Krishna Avatar of Vishnu?

[Priitaa]

Haribol prabhus,

 

This question, or confusion, often arises. Hindu's believe Krishna is an incarnation of Vishnu. Prabhupada taught us this is a misunderstanding and that Vishnu comes from Krishna. Now of course I accept the word of the pure devotee, Srila Prabhupada. But do any Hare Krishna devotees out there have any quotes from his books to give evidence? I could really use some for preaching work. Thanks.

[livingentity]

Purport:

The science of God analyzes the constitutional position of God and His diverse energies. Material nature is called prakrti, or the energy of the Lord in His different purusa incarnations (expansions) as described in the Satvata-tantra:

 

visnos tu trini rupani purusakhyany atho viduh

ekam tu mahatah srastr dvitiyam tv anda-samsthitam

trtiyam sarva-bhuta-stham tani jnatva vimucyate

 

 

"For material creation, Lord Krsna's plenary expansion assumes three Visnus. The first one, Maha-Visnu, creates the total material energy, known as mahat-tattva. The second, Garbhodakasayi Visnu, enters into all the universes to create diversities in each of them. The third, Ksirodakasayi Visnu, is diffused as the all-pervading Supersoul in all the universes and is known as Paramatma, who is present even within the atoms. Anyone who knows these three Visnus can be liberated from material entanglement."

 

This material world is a temporary manifestation of one of the energies of the Lord. All the activities of the material world are directed by these three <font color="red">Visnu expansions of Lord Krsna.</font color> These purusas are called incarnations.

[livingentity]

Krishna is God, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This fact is stated and corroborated in the Vedic scriptures and by various authorities. Lord Brahma in Brahma Samhita says, "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). In the Bhagavata Purana Krishna becomes the chief object of devotion. After describing various incarnations of the Lord such as Rama, Balarama, Vamana, Nrsimha, and <font color="red">Vishnu,</font color> Srila Sukadeva Goswami states, <font color="blue">"All of the above mentioned incarnations are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord Krishna is the original Personality of Godhead"</font color> (SB 1.3.28).

[livingentity]

a quote telling that once in the day of Brahma - Lord Krsna decends as the cause of all avatars and all the incarnations decends with Him. But I can not find the quote right now.

[Guest guest]

not prabhupada, but this is in the translation found on http://gauranga1.tripod.com of jiva gosvamis krsna sandarbha

 

....Sri Krsna has all the attributes of the Supreme Godhead, and even the markings on His hands and feet confirm this. This is descirbed in the following verses from the Padma Purana:

 

"Brahma said: O Narada, please listen, and I shall describe to you the transcendental symbols on the lotus feet of the supremely blissful Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Krsna. Now that I have described the uncountable incarnations of Godhead, I shall say to you that Sri Krsna is the Original Form of the Personality of Godhead...........O best of the Vaisnavas, Lord Krsna is the Original feature of the Personality of Godhead. Of this there is no doubt. On the lotus feet of the many incarnations of the Lord two, three, four, or five of these auspicious signs may be present, but all sixteen signs are present only on the feet of Lord Krsna. O best of the sages, please hear me: On the lotus feet of a certain incarnation of the Lord, who bears a golden complexion, all sixteen signs are also present"

 

That Sri Krsna is the Original Personality of Godhead is confirmed both in this passage and in the following passage spoken by Suta Gosvami in the Brahma-vaivarta Purana:

 

"The innumerable incarnations of the Supreme Lord all manifest eternal spiritual forms, and among them twenty incarnations are most prominent. If one hears the glories of these twenty incarnations, he will become freed from the most abominable sins"

 

.........

 

After saying these words, Suta Gosvami gave a brief description of the lord's various incarnations, much like the list found in the First Canto of Srimad-Bhagavatam, and included Krsna among the incarnations. When the description of the incarnations was completed, Suta Gosvami explained the special position of Krsna in the following words:

 

"The incarnations of the Lord, including Lord Narasimha and many others, are full of all transcendental opulences and powers, and they appear in this material world to remove the sinful reactions of the conditioned souls. One thing, however, should be carefully understood about them: all the incarnations are simply parts of the plenary portions of Lord Krsna, the Original Personality of Godhead"

[dhaa]

woops, krsna sandarbha post was by me

 

 

[Priitaa]

First I want to thank you two for your quotes and various contributions. These will help!

 

What about the Hindus who want direct shastra, or something found within Vedic text and not purports? Does anyone have anything from Prabhupada's book like that? If not, thats ok, I appreciate the help I have all ready been given. Of course, if so.... /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Guest guest]

From the bhakti list

 

Dear Krishna Susarla,

 

Unfortunately I deleted your latest post by mistake, but as I recall, you

were asking for shastric evidence concerning (among other things) Krishna

being an avatara of Vishnu. As a former GV and member of ISKCON for more

than a decade (now concverted to SV), I know how sensitive this issue can

be, and I appreciate your initiative to base such a discussion strictly on

shastras, and not on sectarian prejudice.

 

For evidence on Krishna being an avatara of Vishnu, we need not go outside

the Bhagavatam itself (though corroborative evidence could be collected

from other Puranas, Mahabharata, and Agamas; and I believe Sri Anand has

already given a few references of this latter kind). For instance, Bhag.

10.1.2 reads:

yadoz ca dharmaziilasya nitaraa.m munisattama /

tatraA.MZENAAVATIIR.NASYA VI.S.NOR viiryaa.ni za.msa na.h //

The direct meaning here is 'of Vishnu, descended through a part (amsha) [of

Himself]'. Sri Bhaktivedanta Swami (doubtless following earlier GV acaryas)

takes the instrumental (a.mzena) as indicating association: 'along with a

part', which he interprets as referring to Balarama. Even if this is

accepted, however, it does not change the fact that Krishna is here

referred to as 'Vishnu descended'. Likewise, Bhag. 10.3.8 reads:

niziithe tama-udbhuute jaayamaane janaardane /

devakyaa.m devaruupi.nyaa.m VI.S.NU.H sarvaguhaazaya.h /

aaviraasiid yathaa praacyaa.m diziindur iva pu.skala.h //

-- and the following verses, as you are surely aware, describe the infant

Krishna as 'caturbhujam za"nkhagadaadyudaayudham', etc.

 

I think an independent observer would agree that the direct meaning

(mukhyartha) of these and similar Bhagavatam verses is that Vishnu has

appeared in the form of Sri Krishna, rather than vice versa. And certainly

that has been the understanding of all Vaishnava sampradayas except the

Gaudiyas (including the Maadhvas, from whom some Gaudiyas trace their

origin), as well as of the smaarta community. The only texts explicitly

advocating Krishna as avataarin are exclusively Gaudiya texts, like the

Brahmasamhita reportedly discovered by Caitanya Mahaprabhu.

 

In the light of such explicit verses as the above, I think it obvious that

the word 'ete' in Bhag. 1.3.28 (recently discussed) must refer to the

categories listed in the verse immediately preceding, and not to the entire

list of avataras in 1.3.6-25. There are at least two further text-internal

arguments to support such a conclusion:

1. Bhag. 1.3.3-5 describes a shuddha-sattva form of the Lord (bhagavato

ruupa.m vizuddha.m sattvam), endowed with thousands of limbs, etc

(sahasrapaadorubhujaananaadbhutam), as the sources of all avataras

(naanaavataaraa.naa.m nidhaanam). This is clearly not the two-armed Krishna

form.

2. Bhag. 1.3.23 explicitly includes Krishna in the list of avataras

emerging from this shuddha-sattva form. This would be inconsistent with any

intention of distinguishing Krishna as the avataarin.

 

Ramanujadasa,

Martin Gansten

 

 

 

 

More

 

SrI:

SrI Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha

SrI Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrIvaN SataKopa-

SrI nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESikAya namaha

 

Dear devotees,

namO nArAyaNa.

 

 

SrI Martin Gansten wrote :

 

> For evidence on Krishna being an avatara of Vishnu, we need not

> go outside the Bhagavatam itself (though corroborative evidence

> could be collected from other Puranas, Mahabharata, and Agamas;

> and I believe Sri Anand has already given a few references of

> this latter kind). For instance, Bhag.10.1.2 reads:

 

> yadoz ca dharmaziilasya nitaraa.m munisattama /

> tatraA.MZENAAVATIIR.NASYA VI.S.NOR viiryaa.ni za.msa na.h //

> The direct meaning here is 'of Vishnu, descended through a part

> (amsha) [of Himself]'. Sri Bhaktivedanta Swami (doubtless

> following earlier GV acaryas) takes the instrumental (a.mzena)

> as indicating association: 'along with a part', which he

> interprets as referring to Balarama. Even if this is accepted,

> however, it does not change the fact that Krishna is here

> referred to as 'Vishnu descended'.

 

 

VishNu purANam (5.1.2) gives the same account in the following

way and makes the point explicitly very clear again :

 

< Sage MaitrEya asks Sage ParASara > :

 

amSAvatArO brahmarshE yO(a)yam yadukulOdbhavaha |

vishNOstam vistarENA(a)ham SrOtum icchAmi tattvataha ||

 

" O Brahma Rishi ! I desire to hear the accurate, detailed

account on this amSAvatAra of ViSNu born in yadu kula(race).

 

( bhavaha = birth; tattvataha = true account, as it is ).

 

This ofcourse doesn't mean that KrishNa is an "amSAvatAra"

like Sage VyAsa, who was a jivAtma empowered by Lord. We very

well know from other pramAnas that Lord KrishNa is none other

then Lord ViSNu Or Lord NArAyaNa. This is what asserted by

the likes of BhIshma and Brahma (verses quoted earlier by

SrI HarikrishNa) through their verses. The purport is :

KrishNa is not merely human being who was playing at GOkula etc

and He is certainly the Supreme Lord NArAyaNa ie. God Himself.

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

 

The account of the birth of Lord KrishNa in SB itself is

very clear on this issue.

 

After Lord VishNu appeared with His foou arms etc, SrI VasudEva

recognized Him to be the Supreme Lord and offered glorifications

/prayers. Then, DEvaki offered her glorifications/prayers.

 

In SB 10.3.28, DEvaki requests Lord VishNu to make His form

(which denotes Supreme Lord and meditated upon by yOgis)

invisible to the general public { "...........rUpam cEdam

paurusham dhyAna-dhishNyam mA pratyaksham mAmsa druSAm

krushIshThAha" }.

 

In the next verse (10.3.29), she says that she is afraid

of Kamsa and is in anxiety, and requests the Lord to do

something so that Kamsa will not understand that Lord VishNu

Himself has been born. Kamsa already knew that Lord VishNu is

after killing Him, soon after Sage NArada briefed him about

these things (SB 10.1.65-66 : " ...............dEvakyA garbha

sambhUtam vishNum ca sva vadham prati|| ....). Thats why DEvaki

wanted Lord VishNu to make His identity unknown to others.

 

She then requests (10.3.30) :

 

"upasamhara viSvAtmannadO rUpam alaukikam |

Sankha Cakra gadA padmaSriyA jushtam catur-bhujam ||"

 

Trans. by Sri BhaktivEdAnta SwAmi of ISKCON :

 

"O My Lord, You are the all-pervading Supreme Personality of

Godhead and Your transcendental four-armed form, holding

conchshell,disc, club and lotus, is unnatural for this world.

Please withdraw this form [and become just like a natural

human child so that I may try to hide You somewhere] ".

 

DEvaki is adding one more reason here. Not only that Kamsa

will find Him out, but also that this form is un-natural for

a child in this world.

 

Another point to be noted is that, Lord is glorified as

"ViSvAtma" ie. all-pervading aatma, who is the aatma for

everything. Though the Lord is the "aatma" which is all

pervading, He has taken a four handed form and its being

addressed here. This also enables us to understand the

distinction between the aatma (Lord Himself) and divine

form of Lord.

She elaborates her request in the next verse (SB 10.3.31) :

 

"ViSvam yad etat .....purushap param parO bhavAn ........"

 

Trans. by Sri BhaktivEdAnta SwAmi :

"At the time of devastation, the entire cosmos, containing

all creatures moving and non-moving entities, enters Your

transcendental body and is held there without difficulty.

But now this transcendental form has taken birth from my

womb. People will not be able to believe and I shall become

an object of ridicule".

 

Thus, she desparetly pleads Lord VishNu to make His

identity unknown to the people and take a form resembling

a human child. She doesn't say, "Get back Your Original

form of KrishNa" etc here. Also, Kamsa identified God (ie.

Vishnu) with the four-handed form only and its well known

to him and many of the people.

Lord VishNu then narrates about the past two lives of

VasudEva and DEvaki, in which He Himself was born to them.

 

Lord then says (SB 10.3.45) :

 

"etad vAm darSitam rUpam prAg-janma-smaraNaya mE |

nAnyathA mad-bhavam jn~yAnam martya-liNgEna jAyatE ||"

 

Trans. by Sri BhaktivEdAnta SwAmi :

 

"I have shown you this form << of VishNu >> just to remind

you of My previous births. Otherwise, if I appeared like an

ordinary human child, you would not believe that I << the

Supreme Personality of Godhead, VishNu >> has indeed

appeared".

 

This makes extremly clear that Supreme Lord is identified

with four handed form and the human form with two hands

is only now going to be taken by Him.

SB 10.3.46 says that " ......bhagavAn aatma maayayA ....

babhUva prAkruta: SiSuhu" ie. Lord by His sankalpa (divine

will) became a human child (ie. took the two handed form).

 

Here, SrI BhaktivEdAnta Swami adds : "In other words, He

transformed Himself into His original form : krushNAstu

bhagavAn swayam".

 

Well, there is no indication in the original texts even

remotely regarding this. There were plenty of oppurtunities in

these chapters of SB to say that Lord transformed into His

original form. But, this has never been said and the reasons

given are in the contrary ie. Lord transformed Himself into

the two handed form like a human, since the four handed form

would make people understand that He is the Supreme Lord. Also,

in SrI VishNu purANam which describes the birth of Lord

KrishNa, there is no mention of Lord VishNu getting back His

original form ; rather it is clear that Lord VishNu is taking

an avatAra ie. vibhava avatAra. Infact, it states Lord KrishNa

as Lord VishNu's amSAvatAra, which is quoted above.

 

There is no doubt that Lord KrishNa is a vibhava avatAra

of Lord NArAyaNa (VishNu). Already many pramAnas have been cited

from pAncarAtra, SrImad BhAgavatham and SrI VishNu purANam.

 

 

Sri Martin Gansten wrote :

 

> I think an independent observer would agree that the direct

> meaning (mukhyartha) of these and similar Bhagavatam verses is

> that Vishnu has appeared in the form of Sri Krishna, rather than

> vice versa.

 

Absolutely ! I too agree with you.

 

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

anantapadmanAbhan.

krishNArpaNam.

 

[Guest guest]

SrI:

SrImatE SrI Lakshmi Nrusimha Para BrahmaNE namaha

SrImatE SrI Lakshmi Nrusimha Divya pAdukA sEvaka SrIvaNN-

Satakopa SrI nArAyaNa Yateendra mahAdESikAya namaha

 

Dear devotees,

namO nArAyaNA.

 

This posting is regarding the validity of the teaching of

Gaudiya VaishnavAs (GVs) that "KrishNa is the original

Personality of Godhead and Lord nArAyaNa , other

avatArams/forms are His expansions". They quote the following

verse from Srimad BhAgavatham to uphold their theory :

 

" ete ca amsha kalaaha pumsaha krishNastu bhagavaan svayam |

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^******

indra-ari vyaakulam lokam mr^Dayanti yuge yuge || "[1.3.28]

 

Translation by Sri A.C.BhaktivEdAnta swAmi :

 

"All of the above-mentioned incarnations are either plenary

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

Lord srI 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."

 

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

 

Please note that the person nArAyaNa is not the form of

nArAyaNa. Lord's divine body is made of the tattva named

"Suddha Sattva". It has its own characteristics. Lord as

such is a chEtana, different from Suddha-sattva. Whenever

God/ParamAtma/BhagavAn etc is referred, it refers to the

DivyAtma Swaroopa which as a chEtana has all other things

like divine form etc as its attributes. Thus, Lord nArAyaNa

is not someone who is restricted to 4 hands. adiyEn will

post an article on this issue soon.

 

 

Qtn 1: By the above Srimad BhAgavatham (SB) verse can one

come to the conclusion that KrishNa is the actual God and

nArAyaNa is secondary ( "expansion ?" ) to Him ?

 

Whenever GVs say "nArAyaNa", they refer to the four

handed form of PerumAL.

 

This verse doesn’t even mention about nArAyaNa. Usage

of "KrishNa" here can _atbest_ be considered in

"comparison" with other vibhava avatArams (incarnations).

 

The verse simply says that in comparison with the

above mentioned avatArams , KrishNa is actually

bhagavAn (bhagavAn svayam) whereas others are amsAs of Him .

This doesn’t (even in the remotest sense ) imply that

nArAyaNa( either as a person or as a form) is an amsA of

KrishNa or something like that .

 

Even if one makes the extrapolation of the greatest order &

gives an interpretation which cannot be derived from this

verse like "nArAyaNa is also an amsA (someone inferior) of

KrishNA" it contradicts many pramAnams from VedAs

(including Upanishads), IthihAsa-purANas, pAncarAtrA etc. So,

such type of claim is obviously not supported by Scriptures.

 

For instance, MahOpanishad (1.1) says " yekO ha vai nArAyaNa

aasIt" { "Only nArAyaNA existed (in the beginning ie. during

praLayam) }". This means that, the "person" nArAyaNA ( who has

_inseparable_ attributes viz. chit <which is eternal ie. can't

be destructed > and achit <which is eternal>, which were in

their sookshma state during the praLayam, was the only one

existing).

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

 

Qtn 2 : What does the "above mentioned avatArams" ( "ete" )

stand for ?

 

The whole issue of understanding this verse lies in the

interpretation given to the word "ete" (ie. "above mentioned").

 

In the previous two verses (1.3.26-27), sUtar says that the

number of incarnations of Sriman nArAyaNa (Hari) are

innumerable like thousands of rivulets flowing from a

river & goes on to say that RishIs & devas (demigods),

Manus & prajApatis are all amsAs of Lord Hari.

 

Now the question arises as to whether, all these incarnations

( rishis, manus and others) are actually "svayam bhagavAn" ie.

nArAyaNa Himself. To clarify that, sUtar is telling in the verse

1.3.28 that rishIs, anya dEvatAs (dEvAs), manus and others ( "

above mentioned avatArams") are not "svayam bhagavAn" ( not

" nArAyaNA Himself), but KrishNa is bhagavAn Himself. So,

obviously, SUtar wants to reiterate that rishis and others

are only amsAvatArAs (ie. They are not same as nArAyaNa) and

are different from PerumAL's svayam avatArams (like KrishNa).

 

In svayam avatArams like nrusimha, rAma, krishNa, it is the

same person(nArAyaNA) who is taking different forms. But, in

amsAvatArams, nArAyaNa simply bestows extrordinary powers to

a jIvAtma to achieve certain things (but, this is also counted

as a type of "avatAram", though it is not PerumAL who is directly

taking the avatAram, as in the case of svayam avatArams).

 

We shall later discuss in this posting as to why "KrishNa" was

chosen here by sUtar for the clarification.

 

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

 

Please note that, previously , KrishNA was also listed

as one of the incarnation of Hari (nArAyaNa) by Sage

SUtar. Actually the sages request Sage sUtar to describe

various incarnations of Lord Hari ( SB 1.1.13 & 1.1.18 ).

So, the _best extrapolation_ from this verse that one can obtain

is that, of all the incarnations (avatArams) that so far

has been listed by Sage sUtar , KrishNa is the perfect

avatAram ( ie. Poorna avatAram ie. Svayam ) of nArAyaNa &

all other avatArams are only amsAs of nArAyaNa, ie. KrishNa

is non-different from nArAyaNA since KrishNA is svayam

bhagavAn & all other avatArams are not same as nArAyaNa

since they are only His amsAs.

 

This leads to the following question :

 

Qtn 3: If the word "ete" ("above mentioned") is interpreted to

mean _all_ the incarnations that has been enlisted so far from

the beginning by Sage SUtar( instead of referring it to only the

avatArams like manus, rishis and others enlisted in the previous

verse 1.3.27) it leads to a conclusion that KrishNa is the _only_

poorna avatAram of nArAyaNa & all other avatArams like nrusimha ,

rAma ( which were also listed previously to verse 1.3.28) are only

His amsAvatArAs.

 

This obviously contradicts hundreds of pramAnams.

Still, Can a sensible interpretation be given, if "ete" can be

interpretted this way ?

 

adiyen is giving the answer to this particular question based on

the Srimad BhAgavatham series appearing in "Sri Nrusimha Priya" .

The section pertaining to our discussion was written by

late Sri atthi nrusimhAchAryA (vaikuNThavAsi). Now, it is

continued by Sri SthalasayanAchArya. This tamil series has

been released in a book format by "Sri Nrusimha Priya

Trust" during 1995 , which has the description of Srimad

BhAgavatham till 3rd Canto , Ch 23 .

 

The answer to the question lies in the "chatri nyAyam" used

in sanskrit. It is described as follows : "chatrinO gacchanti"

=> a group of people having umbrellAs are going. Actually,

not everyone in that group needs to hold an umbrella. This usage,

though addresses the group as a whole, it doesn't convey that

everyone in that group has an umbrella. Thus, according to

"chatri nyAyam", eventhough the adressing be done to the whole

group, asif everyone has the same characteristic (eg: holding the

umbrella), still, it needn't convey that _everyone_ in that group

has that characteristic ie. the intention is to just refer to

those who actually posses that characteristic (holding an

umbrella), though adressing is done to the whole group as such.

 

Lets see how "chatri nyAyam" is employed in this verse (1.3.28).

All avatArams of the type Nrusimha , RAma are Poorna avatArams

only, since they are taken by the same person nArAyaNa.

Eventhough all the poorna avatArms ( no umbrella) seems to be

grouped with that of many other avatArams (anupravesa / amsAvatAra

etc; with umbrellA ) by the word "ete", its actual import from the

application of "chatri nyAyam" is that the word "ete" refers only

to the amsa avatArams (with umbrella). So, the comparison of

KrishNAvatAram is strictly not with _all_ the avatArams that has

been listed before, but only with other amsa avatArams. The word

"ete", though addresses the whole group of avatArams that has been

listed so far, the intention is to refer to only those avatArams

that are amsAvatArams (with umbrella). If one fails to recognize

the "chatri nyAyam " employed, it leads him/her into a

contradiction .

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

 

The next issue is to whether his can be further explained in the

light of the "context" in which Sage sUtar uttered this verse ?

 

Actually , the sages were very eager to know about many

things . First of all , they payed their salutations to

Sage sUtar who was a great rishi having immense knowledge

and the fruit of that knowledge viz. ardent devotion unto

Sriman nArAyaNa. Sage sUtar was in such a position

because he did lot of kainkaryams to his achArya and got his

blessings (in form of kAlakshebams etc). Since the katAkshA of a

sadAchAryA fell unto Sage sUtar , he could understand

all the imports of the vedAs correctly and easily ( All

these things are in a way told by the sages themselves

to Sage sUtar while glorifying him )

 

Sages told Sage sUtar that , since the kali yuga will be

filled with people who have mandha buddhi (lack of spiritual

knowledge ) & short life, lack of aisvaryam etc & will be

immersed in samsAra (materialistic pleasures) , the upadesam of

the sAram (essence) of scriptures needs to be done (ie. Kali yuga

people have mandha buddhi => perform lot of speculations

instead of understanding the tattvA properly under the

guidance of a "sadAchArya " => they can’t understand the

essence of vedAs ). They wanted to know the things which

would be of ultimate benifit to all the jIvAtmAs , acts

that needs to be followed by jIvAtmAs so that it will please

bhagavAn , _about the incarnation of bhagavAn as son of Devaki_,

leelAs performed by bhagavAn in various incarnations, glories of

nAma sankeertanam, glories of parama bhAgavathOthamAs whose mere

katAksha will sanctify a person .

 

The sages being ardent devotees of KrishNAvatAram ,

which got winded up quite recently , they eagerly asked

Sage sUtar to especially describe that avatAram in

detail in which bhagavAn as KrishNa alongwith BalarAma did

various super human acts. They also wanted to know the person

unto whom dharma has taken shelter off after the departure of

KrishNa to Sri VaikuNTham .

 

So , among all the vibhava avatArams , their __focus__ is

on KrishNAvatAram , though they wanted to know about all the

avatArams of bhagavAn Sriman nArAyaNa.

 

Sage sUtar after briefly explaining about nArAyaNA’s

divyAtma svaroopam , He being antaryAmi of chit & achit,

etc, starts enlisting various avatArams of Sriman nArAyaNa viz.

Yoga nidra form , Brahma , 4 kumArAs, Narada , Nara NArAyaNa ,

Kapila , DattAtreya , ya~jna (son of sage ruchi & his wife Ahuti),

King rushaba, King pruthu , matsyavatAram , koormAvatAram ,

Dhanvantari, Mohini , Nrusimha , vAmana , parasurAma , VyAsa ,

rAma, BalarAmA , KrishNa , Buddha & Kalki .

 

Then Suta pourAnikar continued that the number of

incarnations of Sriman nArAyaNa (Hari) are innumerable like

thousands of rivulets flowing from a river & goes on to say

that RishIs & devAs (demigods), Manus & prajApatis are all

amsAs of Lord Hari (1.3.26-27) .

 

Now the stage is set for the verse 1.3.28 in our discussion.

Note that there were innumerable amsAvatArAs that has been

enlisted in comparison with the svayam avatArAs.

 

If the word "ete" is interpreted to refer to the amsAvatArams

of the verse 1.3.27, then, it makes proper sense.

 

Even if the word "ete" be interpreted to apply to all the

incarnations enlisted sofar, then by "chatri nyAyam" we can

understand the actual implication of the word "ete" (ie. it

refers only to the amsAvatArAs listed so far).

 

Now, a good representative from the list of poorna avatArams has

to be chosen in order to differentiate from the amsAvatArams.

The question is to why was "KrishNa" selected here and said as

"krishNAstu bhagavAN svayam" and not "rAmA is bhagavAn svayam"

OR "nrusimha is bhagavAn svayam", etc, though krishNa, rAma,

nrusimha are all the same nArAyaNa (poorna avatArams ; svayam

bhagavAn; not amsAvatArAs) ??

 

SUtar chose "KrishNa" because all the sages were very much eager

to know a lot about KrishNA ie. the focus of their questions was

with that avatAram. Also, KrishNA is well known for the shadguna

paripoornam. Also, the sages being KrishNA’s ardent devotees (ie.

who wishes to relish the pastimes KrishNA ; pretty obvious from

their questions to sUtar), should be doubly assured that their

darling KrishNa is neverthless "svayam bhagavAn" Sriman nArAyaNa

and is not a amsAvatAra (namba krishnan svayam bhagavAn; manu,

rishi, pruthu ...avAlalAm pOla amsAvatAram illai ). So, Suta

pourAnikar chose to use "Krishna" in the verse 1.3.28 instead of

other svayam avatArams like rAmA and nrusimha.

 

---------

 

 

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

anantapadmanAbhan.

krishNArpaNam.

 

[Priitaa]

 

Dear Krishna Susarla,

 

Unfortunately I deleted your latest post by mistake, but as I recall, you were asking for shastric evidence concerning (among other things) Krishna being an avatara of Vishnu. As a former GV and member of ISKCON for more than a decade (now concverted to SV), I know how sensitive this issue can

be, and I appreciate your initiative to base such a discussion strictly on shastras, and not on sectarian prejudice.

 

 

Actually it was me who wanted such information, tho specifically from Prabhupada's books, which I do not consider sectarian. But I appreciate your attempt to help. Unfortunately I find it a little confusing. I can't tell what Prabhupada said and what are your comments.

 

Am wondering how you can delete someone elses post.

[Guest guest]

Priitaa

 

Sorry if I made you even more confused.

But I mentioned that it was from the bhakti-list, which is a Sri Vaishnava discussion group.

It mentions several sastric pramanas regarding the Sri Krishna Avatara of Sriman Narayana.

Sri Krishna is Bhagavan, He is vibhava-avatara of Sriman Narayana. There is only ONE GOD! He is termed Brahman, Vishnu and Narayana in the VEDAS. It is not my personal opinion but the version of the Vedic literature. Read them yourself and see. It is up to you if you want to know the truth or if you want to believe in sectarian opinions.

 

It gets very confusing when Gaudiya Vaishnavas claim that Sri Krishna has qualities which are not present in Sriman Narayana, that Sri Krishna is more/higher than Sriman Narayana. As if there were two Gods! Such views are based on ignorance. The qualities of the Lord are countless and amazing. We can not grasp them with our minds. The essential point is to surrender to the Lord Narayana and always be aware of our eternal position as servants.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Priitaa,

 

Belief that "Krishna is the original Godhead and Vishnu is another form of Him" is not based on Srila Prabhupada's credentials as a pure devotee. There are many other pure devotees (Madhva, Raamaanuja) who teach the opposite. Our means of knowledge is not to simply accept one person arbitrarily as "pure devotee" and then just accept everything he says. Rather, our method is to go to shaastra as revealed by the guru to understand the proper conclusions.

 

Going to shaastra is not optional; it is a necessity. So many times I see references by ISKCON followers to "Hindus who request shaastric evidence," as if they are some kind of special category of Hindus. The question is not why there are Hindus who would want shaastric evidence, but why there are "Gaudiiya Vaishnavas" who don't feel inclined to present it as a matter of tradition. Please be mindful of this, because the extreme emphasis of some ISKCON devotees on guru's words without supporting shaastric evidence is misrepresenting our Gaudiiya tradition to non-Gaudiiyas. Our guru Srila Prabhupada is worshippable because he is the transparent via medium (his own words) through which the Vedic truths are understood; he is not a shruti unto himself. When it is understood that the guru speaks nothing other than what is in shaastra, then it is concluded that the guru's words are as good as shaastra. It is not that the "guru's words are as good as shaastra" is to be taken as an axiom.

 

Dear Sri Vaishnava (Martin Gansten?),

 

Thank you for producing these postings from the Bhakti-list in regards to our discussion of Krishna as the Svayam Bhagavaam or Original Supreme Personality of Godhead. Obviously, many Sri Vaishnavas on that list must have thought the issue was resolved since I posted no further response. In fact, just for the record, I was about to present a thorough reply at that time complete with quotes from shruti AND smriti to defend the Gaudiiya opinion, when the list moderator Mani Varadaraja decided to stop all discussion.

 

Generally, when the "Hare Krishna people" as Mani calls them start to act up, Mani censors the discussion. I suppose he can't have non-SVs demonstrating the scriptural basis of their beliefs as neophyte SV's might feel threatened by the idea that other Vaishnavas have intelligent reasons for believing in what they are taught. Better for SVs to believe that the Gaudiiyas are just crass sentimentalists with no scriptural basis for their beliefs. So it is not hard to see why Mani chose to stop the discussion before it progressed.

 

As far as Krishna being the Original Supreme Personality of Godhead, it follows from the most straightforward reading of Shriimad Bhaagavatam 1.3.28 "ete chaamsha kalaaH pumsaH kR^iShNas tu bhagavaan svayam..." This verse states that the previous avataaras mentioned are all plenary expansions while Krishna in contrast is the Svayam Bhagavaan. It does not mean that the other Vishnu-tattvas are less than Krishna; rather it means that the other Vishnu-tattvas, though complete in all opulences and qualities, only manifest a fraction of the total opulences found in Krishna, in whom all are manifested.

 

The straightforward nature of the Gaudiiya interpretation can be appreicated by looking at any 3rd-party, nonsectarian translation of the Bhaagavatam. All of them take it in exactly the same way the Gaudiiyas do. By contrast, the difficulty accepting the Sri Vaishnava version of SB 1.3.28 can be appreciated by seeing what incredibly roundabout explanation is given by them in order to prove that the verse is saying something other than what it is actually saying.

 

Martin Gansten provides some pramaanas showing that Krishna is "Vishnu descended." These do not contradict the Gaudiiya viewpoint because all avataaras are understood to be expanded from Kshiirodaakashaayi Vishnu (Lord Vishnu on milk ocean), and this K-Vishnu is also an expansion of Krishna. Please try to understand - all expansions of the Lord are fully the same Supreme Personality of Godhead; the difference is that other avataaras express only a total of the full potencies found in Krishna. They can manifest all of the opulences and thus be revealed as Krishna too. So there is no contradiction here.

 

Similarly, Martin and other SVs point out the understanding of Vishnu Puraana regarding Krishna vis-a-vis Vishnu. In fact, it is Vishnu Puraana which must be interpreted in the context of what the Bhaagavatam teaches, and not vice-versa. The reasons for this are that (1) the Bhaagavatam is the last of the Puraanas compiled by Vyaasa and as such is His last word on Vedaanta, (2) the Bhaagavatam by its own admission is concerned with the highest goals of spiritual endeavor, above even dharma, artha, kaama, and moksha, and (3) the Bhaagavatam is glorified by other Puraanas as being the best among Puraanas. Given the above, we choose (correctly) to understand the entire corpus of Vedic literature through the explanations given in Shriimad Bhaagavatam.

 

You write in your posting:

 

 

It gets very confusing when Gaudiya Vaishnavas claim that Sri Krishna has qualities which are not present in Sriman Narayana, that Sri Krishna is more/higher than Sriman Narayana. As if there were two Gods! Such views are based on ignorance.

 

 

It is always useful to understand the view you are criticizing before you criticize it. Whether your lack of understanding is due to your own failings, or the failings of people following Srila Prabhupada who could not explain properly, I do not know. But allow me to state the Gaudiiya siddhaanta clearly for the record:

 

Krishna and Naaraayana are the same Supreme Personality of Godhead. They are equally worshippable in all respects, and They both posess all infinite transcendental qualities and potencies. Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead in full (meaning all the qualities and potencies are expressed in Him) while the four-armed Naaraayana expansions only express a fraction of the total potencies possessed. The "difference" is not that Naaraayana "posesses" fewer qualities or potencies; rather Naraaayan "expresses" or "manifests" fewer qualities/potencies than Krishna. All this is very clear from Srila Prabhupada's purport to Shriimad Bhaagavatam 1.3.28.

 

The listing by Srila Rupa Gosvami of 64 cardinal attributes is based on the understanding that Krishna is svayam bhagavaan. It does not mean that the Lord only has 64 attributes; actually He has infinite number of attributes and this point is clearly stated in the same section of _Nectar of Devotion_. Rather, Rupa Gosvami has selected these 64 qualities in order to help the devotee focus on trying to understand Him (just as one might try to begin to understand the ocean by studying the properties of a single drop of water), based on the idea that Krishna is svayam bhagvaam.

 

Nor should it be understood that when Vishnu is said to have fewer than 64 qualities, that He only has that number of qualities. Srila Rupa Gosvami is referring the fractional number out of 64 qualities that are expressed in the other forms of Lord Krishna. This is in contrast to non-Vishnu-tattvas like the jiivas, Brahmaa, and Shiva who only posess the stated number of qualities in their respective cases. Because all of them are being discussed in the same paragraph, "having qualities" is understood in the former as actual posession while in the latter (Vishnu-tattvas) as expression.

 

In short, there is nothing in the Gaudiiya siddhaanta that could lead one to believe that there is more than one Supreme Godhead, or that Gaudiiyas are somehow decrying any other expansion of Krishna.

 

Due to time constraints, as well as uncertainty as to how much you want to debate, I have only given a very general introduction to this controversy. If you wish to debate further, I will respond on a point-by-point basis with explicit shaastric pramaana. I suggest that we start with the Bhaagavatam alone, and specifically with verse 1.3.28 since that is the real point of contention.

 

I only request that you and other Sri Vaishnavas try to understand what the Gaudiiya siddhaanta is before criticizing it; disagree with us if you must, but please avoid knocking down strawmen.

 

regards,

 

K

 

[Guest guest]

Please note that there is a very basic, difference between Sri Vaishnava and Gaudiiya/Maadhva views on Godhead which we should be aware of.

 

From Anand Karallapakam's article:

 

 

Please note that the person nArAyaNa is not the form of

nArAyaNa. Lord's divine body is made of the tattva named

"Suddha Sattva". It has its own characteristics. Lord as

such is a chEtana, different from Suddha-sattva. Whenever

God/ParamAtma/BhagavAn etc is referred, it refers to the

DivyAtma Swaroopa which as a chEtana has all other things

like divine form etc as its attributes. Thus, Lord nArAyaNa

is not someone who is restricted to 4 hands.

 

 

We need to understand this point before continuing. Sri Vaishnavas do not consider the form of the Lord to be nondifferent from Him. But Gaudiiyas, when they refer to the Supreme Lord, are referring to the person Krishna (Maadhvas would say Vishnu). For Gaudiiyas and Maadhvas, there is no higher concept than the person Krishna/Vishnu. It is not that the Lord is something formless that takes a form like Krishna just to interact with devotees. Gaudiiyas and Maadhvas do not consider "form" as restricting the Lord in any way. Please be mindful of this.

 

K

[Guest guest]

My understanding is that Gaudiya Vaisnavas use this verse from Srimad Bhagavatam 1.3.28 as evidence that Krsna is the source of Visnu (and all other incarnations):

 

ete camsa-kalah pumsah

krsnas tu bhagavan svayam

indrari-vyakulam lokam

mrdayanti yuge yuge

 

Translation

 

All of the above-mentioned incarnations are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord Sri Krsna 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.

 

 

[Guest guest]

I just want to clarify that I consider it esoteric whether one believes Krishna to be the source of Naaraayana or vice-versa. The important point is that all forms of Krishna can be worshipped for transcendental benefit. Nor is it my intention to disrespect Sri Vaishnavas or their views; it is only when they start misrepresenting our views and referring to them as being based on "ignorance" that I feel compelled to respond.

 

Dear anonymous Sri Vaishnava friend (I suspect you are neither Marten Gansten nor Anand Karalapakkam),

 

Why don't you start this discussion by explaining to us what you think SB 1.3.28 means when it refers to Krishna as Svayam Bhagavaan? Please do not simply copy-cut-past the postings of Anand and Martin. For all I know, you could be someone whose desire to follow Sri Vaishnavism is based on hereditary family ties only without proper understanding of its philosophical basis. That is okay, of course, but if it is so then I think you must understand that you are hardly in any position to criticize any philosophy without understanding your own first.

 

Please therefore enlighten us as to what proper meaning of SB 1.3.28 is and then we will continue to discuss. Many of Anand's and Martin's points I have discussed elsewhere, but rather than taking my time to refute all of those points, I would prefer to start with you and what your understanding is.

 

K

 

[Priitaa]

 

Belief that "Krishna is the original Godhead and Vishnu is another form of Him" is not based on Srila Prabhupada's credentials as a pure devotee. There are many other pure devotees (Madhva, Raamaanuja) who teach the opposite.

 

 

His words as a pure deovtee are always perfect. Madhava and Ramanuja do 'not' disagree with his words. I asked for references from Prabhupada devotees and from Prabhupada's books. This was not intended to be an ISKCON/Hindu arguement as you seem to use every opportunity on these boards to bring up.

 

I suspect you are the same man who brought up the topic and then argued with me over ISKCON not so long ago. Just as you didn't understand what I believe then, I can see by your reply you still don't. You are once again 'educating' me on things I all ready know. So please, lets not get into that cycle. Matter of fact, as soon as I figured out what type of reply it was, all I bothered to read was the first bit quoted above. I did not go any furhter and will not get into any more lenghtly heated debates you enjoy creating over ISKCON hatred (even when ISKCON has not been the topic) or any other kind of hatred either. Hate breads hate. Not interested in associating with those whose minds are filled with hate.

 

I am asking for replies from those who actually belive Prabhupada is a pure devotee.

 

Therefore, if any are out there who believe Prabhupada is a pure deovtee, and have time to give some quotes from his books, I would love to hear from you. If too busy, thats ok too. Just clarifying "who" I was posting to.

 

This is not about debate. I just want the information to give to someone. So please, no offense intended to any Hindus.

[viji_53]

Out of his devotion to Krishna Prabhupada has taken Krishna as supreme God. That is where Hindu religion gives one, freedom in their faith about God. Bhagavat is a standing example to show that Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu from 1 canto to final canto. no body can deny it. All Vedas, Upanishads describe Vishnu as Parama Purusha & Purushottama. Narayana is the ultimate God.He is undestructable.Narayana took the form of Krishna. Since He took the form of human as Krishna He had to die as Krishna.There is no doubt that Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu!

HariBhol!

viji

[Guest guest]

 

His words as a pure deovtee are always perfect. Madhava and Ramanuja do 'not' disagree with his words.

 

 

 

How much do you actually know about Madhva and Raamaanuja to be able to say the above? I suspect very little.

 

For the record there are many significant differences between what is taught by Madhva, Raamaanuja, and Srila Prabhupada. These differences don't mean that we cannot respect these other stalwart Vaishnavas, but neither should we sweep those differences under the rug in the name of political correctness, or pretend that the differences are not important.

 

Here are some of the differences:

 

1) Madhva does not accept Krishna as the Original Supreme Personality of Godhead, but rather as a form of Vishnu, whom he considers the muula-ruupa (original form) of the Lord. Raamaanuja does not accept anything like an original form of the Lord; for him none of the forms of the Lord equal Naaraayana.

 

2) Madhva considers the gopis to be apsara-striiH (heavenly society women) who descended to fulfill their lusty desires with Krishna. Gaudiiyas, by contrast, accept the gopis as the topmost devotees. In fact, Jiva Gosvami criticizes this position of Madhva's.

 

3) Madhva and Raamaanuja accept the shrutis as the topmost authority, while they accept the Bhaagavatam as a dependant authority. Gaudiiyas on the other hand, accept Bhaagavatam as on par with shruti and vedaanta-suutra, rather than treating it as as a dependant authority whose every truth must be subject to scrutiny based on shruti.

 

4) Raamaanuja and his followers accept the Vishnu Puraana as the topmost Puraana, in contrast to Gaudiiyas who accept the Bhaagavatam as topmost (the latter has explicit evidence to back it up).

 

5) Many sections of the Bhaagavatam are not commented upon by Madhva and not accepted as authentic by his followers. This includes the chapters describing the Brahmaa-vimohana-liilaa which depicts Lord Brahmaa's bewilderment by Lord Krishna. Brahmaa is regarded as the most excellent devotee by Maadhvas, so they do not accept this chapter. Gaudiiyas, by contrast, accept all of the Bhaagavatam and comment on this chapter without in any way denigrating Lord Brahmaa's position.

 

6) Both Madhva and Prabhupada understand that Krishna is nondifferent from His form. This is not accepted by Raamaanuja, although Raamaanuja does accept that the Lord's forms are all transcendental.

 

7) Neither Madhva nor Raamaanuja accept the divinity of Lord Chaitanya. Of course, it is understood by our aachaaryas that they do, but such a thing is not admitted in their writings. In fact, for Maadhvas, there is no Kali Yuga avataara, as such a thing would contradict their own understanding of avataara theology.

 

8) Neither Madhva nor Raamaanuja accept the existence of an "impersonal Brahman" or brahmajyoti emanating from the Lord which is also known as Brahman. Srila Prabhupada does accept it, and this is how he understands Giitaa 14.27 ("brahmaNo hi pratiShThaaham....")

 

9) For Madhva, the topmost goal consists of performance of varnaashrama duties as a sacrifice to Lord Vishnu. For Gaudiiyas, the topmost goal is unalloyed, spontaneous, devotional service to the Lord unmotivated by karma, jnaana, or other impediments.

 

These are just a few differences I could recall off the top of my head. No doubt there are many more - I haven't even discussed Madhva's and Raamaanuja's theories of the relationship between Lord and the jiivas. Madhva, in fact, does not accept bheda abheda theories at all!

 

Anyway, the point is simply that one should not sweep aside differences merely because one does not understand them or is not aware of them.

 

Also, the Vaishnava epistemology does not mean that one arbitrarily designates someone as "pure devotee" and then follows everything he says without question. Rather, both learning and preaching are to be conducted according to scriptural evidence. It is not that scriptural evidence is only necessary for a special class of people.

 

As far as who it is you think I am, I'm really not interested in your attempts at a character analysis. I am merely stating the truth of our Vaishnava tradition so that others are not misled by your comments.

 

[Guest guest]

 

Out of his devotion to Krishna Prabhupada has taken Krishna as supreme God. That is where Hindu religion gives one, freedom in their faith about God. Bhagavat is a standing example to show that Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu from 1 canto to final canto. no body can deny it. All Vedas, Upanishads describe Vishnu as Parama Purusha & Purushottama. Narayana is the ultimate God.He is undestructable.Narayana took the form of Krishna. Since He took the form of human as Krishna He had to die as Krishna.There is no doubt that Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu!

HariBhol!

viji

 

 

 

Now Priitaa, this individual is saying that Srila Prabhupada takes Krishna to be the source of Vishnu based on devotional sentiment only, with the "truth" being that Krishna is actually the avataara of Vishnu.

 

How do you explain to this individual that what Srila Prabhupada taught is in fact not a sentiment but absolutely correct without quoting shaastra? This individual does not appear to accept Srila Prabhupada's words as ipso facto truth. Is he therefore despicable as a result, or can you convince him why he should?

 

 

[Govindaram]

"This question, or confusion, often arises. Hindu's believe Krishna is an incarnation of Vishnu."

 

Trying to change a Hindu's mind, is like oh trying to teach an old dog new tricks...(only kidding) /images/graemlins/smirk.gif(I am Hindu!)

 

I don't think it really matters 'that much' since Lord Vishnu and Krsna are the same, everyone has their own point of view though, anyway what about when Lord Vishnu as a baby form turned into Krsna eh?, that right there proves that Krsna is the original form of the Lord and visa versa, confuced? I should think so... I am /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Guest guest]

 

I don't think it really matters 'that much' since Lord Vishnu and Krsna are the same, everyone has their own point of view though, anyway what about when Lord Vishnu as a baby form turned into Krsna eh?, that right there proves that Krsna is the original form of the Lord and visa versa, confuced? I should think so... I am

 

 

Reading Srila Prabhupada's books (especially his purport to SB 1.3.28) will relieve one of confusion. Krishna being svayam bhagavaan is not only true for some, it is true, period.

 

And now I better not say anymore lest Priitaa accuse me of spreading hate.

[Guest guest]

 

The concept of avatars is not found in the Vedas.

Vaisnava did not arise from the people that worshipped Vishnu in a Vedic manner but rather the Satvata clan.

 

Historically in the 5th century BC tribals called the Satvatas were worshipping in non-vedic rites their deity called Krsna Vasudeva. They were pretty much montheistic rare for India of that day. In 400 BC this deity was mentioned as an object of worship in the Sanskrit of the Panini.

 

Anyway Krsna Vasudeva was one a great warrior cheiftain of the lowly Satavatas. He was their Lord of Lords only for a long time and for those who converted.

 

Then around 400 bc or so due to some miltary sucess the Satvata's societal posiition was elevated and they attained ksatriya status. What that meant is they were in a position to learn sanskrit and approached nobility-the followers of Brahman and various other deities.

 

There is pressure anytime a monotheistic culture encounters a polytheistic culture and society was feeling the pressure.

 

A big problem was for the Brahmans is that the followers of Krsna they were totally uninterested in Vedic sacrifice and rites and considered their god greater than Brahmam of the Upanishads. They were gaining in power and obviously favored by the divine with no intervention from the Brahmans or Vedic ritual. You can imagine the predicament of the priests.

 

As the Satvatas gained in status they gained ties to some of the priests that were serving the nobility. Some of the priests began converting for various reasons. These priests assisted the Satvatas in reconsiling their deity with the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita arose from all this. It was written that Krishna was an avatar of Vishnu thus establishing Vedic connections.

 

The first written evidence of the belief of avatars is probably in the Bhagavad Gita 4.6-8 and in the 11th canto Arjuna addresses the Supreme Being as Vishnu-thus the marriage of the monotheism of the Satvatas and the Vedic traditions.

 

Another factor that was troubling society at the time that the Bhagavad Gita addressed was that numerous young men were abandoning their social stations like Gautama Buddha had done and were traveling about begging and seeking mukti. The ruling classes were losing their sons thus their heirs to the kingdoms, and kingdoms were being swallowed up as a result. They were pretty freaked out about it for the most part (as was Gautama Buddha's father who had tried to shield him from suffering so this would not occur). It was a huge concern for the nobility.

 

The Bhagavad Gita addressed this in detail and thus it became a common belief that seekers of salvation should not renounce the world and cease their worldly work. and that abandoning the world was not necessary for salvation. The nobles kept their sons.

 

It is always interesting to look at society at the time great works were written as they are dependently arising. Whether he is indeed and avatar of Vishnu or not an avatra of Vishnu may not be known. However that is how he was presented from a Vedic perspective. It was not what he was originally considered to be.

 

I suppose calling him an avatar of Vishnu is alot like saying the Columbus discovered America (even though others were there long before).

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I dont like to identify myself not to create confusion and confrontation among devotees and hence I am purposely writing this as guest.

All respects to Swamy Prabhupadha. No offenses please. Prabhupadaji interpretations were primarily meant for people who does not live hinduism or who is not born in India as a Hindu to understand various things in Hinduism. He did not want to confuse a new comer and hence he everything as Shree Krishna which is true in a way, because Narayana is all everything and He Himself is Shree Krishna, and all the avathars and all the Mahashakthi's. The inner potency of Narayana is MahaLakshmi whom Hara Krishna people worship as Radharani. Why hindus by birth does not agree with Harakrishna devotees born abroad is primarily a hindu brought up in India is exposed to all these mythological stories right from birth and he/she is quite aware of the fact that all the forms of supreme personility is the same which different people worship in their favourite form as Mahalakshmi, or Lalithambika or Shiva or Saraswathi (Goddess of Knowledge). There is nothing like DemiGod since all the different avathars have equal potency as they are the same but worshiped or taken form for different purpose at different times to solve a different trouble. A new comer may not understand all these things and he/she will get confused thinking that hinduism has many Gods and how this is possible. So Swamy prabhupada named everything as Shree krishna since its a fact that The potency and Supreme called Narayana is the same manifested in different form. This is the fact, whether Hare Krishna's agree with it or not.

 

[Guest guest]

 

The concept of avatars is not found in the Vedas.

 

 

 

I beg to differ sir! The Vedas themselves include the Puraanas (which do speak explicit of avataaras):

 

rigveda.m bhagavo'dhyemi yajurveda.m saamavedamaatharvaNa.m chaturthamitihaasapuraaNa.m pa~nchama.m vedaanaa.m veda pitR^iya.m raashi.m daiva nidhi.m va kovaakyamekaaayana.m devavidhyaa.m brahmavidhyaa.m bhuutavidhyaa.m kShatravidyaa.m nakShatravidyaa.m sarpadevajanavidhyaametadbhagavo'dhyemi || CU 7.1.2 ||

 

Revered master, I know the Rig Veda, the Yajurveda, the Saaamaveda, and the Atharvan as the fourth, the Itihaasa, Puraanas as the fifth, graammer, the rules for the worship of the manes, mathematics, the science of portents, the chronology, logic, the science of ethics, etymology, the ancillary knowledge of the Vedas, the physical science, the science of war, the astronomy, the science of snake-charming and the fine arts. This, venerable master, I know (chaandogya upaniShad 7.1.2).

 

 

Saying "concept of avatars is not found in the Vedas" is thus based on misunderstanding of what is in the Vedas.

 

As far as the rest of your article, it is completely unfounded and lacking in anything resembling evidence. So I will not dignify it further with a response.

 

[Guest guest]

 

I dont like to identify myself not to create confusion and confrontation among devotees and hence I am purposely writing this as guest.

All respects to Swamy Prabhupadha. No offenses please. Prabhupadaji interpretations were primarily meant for people who does not live hinduism or who is not born in India as a Hindu to understand various things in Hinduism. He did not want to confuse a new comer and hence he everything as Shree Krishna which is true in a way, because Narayana is all everything and He Himself is Shree Krishna, and all the avathars and all the Mahashakthi's. The inner potency of Narayana is MahaLakshmi whom Hara Krishna people worship as Radharani. Why hindus by birth does not agree with Harakrishna devotees born abroad is primarily a hindu brought up in India is exposed to all these mythological stories right from birth and he/she is quite aware of the fact that all the forms of supreme personility is the same which different people worship in their favourite form as Mahalakshmi, or Lalithambika or Shiva or Saraswathi (Goddess of Knowledge). There is nothing like DemiGod since all the different avathars have equal potency as they are the same but worshiped or taken form for different purpose at different times to solve a different trouble. A new comer may not understand all these things and he/she will get confused thinking that hinduism has many Gods and how this is possible. So Swamy prabhupada named everything as Shree krishna since its a fact that The potency and Supreme called Narayana is the same manifested in different form. This is the fact, whether Hare Krishna's agree with it or not.

 

 

 

The funny thing about the above is that this Hindu guy is doing to Hare Krishnas what they do to Christianity - reinterpreting other religions to make them more compatible with their own world view, and that too without any regard for the evidence. No doubt Hare Krishnas disaprove of it, but since they do the same to others, (like Priitaa who says there are no differences between Madhva and Prabhupada), who are they to complain?

 

Anyway, that is an aside. The main issue is the statement:

 

 

All respects to Swamy Prabhupadha. No offenses please. Prabhupadaji interpretations were primarily meant for people who does not live hinduism or who is not born in India as a Hindu to understand various things in Hinduism. He did not want to confuse a new comer and hence he everything as Shree Krishna which is true in a way, because Narayana is all everything and He Himself is Shree Krishna, and all the avathars and all the Mahashakthi's.

 

 

We should put the question to Priitaa. Can this individual be made to understand that Krishna being Original Supreme Personality of Godhead is objective truth instead of devotional sentiment? Or can this only be done if this individual first accepts Prabhupada as pure devotee? Actually, it looks like he accepts Prabhupada as devotee but still he doesn't understand the validity of what Prabhupada taught. What do you say Priitaa? :-)