator of all Divine Love, Baladeva-Vishnu is called YAGNA, ‘Sacrifice’. As Yupa Dhvaja or “Sacrifice Personified” He IS the Supreme Love Offering. The Heliopolitan Greek Monotheists like Socrates and Plato spoke of God as both the OBJECT OF ALL LOVE, as All-Truth-Beauty-and-Goodness, and of Him as the forsaken and despised LOVE WHO IS SELF-SACRIFICED FOR THE SAKE OF THE BELOVED. The First Person is GOD-WHO-IS-WORSHIPED and the Second Person is THE SERVITOR LORD, or GOD-WHO-WORSHIPS, or GOD-WHO-IS-WORSHIP. In Vaishnava theology, it is Sri Baladeva, the Second Person of the Godhead, Who is the Servitor Lord (CC Adi Lila, Ch. 5, Txt. 10 Purport). In Catholic theology, the Second Person of the Godhead and Servitor Lord steps into time and reveals His Cosmic Sacrifice as JESUS CHRIST. In Vaishnavism it is Sri Baladeva / The Second Person (The Servitor Lord), Who as YAGNA PERSONIFIED Purusha Yupa Dhvaja, on the cosmic Yupa Cross, “takes away the sins of the world”. As Jesus Christ, in His “once and all-sufficient” cosmic sacrifice, He ‘karmically’ (Biblical Greek KRIMA / KRINO) reconciled all ‘fallen’ beings to Godhead, becoming the UNCONDITIONAL SELF-SACRIFICE OF REDEEMING LOVE AND FORGIVENESS BETWEEN THEM AND GOD. “When He appears for the protection of His devotees, He naturally accepts trials and tribulations on their behalf.” (CC Adi Lila, Ch. 5, Txt. 41 Purport.) Such CHIVALROUS (root VAL= BALA) Self-sacrifice for the sake of the Salvific Love of all beings is the essential Nature of the Second Person of the Godhead, SRI BALA-DEVA. Srila Prabhupada even emphasized that BALARAMA is the CHIVALROUS Protector and Savior of all devotees of the Lord. So according to both Vaishnava and Catholic Trinitarian Revelation, it is the Second Person of the Godhead, the Servitor Lord, Who as the once-and-all-sufficient cosmic Self-Sacrifice “takes away the sins of the world” as the Original Spiritual Master and Intercessor-Redeemer of all devotees. As the Bible says “None come to the Father but by Him”. This Same Savior Lord has appeared in countless universes and in countless Theophanies and Incarnations, Each as a ‘general’ or ‘private’ revelation to His devotees. So while He is One in His GODHOOD, He is also really Different in His devotees’ collective and individual experience of Him. Sri Chaitanya-charitamrita, Adi Lila, Ch. 5, Text 41 Purport: “Each Incarnation is distinct from all the others. This is possible by the Lord’s inconceivable potency, by which He can simultaneously represent Himself as one, as various partial forms, and as the origin of these partial forms. Nothing is impossible for His inconceivable potencies.” These variegated (Vilasa) Forms / Rupas of the Second Person of the Godhead may be considered ‘partial’ because there is something (for the sake of Lila) that is not revealed in Them. God is actually always fully GOD, but He may express Himself partially according to any love relationship He chooses. Such partiality does not limit His Divinity, even though He can choose to manifest in different or Vilasa Forms and even “accept trials and tribulations” on His loved-ones’ behalf. CC Adi Lila: “Baladeva acts as the spiritual master of all devotees, and by His causeless mercy the fallen souls are delivered.” “...Balarama is the protector of the devotees of the Lord. By His divine grace only one can approach the Supreme Lord Sri Krishna, and thus Sri Balarama is the mercy incarnation of the Lord, manifested in the spiritual master, the savior of the pure devotees.” He alone descends as the Cosmic Purusha Who “takes away the sins of the world” from every material cosmic manifestation! As the Original Spiritual Master, in every finite universe HE manifests Himself and SACRIFICES HIMSELF FOR THE CREATION, MAINTENANCE AND ULTIMATE REDEMPTION OF ALL BEINGS IN THAT UNIVERSE. THIS REVELATION IS THE CENTRAL FOCUS OF THE VEDIC HYMNS, WHICH REVEAL THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE IN THE SELF-SACRIFICE OF LORD BALADEVA-VISHNU AS PURUSHA YUPA DHVAJA IN THE PURUSHA SUKTA HYMN. HE IS YAGNA PURUSHA. Now if we understand that there is ONE GOD ETERNALLY MANIFEST IN THREE IRREDUCIBLE PERSONS, AND THAT THE SECOND PERSON OF THIS GODHEAD IS THE VILASA SOURCE OF ALL VARIEGATEDNESS IN DIVINE MANIFESTATION, INCARNATION AND REVELATION, then we should be able to begin to grasp the importance of Sri Krishna Chaitanya’s simultaneously-one-and-different doctrine of Godhead. This is the doctrine that we must keep in mind and heart as we contemplate the inconceivable simultaneous THEOLOGICAL ONENESS and LILA DIFFERENCE of Sri Baladeva, Sri Nityananda Prabhu and The Second Person of the Godhead as Jesus Christ. So let us reconsider the way that you have posed your question, using some examples. The Lila Avatara Forms of Vishnu are all different or VILASA forms of the same GOD. They are not DIFFERENT GODS. YET for the sake of LILA THEY ARE DIFFERENT. Thus it is not usual to find Radha and Krishna worshiped on the same altar or in the same mood as Lakshmi Narasimha, because the RASA OF THE REVELATION IS DIFFERENT. For this reason it is said that Sri Sri Radha-Krishna should not even be worshiped in the same temple as the ferocious Lion-Headed Form of Lord Nara Hari. Now, in contrast, in the case of worshiping Sri Sri Radha-Krishna and Sri Gauranga, such worship being in the same sweet flavor (rasa or ‘mellow’ of Parakiya or conjugal love), the RASA IS SIMULTANEOUSLY ONE AND DIFFERENT. Thus the worship of Sri Sri Radha-Krishna and Sri Gauranga is compatible, and the SAME but DIFFERENT at the same time. While Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is considered the combined Forms of Sri Sri Radha-Krishna, for the purpose of a specific divine Lila, there is still a distinction between Radha-Krishna worship and the worship of Sri Gauranga. Srila Prabhupada in fact condemns those as Sahajiyas, who think that they can worship Sri Gauranga INSTEAD of worshiping Sri Sri Radha-Krishna. Thus there is a DISTINCTION between Sri Sri Radha-Krishna and Sri Gauranga worship. There is a simultaneous oneness and a difference THAT SHOULD NOT BE OBLITERATED. In the same way, one should not think that they can worship Sri Nityananda INSTEAD of worshiping Sri Baladeva. Many problems in world religious history have resulted from persons trying to worship a Form of the Second Person of the Godhead INSTEAD of the Second Person of the Godhead. Sri Nityananda and Sri Balarama are simultaneously One and Different, and a devotee should be mindful of Lord Baladeva ALWAYS when worshiping Sri Nityananda Rama. In fact, as there is no separate existence of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu from Sri Sri Radha-Krishna, there is also no separate existence of Sri Nityananda Rama from Lord Balarama. Therefore bona fide Gaudiya Vaishnava theology constantly stresses this teaching, so that the devotees will avoid the forms of heretical Sahajiyaism in which Sri Chaitanya or Sri Nityananda might be worshiped separately or instead of Sri Sri Radha-Krishna and Sri Balarama. Besides Sahajiyaism, sectarian fanaticism arises in Vaishnavism and other related Bhakti Traditions when devotees worship their beloved Form of the Savior Lord SEPARATELY or INSTEAD of His Revelation as the Second Person of the Godhead. Thus for example the fanatical exclusivism of some Protestant Fundamentalists because they have no realization of Jesus Christ as an Incarnation of the Second Person of the Godhead. It is their own limitation of understanding of Jesus as the Second Person of the Godhead that is alienating them from the rest of His devotees in the world. As in authentic Vaishnavism, in Catholicism as well the theology of the Second Person of the Godhead is always stressed. In Catholic Theology Jesus Christ can only save souls because He is the Second Person Incarnate. In Vaishnavism, the theology of Sri Baladeva as the Saving Second Person of the Godhead is always stressed. Properly then, in terms of interfaith understanding, devotees should always stress the highest unity IN THEIR ORIGIN of the variegated VILASA FORMS OF THE SECOND PERSON OF THE GODHEAD. Thus theologically one can speak of the revelations of Lord Baladeva, the Second Person of the Godhead, as Jesus Christ or as Sri Nityananda. Historically speaking one can also describe both Jesus Christ and Sri Nityananda Prabhu as revelations of Sri Baladeva or the Second Person of the same historically revealed Godhead. Sometimes while mindful of this unity of Vilasa (Different, Variegated) manifestations within the Second Person of the Godhead, I may glorify Sri Nityananda Balarama, or Nitai-Balarama, and again sometimes I may glorify the Lord as Bala-Yesu or Bala-Yashas / Yashua. Sometimes while contemplating the Savior Lord’s inconceivable potency of oneness and difference, I may glorify Him as Bala-Jesu-Nityananda-Rama, or Bala-Jesu-Amitayus, or Bala-Sankarshan-Shambhu-Sada-Shivayah. In fact, by His causeless mercy, I know thousands of Names of Lord Baladeva, and in this way I invoke Him, and privately worship my Lord and Savior in the unity of His infinite Nama and Rupa. However, I never merge His Manifestations or forget Their Diversity in His Unity. Thus I am not troubled by any desire to pose questions such as “ If Jesus is Nityananda and if Nityananda descends to promote the sattvic movement of Sri Krishna bhakti, could it be true that Lord Jesus had fish or gave away fish for food?” Knowing that the Lord always acts perfectly according to time and circumstance, Rupa and Lila, Rasa and the capacity for Realization of His devotees, I have complete faith in Him to reveal Himself according to His causeless mercy’s Divine Plan. I am thus not compelled to question Him or fault-find His behavior, or the behavior of His great devotees. Even when there appear to be some differences or contradictions, I am content to let God be God, and not to try to second-guess Him when it comes to His relationships with His devotees. Now, if one is disturbed by such questions as yours about fish, then one should consult the authentic Guru, Shastra and Sadhu of Catholic Apostolic Tradition for explanations of these passages. The early Catholic masters (called the Apostolic Fathers) commented on every verse of the Shastra, and in fact did write theological commentaries on the passages about the miraculous catch of fishes, which some compared to Christ’s words: “Follow me and I will make you fishers of men.” (Mark 1.17); and the distribution and taking up of the miraculous loaves, and finally Christ’s eating of IT (honeycomb) in Luke 24.43. In Catholic Tradition, as in Jewish Tradition before it, there are multiple levels of readings and parallel traditions of scriptural understanding. Because people are unaware of this, especially if they are non-Catholics, and anti-Catholics (including Protestants), they will generally only know of the grossest misunderstandings and corrupted literal readings of the scriptures. This is often the cause itself of many disturbances. In such cases the problem is not in the scripture but in the reader, in the way that they are reading the scriptures. Beyond all such questions however is Srila Prabhupada’s “perfect answer” (see his original Book “Perfect Questions, Perfect Answers”). When someone asked him about Jesus and flesh eating, Srila Prabhupada replied that Jesus could eat the whole world! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahnava Nitai Das Posted August 11, 2007 Report Share Posted August 11, 2007 ...and how both Jesus and Sri Nityananda Rama are considered in the Catholic and Vaishnava Traditions to be Incarnations of Sri Baladeva. Its ridiculous to pretend Vaishnava traditions say Jesus is an incarnation of Baladeva. It may or may not be true that he is, but no Vaishnava tradition has ever said this. In fact with the exception of Bhaktivinoda Thakur and Srila Prabhupada, no Vaishnava tradition has even spoken about Jesus. So to write an article about how "vaishnava traditions" consider Jesus to be an incarnation of Baladeva is just stupid. Vaishnava traditions, going back thousands of years, do not even mention him. He may be a pure devotee and an empowered incarnation, but that isn't something the vaishnava traditions have ever said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guruvani Posted August 11, 2007 Report Share Posted August 11, 2007 There are even some Christian propagandists who go so far as to say the the legend of Krishna the cowherd boy is a post-Jesus production of the Hindus to fabricate their own God after the legend of Jesus. Many Christians are so Christ-centric that they think that Christ came before Krishna and that Krishna is the Hindu version of Christ. Some Christians have an agenda to prove that Christ was the original concept of God and that Christianity is supreme above anything Hindu. It can get quite ridiculous how far some Christian theologians will go to try and establish Christianity as the only true religion in the world. It appears that some Christians are trying to make Jesus a God in the eyes of the Hindus with this theory that Christ is an incarnation of Balarama. It's just part of the Christian agenda of world domination. Now, they want the Hindus to think the Christ was the incarnation of their Balarama. This mixing and mingling of inter-religious conceptions is the product of scattered minds that are like unprotected women getting abused by every Joe that promises them eternal love. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mahak Posted August 11, 2007 Report Share Posted August 11, 2007 Its ridiculous to pretend Vaishnava traditions say Jesus is an incarnation of Baladeva. It may or may not be true that he is, but no Vaishnava tradition has ever said this. In fact with the exception of Bhaktivinoda Thakur and Srila Prabhupada, no Vaishnava tradition has even spoken about Jesus. So to write an article about how "vaishnava traditions" consider Jesus to be an incarnation of Baladeva is just stupid. Vaishnava traditions, going back thousands of years, do not even mention him. He may be a pure devotee and an empowered incarnation, but that isn't something the vaishnava traditions have ever said. Comparitive religious study anly draws out the negative, there is no value in any of it. We recognize the Vaisnava, be he Lord Jesus or Haridas thakur, both outside vedic jurisdiction. But to reduce the various scriptures to fit into the mold of the mind is just plain ridiculous, and only serves to alienate everyone who is into the actual ideologies of the great acaryas unbound by religiosity. Guruvani is a good example. He is not against Lord Jesus Christ, even though he is a great debunker of all ideas of Jesus brought up on the forums. He is against this drivel coming from folks who try to fit god into their mind and thus, their sect. Lord Jesus Christ doesnt need our help in twisting his life to facillitate some form of hinduism. Nor does the Veda have to have the concocted man-made bible as the concordex for understanding. Both systems are intact, and there is no need to mix and mash and come up with a whole new religion based on bits and pieces that cannot be explained by those of even the highest intention. So, I jesus this and Jesus that on the Vaisnava forums, but not here to convert, explain jesus and his eating of fish or drinking of wine. This is all useless disc ussion, and to try to mentally conjure up a merged philosophy of east meets west, Ill let baba ramm dass do that. Jesus is who he is, who he says he is. Prabhupada has brought understanding of vaisnavism to the west, extracting Bhakti from Vedanta. Prabhupada doesnt teach christian theology nor hindu theology. He praises the lovers of god, regardless. So, bhaktiananda swami is a prolific writer, and very well versed, but his authority comes from his guru, everything else is an arrangement of his mind. This may not be a bad thing, because if he is vaisnava (lover of god), then he presents actual theology. But it is taken with a grain of salt, like I recommend to all vaisnavas who per chance come upon my writings. But I dont use the bible to justify Krsna, nor do I scour the rg veda or visnu purana to see if jesus is even mentioned. I dont care, it is irrelavent. The only vedic understanding about Lord Jesus comes from the veda produced by acaryas (sruti v smriti, I forget which, sorry) like Bhaktivedanta Swami or bhaktivinode thakur, and I accept their realizations without reservation. Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahnava Nitai Das Posted August 11, 2007 Report Share Posted August 11, 2007 Just to clarify in case it sounded like I am against Jesus, I accept him as a pure devotee of the Lord, but on the authority of Srila Prabhupada - not based on some imagined tradition. It is dishonest for B.A. Goswami to claim the vaishnava tradition considers Jesus to be an incarnation of Baladeva. There are many, many vaishnava traditions in existence, of which none accept Jesus as an incarnation of Baladeva. In fact some vaishnava traditions do not even accept Baladeva Himself to be an incarnation (the madhva's). Only Srila Prabhupada has stated that Jesus is an empowered incarnation. Besides him you won't find a single acharya who has made such a claim. So certainly the traditions do not teach that Jesus is an incarnation of Baladeva. They don't need to teach it because it isn't part of their tradition. It is out of their field of focus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mahak Posted August 11, 2007 Report Share Posted August 11, 2007 Point completely understood, Jahnava Nitai das. I really like the writings of Bhakti ananda, and I dont fault him for the literary license. If he is speaking to devotees versed in the tenets of Bhagavad Gita, any dishonesty is not really evident. In fact, with acintya bheda bheda tattwa as my concordex , I can kind of accept his premise on a purely speculative angle (and also remembering Srila Prabhupadas exdplanation of the difference between mental speculation and philosophical speculation). As Lord Balarama is the Lord in the Heart, Chaita Guru, he is the one who appoints the acarya, empowers anyone whom he pleases to act as his full representative to those seeking the Truth of their actual identity. Thuis, as a reader of the scholarly works of BA Goswami, which I really appreciate because he utilizes a much more vast source of extra biblical documentary evidence to present his case, I can accept that Lord Jesus Christ, as personally empowered by Lord Balarama to present the science of bhakti (a personal and reciprocal relationship between the living being and the Supreme Person) is non-different from Lord Balarama. However, there is vast difference as well. I am guilty of philosophical speculation as well. I have clearly surmised Lord Jesus Christ is both Lord Brahma and Haridas Thakura. I have used the vedic shastra to explain "only begotten son", I have drawn comparisons to the life of Jesus "away from the Lord" to his reward to take part in actual pastimes with the Lord as Haridas Thakur, still scorned by the religionist, still persecuted, but now taking direct service from one whome he has always served without reservation. When Lord Jesus speaks of his divinity, it is as creator, yet still worshipping one who is greater. So, my conclusions are not verified by any vedic literature, but such philosophical speculation is harmless and not done with any dishonesty whatsoever. Us writers, we gotta say something different just to be read. Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerServant Posted August 11, 2007 Report Share Posted August 11, 2007 Its ridiculous to pretend Vaishnava traditions say Jesus is an incarnation of Baladeva. It may or may not be true that he is, but no Vaishnava tradition has ever said this. In fact with the exception of Bhaktivinoda Thakur and Srila Prabhupada, no Vaishnava tradition has even spoken about Jesus. So to write an article about how "vaishnava traditions" consider Jesus to be an incarnation of Baladeva is just stupid. Vaishnava traditions, going back thousands of years, do not even mention him. He may be a pure devotee and an empowered incarnation, but that isn't something the vaishnava traditions have ever said. PAHMO. You are misunderstanding the title. The authors intent is to present BOTH Vaisnava view and Christian view in the same article and point out similarity. NOT to say at all, that Vaisnava accepts that he is an incarnation in a Vaisnava tradition. What is being presented is that there is similarity in the theology and that this similarity stems occurs independently in God's revelation to the devotee. So you can't look at this article like a Christian trying to sell a Vaisnava on Jesus as Baladeva. This article is pointing out that Christians identify with Jesus (theologically) in the same manner that Vaisnavas take Balarama. It is my opinion that the author's realization is unity between Balarama and Jesus as one and the same. I personally have no such realization so I cannot pretend to comment as the two being the same Lord. But I CAN honestly and sincerely comment, that the similarity of the theology exists. I posted here not to turn Narad as incarnation thread into a christian thread, but rather to point out, that these controversy among devotee understanding of Krsna's incarnations has different answers among different traditions. When reading through this information by BAGoswami, and just looking or examining in context of his explanation of divine person to divine person to jiva soul relationship of love, this to me explains the question correctly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerServant Posted August 11, 2007 Report Share Posted August 11, 2007 It is dishonest for B.A. Goswami to claim the vaishnava tradition considers Jesus to be an incarnation of Baladeva. There are many, many vaishnava traditions in existence, of which none accept Jesus as an incarnation of Baladeva. In fact some vaishnava traditions do not even accept Baladeva Himself to be an incarnation (the madhva's). PAHMO He is not dishonest. After I found some of his articles in 2002 I searched to contact him (with failure). Eventually though I was able to contact him by phone several years ago and I spoke to him at length. He stated emphatically that BOTH traditions should not be mingled. He said that he is speaking from his personal realization and calls this "private revelation" between God and his devotee. Further that private revelation is NOT authorative as a general teaching to all the world. I asked him very specific questions about Mahaprabhu and he told me that for questions about Mahaprabhu go and seek Radhanath swami for answers (Which I did). He said if you have questions about catholic theology then consult the saints and find the monks who are closest to the realizations of the christian saints. If you study his writing from either Christian of Vaisnava view, it is challenge to both (for example on the western side, he also says Christ is the Greek god Helios and Asclepius) So from all sides he is controversial. So the point is look from one side (without bias and sectarian view) and listen from that side, you have a triune theology that has strong similarities to the vaisnava theology of trinity. Looking (without bias or sectarian view) from vaisnava side, you see strong similarity between the vaisnvava view of the identity of baladeva and how christians worship Jesus. That is all. Both traditions are respected. And by the way .. BAG takes just as much "heat" from catholics and christians because he makes these comparisons. But again .. I've spoken to him and Radhanath swami. They are both very sincere, non sectarian devotees. In fact, when I walked with HH Radhanath swami to discuss sectarian difference, he told me that "sectarian distinctions are just "not in him I wish you could see his face as he told me this .. I have nothing more to say. HS and yours Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.