Is Krishnavatara a part of Dasavatara

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

 

Sometime back I remember reading that Krishanvatara is not part of Dasavatara. I am not sure whether I have read it here or in other group. When I have seen Krishavatara one among the dasavatara, I am in a fix whether my impression is wrong or where did I get this feeling. Could someone give me more info on this.

 

Om Namo Narayanaya

Sreenivas

[Guest guest]

Dear all,

Radhe Krishna!

 

Krishnavatara ia always considered to be one of the Dasavataras, and

not only that, according to Bhagavatam and Narayaneeyam, it is a

poornavatara. Some people consider Balarama also as an avatara of

Mahavishnu, and if so, the Krishnavatara cannot be a poornavatara. So

far as I know, Balarama is an avatara of Adisesha. Adisesha is also

considered as an aspect of Vishnu all right---probably this view is in

line with the philosophy that everything is an aspect of Vishnu.

There is also some opinion that considering the view " KRISHNASTHU

BHAGAVAN SWAYAM " , Krishna is a separate Bhagavan, and not an avatar of

Vishnu (?)

 

My personal opinion is that, considering that everything we hear, see

etc., are all aspects of Vishnu, as " SARVAM VISHNUMAYAM JAGAT! " it

does not make any difference whether Krishna and Balarama are avatars

of Vishnu. I think our minds will only be more confused by such

thoughts, which need not bother a true Bhakta. So, it is my humble

opinion that we should consider everything as an aspect of Vishnu and

worship Krishna as Krishna whose biggest attribute is the love towards

His devotees, and leave the rest to Him to decide. After all, the

LOrd's actions and His true nature is beyond human understanding,

anyway.

Love

K.V. Gopalakrishna

 

 

guruvayur , " Sreenivas " <sreenivas_r wrote:

>

> Dear All,

>

> Sometime back I remember reading that Krishanvatara is not part of

Dasavatara. I am not sure whether I have read it here or in other

group. When I have seen Krishavatara one among the dasavatara, I am in

a fix whether my impression is wrong or where did I get this feeling.

Could someone give me more info on this.

>

> Om Namo Narayanaya

> Sreenivas

>

[Guest guest]

Gopalakrishnaji - Shree Guruvayurappa Sharanam!

 

I agree with you that a bhakta should not be too much bothered about

the details about whether Krishna is Bhagavan or not, as the Braj

vasis (residents of Vrindavan) did not really care whether Krishna

was Bhagavan or not but were just engrossed in loving Him :-)

 

But initially for a devotee whose faith is not that strong one has to

understand the statements such as:

 

***

ete camsa kala pumsah krsnas tu bhagavan swayam

indrari vyakumlam lokam mrdayanti yuge yuge

 

All of the above-mentioned incarnations are either plenary portions

or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord Shree

Krishna is the original Personality of Godhead. All of them appear on

planets whenever there is a disturbance created by the atheists. The

Lord incarnates to protect the theists. -

http://srimadbhagavatam.com/1/3/28/en

***

 

And the statement from Brahma-samhita saying that:

 

***

isvarah paramah krsnah saccidananda vigraha

anadir adir govinda sarva karana karanam

 

Krishna who is known as Govinda is the Supreme Godhead. He has an

eternal blissful spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no

other origin and He is the prime cause of all causes. -

http://brahmasamhita.com/5/1/en

***

 

And, of course Krishna's own statement in Bhagavad-Gita saying that:

 

***

mattah parataram nanyat kincid asti dhananjaya

mayi sarvam idam proktam sutre mani gana iva

 

" O conqueror of wealth [Arjuna], there is no Truth superior to Me.

Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread. " -

http://www.asitis.com/7/7.html

***

 

Apologies if I have stated something wrong here.

 

~Krishnadasa.

 

 

guruvayur , " K.V. Gopalakrishna "

<gopalakrishna.kv wrote:

>

> Dear all,

> Radhe Krishna!

>

> Krishnavatara ia always considered to be one of the Dasavataras,

and

> not only that, according to Bhagavatam and Narayaneeyam, it is a

> poornavatara. Some people consider Balarama also as an avatara of

> Mahavishnu, and if so, the Krishnavatara cannot be a poornavatara.

So

> far as I know, Balarama is an avatara of Adisesha. Adisesha is

also

> considered as an aspect of Vishnu all right---probably this view is

in

> line with the philosophy that everything is an aspect of Vishnu.

> There is also some opinion that considering the view " KRISHNASTHU

> BHAGAVAN SWAYAM " , Krishna is a separate Bhagavan, and not an avatar

of

> Vishnu (?)

>

> My personal opinion is that, considering that everything we hear,

see

> etc., are all aspects of Vishnu, as " SARVAM VISHNUMAYAM JAGAT! " it

> does not make any difference whether Krishna and Balarama are

avatars

> of Vishnu. I think our minds will only be more confused by such

> thoughts, which need not bother a true Bhakta. So, it is my

humble

> opinion that we should consider everything as an aspect of Vishnu

and

> worship Krishna as Krishna whose biggest attribute is the love

towards

> His devotees, and leave the rest to Him to decide. After all, the

> LOrd's actions and His true nature is beyond human understanding,

> anyway.

> Love

> K.V. Gopalakrishna

>

>

> guruvayur , " Sreenivas " <sreenivas_r@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear All,

> >

> > Sometime back I remember reading that Krishanvatara is not part

of

> Dasavatara. I am not sure whether I have read it here or in other

> group. When I have seen Krishavatara one among the dasavatara, I am

in

> a fix whether my impression is wrong or where did I get this

feeling.

> Could someone give me more info on this.

> >

> > Om Namo Narayanaya

> > Sreenivas

> >

>