Guest guest Posted October 4, 2006 Report Share Posted October 4, 2006 Dear Sarojamji - Shree Guruvayurappa Sharanam! Please find my points and forgive me if I say somthing wrong... guruvayur , Saroja Ramanujam <sarojram18 wrote: > > Dear krishnadasa, > You have miwsed the central point of my expalaton. I agree with all >your quotations and do not say they are wrong. But as a vaisnava >following the path of Sri Ramanuja what I mean to say isthat Krishna >is synonymous with Narayana who Himself took all the other >incarnations as well. > Yes, this is true and I agree with you. Still, when Narayana or Maha- Vishnu is present there is more bhava of awe and reverence in the bhakta which is absent because in the form of Krishna a bhakta can have so many relationships with Him as: 1) Dasya - Here the awe and reverence is present a little bit 2) Sakhya - Here it is totally absent and Krishna is treated as a friend by the unalloyed-bhakta. 3) Vatsalya - Krishna is treated again without awe and reverence as we can see that mother Yashoda bound Krishna with rope (Damodara) etc 4) Madhurya - The Supreme position of the Gopis of Vrindavan which is stated to be the Highest state of Spiritual realisation! >The Bhgavath speaking about Krishna in the passage you quoted talks >of Him as Narayana the prime cause of the world.So did Jayadeva and >Narayana bhattadhri. WHA T i want to know ids why does the ISKcon >give a particular form to the Lord and says Krishna alone is the >supreme Godhaead. > As I stated before this is based on the scriptural evidences from Bhagavata (BG 1.3.28 - http://srimadbhagavatam.com/1/3/28/en) and then there is evidence in the Brahma Samhita which I mentioned in my previous reply where-in it is stated: *** Ishvarah Paramah Krishna, Sacchidananda Vigraha Anadir Adir Govinda, Sarva Kaarana Kaaranam " 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. " [bS 5:1 - http://brahmasamhita.com/5/1/en] *** Also, regarding the particular form, that is also mentioned in the Brahma-Samhita as: *** venum kvanantam aravinda dalayataksham barhaavataam asitaambuda sundara angam kandarpa koti kamaniya vishesha shobham govindam adi purusham tamaham bhajami I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, who is adept in playing on His flute, with blooming eyes like lotus petals with head decked with peacock's feather, with the figure of beauty tinged with the hue of blue clouds, and His unique loveliness charming millions of Cupids. - [bS 5:30 - http://brahmasamhita.com/5/30/en ] *** >Do they meanm Devakisutha or the LOrd Narayana? If it is the latter >I do not have any quarrel with them. > Actually they mean Yashoda Nandana Krishna -- The reason is because when Krishna was in Vrindavana His Supreme status was totally absent. He was acting just like a small cowherd boy and everyone in Vrindavan treated Him like their own, without even an iota of awe and reverence. They never thought that Krishna is The Supreme Personality of Godhead, but still love Krishna more than their own self! And they always remembered Krishna with great love and devotion which is unparalleled in the history of devotion! >Buddha was mentuioned in bhagavatha as the avatar but only of the 24 >and not among the principal ten. > Then why does Jayadeva Gosvami describe Buddha as an avatara of Krishna? Should'nt we accept the person for whom Krishna Himself came and completed his verse -- as an authorised person. Should we try to interpret why he has written Buddha as prime avatara? I respect the knowledge that you have and am only trying to understand. Please forgive me if I am saying something wrong! > Vaishanvites do not see any difference between the forms of the >Lord whether He appearsas Krishna or Naasimha or Rama or >Venkateswara as all are HIs disguises assumed to please His devotees > I agree with this. But I hope you will agree that each and every form of the Lord has Their own charm and the bhakta gets attracted to a particular form in accordance with his/her mood! >If you think of Him as > Narasimha He appears as that .He was Rama to Thyagaraja, Krishna >to Jayadeva, Narsimha to Prahlada,The saints of south the azvars >have sung about Him in all the forms at the same time making it >clear that it is One supreme being, Lord Narayana. > Yes, I do agree with this. In terms of Gaudiya Vaishnavas coming from Shree Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu -- they accept Yashoda Nandana & Nanda Nandana Krishna as their dearmost! > >I mentioned about other deities just to show that God is one as He >has said 'in whatever form you worship you worship me only. > Yes, God is one and at the same time He is different. This is the uniqueness of Shree Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's philosophy of Achintya Bheda Abheda tattva(Simultaneously one and different). For example the best way is to understand this tattva is by understanding this verse where Krishna says: *** maya tatam idam sarvam jagad avyakta murtina mat sthani sarva bhutani na chaham teshu avastithah By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them. - BG 9.4 - http://www.asitis.com/9/4.html *** > > When He was saying to Arjuna 'imamvivasvathe yogam It was the >supreme lord who is talking. If you call HIm Krishna instead of >Narayana, no harm because both are the same. > Actually if we try to understand this properly it was Dvibhuja rupa Krishna who was speaking to Arjuna as we all know. Of course, we know that He is the same as Narayana except for the information from scripture which I had given in the starting (Viz about the different rasaas of the bhakta and Bhagavan) > >Krishnavathar is called poornavathara vbecause the Lord was present >as Krishna in His full splendour unlike Rasma inwhich He came >disguising His divinity. But then also therewere sages like vasishta >and visvamithra who knew that it was Naryana wha has come in human >form.. > I agree with you fully here and that is the reason why the importance of Krishna is stressed by Srila Prabhupada. I am sure being a great scholar and great devotee you understand this! > >Bhagavath describes Him in all His incarnations s the suptreme self >only ,that absolute reality of the upanishads, which are the oldest >being apourusheya. It says sadeva > soumya idhamagra aseeth ekameva adhvitheetyam, which is called >Brahman in the upanishads, Narayana in visishtadvaitha and Krishna >in Bhagavatha, Rama in Ramayana. > Yes, He is all-pervading but at the same time He is present in His own abode Goloka Vrindavana Dhama (Goloka eva nivasaty akhilatma bhuto). This is the greatness of the Achintya Bheda Abheda tattva and is confirmed in Brahma-samhita as: *** ananda cinmaya rasa pratibhavis tabhir ya eva nija rupa taya kalabhir goloka eva nivasaty akhilatma bhuto govindam adi purusham tamaham bhajami [bS 5.37 - http://brahmasamhita.com/5/37/en] *** > >When Hirayakasipu cried " whereis Hari " the lord was present >everywhere to make the words of HIs devotee true, who said " He is >everywhere " His assuming the form of narasimha is because of HIs >infinite mercy to prove the boon of Brahma given to Hiranya kasipu >because Brahma was also His devotee. > Yes, and this incident confirms the verse " Goloka eva nivasaty Akhilatma bhuto " which I quoted above.. > >As Rama He need not have underwent all the travails in order to kill >Ravana which He could have accomplished from Ayodhya itself,but >again it was His infinte mercy to give refuge to all the rshis of >dhandakaranya. His incarnations were mainly to protect and delight >His devoteesand HIs destroying the wicked is only secondary. > Very true. I agree cent percent with you here! This is confirmed by Srila Prabhupada's statements as well! > >I do not criticise sri Prabhupadha's teaching as he was far far >superior to people like us and we have not worthy to criticise him > You are absolutely right here. His pure devotion was so much contagious that the Westerners then who were addicted to so many bad habits gave-up all those bad habits and started to chant 'Hare Krishna' Mahamantra blissfully! I was very glad to see that in Guruvayur there is a plaque in the name of Srila Prabhupada with some of the verses from Bhagavatam.. > >but I mean to say that if Krishna is synonymous with the supreme >Godhead > it is perfectly ok but I have every right to call Him Narayana if >I so wish.because to me Krishna, narasimha , rama are all Lord >Narayana only. > Yes, you have every right to say so, because there is a particular form of the Lord which every individual bhakta is attached to and there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. Like Hanumanji is attached to Shree Rama and so on... >Actually ther is a sloka in Mahabharatha-udhyogaparva, the author of >which is vedavyasa,whose words cannot be doubted, > krshirbhoovAchakah sabdhah 'Na'scha nirvrthivAchakah > vishNusthadhbhAvayOgAcchakrshnO bhavathi ithi sAsvathah > Which means the verb 'krshi' denotes th eearth meaning the >ploughing in order to bring the riches out of it. The suffix 'Na' >denotes bliss. Because Lord Vishnu is the cause of bliss rising out >of the eath, He is called Krishna. This is the explanation of th >eword Krishna in Vishnusahasranama.Nivrthi denoteds bliss through >emancipation. Krishna is the Lord Narayana who is >sacchidhAnadhAthmaka or eternal bliss to beaspired for by teh >earthly beings.As the krshikarma or ploughingmakes the earth ready >to bear the seed and to yield its wealth,so too, the Lord ploughs >the mind of mantomake him worthy of enjoying the absolute bliss by >enjoying Him who is exceedingly delightful through His leelas. > Thank you so much for quoting this verse. It is indeed very pleasurable to read this. > >Evam visdhah leelArasEna nithAnthanirvrthah krishnah, says parAsara >bhaata in his commentary on Vishnusahasranama. > Thank you once again for quoting this version from the great saintly muni. I would like to end this by these verses from Bhagavad-Gita where in Krishna shows the Universal form to Arjuna then He shows the four armed form of Narayana and finally again His form as The Supreme Personality of Godhead Krishna (Krsnas tu Bhagavan Swayam - SB 1.3.28): *** Chapter 11, Verse 51. When Arjuna thus saw Krsna in His original form, he said: Seeing this humanlike form, so very beautiful, my mind is now pacified and I am restored to my original nature. - http://www.asitis.com/11/51.html Chapter 11, Verse 52. The Blessed Lord said: My dear Arjuna, the form which you are now seeing is very difficult to behold. Even the demigods are ever seeking the opportunity to see this form which is so dear. - http://www.asitis.com/11/52.html Chapter 11, Verse 53. The form which you are seeing with your transcendental eyes cannot be understood simply by studying the Vedas, nor by undergoing serious penances, nor by charity, nor by worship. It is not by these means that one can see Me as I am. - http://www.asitis.com/11/53.html Chapter 11, Verse 54. My dear Arjuna, only by undivided devotional service can I be understood as I am, standing before you, and can thus be seen directly. Only in this way can you enter into the mysteries of My understanding. - http://www.asitis.com/11/54.html *** Thank you so much Sarojamji for involving in this discussion. I have learnt so much from you and will continue to learn a lot. Please forgive any offense that I have committed during this discussion, knowingly or unknowingly. Sarvam Shree Krishnaarpanam Astu!!! ~Krishnadasa > krishnadasa77 <krishnadasa77 wrote: > Sarojaji - Shree Guruvayurappa Sharanam! > > Thank you for your observations. I would just like to state a few > comments on your observations. Please forgive me if I am saying > something wrong. > > guruvayur , " sarojram18 " <sarojram18@> wrote: > > > > Regading the concept of ISKCON that Krishan alone is the supreme > >self and not an avathara, sure He is and so is Rama Narasimha even > >Siva Or Devi,because supremeself is Brahman whose manifestations are > >all. > > > There is a scripture called Brahma-Samhita, which was found by Shree > Chaitanya Mahaprabhu in a temple in South India. These are the > prayers of Brahma to Shree Krishna when Brahma originally understood > who he is and what his duties are. In that wonderful scripture, all > the concepts with respect to avataras such as Rama, Narasimha is > stated as: > > *** > ramadi murtishu kala niyamena tishthan > nanavataram akarod bhuvaneshu kintu > krishna svayam sambhavad paramah puman yo > govindam adi purusham tamaham bhajami > > " I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, who manifested Himself > personally as Krishna, and the different avataras in the world in the > forms of Rama, Narasimha, Vamana, etc., as His subjective portions. " - > http://brahmasamhita.com/5/39/en > *** > > Regarding your mentioning of Lord Shiva it is stated in Brahma- > Samhita: > > *** > kshiram yatha dadhi vikara vishesha yogat > sanjayate nahi tasya prathag asti hetoh > yah sabhutah samupaiti vishesha yogat > govindam adi purusham tamaham bhajami > > " Just as milk is transformed into curd by the action of acids, but > yet the effect curd is neither same as, nor different from, its > cause, viz., milk, so I adore the primeval Lord Govinda of whom the > state of Shambhu is a transformation for the performance of the work > of destruction. " - http://brahmasamhita.com/5/45/en > *** > > And ragarding your mentioning about Durga Devi, it is stated: > > *** > srshti sthiti pralaya sadhana shaktir eka > chayeva yasya bhuvanani bibharti durga > icchanurupam api sa ceshtate sa > govindam adi purusham tamaham bhajami > > " The external potency Maya who is of the nature of the shadow of the > cit potency, is worshiped by all people as Durga, the creating, > preserving and destroying agency of this mundane world. I adore the > primeval Lord Govinda in accordance with whose will Durga conducts > herself. " - http://brahmasamhita.com/5/44/en > *** > > If we read all these prayers of Lord Brahma in conjunction with what > Krishna Himself says to Arjuna by saying that: > > *** > yepy anya devata bhakta yajante sraddhayanvitah > tepy mama eva kaunteya yajanaty avaidhipurvakam > > " Whatever a man may sacrifice to other gods, O son of Kunti, is > really meant for Me alone, but it is offered without true > understanding. " - http://www.asitis.com/9/23.html > *** > > and > > *** > kamais tais tair hrta gyana yajante anya devata > tam tam niyamam asthaya prakrtya niyatah svaya > > " Those whose minds are distorted by material desires surrender unto > demigods and follow the particular rules and regulations of worship > according to their own natures. " - http://www.asitis.com/7/20.html > *** > > From the above statements of Krishna we can understand the statements > of Brahma in Brahma-Samhita. > > > > >Ithihasa and puraNa e4xisted earlier than all oher schools of > >thought and what is said there has to be taken as authority. Finally > >saying Krishan is an avathara does not ah nyway undermine His being > >the supreme godhead because He is that. > > > But should'nt we take the instructions of Krishna in Bhagavad-Gita to > be the oldest because we all know that Krishna is the origin of > everyone and Krishna Himself confirms that He told the same Bhagavad- > Gita to Vivasvan (Sun God) many millions of years before he again > gave the same transcendental knowledge to Arjuna, as stated by > Krishna: > > *** > imam vivaste yogam proktavan aham avyayam > vivasvan manave prahva manur iksavake bravit > > The Blessed Lord said: I instructed this imperishable science of yoga > to the sun-god, Vivasvan, and Vivasvan instructed it to Manu, the > father of mankind, and Manu in turn instructed it to Iksvaku. - > http://www.asitis.com/4/1.html > *** > > > > > Regarding Dasavathara our earliest scriptural authority is > > srimadbhagavatha and vishnupurana according to which Krishna is > > definitely an avathar. > > > According to Srimad-Bhagavatam Krishna is the source of all the other > incarnations as mentioned in the famous verse: > > *** > ete camsa kala pumsah krishnas tu bhagavan swayam > indrari vyakulam 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 > **** > > >I have not read Prabhupada's bhagavatha but > > if Krishna is not an avathar how is the birth of Ksrishna as the > >son of vasudeva and devaki is explained? > > > I will humbly advise you to please read Srila Prabhupada's > translations and purport of Srimad-Bhagavatam, not only because he is > scholarly, but mainly because the pure devotion and love he had for > Krishna, because of which Krishna made Srila Prabhupada His > instrument to establish the great movement called ISKCON > (International Society for Krishna Consciousness). > > The birth of Krishna as the son of Vasudeva and Devaki is explained > by Srila Prabhupada in the Krishna book (http://www.krsnabook.com) as > follows: > > " ...One may argue that the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who > creates the whole cosmic manifestation simply by His glance, cannot > come within the womb of Devaki, the wife of Vasudeva. To eradicate > this argument, Vasudeva said, " My dear Lord, it is not a very > wonderful thing that You appear within the womb of Devaki because the > creation was also made in that way. You were lying in the Causal > Ocean as Maha-Visnu, and by Your breathing process, innumerable > universes came into existence. Then You entered into each of the > universes as Garbhodakasayi Visnu. Then again You expanded Yourself > as Ksirodakasayi Visnu and entered into the hearts of all living > entities and entered even within the atoms. Therefore Your entrance > in the womb of Devaki is understandable in the same way. You appear > to have entered, but You are simultaneously all-pervading.... " > (http://krsnabook.com/ch3.html) > > >As for Jayadeva the reason he has > > not mentioned Krishnavathara is not because he considered Him as > > Supreme soul, whcih nodubt He is, not only as Krishna but also as > > Narsimha ,Rama or any of His manifestations as mentioned clearly in > > Ramayana and Bhagavatha, but Jayadeva was addressing Krishna in > >his ashtapadi, 'Pralaya payOdhijale' and hence he mentioned Krishna > >as the one who had been taking all the avatharas. as nNarayana > >bhattadri did in Narayaneeyam. > > > So when a great saint and Pure devotee of Krishna like Jayadeva > Gosvami himself recognises Krishna as the person who has been taking > all the avataras, then should'nt we also accept his version? Please > forgive me if I am saying something wrong - I stand here to be > corrected by your wonderful wisdom and devotion. > > >He must have included Buddha for > > sankhyaApooraNam, that is to complete the number to ten, perhaps by > > that time Buddha has come to be accepted by the people as the tenth > > avathara of Vishnu. That is only by popular belief and not > >authorised by scriptures.in fact Bhagavatha mentions buddha > >indirectly ... > > > > Does it mean that the verse below are not authorised? Please do > inform? > > SB 1.3.24: Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear > as Lord Buddha, the son of Anjana, in the province of Gaya, just for > the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist. > (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/1/3/24/en) > > SB 1.3.25: Thereafter, at the conjunction of two yugas, the Lord of > the creation will take His birth as the Kalki incarnation and become > the son of Vishnu Yasha. At this time the rulers of the earth will > have degenerated into plunderers. > (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/1/3/25/en) > > > took 24 avatharas of which buddha is also one besides numerous > > avatharas He took in order to save the world.(Ref.Bhagvath a-2nd > > skandha-chapter 7) From time immemorial devotees of Lord Narayana > > considered te ten avathars of the Lord as invluding Krishna > >excluding Buddha . > If you don't mind can you please provide which scripture states the > same? As I said before I am asking these only to understand this > topic. > > Thank you so much. And once again apologies to you and the wonderful > devotees of the Guruvayur group, if I have said something wrong. > > ~Krishnadasa. May god bless you, > > Dr. Saroja Ramanujam, M.A., Ph.D, Siromani in sanskrit. > > > > > > > > Get on board. You're invited to try the new Mail. > 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.