Swaminarayan- Krshna incarnation?

[Vaishnava_das108]

Sory, those verses that you quoted from Chapter 10 are not indications that Krishna approves of demigod worship. That chapter is simply how Krishna shows Himself as the best of everything. If you take this as an indication that demigod worship is approved because Rudra is mentioned, then by the same standard you should worship sharks, become a gambler, beat people with rods, be silent, etc.

 

Yet earlier in the same chapter, Krishna clearly states:

 

Neither the hosts of demigods nor the great sages know My origin, for, in every respect, I am the source of the demigods and the sages. [10.2]

 

And some great verses are here:

 

Chapter 7, verse 20.

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.

 

Chapter 7, Verse 21.

I am in everyone's heart as the Supersoul. As soon as one desires to worship the demigods, I make his faith steady so that he can devote himself to some particular deity.

 

Chapter 7, Verse 22.

Endowed with such a faith, he seeks favors of a particular demigod and obtains his desires. But in actuality these benefits are bestowed by Me alone.

 

Chapter 7, Verse 23.

Men of small intelligence worship the demigods, and their fruits are limited and temporary. Those who worship the demigods go to the planets of the demigods, but My devotees ultimately reach My supreme planet.

[Vaishnava_das108]

 

(if you claim lineage to Madhva .. then technically Gaudiyas have deviated in substance & form from Madhva and cannot be considered as a branch of Madhva's sampradayam , refer to the on going debate on this in the dvaita list)

 

 

I am a member of the Dvaita list. There is no ongoing debate about this there, In fact, nothing is being spoken there on this issue at this present moment. Speaking of which. Madhva swamis themselves acknowledge Gaudiyas as a branch of Tattvavada, albeit with differences in philosophy. Please refer to:

 

http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=hinduism&Number=4112&page=&view=&sb=&o=&fpart=1&vc=1

 

 

Puranas (such as Bhagavatam etc) are used as inference but never as a source of authority. This is the position of the 3 schools of Vedanata i.e Advaita, Visistadvait and dvaita. Sorry, one cannot compromise on it, The failure to accept the prastana trayam would put the gaudiyas in similar position as the buddhist - i.e non vedic

 

 

I know you very well satyaraj. You are yourself always quoting Upanishads, and these are not part of the prasthana-traya either.

 

 

First and formost get your translation on the text " krsna varnam tvisakrsnam" correct. Where do you find the reference to Chaintanya ?

 

 

Each sampradaya is perfectly bona fide in interpreting these verses according to their own philosophy. Certain Ramanujas interpret that verse as in indication of the avatar of Nammalvar.

 

 

The Alvars were the only devotees in kaliyuga who were predicted in the 10th Canto of srimad Bhagavatam.

 

 

See what I mean?

[Vaishnava_das108]

Sorry, your ideas are all incorrect and not based on sastra. It may be true that some avatars exhibit only certain kalas, but occasionally Krishna descends in His supreme form. The universe will not be destroyed.

 

And there are countless universes being created, not just one. Maha-Vishnu is still exhaling.

[Guest guest]

All Glories to Sri Guru and Gauranga !

 

I shall try and address few issues raised by the forum members

 

1) Authority of the Padma Purana

 

Madhavites rejection of the Padma Purana is irrelevant to the issue (debate with the Madhava's can be taken up in a separate thread).

 

Gaudiyas accept Padma Purana ( which mentions the validity of the 4 sampradayas and reference to Srimati Radha etc .. )

 

My questions are based on the Gaudiyas acceptence of Padma Purana:

 

a) Where is the mention in the Padma Purana of a 5th sampradayam - Brahma Gaudiya based on achintya bhedabheda doctrine ?

 

b) Padma Purana compares advaita commentary to milk touched by a serpent's lips. Then how can Sridhara swami's Bhagavata commentary ( who held Sankara's advaita doctrine as the ultimate highest authority ) be accepted in preference to Madhava's ?

 

2) Refer to Madhava's position on the forms of the Lord (coutesy - Dvaita List)

 

"Tattvavada has an essential doctrine that *ALL* the `svarUpAmsha'-s of the Lord, such as Matsya, Kurma, etc., and the Original (Moola) form are identical in all respects.

 

The Shrutis such as `neha nAnAsti kiJNchana' and the Brahma Sutra `na sthAnato.api parasya ubhayaliN^gaM sarvatra hi' state clearly that there can not be any difference or gradation in all the forms of the Lord.

 

ISKCON have many concepts which are fundamentally against this concept. Some of these are briefly mentioned :

 

i. The two handed from of the Lord Krishna is superior to all other forms of the lord such as Narayana, Vishnu etc.

 

This is based on a statement in Bhagavata -- "Krishnasthu bhagavaan svayam". According to Jiva Goswami this shloka indicates the primal position of Sri Krishna and all other statements which indicate otherwise should be interpreted to sustain this position.

 

The other text used by ISKCON is `ahaM sarvasya prabhavo', where `sarva' is interpreted to include other forms of God like Narayana. Though it is admitted that the forms are identical in terms of `tattva' (essence), they differ in `rasa' or more complete manifestation of the capabilities.

 

All these concepts are not only totally against Tattvavada, but are classified as major sins (`nava-vidha dveshha' -- indicating the nine forms of hatred of the Supreme Being, by denying His unique greatness and freedom from all defects and limitations) which lead to eternal hell".

 

3) Translation of "Krsna varnam tvisa krsnam".

 

The text refers to the colours/forms of the Lord worshipped in the 4 yugas. It has nothing to do with the descent of an avatara on earth.

 

varnam = colour

tvisa = shining

krsnam = black

 

Its text clearly states that the colour of the Lord worshipped in Kaliyuga will be shining Black.

 

Gaudiyas "construe" it as "His lustre is non black" , then

 

a) How is non-black = Golden , why not Pink etc ?

 

b) How can non-black color give a shining lustre ?

 

4 ) My reply to comment - " For that matter what is the need for the other prasthans?? Let us just dump Shruti and BrahmaSutras and yes, there was absolutely no need for Sri Ramanuja to write The Gita Bhaashya".

 

This was a response to Shivadasa Prabhuji's remark Chaitanya gave "something different"

 

Did the Sri Vaisnava acaryas/Alvars teach or add anything new or different to the shrutis, or Gita ?

 

Their teaching on bhakti, saranagati etc was in harmony with the upanishads, Gita etc.

 

These acaryas wrote commentaries to challenge the advaita school within the perimeters of the shastra. You are confusing philosophy (darsana - advaita, visistadvaita) with sectarian theology (claims to avatarhood, mode of worship etc).

 

I quote Kabir das (saint from Varanasi - North India)

 

"Bhakti is the gift of the Dravida saints"

 

SDdasa /images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[Guest guest]

In reply to:

--

 

I know you very well satyaraj. You are yourself always quoting Upanishads, and these are not part of the prasthana-traya either.

 

 

--

 

I am not Satyaraj, do you know what constitutes the prasthana trayam ?

 

In reply to:

--

 

Each sampradaya is perfectly bona fide in interpreting these verses according to their own philosophy. Certain Ramanujas interpret that verse as in indication of the avatar of Nammalvar

 

 

--

 

Please give the evidence, from an official Sri Vaisnava source where they claim the verse "krsna varnam tvisa krsnam " refers to Namalvar.

 

Its the Gaudiyas who claim this verse refers to Chaitanya, so one has the right to question or challenge this claim. Substantiate this claim and not point fingers at other sampradayams.

 

 

In reply to:

--

See what I mean?

--

 

Can you please give any evidence from the Bhagavatam that predicts Krsna's devotees taking birth along the banks of the Ganges in Bangla Desh (in Kaliyuga) /images/graemlins/grin.gif.

 

SDdasa

[Guest guest]

Whoever said that Akshardham was in the middle of Golok/Gokul was absolutely wrong because he provided no in depth information on that but it is a fact that Akshar, God's internal energy, is indeed in the middle of Golok. But don't think that because God can take Aksharbrahman into him, that he also takes Golok. Golok is completely stationary when God is able to Akshardham into himself. And if you go to Golok, you can't also just open a door and enter God's internal energy. Akshardham is for souls who have full realization of avtari and actar and worship God knowing that he always assumes a limited incarnation for a purpose.

 

Lord Swaminarayan was the first time God didn't go through the avtar and limitation process, he came as he was.

 

Akshardham is supreme amongst all and even the ones that came into contact with Krishna avtar went to Akshardham. But if you worship Krishna with the understanding that the avtar is the source of all avtars, you can't go any higher than Golok the land of cows. Akshardham the land of effulgence is only for fully realized souls.

[chicagopride23]

I think that when Brahman is referred to in the Gita its referring to Akshar. Try reading the Gita by replacing Brahman with Akshar. See how it sounds? Theres almost noo difference.

[Kishalaya]

Dear Prabhuji,

 

My humble obeisances!

 

"a) Where is the mention in the Padma Purana of a 5th sampradayam - Brahma Gaudiya based on achintya bhedabheda doctrine ?

"

 

Gaudiya vaishnavism is the Brahmaa Sampradaya. Period.

 

"b) Padma Purana compares advaita commentary to milk touched by a serpent's lips. Then how can Sridhara swami's Bhagavata commentary ( who held Sankara's advaita doctrine as the ultimate highest authority ) be accepted in preference to Madhava's ?"

 

This was discussed earlier. However I have also *heard*

that Jiva Gosvami rejected whatever parts of the commentary

from which no dualistic imports cannot be made out. Please

refer this question to "Jiva" in

http://www.raganuga.com/d

"Philosophical and Theological Discussions"

 

"Tattvavada has an essential doctrine that *ALL* the `svarUpAmsha'-s of the Lord, such as Matsya, Kurma, etc., and the Original (Moola) form are identical in all respects."

 

"The Shrutis such as `neha nAnAsti kiJNchana' and the Brahma Sutra `na sthAnato.api parasya ubhayaliN^gaM sarvatra hi' state clearly that there can not be any difference or gradation in all the forms of the Lord."

 

"i. The two handed from of the Lord Krishna is superior to all other forms of the lord such as Narayana, Vishnu etc."

 

"This is based on a statement in Bhagavata -- "Krishnasthu

bhagavaan svayam". According to Jiva Goswami this shloka

indicates the primal position of Sri Krishna and all other

statements which indicate otherwise should be interpreted

to sustain this position."

 

"The other text used by ISKCON is `ahaM sarvasya prabhavo', where `sarva' is interpreted to include other forms of God like Narayana. Though it is admitted that the forms are identical in terms of `tattva' (essence), they differ in `rasa' or more complete manifestation of the capabilities."

 

But The Lord is free to manifest some qualities in one form

and not manifest it in others. Non-manifestation does not

make one form higher or lower as far as His Lordship is

concerned. But some manifestations do produce some

execessive and extra feelings in the bhakta which are

not presentation towards other forms.

 

To say that there cannot be *any* difference, you will have

to reject Bhagavatam or have to re-interpret the verse. And

you will have your logic for that interpretation or rejection, which will go back to say that Smriti should not

be opposed to Shruti.

 

The argument of authorship by "anonnymous" cannot be

accepted. There cannot be everybody who accepts that

Bhagavatam is authored by "anonymous", just as there cannot

be everybody who accepts that Shruti is authored.

 

If however it is accepted that Bhagavatam is authored by

Vyasa, why should we accept somebody else's concoctions

to be true explanations of Sruti and BrahmaSutras other

than Vyasa's writings themselves. (However considering

that this is kaliyuga it is no surprise that people

consider themselves superior to Vyasa :-)

 

Therefore the true explanation of 'neha nAnAsti kiJNchana'

and the Brahma Sutra `na sthAnato.api parasya ubhayaliN^gaM

sarvatra hi' is that All forms of Vishnu are equal in tattva

however Krishna is Raseshvara to explain the meaning of

"krishnas tu bhagavan svayam"

 

"All these concepts are not only totally against

Tattvavada,"

 

Gaudiya vaishnavism is Brahmaa Sampradaya, not tattvavada

as is known today.

 

"but are classified as major sins (`nava-vidha

dveshha' -- indicating the nine forms of hatred of the

Supreme Being, by denying His unique greatness and freedom

from all defects and limitations) which lead to eternal

hell".

 

Non-manifestation does not mean non-existent. We cannot

take away the freedom from the Lord in which way He wants

to manifest His qualities. To do so itself is a form of

hatred towards Sri Hari. Is it not?

 

"The text refers to the colours/forms of the Lord worshipped in the 4 yugas. It has nothing to do with the descent of an avatara on earth."

 

It is very presumptious to say that. On what authority do

you make a statement that "it has nothing to do...." If you

do not accept, your wish. However in the whole verse

 

krishna varnam tvishaa krishnam

sa anga upanga astra parshadam

yagyaih sankeertanah praayair

yajanti hi sumedhasah

 

I do not see anybody other than the Lord being with angas

upanagas astras and paarshads

 

"Its text clearly states that the colour of the Lord

worshipped in Kaliyuga will be shining Black."

 

That is your interpretation.

 

"a) How is non-black = Golden , why not Pink etc ?"

 

Why not Golden?

 

"b) How can non-black color give a shining lustre ?"

 

In the same way Sri Daamodar can put the whole universe

in His mouth :-)

 

Please refer to the web site given in a previous post

about revelation of Gouranga in Srutis *other than*

Chaitanya Upanishad. Interpolation and other arguments

are not accepted as many works of other aachaaryas quote

works which are non-existent today.

 

"4 ) My reply to comment - " For that matter what is the need for the other prasthans?? Let us just dump Shruti and BrahmaSutras and yes, there was absolutely no need for Sri Ramanuja to write The Gita Bhaashya".

 

This was a response to Shivadasa Prabhuji's remark Chaitanya gave "something different"

 

Did the Sri Vaisnava acaryas/Alvars teach or add anything new or different to the shrutis, or Gita ?

 

Their teaching on bhakti, saranagati etc was in harmony with the upanishads, Gita etc.

 

These acaryas wrote commentaries to challenge the advaita school within the perimeters of the shastra. You are confusing philosophy (darsana - advaita, visistadvaita) with sectarian theology (claims to avatarhood, mode of worship etc)."

 

You seem to know the deep and exquisite difference between

philosophy and sectarian theology and are willing to

go to such extent as to denounce the one who worships your

own Lord. fine! Let the Lord decide.

Inspite of evidence from shaastra, if somebody is unwilling

to accept just because something doesn't fit one's

preconceived notion of shaastra and see "something

different" with Gouranga. fine! Gaudiyas denounce such

because they are filled with envy towards Krishna.

 

No doubt you will also know that Tattvavada will denounce

you because you did not put all effort to kick mayavada

and caved in to circumstances to put forth a compromised

philosophy of Vishishtaadvaita. How can a bhakta's bhakti

be harmonious which says prakriti is a part of Sri Hari,

however much linuistic gymnastics be used to say that

prakriti is not a part still a part of Sri Hari. How can

such a thoughts arise. Such thoughts are one of the nine

forms of hatred towards The Lord. Such kind of bhakti is to

be rejected as weak which compromises the true and pristine

pure Lordship of Sri Hari. Such weak sentimentalism cannot

be accepted.

 

Advaita will denounce both of you to be weak hearted

people who cannot accept the Infinite Truth. Both these

apa-sampadrayas twist and turn the direct meaning of

shaastra like "aham brahmaasmi" and "tat tvam asi" to such

lengths that even a moron will burst out with laughter.

 

"

"I quote Kabir das (saint from Varanasi - North India)

 

"Bhakti is the gift of the Dravida saints"

"

 

Isn't it very convenient to quote shaastra at one end

and somebody who did not recognise the relevance of pouring

pages upon pages of meaning less words just to substantiate

ones argument from place to place.

 

The following is also Kabir:

Pothi padhi padhi jag mua bhaya na Pandit koi

Dhaai Akshar prem ka padhe so Pandit hoi

 

"The whole world is pouring pages upon pages of shastra,

but none of these are pandits, one who has read the two

and a half letters of prema, he is verily a pandit."

 

Your servant,

Kishalaya

[Kishalaya]

"I am a member of the Dvaita list. There is no ongoing debate about this there, In fact, nothing is being spoken there on this issue at this present moment. Speaking of which. Madhva swamis themselves acknowledge Gaudiyas as a branch of Tattvavada, albeit with differences in philosophy. Please refer to"

 

Dear Prabhu ji,

 

There is no necessity of aligning with vitandis in whatever

list. They have denounced their own Swamis who have

acknowledged the gaudiyas.

 

This question about sampradaya etc. has been there from

Baladeva Vidyabhushana's time. It was there in 1995-1996

in alt.religion.vaishnav and soc.religion.vaishnava

All of which were answered.

 

Let us not deviate from our goal to go back to Krishna.

It seems that it has become the saadhana padhati of some

to squirm for dirt in the neighbour's house instead of

looking at the AnandaMurti Sri Hari situated in one's own

house.

 

Your humble servant,

Kishalaya

[Kishalaya]

"Its the Gaudiyas who claim this verse refers to Chaitanya,

so one has the right to question or challenge this claim.

Substantiate this claim and not point fingers at other

sampradayams. "

 

Conclusion A

------------

 

Opponent: How is it that you conclude A?

 

Proponent: These are my reasons

 

Opponent: These reasons for conclusion establishment are

not standard

 

Proponent: How so?

 

Opponent: I have these friends of mine Opp2, Opp3 who agree

with me as to the methods of conclusion establishment.

 

Proponent: However, each one of us has something different

that is why we are different paramparas. Like I, You and

Opp2 believe about the reality of Oneness in the Absolute

Truth while I, You and Opp3 believe in the existence of

Difference.

 

Opponent: Your argument is faulty because I, Opp2, and Opp3

have no difference regards the methods of conclusion

establishment.

 

Proponent: That cannot be, since the the propositions you

start from are the same (prasthana traya), there has to

be difference in your methods of inference deduction to

result in different conclusions.

 

Opponent: Opp2 and Opp3 are using faulty methods of

inference. I am the only one right because (A=>B, B=>C...)

 

Opp2: Opponent and Opp3 are using faulty methods of

inference. I am the only one right because (D=>E, E=>F...)

 

Opp3: Opponent and Opp2 are using faulty methods of

inference. I am the only one right because (G=>H, H=>I...)

 

Opponent: However we at least agree as regards the

propositions.

 

Proponent: What makes you think that agreement has to be

sought only on the propositions and other disagreements do

not matter.

 

Opponent: Then we do not have a debate

 

Proponent: I cannot enter into a debate with you since in

my consideration the propositions are not complete. And

hence this is my difference with you all.

 

Opp2: The propositions are correct because (J=>K, K=>L...)

 

Proponent: The propositions are incomplete because

(M=>N, N=>O...)

 

Opp2: (same as last except with different capital alphabets)

 

Proponent: same as last except with different capital

alphabets)

 

.....

.....

long time

.....

.....

 

 

Suddenly!

Opponent, Opp2, Opp3 (Loudly): You sentimental bangladeshi.

....... and more .............

 

Your servant,

Kishalaya

 

[Kishalaya]

"Advaita will denounce both of you to be weak hearted

people who cannot accept the Infinite Truth. Both these

apa-sampadrayas twist and turn the direct meaning of

shaastra like "aham brahmaasmi" and "tat tvam asi" to such

lengths that even a moron will burst out with laughter."

 

Dear Prabhujis,

 

My humble obeisances!

 

The purpose of the above quotation was that the other

sampradayas are not free from slander that they think they

are. And instead of making friends and fighting the real

enemy, mayavada -- that which leads away from the Lord,

they are fighting those who they should have approached as

friends, and on grounds which are inconsequential. You

have asked why we accept Gouranga as Krishna, we have

valid proof of it, however if that is not acceptable to

you, leave it at that and carry forward with business

which is similar. But no they have to slander with words

like "sentimental bangladeshi...." just to feed ego in the

name of prevailing the truth. But if they want to fight,

please fight amongst yourselves. We have better things to

do.

 

Your servant,

Kishalaya

[Guest guest]

Shree vakratund maha kaya koti surya sama prabha

nir vighnam kurume deva subha karya sha sarvada

 

Re if you take this as an indication that demigod worship is approved because Rudra is mentioned, then by the same standard you should worship sharks, become a gambler, beat people with rods, be silent,etc

 

In Bhagvat Gita ch.10 tx17&18

Argun is clearly inquiring from Krishna Bhagvan in what forms should i constantly remember you. Shree Krishna Bhagvan is responding to that question.Conclude what you may.

First of all i do not consider Bhavan Shankar as demigod since he is not a mortal but to equate him with sharks, what can i say i think Silent is golden, but than i thought of Matsya avatar hey why not?Life is big gamble it actualy is based on faith.I shall leave for Yamraj to beat people with rod.

 

Re some great verses here. They are all great.

the ones you have quated ie ch. 7 verse 20-23 actualy validates the point i was trying to make that people worship according to their nature and level of understanding.As long as i have desires and hate in me i have no chance of progress.

 

Since a lot of discussion on this thread is about Spritual abode let me add that Lord Siva's abode according to Siva Puran is at highest level.

But according to Lord Shree Krishna Bg.ch 15 tx 6 he says his Dham is Param.I wonder if there is a connecting flight?

But first i shall endeavour to perfect my sadhna to get out of this prison house of material world.Long way to go.

Chant Hari nam.

 

Jai Shree Krishna.

[Vaishnava_das108]

 

 

 

[Vaishnava_das108]

Except for the tiny fact that there is no reference to Akshar. So pat goes your idea.

[Kishalaya]

Hari Bol prabhus!

 

1. "Gaudiya vaishnavism is the Brahmaa Sampradaya. Period."

 

Gaudiya Vaishnavs have a history of *their* lineage which

makes them an *integral* part of Brahmaa sampradya.

Denunciation by neo-tattvadis notwithstanding!

 

2. About Sridhar Swami. Since Gouranga said he was a

bhaagavat, we accept him as a bhaagavat. The apparant

advaiti adherence has to be given sangati. Hence the

earlier explanation, that he did not reveal his true

bhaagavat form due to heavy influence of mayavada in his

time and place. And whenever dualistic imports cannot be

found in his commentary, those cannot be supported by

gaudiya siddhantas.

 

3. "If however it is accepted that Bhagavatam is authored by

Vyasa, why should we accept somebody else's concoctions

to be true explanations of Sruti and BrahmaSutras other

than Vyasa's writings themselves. (However considering

that this is kaliyuga it is no surprise that people

consider themselves superior to Vyasa :-)"

 

We accept Madhva as preceptor of the Brahmaa sampradaya,

however we reject the neo-tattvavadi precept that he

revealed everything whatever was supposed to be revealed to

us. Our assertion is that he revealed whatever was necessary

at his time. Hence later aachaaryaas of the Brahmaa

sampradaya have elucidated on both Vyaasa and Madhva. Thus

the above statement should not be construed as rejection of

one (Madhva) over another (Vyaasa). It is actually a sangati

of both. All forms of the Lord are equal however Krishna is

superior in terms of manifestation of qualities.

In such a manner all apparant contradictions are to be

resolved.

 

4. "The text refers to the colours/forms of the Lord worshipped in the 4 yugas. It has nothing to do with the descent of an avatara on earth."

 

That is purely an interpretation. As per our siddhanta, and

for sangati with other scriptures, this verse refers to

Gouranga. If somebody does not accept that, then it is

their wish, however that does not mean we will stop

presenting our case to the neutral third party.

 

The argument against other scriptural quotations is mainly

interpolation, however we know that aachaaryas like

Madhva have quoted from scriptures which do not exist today.

If the argument is used that during Madhvas time, nobody

objected to Sripad Madhva's quoting such scriptures, which

indicate that everybody accepted the validity of the

scriptures, then it is to be known that when Sri Krishna

Das Kaviraja wrote that Gouranga is revealed in Sruti,

Smriti, Pancharatra etc. nobody objected, hence the

argument. If it be said that Madhva's writings were known

far and wide, then it can be said that Krishna Das

Kaviraja's writing was at least known in Navadveep etc.

which were the centres of shaastric learning.

If the argument be made Madhva's conclusion stands even if

his quotations from unknown scriptures are dropped,

however this does not change the fact that he did quote

from presently unknown scriptures, so the interpolation

argument does not stand.

 

5. "Their teaching on bhakti, saranagati etc was in harmony

with the upanishads, Gita etc."

 

The teachings of Gouranga are in harmony with Upanishads,

Gita etc. If one is a seeker, one would have politely

asked what "something different" meant, however to jump to

name calling is not even mundane civility.

The final conclusion is that all such contradictions are to

be given sangati under gaudiya siddhanta. Since Srila Rupa

Gosvami wrote

 

sruti-smrti-puranadi-

pancaratra-vidhim vina

aikantiki harer bhaktir

utpatayaiva kalpate

 

Without sruti smriti puran etc panchatarta vidhi, Hari

Bhakti is simply utpaat (annoyance). Therefore it cannot be

concluded without thorough study of gaudiya vaishnism that

gaudiya vaishnavism is "sectarian theology".

 

Bhaja Nitai Gouranga,

 

Your humble servant,

Kishalaya

 

[Guest guest]

Here's a post a friend and fellow devotee Bhaven wrote:

 

Many doubts are raised, and rightly so, as to how Sahajanand Swami can be considered Bhagwan or God. It is extremely rare to find anyone who has anything but praise for Bhagwan Shree Swaminarayan and His achievements and accomplishments. However, questions are raised as to His status.

 

Such concerns surface from the fact that there are many self-styled Gods prevalent in and outside India and it becomes necessary to question their authenticity.

 

For the moment, we shall not enter in to discussion about His supremacy. It is first vital to establish that He was Bhagwan, or at least an incarnation of Bhagwan.

 

In the Shikshapatri Shlok 108 Sahajanand Swami writes

 

Quote:

“sa sri krshnaha param brahma bhagvaan purushotamaha

upasya ishtadevo naha sarvaavirbhaav kaaranam”

 

 

Quote:

"That isvara is Shree Krshna who is PraBrahma Bhagwan Purushottam

and our most cherished deity (istadeva).

He is worthy of being worshipped by us all (upasya). He is the cause of all

manifestations and incarnations"

 

 

As an elaboration to this shlok, Sadguru Shree Shatanand Muni writes in Artha Dipika (Shikshapatri Bhashya)

 

Quote:

"yaha saakshaat bhagvaan ksharakhara paraha krshnaha

sa eva svayam bhaktau dharmat aas, bhoori krupaya sri svaminarayanaha

maanushyam bhuvi naatayannijjan acharyatvadharme sthitaha

krshnam praha parokshavann tu tatonyaha sosti yatsa svayam”

 

 

Quote:

“That live (saakshat) God (bhagvan) Krshna who is above kshar and akshar, appeared from Bhakti through Dharma as Swaminarayan; assumed a human body on the earth like a dramatist (natta).

That Krshna whilst observing the (human’s) dharmas of an Acharya speaks in third person (parokshavann) but that Krshna is none other than Himself”

 

 

i.e. that Krshna that Swaminarayan Bhagwan speaks of is none other than Himself, however Krshna is referred to by Swaminarayan Bhagwan in third person form (parokshavann) because Swaminarayan Bhagwan is writing the Shikshapatri in the capacity of an Acharya or Guru (acharyatvadharme).

 

This forms the fundamental basis of this discussion. Swaminarayan Bhagwan was indeed a Guru, Sadhu, Acharya, Teacher and even a devotee of Krshna. But this does not contradict His status as God.

For if this were the case then Lord Rama was a King and fulfilled His role as the ruler of Ayodhya. Lord Krishna was a cowherd and later the King of Dwarika. Also, Lord Nar Narayana were brahmchari-rishis performing tappascharya in Badrik Ashram. Does this imply that a they were not God just because they were kings, a cowherd or rishis? Of course not. Similarly, Swaminarayan Bhagwan was a devotee of Krishna, a Sadhu, an Acharya a Teacher as well as being Lord Himself.

 

The shastras openly proclaim that God manifests Himself numerous times whenever and wherever He seems fit. Srimad Bhagwad Geeta:

 

Quote:

“yada-yada hi dharmasya galnir bhavati bharata

abhyutthanam adharmasya tada 'tmanam srjanmy aham

paritranaya sadhunam vinasaya ca duskrtam

dharmasamsthapanarthaya sambhavami yuge-yuge "

 

 

Quote:

“O Bharta (Arjuna), whenever there is a decline of righteousness

and a rise of unrighteousness, then I manifest Myself

For the protection of the virtuous, for the destruction of the

wicked and for establishing righteouseness, I come into being from age to age” Chapter 4 verses 7 and 8

 

 

 

and Srimad Bhagwatam:

 

Quote:

" I also assume other bodies to protect religion

and to end irreligion whenever it

flourishes in the course of time."

10th Skandha, 50th Adhyay 10th Shlok

 

 

Also:

Quote:

"yada hy adharmena tamo-dhiyo nrpa jivanti

tatraisa hi sattvatah kila dhatte bhagam satyam

rtam dayam yaso bhavaya rupani dadhad yuge yuge"

 

“Whenever there are kings and administrators

living like animals in the lowest modes of existence,

the Lord in His transcendental form manifests His supreme power,

the Truth Positive, shows special mercy to the faithful,

performs wonderful activities and manifests various transcendental forms as is

necessary in different periods and ages.”

1st Skandha, 10th Adhyay, 25th Shlok

 

 

 

In Mahabharata, Van Parva Shree Krishna vows to Markandey Muni

 

Quote:

"daitya hinsanuraktashcha, hyavadhya sur sattamaihi

raakshasaaschapi lokesmi-nyadotpdhati darunaha

tadaham sampradaysangyami, gruheshu shubh karmanam

pravishto manusham deham, sarvam prasahmayamyaham"

 

"When the evil, indulgent in vices such as violence, emerges than

I manifest to those who have virtuous deeds (shubh karma).

I assume human bodies and destroy all those"

 

 

More specific references to the arrival of Sahajanand Swami, referring to His accomplishments during His time as human on earth, exist in Srimad Bhagwat where Vyas writes:

 

Quote:

"keerat hunandhra pulind pushkasa,

aabhir kanka yavanaha khasaadayaha

ye-nye cha papa yadupashrayashraya

shuddhyanti tasmey prabhvishnave namaha” 2nd Skandha, 4th Adhyay, 18th Shlok

 

"Kirata, Huna, Andhra, Pulinda, Pulkasa, Abhira, Sumbha,

Yavana, members of the Khasa races and even others addicted to sinful acts

will be purified by taking shelter of the devotees of the Lord,

due to His being the supreme power. I beg to offer my respectful

obeisance unto Him who is to appear"

 

 

 

In addition, Padma Puran, Brahmand Puran, Vishvaksen Samhita, Vishnu Dharmottar Puran also forecast the coming of Swaminarayan Bhagwan referring to "name of Sahajanandson of Dharmadevknown as Swami" etc.

 

As an additional comment, the Samudrik Shastras state that God and God only has the 16 marks and symbols on His feet. In the Padma Puran Brahmaa tells Narad that He has witnessed sixteen sybols/marks on the Lord of all incarnations' feet. The very sixteen symbols/marks can be found on the lotus feet of Sahajanand Swami.

 

 

The arrival of an avatar is accompanied by a purpose. The purpose of Krishna avatar is well discussed by Krishna Himself. In the Srimad Bhagavatam, Krishna declares His intentions of coming on this earth as well as His intention to return.

Quote:

"haniñyämi balaà hy etad

bhuvi bhäraà samähitam

mägadhena samänétaà

vaçyänäà sarva-bhübhujäm

akñauhiëébhiù saìkhyätaà

bhaöäçva-ratha-kuïjaraiù

mägadhas tu na hantavyo

bhüyaù kartä balodyamam"

10th Skandha 50th Adhyay Shlok 7 and 8

 

“Since it is such a burden on the earth, I will destroy Jarasandha’s army, consisting of akñauhiëés of foot soldiers, horses, chariots and elephants, which the King of Magadha has assembled from all subservient kings and brought together here. But Jarasandha himself should not be killed, since in the future he will certainly assemble another army”

 

 

Quote:

"etad-artho ’vatäro ’yaà

bhü-bhära-haraëäya me

saàrakñaëäya sädhünäà

kåto ’nyeñäà vadhäya ca"

shloka 9

 

“This is the purpose of My present incarnation—to relieve the earth of its burden,

protect the pious and kill the impious”

 

 

Quote:

“anyopi dharma-rakshayaii

deha sambhriyate maya

viramayapy adharmasya

kale prabhavatau kvacit”

shlok 10

 

"I also assume other bodies to protect religion and to end

irreligion whenever it flourishes in the course of time"

 

 

It can be concluded that the evil people will return, many of them as rulers and kings indulging in vices - and for the removal of such adharma the Lord will assume other forms.

 

Turning to the Vasudev Mahatmay (Skandha Puran, Vishnu Khand) it clearly states that the vow by Lord Krishna is indeed further verified in more detail:

 

Quote:

"Maya krshnen nihitaha sarujunen raneshu ye

Pravartayishyantya suraaste tvadharma yada kshitau.

Dharmadeva ttada murtau, narnarayanatmana

Pravrte-pi kalau Brahman! Bhutvaham samago dvijaha

Munishapannrutam praptam, sarshim janakaatmanaha

Tato-vita gurubhyoham saddharmam sthapayannaja"

18th Adhyay Shloks 43-44

 

“When the asuras who were killed by Myself and Arjuna

begin to spread wickedness on earth, I will be born in a Bhramin family

to Dharmadev and Murti from Nar Narayana.

I, with many other rishis, will receive a shaap (curse) from a

Muni to come on the earth to a

Samved Bhramin family to protect

the religion from evil gurus and rulers.”

 

 

 

The Lord clearly defines how He will return to destroy that evil He spoke of earlier. He will be born to Dharmadev and Bhaktidevi (as did Swaminarayan Bhagwan), to a Samvedi Brahmin family (as was Swaminarayan Bhagwan). The incident of the sabha in Badrik Ashram and Duravasa Rishi's curse is also mentioned here.

 

Thus it is clear that God returned to establish ekantik dharma against the evil elements that had returned from the time of Vasudev Shree Krshna.

 

It is true that Swaminarayan Bhagwan advocated the worship of Radha-Krishna, but this was to appease the Vaishnavas who were most prevalent in West India. A glimpses of His underlying intention can be found in the Shikshapatri shlok 209:

Quote:

"vakra bhaavetu pujaiv, karya-spaha prativasaram

madroopam iti madvani, manyeyam paramaadarat"

 

"When there is none (who can read out the Shikshapatri) it shall be worshipped daily

as you should be assured with respect that My words are My concrete and manifest form"

 

 

Bhagwan Shree Swaminarayan is addressing His illiterate followers, instructing them to worship the Shikshapatri as if it were Swaminarayan Himself, thereby revealing that He was to be worshipped.

 

When interpreting the Shikshapatri, Bhagwan Shree Swaminarayan has instructed us to refer to the Sampraday' shastras in Shlok 203

 

Quote:

"eeti sankshepto dharmaha, sarvesham likhita maya

sampradayik granthebhyo, gney eshamtu vistaraha"

 

"I have enclosed a summary of the dharmas for all (in this Shikshapatri).

For a detailed elaboration(vistaraha) (of this Shikshapatri) refer

to the shastras of My Sampraday"

 

 

These shastras have been defined to include Vachanamrut, Srimad SatsangiJeevan, Shree Hari Digvijay, Bhaktachintamani and Desh Vibhag no Lekh in particular.

 

When referring to those Shastras we find Bhagwan Shree Swaminarayan often praising Lord Shree Krishna and at times referring to Himself as the Supreme. This is due to the audience which He is addressing where just as in the Shikshapatri, Swaminarayan Bhagwan makes a clear attempt to make it appealing to all virtuous people whether they believe in Swaminarayan as God or not.

 

If He were to openly declare " I, as God, am writing this Shikshapatri.." it would rejected and even ridiculed by those outside the Sampraday and this would hinder His objective of redeeming countless souls.

 

Further in Artha Dipika – Shikshapatri Bhasya we find the following statement

 

Quote:

“nanvastan sri krshnasya parabrahmatvam moolpurushsya bhagavatastu krshnashabda vachyatvam na ghatate. Dvaaparante devaki vasudevabhyam avirbhavantaram krshnam prvrtti siddheriti chettann. Vasudev gruh aavirbhaavatpragev bhagavataha krshnakhyatve sakalam brahmvaivarta puran mev pramanam”.

As a commentary to Shikshapatri Shlok 29.

 

 

The eternal Krshna though is the Parabrahma but the name does not suit MoolPurush (original causal personality) because the God (as Mool Purush) manifested at the end of Dwapara to Devaki and Vasudev and then Gargacharya named Him ‘Krshna’. Note, that after the birth of God to Dharmadev and Bhaktidevi, Markandey Rushi named Him Krshna (as well as Hari and HariKrshna). Therefore whoever says that the name ‘Krshna’ became prevalent after His arrival (in Mathura at the end of Dwapara to Vasudev and Devaki) is not right in doing so, because God's eternal name is Krshna (all attractive) and even before manifesting to Vasudev and Devaki Brahmvaivarta Puran uses the term Krshna many times over.

The Srimad Bhagavatam in 1st Skandha, 3rd Adhyay, 28th Shloka therefore declares after listing 24 avatars including Vasudev Krishna that

“ete chamsh kalaha pumsaha, krshnastu bhagavan svayam”

 

i.e. all these (i.e.24 listed including Vasudev Krshna) are various portions of the Supreme. Bhagavat refers to this same ‘eternal’ Krshna, that Artha Dipika speaks of, as Bhagwan Himself.

 

Just as in the Shikshapatri, in the Vachanamrut Lord Swaminarayan addresses the audience in a manner which appeals to them, at times referring to Himself as a great bhakta (who can be worshipped alongside Lord Shree Krishna) and often revealing Himself as the Supreme Reality.

It is worthy to note, that wherever in the Vachanamrut where Swaminarayan Bhagwan does indeed reveal Himself, the tone and atmosphere set in the beginning of the Prakaran is of a serious nature.

At times, He even discloses His hesitance in imparting these facts for the fear that certain followers' faith will be affected.

 

A few Vachanamrut where Swaminarayan Bhagwan suggests He is a bhakta and/or Guru are: Gadhada Pratham 44; Gadhada Pratham 48; Gadhada Madhyam 28 and Vadtal 18.

 

In many Vachanamruts, Swaminarayan Bhagwan reveals His true identity. Such Prakarans include: Loya 7 and 11; Gadhada Madhya 13; Amdavad (Ahmedabad) 6 and 7 as well as Gadhada Antya 38.

 

Finally, when Swaminarayan Bhagwan decided to establish mandirs He declared that He will install His own images. Moreover, He even installed His present image as Hari Krshna Maharaj in mandirs such as Vadtal.

 

The grandeur of the Swaminarayan Sampraday lies in its ability to accommodate a variety of schools of belief, namely accept Swaminarayan only as a Guru; accept Swaminarayan as an incarnation or accept Swaminarayan as the Incarnator Supreme.

 

Either way, a follower would be obliged to adhere to the precepts laid down in the sarva-jiv-hitavaha Holy Shikshapatri thereby attaining maha-sukh - the ultimate happiness in this world and beyond.

[Guest guest]

ISKCON and Hare Krishna devotees are originally of the Madhva sampraday. There is no Brahma sampraday. Brahma incarnated as Madhva and thus started the Madhvacharya sampraday.

[Kishalaya]

Madhva sampradaya = Brahmaa sampradaya

[Guest guest]

Dear Friend,

 

I do not know why you replied to my post. However please let

it be known that I have no objection in your shraddhaa. If

you have found your way to God, good. Krishna is sitting in

everybody's heart and can directly gauge the amount of

sincerity one has and thus accordingly disposes.

 

I made certain posts here regarding questions being asked

why gaudiya sampradaya regards Krishna above all other forms

of Vishnu, and thus tried to present the reasons. These

reasons are not necessarily acceptable to everybody.

Similarly others saying we stop preaching like this is no

argument. Same for mayavada.

 

Lastly an advice. I have refrained from commenting at

the evidence you have put forth, since in my opinion it is

not proper to do so. However please do not mistake it as

victory or gaining upperhand. If you ever put these

arguments in a broader forum, take it from me that they

will be dissected from all six directions, torn into atoms

and thrown even without a whiff. Then you, your guru and

your God will be addressed in terms which will not

necessarily be very attractive to you. So it will be

better to sincerely pray to Krishna for direction.

 

Bhaja Nitai Gouranga,

 

Your servant,

Kishalaya

[anadi]

What is the name of the spiritual abode of Sri Swaminarayan?

[anadi]

What is the name of the spiritual abode of Sri Swaminarayan?

And in which scripture is mentioned this eternal abode of Sri Swaminarayan?

 

[Vaishnava_das108]

Who knows? Who cares?

 

The whole doctrine is not bona fide, that's all I care.

[Guest guest]

Vaishnava_das108,

 

And you call yourself a vaishnava? With the kind of intolerance you have displayed, you're no better than a dog-eater.

 

[Vaishnava_das108]

If telling the truth means that I eat dogs, then fine; I eat dogs.

 

Hare Krishna.

[Kishalaya]

"ISKCON and Hare Krishna devotees are originally of the Madhva sampraday. There is no Brahma sampraday. Brahma incarnated as Madhva and thus started the Madhvacharya sampraday."

 

As per my little knowledge, the tattvavadis regard Madhva

as the incarnation of Mukhya Praana (Bhima, Hanumaan, Vaayu)

 

Your servant,

Kishalaya