from the bhakti-list

[Guest guest]

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