All Incarnation of God Comes from Supersoul?

[gHari]

From The Teachings of Lord Caitanya:<blockquote>There are six kinds of incarnations: (1) the puruSa-avatAra, (2) the lIlA-avatAra, (3) the guNa-avatAra, (4) the manvantara-avatAra, (5) the yuga-avatAra, and (6) the zaktyAveza-avatAra. Out of the six vilAsa manifestations of KRSNa, there are two divisions based on His age, and these are called bAlya and paugaNDa. As the son of Nanda MahArAja, KRSNa in His original form enjoys both of these childhood aspects--namely bAlya and paugaNDa.

 

It is thus safe to conclude that there is no end to the expansions and incarnations of KRSNa. Lord Caitanya explains some of them to SanAtana just to give him an idea of how the Lord expands and enjoys. These conclusions are also confirmed in SrImad-BhAgavatam (1.3.26). There it is said that there is no limit to the incarnations of the Supreme Lord, just as there is no limit to the waves of the ocean.

 

KRSNa first incarnates as the three puruSa-avatAras, namely the MahA-ViSNu or KAraNodakazAyI avatAra, the GarbhodakazAyI avatAra and the KSIrodakazAyI avatAra. This is confirmed in the SAtvata-tantra. KRSNa's energies can also be divided into three: His energy of thinking feeling and acting. When He exhibits His thinking energy, He is the Supreme Lord; when He exhibits His feeling energy, He is Lord VAsudeva; when He exhibits His acting energy, He is SaGkarSaNa BalarAma. Without His thinking, feeling and acting, there would be no possibility of creation. Although there is no creation in the spiritual world--for there the planets are beginningless--there is creation in the material world. In either case, however, both the spiritual and material worlds are manifestations of the energy of acting, in which KRSNa acts in the form of SaGkarSaNa and BalarAma.

 

The spiritual world of the VaikuNTha planets and KRSNaloka, the supreme planet, is situated in His energy of thinking. Although there is no creation in the spiritual world, which is eternal, it is still to be understood that the VaikuNTha planets depend on the thinking energy of the Supreme Lord. This thinking energy is described in Brahma-saMhitA (5.2), where it is said that the supreme abode, known as Goloka, is manifested like a lotus flower with hundreds of petals. Everything there is manifested by Ananta, the BalarAma or SaGkarSaNa form. The material cosmic manifestation and its different universes are manifest through mAyA, or material energy. However, one should not think that material nature or material energy is the cause of this cosmic manifestation. Rather, it is caused by the Supreme Lord, who uses His different expansions through material nature. In other words, there is no possibility of any creation without the superintendence of the Supreme Lord. The form by which the energy of material nature works to bring about creation is called the SaGkarSaNa form, and it is understood that this cosmic manifestation is created under the superintendence of the Supreme Lord.

 

In SrImad-BhAgavatam (10.46.31) it is said that BalarAma and KRSNa are the origin of all living entities and that these two personalities enter into everything. A list of incarnations is given in SrImad-BhAgavatam (1.3), and they are as follows: (1) KumAras, (2) NArada, (3) VarAha, (4) Matsya, (5) YajJa, (6) Nara-nArAyaNa, (7) KArdami Kapila, (8) DattAtreya, (9) HayazIrSa, (10) HaMsa, (1 1) Dhruvapriya or PRznigarbha, (12) RSabha, (13) PRthu, (14) NRsiMha, (15) KUrma, (16) Dhanvantari, (17) MohinI, (18) VAmana, (19) BhArgava (ParazurAma), (20) RAghavendra, (21) VyAsa, (22) PralambAri BalarAma, (23) KRSNa, (24) Buddha (25) Kalki. Because almost all of these twenty-five lIlA-avatAras appear in one day of BrahmA, which is called a kalpa, they are sometimes called kalpa-avatAras. Out of these, the incarnation of HaMsa and MohinI are not permanent, but Kapila, DattAtreya, RSabha, Dhanvantari and VyAsa are five eternal forms, and they are more celebrated. The incarnations of the tortoise KUrma, the fish Matsya, Nara-nArAyaNa, VarAha, HayazIrSa, PRznigarbha, and BalarAma are considered to be incarnations of vaibhava. Similarly, there are three guNa-avatAras, or incarnations of the qualitative modes of nature, and these are BrahmA, ViSNu and Siva.

 

Of the manvantara-avatAras, there are fourteen: (1) YajJa, (2) Vibhu, (3) Satyasena, (4) Hari, (5) VaikuNTha, (6) Ajita, (7) VAmana, (8) SArvabhauma, (9) RSabha, (10) ViSvaksena, (11) Dharmasetu, (12) SudhAmA, (13) Yogezvara, (14) BRhadbhAnu. Out of these fourteen manvantara-avatAras, YajJa and VAmana are also lIlA-avatAras, and the rest are manvantara-avatAras. These fourteen manvantara-avatAras are also known as vaibhava-avatAras.

 

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).</blockquote>

[bhaktajan]

Translations and purports by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada:

Sri Isopanisad Introduction:

. . . There is a spiritual sky. There is another nature, which is beyond manifestation and nonmanifestation. But how will you know that there is a sky where the planets and inhabitants are eternal? All this knowledge is there, but how will you make experiments? It is not possible. Therefore you have to take the assistance of the Vedas. This is called Vedic knowledge. In our Krsna consciousness movement we are accepting knowledge from the highest authority, Krsna. Krsna is accepted as the highest authority by all classes of men. I am speaking first of the two classes of transcendentalists. One class of transcendentalists is called impersonalistic, Mayavadi. They are generally known as Vedantists, led by Sankaracarya. And there is another class of transcendentalists, called Vaisnavas, like Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, Visnu-svami. Both the Sankara-sampradaya and the Vaisnava-sampradaya have accepted Krsna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Sankaracarya is supposed to be an impersonalist who preached impersonalism, impersonal Brahman, but it is a fact that he is a covered personalist. In his commentary on the Bhagavad-gita he wrote, “Narayana, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is beyond this cosmic manifestation.” And then again he confirmed, “That Supreme Personality of Godhead, Narayana, is Krsna. He has come as the son of Devaki and Vasudeva.” He particularly mentioned the names of His father and mother. So Krsna is accepted as the Supreme Personality of Godhead by all transcendentalists. There is no doubt about it. Our source of knowledge in Krsna consciousness is the Bhagavad-gita, which comes directly from Krsna. We have published the Bhagavad-gita As It Is because we accept Krsna as He is speaking, without any interpretation. That is Vedic knowledge. Since the Vedic knowledge is pure, we accept it. Whatever Krsna says, we accept. This is Krsna consciousness. That saves much time.

Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 1 Introduction:

. . . The Lord said that but for these three items—namely, eternal relation with God, exchange of dealings with Him and the attainment of love for Him—all that is instructed in the Vedas is superfluous and concocted.

The Lord further added that the Mayavada philosophy taught by Sripada Sankaracarya is an imaginary explanation of the Vedas, but it had to be taught by him (Sankaracarya) because he was ordered to teach it by the Personality of Godhead. In the Padma Purana it is stated that the Personality of Godhead ordered His Lordship Siva to deviate the human race from Him (the Personality of Godhead). The Personality of Godhead was to be so covered so that people would be encouraged to generate more and more population. His Lordship Siva said to Devi: “In the Kali-yuga, I shall preach the Mayavada philosophy, which is nothing but clouded Buddhism, in the garb of a brahmana.”

SB 1.2.3 Purport:

. . . Srimad-Bhagavatam is the one unrivaled commentary on Vedanta-sutra. Sripada Sankaracarya intentionally did not touch it because he knew that the natural commentary would be difficult for him to surpass. He wrote his Sariraka-bhasya, and his so-called followers deprecated the Bhagavatam as some “new” presentation. One should not be misled by such propaganda directed against the Bhagavatam by the Mayavada school. From this introductory sloka, the beginning student should know that Srimad-Bhagavatam is the only transcendental literature meant for those who are paramahamsas and completely freed from the material disease called malice. The Mayavadis are envious of the Personality of Godhead despite Sripada Sankaracarya’s admission that Narayana, the Personality of Godhead, is above the material creation. The envious Mayavadi cannot have access to the Bhagavatam, but those who are really anxious to get out of this material existence may take shelter of this Bhagavatam because it is uttered by the liberated Srila Sukadeva Gosvami. It is the transcendental torchlight by which one can see perfectly the transcendental Absolute Truth realized as Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan.

Srimad Bhagavatam 1.2.22

Certainly, therefore, since time immemorial, all transcendentalists have been rendering devotional service to Lord Krnsa, the Personality of Godhead, with great delight, because such devotional service is enlivening to the self.

PURPORT The speciality of devotional service unto the Personality of Godhead Lord Sri Krsna is specifically mentioned herein. Lord Sri Krsna is the svayam-rupa Personality of Godhead, and all other forms of Godhead, beginning from Sri Baladeva, Sankarsana, Vasudeva, Aniruddha, Pradyumna and Narayana and extending to the purusa-avataras, guna-avataras, lila-avataras, yuga-avataras and many other thousands of manifestations of the Personality of Godhead, are Lord Sri Krsna’s plenary portions and integrated parts. The living entities are separated parts and parcels of the Personality of Godhead. Therefore Lord Sri Krsna is the original form of Godhead, and He is the last word in the Transcendence. Thus He is more attractive to the higher transcendentalists who participate in the eternal pastimes of the Lord. In forms of the Personality of Godhead other than Sri Krsna and Baladeva, there is no facility for intimate personal contact as in the transcendental pastimes of the Lord at Vrajabhumi. The transcendental pastimes of Lord Sri Krsna are not newly accepted, as argued by some less intelligent persons; His pastimes are eternal and are manifested in due course once in a day of Brahmaji, as the sun rises on the eastern horizon at the end of every twenty-four hours.

SB 1.3.42 Purport:

. . . Sripada Sankaracarya, who preached Mayavada philosophy and stressed the impersonal feature of the Absolute, also recommended that one must take shelter at the lotus feet of Lord Sri Krsna, for there is no hope of gain from debating. Indirectly Sripada Sankaracarya admitted that what he had preached in the flowery grammatical interpretations of the Vedanta-sutra cannot help one at the time of death. At the critical hour of death one must recite the name of Govinda. This is the recommendation of all great transcendentalists. Sukadeva Gosvami had long ago stated the same truth, that at the end one must remember Narayana. That is the essence of all spiritual activities. In pursuance of this eternal truth, Srimad-Bhagavatam was heard by Emperor Pariksit, and it was recited by the able Sukadeva Gosvami. And both the speaker and the receiver of the messages of Bhagavatam were duly delivered by the same medium.

SB 2.8.27 Purport:

. . . Srimad-Bhagavatam can be legitimately discussed only among the devotees of the Lord. As the Bhagavad-gita was authoritatively discussed between Lord Krsna and Arjuna (the Lord and the devotee respectively), similarly Srimad-Bhagavatam, which is the postgraduate study of the Bhagavad-gita, can also be discussed between the scholars and devotees like Sukadeva Gosvami and Maharaja Pariksit. Otherwise the real taste of the nectar cannot be relished. Sukadeva Gosvami was pleased with Maharaja Pariksit because he was not at all tired of hearing the topics of the Lord and was more and more anxious to hear them on and on with interest. Foolish interpreters unnecessarily tackle the Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam when they have no access to the subject matter. There is no use in nondevotees’ meddling with the two topmost Vedic literatures, and therefore Sankaracarya did not touch Srimad-Bhagavatam for commentation. In his commentation on the Bhagavad-gita, Sripada Sankaracarya accepted Lord Krsna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but later on he commented from the impersonalist’s view. But, being conscious of his position, he did not comment on the Srimad-Bhagavatam.

Srila Sukadeva Gosvami was protected by Lord Krsna (vide Brahma-vaivarta Purana), and therefore he is known as Brahmarata, and Sriman Pariksit Maharaja was protected by Visnu, and thus he is known as Visnurata. As devotees of the Lord, they are always protected by the Lord. It is clear also in this connection that a Visnurata should hear Srimad-Bhagavatam from Brahmarata and no one else because others misrepresent the transcendental knowledge and thus spoil one’s valuable time.

Srimad Bhagavatam 3.4.20 Purport:

. . . As confirmed in Bhagavad-gita (16.20) such envious speculators are without knowledge and are surely condemned life after life. They unnecessarily take shelter of Sripada Sankaracarya, but he was not so drastic as to commit an offense at the lotus feet of Lord Krsna. According to Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, Sripada Sankaracarya preached the Mayavada philosophy for a particular purpose. Such a philosophy was necessary to defeat the Buddhist philosophy of the nonexistence of the spirit soul, but it was never meant for perpetual acceptance. It was an emergency. Thus Lord Krsna was accepted by Sankaracarya as the Supreme Personality of Godhead in his commentation on Bhagavad-gita. Since he was a great devotee of Lord Krsna, he did not dare write any commentary on Srimad-Bhagavatam because that would have been a direct offense at the lotus feet of the Lord. But later speculators, in the name of Mayavada philosophy, unnecessarily make their commentary on the catuh-sloki Bhagavatam without any bona fide intent.

The monistic dry speculators have no business in the Srimad-Bhagavatam because this particular Vedic literature is forbidden for them by the great author himself. Srila Vyasadeva has definitely forbidden persons engaged in religiosity, economic development, sense gratification and, finally, salvation, from trying to understand Srimad-Bhagavatam, which is not meant for them (Bhag. 1.1.2).

Srimad Bhagavatam 4.24.17 Purport:

. . . Lord Siva, speaking to Parvati-devi, foretold that he would spread the Mayavada philosophy in the guise of a sannyasi brahmana just to eradicate Buddhist philosophy. This sannyasi was Sripada Sankaracarya. In order to overcome the effects of Buddhist philosophy and spread Vedanta philosophy, Sripada Sankaracarya had to make some compromise with the Buddhist philosophy, and as such he preached the philosophy of monism, for it was required at that time. Otherwise there was no need for his preaching Mayavada philosophy. At the present moment there is no need for Mayavada philosophy or Buddhist philosophy, and Lord Caitanya rejected both of them. This Krsna consciousness movement is spreading the philosophy of Lord Caitanya and rejecting the philosophy of both classes of Mayavadi. Strictly speaking, both Buddhist philosophy and Sankara’s philosophy are but different types of Mayavada dealing on the platform of material existence. Neither of these philosophies has spiritual significance. There is spiritual significance only after one accepts the philosophy of Bhagavad-gita, which culminates in surrendering unto the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Generally people worship Lord Siva for some material benefit, and although they cannot see him personally, they derive great material profit by worshiping him.

Srimad Bhagavatam 4.24.18 Purport:

. . . These are twelve great authorities in preaching God consciousness. The name Sambhu means Lord Siva. His disciplic succession is also known as the Visnusvami-sampradaya, and the current Visnusvami-sampradaya is also known as the Vallabha-sampradaya. The current Brahma-sampradaya is known as the Madhva-Gauòiya-sampradaya. Even though Lord Siva appeared to preach Mayavada philosophy, at the end of his pastime in the form of Sankaracarya, he preached the Vaisnava philosophy: bhaja govindam bhaja govindam bhaja govindam muòha-mate. He stressed worshiping Lord Krsna, or Govinda, three times in this verse and especially warned his followers that they could not possibly achieve deliverance, or mukti, simply by word jugglery and grammatical puzzles. If one is actually serious to attain mukti, he must worship Lord Krsna. That is Sripada Sankaracarya’s last instruction.

[bhaktajan]

TLC 19:

. . . According to Mayavadi philosophers, Vedanta refers to the Sariraka commentary of Sankaracarya. When impersonal philosophers refer to Vedanta and the Upanisads, they are actually referring to the commentaries of Sankaracarya, the greatest teacher of Mayavadi philosophy. After Sankaracarya came Sadananda-yogi, who claimed that the Vedanta and Upanisads should be understood through the commentaries of Sankaracarya. Factually, this is not so. There are many commentaries on Vedanta and the Upanisads made by the Vaisnava acaryas, and these are preferred to those of Sankaracarya. However, the Mayavadi philosophers influenced by Sankaracarya do not attribute any importance to the Vaisnava understandings.

There are four different sects of Vaisnava acaryas—the Suddhadvaita, ViSistadvaita, Dvaitadvaita and Acintya-bhedabheda. All the Vaisnava acaryas in these schools have written commentaries on the Vedanta-sutra, but the Mayavadi philosophers do not recognize them. The Mayavadis distinguish between Krsna and Krsna’s body, and therefore they do not recognize the worship of Krsna by the Vaisnava philosophers. Thus when the Mayavadi sannyasis asked Lord Caitanya why He did not study the Vedanta-sutra, the Lord replied, “Dear sirs, you have asked why I do not study Vedanta, and in answer to this I would speak something, but I am afraid that you would be sorry to hear it.”

“We shall be very much pleased to hear You,” all the sannyasis replied. “You appear just like Narayana, and Your speeches are so nice that we are taking great pleasure in them. We are very much obliged to see and hear You. Therefore we shall be very glad to hear patiently and accept whatever You say.”

The Lord then began to speak on Vedanta philosophy as follows: Vedanta-sutra is spoken by the Supreme Lord Himself. The Supreme Lord, in His incarnation as Vyasadeva, has compiled this great philosophical treatise. Since Vyasadeva is an incarnation of the Supreme Lord, he cannot be likened to an ordinary person, who has the four defects which arise due to contact with material existence. The defects of a conditioned soul are: (1) he must commit mistakes; (2) he must be illusioned; (3) he must possess the tendency to cheat others; and (4) all his senses must be imperfect. We must understand that the incarnation of God is transcendental to all these defects. Thus whatever has been spoken and written by Vyasadeva is considered to be perfect. The Upanisads and Vedanta-sutra aim at the same goal: the Supreme Absolute Truth. When we accept the import of Vedanta-sutra and the Upanisads directly as they are stated, we become glorified. The commentaries made by Sankaracarya, however, are indirect and are very dangerous for the common man to read, for by understanding the import of the Upanisads in such an indirect, disruptive way, one practically bars himself from spiritual realization.

TLC 21:

After thus explaining his position, the chief student of PrakaSananda Sarasvati began to chant Hare Krsna, Hare Krsna, Krsna Krsna, Hare Hare/ Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare. When PrakaSananda Sarasvati saw this, he also admitted the fault of Sankaracarya and said, “Because Sankaracarya wanted to establish the doctrine of monism, he had no alternative but to interpret the Vedanta-sutra in a different way. Once one accepts the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the doctrine of monism cannot be established. Therefore by mundane scholarship Sankaracarya has tried to obscure the actual meaning of the Vedanta-sutra. Not only has Sankaracarya done this, but all authors who attempt to give their own views of necessity misinterpret Vedanta-sutra.”

Thus Lord Caitanya gave the direct meaning of Vedanta-sutra. No Vedic scripture should be used for indirect speculation. In addition to Sankaracarya, other materialistic philosophers like Kapila, Gautama, Astavakra and Patanjali have put forward philosophical speculation in various ways. Indeed, the philosopher Jaimini and his followers, who are all more or less logicians, have abandoned the real meaning of the Vedas (devotional service) and have tried to establish the Absolute Truth as subject to the material world. It is their opinion that if there is a God, He will be pleased with man and give man all desired results if man simply performs his material activities nicely. Similarly, the atheist Kapila tried to establish that there is no God who created the material world. Kapila has even tried to establish that a combination of material elements caused creation. Similarly, Gautama and Kanada have given stress to this theory that the creation resulted from a fortunate combination of material elements, and they have tried to establish that atomic energy is the origin of creation. Similarly, impersonalists and monists like Astavakra have tried to establish the impersonal effulgence (brahmajyoti) as the Supreme. And Patanjali, one of the greatest authorities on the yoga system, has tried to conceive an imaginary form of the Supreme Lord.

In summary it should be understood that all these materialistic philosophers have tried to avoid the Supreme Personality of Godhead by putting forward their own mentally concocted philosophies. However, Vyasadeva, the great sage and incarnation of God head, has thoroughly studied all these philosophical speculations and in answer has compiled the Vedanta-sutra, which establishes the relationship between the living entity and the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the importance of devotional service in ultimately achieving love of Godhead. The verse janmady asya yatah [sB 1.1.1], which appears in the very beginning of Vedanta-sutra, is explained in Vyasadeva’s Srimad-Bhagavatam. In Srimad-Bhagavatam Vyasadeva establishes from the very beginning that the supreme source of everything is a cognizant, transcendental person.

The impersonalist tries to explain that the impersonal effulgence of the Supreme Lord (brahmajyoti) is beyond these material modes of nature, but at the same time he tries to establish that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is contaminated by the modes of material nature. The Vedanta-sutra asserts that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is not only transcendental to the material modes of nature but that He also has innumerable transcendental qualities and energies. All these various speculative philosophers are one in denying the existence of the Supreme Lord Visnu, and they are very much enthused to propagate their own theories and be recognized by the people. Unfortunate people become enamored of these atheistic philosophers and consequently can never understand the real nature of the Absolute Truth. It is far better to follow in the footsteps of great souls (mahajanas). According to Srimad-Bhagavatam, there are twelve mahajanas, or great souls, and these are: (1) Brahma, (2) Lord Siva, (3) Narada, (4) Vaivasvata Manu, (5) Kapila (not the atheist, but the original Kapila), (6) the Kumaras, (7) Prahlada, (8) Bhisma, (9) Janaka, (10) Bali, (11) Sukadeva Gosvami and (12) Yamaraja. According to the Mahabharata, there is no point in arguing about the Absolute Truth because there are so many different Vedic scriptures and philosophical understandings that no one philosopher can agree with another. Since everyone is trying to present his own point of view and reject others, it is very difficult to understand the necessity for religious principles. Therefore it is better to follow in the footsteps of the great mahajanas, great souls; then one can achieve the desired success. Lord Caitanya’s teachings are just like nectar, and they hold whatever is needed. The best way is to take to this path and follow it.

SCC Adi-lila 3.34 Purport:

. . . During the time of Lord Caitanya, the influence of Sankaracarya in society was very strong. People thought that one could accept sannyasa only in the disciplic succession of Sankaracarya. Lord Caitanya could have performed His missionary activities as a householder, but He found householder life an obstruction to His mission. Therefore He decided to accept the renounced order, sannyasa. Since His acceptance of sannyasa was also designed to attract public attention, Lord Caitanya, not wishing to disturb the social convention, took the renounced order of life from a sannyasi in the disciplic succession of Sankaracarya, although sannyasa was also sanctioned in the Vaisnava sampradaya.

In the Sankara-sampradaya there are ten different names awarded to sannyasis: (1) Tirtha, (2) ASrama, (3) Vana, (4) Aranya, (5) Giri, (6) Parvata, (7) Sagara, (8) Sarasvati, (9) Bharati and (10) Puri. Before one enters sannyasa, he has one of the various names for a brahmacari, the assistant to a sannyasi. Sannyasis with the titles Tirtha and ASrama generally stay at Dvaraka, and their brahmacari name is Svarupa. Those known by the names Vana and Aranya stay at Purusottama, or Jagannatha Puri, and their brahmacari name is PrakaSa. Those with the names Giri, Parvata and Sagara generally stay at BadarikaSrama, and their brahmacari name is Ananda. Those with the titles Sarasvati, Bharati and Puri usually live at Srngeri in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place w:st="on">South India</st1:place>, and their brahmacari name is Caitanya.

Sripada Sankaracarya established four monasteries in India, in the four directions (north, south, east and west), and he entrusted them to four sannyasis who were his disciples. Now there are hundreds of branch monasteries under these four principal monasteries, and although there is an official symmetry among them, there are many differences in their dealings. The four different sects of these monasteries are known as Anandavara, Bhogavara, Kitavara and Bhumivara, and in course of time they have developed different ideas and different slogans.

According to the regulation of the disciplic succession, one who wishes to enter the renounced order in Sankara’s sect must first be trained as a brahmacari under a bona fide sannyasi, The brahmacari’s name is ascertained according to the group to which the sannyasi belongs. Lord Caitanya accepted sannyasa from KeSava Bharati. When He first approached KeSava Bharati, He was accepted as a brahmacari with the name Sri Krsna Caitanya Brahmacari. After He took sannyasa, He preferred to keep the name Krsna Caitanya.

The great authorities in the disciplic succession had not offered to explain why Lord Caitanya refused to take the name Bharati after He took sannyasa from a Bharati, until Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Maharaja volunteered the explanation that because a sannyasi in the Sankara-sampradaya thinks that he has become the Supreme, Lord Caitanya, wanting to avoid such a misconception, kept the name Sri Krsna Caitanya, placing Himself as an eternal servitor. A brahmacari is supposed to serve the spiritual master; therefore He did not negate that relationship of servitude to His spiritual master. Accepting such a position is favorable for the relationship between the disciple and the spiritual master.

The authentic biographies also mention that Lord Caitanya accepted the danòa (rod) and begging pot, symbolic of the sannyasa order, at the time He took sannyasa.

……………………

SCC Adi-lila 5.41 Purport:

. . . In reply to the commentary of Sankaracarya on the forty-fourth aphorism, it may be said that no pure devotees strictly following the principles of the Pancaratra will ever accept the statement that all the expansions of Visnu are different identities, for this idea is completely false. Even Sripada Sankaracarya, in his commentary on the forty-second aphorism, has accepted that the Personality of Godhead can automatically expand Himself variously. Therefore his commentary on the forty-second aphorism and his commentary on the forty-fourth aphorism are contradictory. It is a defect of Mayavada commentaries that they make one statement in one place and a contradictory statement in another place as a tactic to refute the Bhagavata school. Thus Mayavadi commentators do not even follow regulative principles. It should be noted that the Bhagavata school accepts the quadruple forms of Narayana, but that does not mean that it accepts many Gods. Devotees know perfectly well that the Absolute Truth, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is one without a second. They are never pantheists, worshipers of many Gods, for this is against the injunction of the Vedas. Devotees completely believe, with strong faith, that Narayana is transcendental and has inconceivable proprietorship of various transcendental potencies. We therefore recommend that scholars consult the Laghu-bhagavatamrta of Srila Rupa Gosvami, where these ideas are explicitly stated. Sripada Sankaracarya has tried to prove that Vasudeva, Sankarsana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha expand through cause and effect. He has compared Them with earth and earthen pots. That is completely ignorant, however, for there is no such thing as cause and effect in Their expansions (nanyad yat sad-asat-param). The Kurma Purana also confirms, deha-dehi-vibhedo ’yam nesvare vidyate kvacit: “There is no difference between body and soul in the Supreme Personality of Godhead.” Cause and effect are material. For example, it is seen that a father’s body is the cause of a son’s body, but the soul is neither cause nor effect. On the spiritual platform there are none of the differences we find in cause and effect. Since all the forms of the Supreme Personality of Godhead are spiritually supreme, They are equally controllers of material nature. Standing on the fourth dimension, They are predominating figures on the transcendental platform. There is no trace of material contamination in Their expansions because material laws cannot influence Them. There is no such rule as cause and effect outside of the material world. Therefore the understanding of cause and effect cannot approach the full, transcendental, complete expansions of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The Vedic literature proves this:

om purnam adah purnam idam purnat purnam udacyate

purnasya purnam adaya purnam evavasisyate

“The Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the complete whole is also complete by itself. Because He is the complete whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance.” (Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad 5.1) It is most apparent that nondevotees violate the rules and regulations of devotional service to equate the whole cosmic manifestation, which is the external feature of Visnu, with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is the controller of maya, or with His quadruple expansions. Equating maya with spirit, or maya with the Lord, is a sign of atheism. The cosmic creation, which manifests life in forms from Brahma to the ant, is the external feature of the Supreme Lord. It comprises one fourth of the Lord’s energy, as confirmed in the Bhagavad-gita (ekamsena sthito jagat). The cosmic manifestation of the illusory energy is material nature, and everything within material nature is made of matter. Therefore, one should not try to compare the expansions of material nature to the catur-vyuha, the quadruple expansions of the Personality of Godhead, but unfortunately the Mayavadi school unreasonably attempts to do this.

………………………………………………………………………………..

SCC Adi-lila 7.64 Purport:

. . . Mayavadi sannyasis are always very puffed up because of their knowledge of Sanskrit and because they belong to the Sankara-sampradaya. They are always under the impression that unless one is a brahmana and a very good Sanskrit scholar, especially in grammar, one cannot accept the renounced order of life or become a preacher. Mayavadi sannyasis always misinterpret all the Sastras with their word jugglery and grammatical compositions, yet Sripada Sankaracarya himself condemned such jugglery of words in the verse prapte sannihite kale na hi na hi raksati dukrn karane. Dukrn refers to suffixes and prefixes in Sanskrit grammar. Sankaracarya warned his disciples that if they concerned themselves only with the principles of grammar, not worshiping Govinda, they were fools who would never be saved. Yet in spite of Sripada Sankaracarya’s instructions, foolish Mayavadi sannyasis are always busy juggling words on the basis of strict Sanskrit grammar.

Mayavadi sannyasis are very puffed up if they hold the elevated sannyasa title Tirtha, ASrama or Sarasvati. Even among Mayavadis, those who belong to other sampradayas and hold other titles, such as Vana, Aranya or Bharati, are considered to be lower-grade sannyasis. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu accepted sannyasa from the Bharati-sampradaya, and thus He considered Himself a lower sannyasi than PrakaSananda Sarasvati. To remain distinct from Vaisnava sannyasis, the sannyasis of the Mayavadi-sampradaya always think themselves to be situated in a very much elevated spiritual order, but Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, in order to teach them how to become humble and meek, accepted Himself as belonging to a lower sampradaya of sannyasis. Thus He wanted to point out clearly that a sannyasi is one who is advanced in spiritual knowledge. One who is advanced in spiritual knowledge should be accepted as occupying a better position than those who lack such knowledge.

The Mayavadi-sampradaya sannyasis are generally known as Vedantis, as if Vedanta were their monopoly. Actually, however, Vedanti refers to a person who perfectly knows Krsna. As confirmed in the Bhagavad-gita (15.15), vedais ca sarvair aham eva vedyah: By all the Vedas it is Krsna who is to be known. The so-called Mayavadi Vedantis do not know who Krsna is; therefore their title of Vedanti, or “knower of Vedanta philosophy,” is simply a pretension. Mayavadi sannyasis always think of themselves as real sannyasis and consider sannyasis of the Vaisnava order to be brahmacaris. A brahmacari is supposed to engage in the service of a sannyasi and accept him as his guru. Mayavadi sannyasis therefore declare themselves to be not only gurus but jagad-gurus, or the spiritual masters of the entire world, although, of course, they cannot see the entire world. Sometimes they dress gorgeously and travel on the backs of elephants in processions, and thus they are always puffed up, accepting themselves as jagad-gurus. Srila Rupa Gosvami, however, has explained that jagad-guru properly refers to one who is the controller of his tongue, mind, words, belly, genitals and anger. Prthivim sa Sisyat: such a jagad-guru is completely fit to make disciples all over the world. Due to false prestige, Mayavadi sannyasis who do not have these qualifications sometimes harass and blaspheme a Vaisnava sannyasi who humbly engages in the service of the Lord.

[bhaktajan]

SCC Adi-lila 7.157 Purport:

. . . All the demigods are servants of Krsna; they are not equal with Krsna. Therefore even if one goes to a temple of the pancopasana, as mentioned above, one should not accept the deities as they are accepted by the impersonalists. All of them are to be accepted as personal demigods, but they all serve the order of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Sankaracarya, for example, is understood to be an incarnation of Lord Siva, as described in the Padma Purana. He propagated the Mayavada philosophy under the order of the Supreme Lord. We have already discussed this point in text 114 of this chapter: tanra dosa nahi, tenho ajna-kari dasa. “Sankaracarya is not at fault, for he has thus covered the real purpose of the Vedas under the order of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.” Although Lord Siva, in the form of a brahmana (Sankaracarya), preached the false philosophy of Mayavada, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu nevertheless said that since he did it on the order of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, there was no fault on his part (tanra dosa nahi).

SCC Adi-lila 7.128 Purport:

. . . Aside from omkara, none of the words uttered by the followers of Sankaracarya can be considered the maha-vakya. They are merely passing remarks. Sankaracarya, however, has never stressed chanting of the maha-vakya omkara; he has accepted only tat tvam asi as the maha-vakya. Imagining the living entity to be God, he has misrepresented all the mantras of the Vedanta-sutra with the motive of proving that there is no separate existence of the living entities and the Supreme Absolute Truth. This is similar to the politician’s attempt to prove nonviolence from the Bhagavad-gita. Krsna is violent to demons, and to attempt to prove that Krsna is not violent is ultimately to deny Krsna. As such explanations of the Bhagavad-gita are absurd, so also is Sankaracarya’s explanation of the Vedanta-sutra, and no sane and reasonable man will accept it. At present, however, the Vedanta-sutra is misrepresented not only by the so-called Vedantis but also by other unscrupulous persons who are so degraded that they even recommend that sannyasis eat meat, fish and eggs. In this way, the so-called followers of Sankara, the impersonalist Mayavadis, are sinking lower and lower. How can these degraded men explain the Vedanta-sutra, which is the essence of all Vedic literature?

Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu has declared, mayavadi-bhasya Sunile haya sarva-naSa: “Anyone who hears commentary on the Vedanta-sutra from the Mayavada school is completely doomed.” As explained in the Bhagavad-gita (15.15), vedais ca sarvair aham eva vedyah: all Vedic literature aims at understanding Krsna. Mayavada philosophy, however, has deviated everyone from Krsna. Therefore there is a great need for the Krsna consciousness movement all over the world to save the world from degradation. Every intelligent and sane man must abandon the philosophical explanation of the Mayavadis and accept the explanation of Vaisnava acaryas. One should read Bhagavad-gita As It Is to try to understand the real purpose of the Vedas.

SCC Madhya-lila 25.56:

. . . In his Amrta-pravaha-bhasya, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura gives the following summary of the six philosophical processes. PrakaSananda admitted that Sripada Sankaracarya, being very eager to establish his philosophy of monism, took shelter of the Vedanta philosophy and tried to explain it in his own way. The fact is, however, that if one accepts the existence of God, one certainly cannot establish the theory of monism. For this reason Sankaracarya refuted all kinds of Vedic literature that establishes the supremacy of the Personality of Godhead. In various ways, Sankaracarya has tried to refute the Vedic literature. Throughout the world, ninety-nine percent of the philosophers following in the footsteps of Sankaracarya refuse to accept the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Instead they try to establish their own opinions. It is typical of mundane philosophers to want to establish their own opinions and refute those of others. Therefore: (1) The Mimamsaka philosophers, following the principles of Jaimini, stress fruitive activity and say that if there is a God, He must be under the laws of fruitive activity. In other words, if one performs his duties very nicely in the material world, God is obliged to give one the desired result. According to these philosophers, there is no need to become a devotee of God. If one strictly follows moral principles, one will be recognized by the Lord, who will give the desired reward. Such philosophers do not accept the Vedic principle of bhakti-yoga. Instead, they give stress to following one’s prescribed duty. (2) Atheistic Sankhya philosophers like Kapila analyze the material elements very scrutinizingly and thereby come to the conclusion that material nature is the cause of everything. They do not accept the Supreme Personality of Godhead as the cause of all causes. (3) Nyaya philosophers like Gautama and Kanada have accepted a combination of atoms as the original cause of the creation. (4) Mayavadi philosophers say that everything is an illusion. Headed by philosophers like Astavakra, they stress the impersonal Brahman effulgence as the cause of everything. (5) Philosophers following the precepts of Patanjali practice raja-yoga. They imagine a form of the Absolute Truth within many forms. That is their process of self-realization.

 

All five of these philosophies completely reject the predominance of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and strive to establish their own philosophical theories. However, Srila Vyasadeva wrote the Vedanta-sutra and, taking the essence of all Vedic literature, established the supremacy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. All five kinds of philosophers mentioned above understand that impersonal Brahman is without material qualities, and they believe that when the Personality of Godhead appears, He is contaminated and covered by the material qualities. The technical term used is saguna. They speak of saguna Brahman and nirguna Brahman. For them, nirguna Brahman means “the impersonal Absolute Truth without any material qualities” and saguna Brahman means “the Absolute Truth that accepts the contamination of material qualities.” More or less, this kind of philosophical speculation is called Mayavada philosophy. The fact is, however, that the Absolute Truth never has anything to do with material qualities because He is transcendental. He is always complete with full spiritual qualities. The five philosophers mentioned above do not accept Lord Visnu as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but they are very busy refuting the philosophies of other schools. There are six kinds of philosophical processes in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">India</st1:country-region></st1:place>. Because Vyasadeva is the Vedic authority, he is known as Vedavyasa. His philosophical explanation of the Vedanta-sutra is accepted by the devotees. As Krsna confirms in the Bhagavad-gita (15.15):

sarvasya caham hrdi sannivisto

mattah smrtir jnanam apohanam ca

vedais ca sarvair aham eva vedyo

vedanta-krd veda-vid eva caham

“I am seated in everyone’s heart, and from Me come remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness. By all the Vedas, I am to be known; indeed, I am the compiler of Vedanta, and I am the knower of the Vedas.”

The ultimate goal of studying all Vedic literature is the acceptance of Krsna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The Krsna consciousness movement is propagating the philosophical conclusion of Srila Vyasadeva and following other great acaryas like Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, Visnu Svami, Nimbarka and Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu Himself.

[krishnadasa]

 

Who is degrading avatars? Read my posts once more.

 

The people here have no idea what an avatar means. I was illustrating the meaning of an avatar by explaining the concept of Vishnu in Vaikunta coming down to earth for a finite period of time as Rama or Krishna. Seeing the responses I doubt these people are capable of understanding anything.

 

Instead of acknowledging the simple truth of the avatar list found commonly everywhere people are avouding the issue and posting stupid responses. Someone came up with an avatar list which has some Baladeva in place of Krishna. If you have a counter argument for the standard avatar list then post a proper response with justification. If you do not have anything meaningful why are you wasting your time on this thread?

 

You get angry so fast ! thats not good for you,, and as a matter of fact, Baladeva is nothing but Lord Balarama who is also an incarnation of Lord Shesha,... there have been and there will be differences all across this world from the time immemorial and my experience says , jut debating on these issues , rathere sensitive ones, does not yield anything. At the end of the day both of the minds are confused ... THERE ARENT ANYONE AROUND HERE WHO POSSESS CAPACITY like SRIPADA MADHWA OR SRILA PRABHUPADA.to deal with confused mind.. They preached according to the time, place and the people... And you are asking me to put some sense here,, when I see you yourself dont mainitain it. Believe me there is absolutely no point in refuting/rejecting on such issues when, things can be seen in many perspectives...

 

Eg: Lord Krishna and visnu are same,,, Visnu is the lord in a court, who has to be respected and must be worshipped with utmost cleanliness of mind, whereas Krishna is the same lord of court now became the grandfather to a grandson, who sits over his back and bangs his head .. Now eg: if the grand son says, Visnu is nothing but Krishna orginally , then it will be same as a lawyer saying Krishna is Visnu orginally..... But the wise one knows the truth, coz wise one loves Krishna or Visnu and in all his forms, which are transcendental and purifying...

 

I dont want to bring any scriptural evidences to make the discussion more complicated for a Kaliyuga mind...

 

hari bol