Krishna Avatar of Vishnu?

[viji_53]

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.

 

 

I agree with the above statement. True hindu should not be fanatic. Should not get annoyed when his idea is not accepted by others. Narayana is Paramodevata. You can never deny it. Saivites feel that Lord Shiva is ultimate God . Like that Prabhupada made his followers believe that Krishna is ultimate god. There is nothing wrong in it as a true hindu. But his followers can not force others to take his' guru's words as true.

 

HariBhol!

[Guest guest]

What I meant to say is not to hurt Prabhupadaji's followers. Narayana is Vishnu when he protects and His inner potency is Mahalakshmi or Sree lakshmi and all avathars of Lakshmi such as Radhe, Rukmini devi, tulsi, etc etc., He Himself is Shiva when he wants to destroy a particular evil element and in that case His inner potency is worshiped as Lokamatha, or Lalithambika or Parvathi, DurgaDevi, Karumari, Kamakshi, Abirami. When he wanted to spread the Divine knowledge, He is Brahma and His Inner potency is Saraswathi or Vidhyalakshmi. Likewise Karthikeya or Subramanya is again the potency of Lord to destroy the evil. Iyyapan again is the same. A hindu born in India irrespective of his background as Vaishnavite or savite or Madhwa knows this when that individual really start realing the Supreme and since he has already grown up with all the stories sincehis childhood, he is able to worship all forms of the Lord without any discrimiination since he has understood, while Prabhupadaa's followers refuse to read anything other than his work, refuse to accept anything other than his words, besides being the fact they are converted to Hinduism out of which they feel everyone should blindly accpept what ever written by Him. Surely his work is an excellent introduction to understanding the Supreme, but confining only to that will not pave way toproperly understand hinduism and this is true certainly if the person is a nnew comer. There is nothing offenssive to put down anyone as its normal for any student to presume that they have understood everything and others may be wrong, and this does not mean that all people born in India as hindus knows everything. So I reqest converted people please do not start another confrontation and start thinking rationally and logically. After all everyone of us is trying to reach the ultimate and it does not make sense in arguing illogically when our exposure is limited.

 

[mahak]

Krsna is superior to Narayana. Radharani offers respects to Narayana, but then asks Him to get out of Her way because She wants Krsna.

 

Narayana has attraction, but all-attraction is reserved to Krsna. The Goswamis of Vrndavan have comprised the theological backing of this, and Shankara has also confirmed this. Krsna can be loved, other forms will burn.

 

Avatars are on schedule, Krsna has no schedule. Avatars have work to do, Krsna only plays. Avatars are transcendentallyt impressive, Krsna is receptacle of loving exchange.

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[Guest guest]

Its true that everyone wants Krishna because Shree KRishna form of Narayana is the most beloved and comfortable for every one to think of as He descended as Human form primarily as requested by Devaki and Vasudeva to make everyone comfortable. While radhika prays to Narayana she wants His form as Krishna because she (Lakshmi) is not in her original form and thats why shhe wants Krishna in that form. This is the ultimate concept. It is really absurd to even think that Radhika asked Narayana to get away. She is praying to Him to be with her as Shree Krishna. Although it appears by superfical reading that Shree Krishna is only playful and did have any work like described for other avathars, His (Narayana's) actual work itself in that avathar is to be playful and be with one among the humans yet maintain His identity so that the purpose of His coming down to preach Gita is done. The whole mahabharatha itself is the work of Narayana as Krishna and yet within Mahabharatha He Himself remains as a character of Krishna observing everything although it appeared as He is only playful. Lord Narayana and Krishna are the same. Krishna is the sweetest form of Lord Narayana for everyone to feel comfortable. there is no question of separating the two and talk about who is supreme since both are the same and any one who knows the essence will not argue like this to say Krishna is Supreme to Narayana. Thats foolish

[Guest guest]

Krishna is not SUPERIOR to Naaraayana. Krishna and Naaraayana are the same Supreme Personality of Godhead. Krishna is the original form while Naaraayana is another form of Krishna.

 

We have to say this properly or else people might misunderstand.

[Guest guest]

 

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

 

 

Not so, but it makes Hindu's feel upity.

 

Get your facts straight.

 

Prabhupada first preached to the Hindus in India, who had little interest in his message. Especially this higher most confidential knowledge. We can see here, Hindus who still can't accept Vishnu is from Krishna, or Narayana is from Krishna, or that Srimate Radharani is laksmi and is not Her true highest self of Radha. Such Hindus are attached to what they have learned and do not want to hear the more pure translations of the pure deovtees. They say, "Oh, I respect Swami Prabhuapda" then they tear apart what he taught, or belittle his teachings claiming it was only for those less fortunate who did not konw Hindusim, then instead they give their own message. Therefore they do not want to surrender to any jagat guru. They do not really accept him as pure devotee but prefer translations of book that support what they all ready believe. It is such Hindus who are creating the US and THEM mentality, because to surrender to the pure deovtee not only means giving up misconceptions they're attached to, not only that white so called sudra devotees are not lower birth then they are, but giving up sex, meat/eggs, intoxication, gambling and chanting 16 rounds japa daily. How many Hindus preaching contrary to Prabhupada are following these?

[Vaishnava_das108]

Plenty of people ARE following Srila Prabhupada, INCLUDING "Hindus."

 

I suggest that you get your own facts straight, please. It may also help to brush up on scriptures. These sorts of questions can only be answered by a good knowledge of the scriptures.

[Guest guest]

We don't need to get into the alleged shortcomings of Hindu people to explain why Srila Prabhupada taught what he did. I was earlier trying to make a point to Priitaa that you can't have a discussion on a matter such as this unless you are prepared to refer to shaastra. Otherwise it just boils down to "my guru is right!no he isn't!yes he is!" ad nauseum.

 

Listen up, Mr. "Shiva and Narayana and Brahma are the Same" Guest. This is especially meant for you.

 

Srila Prabhupada taught that Krishna is the original Supreme Personality of Godhead. There is no higher concept than Krishna, with peacock feather and flute. All other Vishnu-tattvas are different forms of Krishna, not inferior to Him but at the same time not the source of Him. It is from Krishna that all other Vishnu-forms are expanded.

 

This is not made up by Srila Prabhupada. It is explicitly taught in Shriimad Bhaagavatam. Therein, a listing of various avataaras is given, including the Purusha-avataaras (Mahaa-Vishnu, Vishnu from whose navel Brahmaa is born, and Vishnu on milk-ocean). And after all of that it is stated:

 

ete chaa.mshakalaaH pu.msaH kR^iShNas tu bhagavaan svayam |

indraarivyaakula.M loka.m mR^iDayanti yuge yuge ||

 

All of the above-mentioned incarnations are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord Shrii 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. (shriimad bhaagavata puraaNa 1.3.28)

 

 

All of the other avataaras are amsha-kalaaH - either plenary portions (full in every respect, like Raama, Narasimha, Vishnu) or portions of those plenary portions (like the Manus, devatas, and rishis discussed in verse 1.3.27). Krishna was listed in that list of avataaras, which is why it is said "but Krishna is the svayam bhagavaan" - the Original Bhagavaan in full. This glorification is not stated of any other form of Vishnu - only of Krishna. The correct understanding is that Krishna is the Original form, and all other forms of Vishnu are different forms of this Krishna.

 

We who are Vaishnavas accepted the eternal, unauthored Veda as an authority for getting spiritual knowledge. This Veda is divided into four, and the remaining material from that Veda was compiled into the Puraanas, of which the Bhaagavatam is one. Not only is the Bhaagavatam a Puraana in the saattvik class, but it is actually the topmost Puraana in all matters spiritual. Thus, it actually teaches the highest conclusions. This conclusion that Krishna is the original form is not understood by many, and so it's no surprise that it is only brought out in the cream of all scriptures.

 

Whether one chooses to worship Krishna or some other form of Him, the result is the same. However, Brahmaa and Shiva are not the same as Krishna. Shiva is almost the same as Krishna - he is similar in quality but is still a subordinate entity. Brahmaa is an empowered living entity and he is never understood to be the Supreme Lord of all. Brahmaa, Vishnu, and Shiva are often spoken of as the three great controllers (jagad-iishvaras) because among all devatas, They are most powerful. But among them, it is Vishnu that is the supreme:

 

sattva.m rajas tama iti prakR^iter guNaas tair yuktaH paraH puruSha eka ihaaya dhatte |

sthityaadaye hariviri~nchihareti sa.mj~`naaH shreyaa.msi tatra khalu sattvatanor nR^iNaa.m syuH ||

 

The transcendental Personality of Godhead is indirectly associated with the three modes of material nature, namely passion, goodness and ignorance, and just for the material world's creation, maintenance and destruction He accepts the three qualitative forms of Brahmaa, Vishnu and Shiva. Of these three, all human beings can derive ultimate benefit from Vishnu, the form of the quality of goodness. (shriimad bhaagavata puraana 1.2.23)

 

 

The system should be that before stating an opinion, even if it be a long cherished or sacred one, one should quote from shaastra. I hope you understand, therefore, that nothing you said will be taken seriously until you do this.

 

One can doubt a guru and come to proper understanding if the scriptural basis of guru's teachings is made known. But one who doubts the scriptures is beyond hope.

 

 

 

[theist]

This question makes for an interesting disscussion but I have to question its purpose as an emotional debate. Theists really should keep their disagreements friendly.

 

As for me if I ever get any genuine attraction for God it will be in His form of Krsna. I don't care which came first Narayana or Krsna. Just something about the Lord as a village boy that draws me in that direction. Presently I am trying to gain some awe and reverence for His greatness but I can see it going past that into something different in some far distant future.

 

Something about the idea of playing with God in the forest in forgetfullness of His power and supremacy...

 

So what are we trying to do in such a debate? Change someone else's rasa? That should not be our concern.

 

Didn't Mahaprabhu teach us that?

 

Especially in a world filled with impersonalists and atheists, I feel grateful for the presence of the Sri's and others who wish to establish the eternal supremacy of the Supreme Person.

[livingentity]

Besides, this thread was started by Priitaa so as to gather some quotes for herself. As seems to happen all too often simple requests etc turn into someone's personal or political agenda.

 

It is too bad that the author's of threads can not lock them up when they go so far from the original intent.

 

 

[Govindaram]

Hare Krishna

 

A lot of Hindu's etc have Ista-deva's (it just a word folks don't get into a debate), it means fav God, some people its Lord Sri Ramachandra, some Sri Hanumanji, some Sri Vishnu, some Lord Siva, so it's a matter of taste, in the beggining I wanted Hanumanji as my friend! (when I was very young), and carried on that notion not knowing, I am his servant ONLY, so here comes Krishna who is my friend and master, both! Ha Ha.

[Guest guest]

 

So what are we trying to do in such a debate?

 

 

 

If by this you mean the last few messages, then I can answer. The point was not to change someone else's "rasa," but rather to correct the erroneous misconception that what "Swamy Prabhupadaji" taught was only for the benefit of those who were non-Hindu, the purport being that in fact the truth is something else.

 

Personally, I doubt the individual who made these claims has any rasa, but as I stated earlier, one can worship any form of Krishna and achieve transcendental benefit. I did agree with his theory that Shiva, Brahmaa, and Vishnu are the same.

 

[Guest guest]

 

I did agree with his theory that Shiva, Brahmaa, and Vishnu are the same.

 

 

 

I meant to say "I did NOT agree with his theory that Shiva, Brahmaa, and Vishnu are the same...."

 

[livingentity]

I did not check to see if any of these are repeats - just not inclined to weed through the nonsense posts so I apologize if any have already been posted.

 

SRIMAD BHAGAVATAM 2.6.42

adyo 'vatarah purusah parasya

kalah svabhavah sad-asan-manas ca

dravyam vikaro guna indriyani

virat svarat sthasnu carisnu bhumnah

 

TRANSLATION

Karanarnavasayi Visnu is the first incarnation of the Supreme Lord, and He is the master of eternal time, space, cause and effects, mind, the elements, the material ego, the modes of nature, the senses, the universal form of the Lord, Garbhodakasayi Visnu, and the sum total of all living beings, both moving and nonmoving.

 

SRIMAD BHAGAVATAM 2.5.22

kalad guna-vyatikarah

parinamah svabhavatah

karmano janma mahatah

purusadhisthitad abhut

 

TRANSLATION

After the incarnation of the first purusa [Karanarnavasayi Visnu], the mahat-tattva, or the principles of material creation, take place, and then time is manifested, and in course of time the three qualities appear. Nature means the three qualitative appearances. They transform into activities.

 

SRIMAD BHAGAVATAM 2.5.35

sa eva purusas tasmad

andam nirbhidya nirgatah

sahasrorv-anghri-bahv-aksah

sahasranana-sirsavan

 

TRANSLATION

The Lord [Maha-Visnu], although lying in the Causal Ocean, came out of it, and dividing Himself as Hiranyagarbha, He entered into each universe and assumed the virat-rupa, with thousands of legs, arms, mouths, heads, etc.

 

SRIMAD BHAGAVATAM 2.6.17

sva-dhisnyam pratapan prano

bahis ca pratapaty asau

evam virajam pratapams

tapaty antar bahih puman

 

TRANSLATION

The sun illuminates both internally and externally by expanding its radiation; similarly, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, by expanding His universal form, maintains everything in the creation both internally and externally.

 

Brahma Samhita 5.46

diparcir eva hi dasantaram abhyupetya

dipayate vivrta-hetu-samana-dharma

yas tadrg eva hi ca visnutaya vibhati

govindam adi-purusam tam aham bhajami

 

TRANSLATION

The light of one candle being communicated to other candles, although it burns separately in them, is the same in its quality. I adore the primeval Lord Govinda who exhibits Himself equally in the same mobile manner in His various manifestations.

 

 

[Guest guest]

If yu read my posting carefully, you would understand (provided yuo have enough experience and knowledge and self thinking rather than just blindly reading books ) that I have not separated Krishna and Narayana. Yes it is true that Krishnaavathar is Supreme to all avathar because in all avathara the Supreme did not exemplify Himself as Supreme. While in Krishnavathar The Supreme presents Himself as The Supreme and hence the name Krishna is just another name of Narayana or Vishnu, whether we call the Supreme as Krishna or Vishnu or Narayana it is the same and this is what the actual shastras says that have been living for more than 2000 years. What ever you guys are quoting here as purport are just the interpretation from the same author whom you follow and think as right. Everyone is right in their way and none is actually wrong. No one can claim that my interpretation alone is right and throw away everything. When I say avathar, it means only the Dasavathar and please do not confuse manu, buddha etc etc as avathars and in the same way in actual Hindu mythology the demi Gods are nothing but the 5 elements only and all other forms of the Supreme Lord such as Karthikeya, Iyyappan, Ganesha, all are considered with equal potency of the Supreme Himself since they originate from the Supreme. Like Shree Krishna, Subramanya has two wives who are Valli and Devayani, and Iyyapan has two who are Sree kala and Push kala and they represents Satyabhama and RukminiDevi who are again Mahalakshmi's form like Shree Radhae.

[theist]

I wasn't refering to the last few messages, or even this thread. Over the last several years I have seen this come up many times and people become very emotional and angry with the other party who persists in holding a different position.

 

I think it is a very interesting disscusion as such controversies should not be ignored because they strengthen the mind and faith. My only worry is the idea of the other sampradayas and other religions being seen as some kind of enemy.

 

I think if we have external enemies at all they come in the form of impersonalism and materialistic atheism.We should strongly be cooperating with each other to establish personalism over all other concepts.

 

To accomplish this we need to keep an air of common respect and sense of comradship.

[Guest guest]

Dear Guest who intends to enlighten us about his views on Hinduism and "Hindu mythology"

 

It's pretty obvious that it is you who have misunderstood us. Nowhere in your posting do I see any quoting of shAstric pramAna. Nor do I see any evidence that you have any interest in understanding what our views are, and what the scriptural basis of them is. All I see in your posting is a blind and irrational faith in the correctness of your views and a refusal to consider any alternative to them.

 

 

Everyone is right in their way and none is actually wrong.

 

 

Please save your politically correct white wash for some other forum. I'm not going to waste any further time with you and your sentimentalism.

[yasodanandana]

"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."

 

1)i am a westerner.. if praphupada would have said that narayana, shiva, naradamuni or his uncle is superior to krishna in my ignorance of vedic culture i surely had no objections

 

2)trying to understand the mind of a pure devotee is offensive and it is most offensive and dangerous to say that he is teaching some heresies to please the western newcomers... in this way i can change any of teachings of the spiritual master to my desires

 

3)every gaudya math is completely agree with the fact that krsna is the source of all vishnu tattva and that radha is not an expansion of lakshmi but HARE, the "attracted" aspect of the supreme personality of godhead.. eternally united in the same tattva (radha-krsna) where krsna is the "attractive"

 

4)if impersonalism or some form of undifferentiation would be the real tattva, we westerners would have no difficulties to understand.. prabhupada comes in the west to fight "nirvishesha" and "sunnyavadi"..... so in the west we are not so "dualist" to force prabhupada to teach unnecessary distinctions fro krsna and vishnu

 

5)i hope that you will be so nice to understand my poor english... these are very difficult matters... thanks

[Govindaram]

"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"

 

If you have been/going to India, you will know that 'Hindus' are very stubborn (lol),

 

Anyway:

Worship to God is done..fulstop. Thats it.

Most Hindus don't consider philosophy,

they pray from the heart.

 

Srila Prabhupada said India is made-up of Vaisnavas,

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

I think:

they are above US, because they see Krishna & Lord Vishnu

as the SAME, how many of us can say the same thing?.

 

not live hinduism or who is not born in India

Thats like saying all western people have no brains. So..

 

Anyways...the argument will go on..just like the Lord Siva/Lord Krishna debate..Haribol!

[Guest guest]

For me Narayana and Krishna are the same and Mahalakshmi and Radhe are the same. If you are taught they are different, do what you like and dont expect everyone to accept you since we Hindus are not worried what hare krishna people talk, but we still go to the temple built by them, because the common ulterior motive for both is The Supreme.

As long as you people dont start another religion in course of time and create your own Gita script and shastras the world is safe. Enough of enough religions already and the fights. Lets not do this.

Bye Bye

[livingentity]

here we are again...the old us vs them attitude! I am beginning to see that it might just be a pipe dream to think that all can get along on a single open to all forum without resorting to insults.

 

I am sick of hearing things like "you people" etc.

 

And is it not interesting that this stuff always seems to come from invisible guests.

[yasodanandana]

"For me Narayana and Krishna are the same and Mahalakshmi and Radhe are the same"

 

this is your free opinion, much better that say that this is the "hidden" opinion of srila prabhupada

 

"As long as you people dont start another religion.."

 

gaudya vaishnavism comes from india... and gaudya vaishnavism says that radha-krsna is the source of all other personalities... gaudya vasihnavism is from india and it is not new

 

"Enough of enough religions already and the fights. Lets not do this."

 

fanaticism is not good, but a fanatic is also who is disturbed by people who wants peacefully discuss of religion and philosophy... so if you want to discuss and bring other demonstrations of your theories i have no problems

 

Isvarah paramah krsna.. saccitananda vigraha

(the supreme personality of godhead is krsna.. with a form made of eternity, consciousness and happiness)

[Guest guest]

Krishna and Narayana are the same. Krishna is the Supreme Godhead, and Narayana is another form of Him. No conflict there. Similarly Lakshmi is another form of Radha.

 

But the rest of this nonsense this guy spouts, about creating another religion, another scripture, etc. is... well, basically nonsense.

 

He has some insecurities vis-a-vis ISKCON people. It's obvious he does not even know what he is talking about. Just leave him.

 

Unnamed Guest Prabhu