Krishna and Vishnu are the same

[Guest guest]

I am noticing a lot of netters saying things like "Krishna is superior to Narayana, superior to Vishnu, etc" I think these individuals mean well, but I respectfully submit that the wording used by them is not only incorrect, but also a little offensive. I'm sure this was not their intention.

 

It is important that we who claim to be followers of Srila Prabhupada represent this subject properly, lest other people (Hindus, Vaishnavas) misunderstand his teaching and criticize him for it. Anyone who distinguishes between Krishna and Vishnu, implying that they are two different deities, is certainly worthy of criticism, even condemnation.

 

But those who are Gaudiiya Vaishnavas do not claim that Krishna and Vishnu are different, though we prefer to worship the Lord as Krishna. I would like present some evidence to that effect here, which will clarify the sameness and explain what is meant by the "difference." This is for the benefit of skeptics who have the wrong idea, as well as devotees who would like to improve their preaching.

 

yathaa guNaa.mstu prakR^iteryugapat kramasho'pi vaa |

bibharti bhuurishastvekaH kurvan karmaaNi janmabhiH || bhaa 2.4.9 ||

 

yathaa - as they are; guNaan - the modes of; tu - but; prakR^iteH - of the material energy; yugapat - simultaneously; kramashaH - gradually; api - also; vaa - either; bibharti - maintains; bhuurishaH - many forms; tu - but; ekaH - the supreme one; kurvan - acting; karmaaNi - activities; janmabhiH - by incarnations.

 

The Supreme Personality of Godhead is one, whether He alone acts with the modes of material nature, or simultaneously expands in many forms, or expands consecutively to direct the modes of nature (bhaagavata puraaNa 2.4.9).

 

muurti.m naH purukR^ipayaa babhaara sattvam sa.mshuddha.m sadasadida.m vibhaati tatra |

yalliilaa.m mR^igapatiraadade'navadyaamaadaatu.m svajanamanaa.msyudaaraviiryaH || bhaa 5.25.10 ||

 

muurtim - different forms of the Supreme Personality of Godhead; naH - unto us; puru-kR^ipayaa - because of great mercy; babhaara - exhibited; sattvam - existence; sa.mshuddham - completely transcendental; sat-asat-idam - this material manifestation of cause and effect; vibhaati - shines; tatra - in whom; yat-liilaam - the pastimes of whom; mR^iga-patiH - the master of all living beings, who is exactly like a lion (the master of all other animals); aadade - taught; anavadyaam - without material contamination; aadaatum - to conquer; sva-jana-manaa.msi - the minds of His devotees; udaara-viiryaH - who is most liberal and powerful.

 

This manifestation of subtle and gross matter exists within the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Out of causeless mercy toward His devotees, He exhibits various forms, which are all transcendental. The Supreme Lord is most liberal, and He possesses all mystic power. To conquer the minds of His devotees and give pleasure to their hearts, He appears in different incarnation sand manifests many pastimes (bhaagavata puraaNa 5.25.10).

 

In the Krishna-Sandarbha, Srila Jiva Gosvami explains about the two different kinds of expansions of the Lord - svaamsha expansions and vibhinaamsha expansions. The former category refers to the various forms of the Lord, while the latter refers to the living entities. Here is what he has to say:

 

yathaa varaahe

 

svaa.mshash chaatha vibhinna.msha iti dvedhaa.msha iShyate |

 

a.mshino yat tu saamaarthya.m yat svaruupa.m yathaa sthitiH || KS 28.17 ||

 

 

 

This is confirmed in the Varaaha Puraana:

 

"The two kinds of expansions from the Supreme Personality of Godhead are: 1. svaamsha (personal expansions) and 2. vibhinnaamsha (separate persons). The svaamsha expansions are unlimitedly powerful. Their form and personality are the same as the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself " (kR^iShNa-sandarbha 28.17).

 

tad eva naanumaatro'pi bhedaH svaa.mshaamshinaH kvachit |

vibhinnaa.msho'lpashaktiH syaat ki~nchit saamaarthyamaatrayuk || KS 28.18 ||

 

"There is not the slightest difference between the svaamsha expansions and the Original Personality of Godhead. The vibhinnaamsha expansions are very weak in comparison to Them" (kR^iShNa-sandarbha 28.18).

 

atrochyate a.mshaanaam a.mshisaamaarthyaadika.m tadaikyenaiva mantavyam | tach cha yathaavidaasina ity aadau tasyaakShayatvena taasaam akShayatva.m yathaa taadvat a.mshaamshitvaanupapatter eva | tathaa cha shriivaasudevaaniruddhayoH sarvathaa sa.mye prasakte kadaachid aniruddheNaapi shriivaasudevasyaavirbhaavanaa prasajjyeta | tach cha shrutavipariitam ity asad eva | tasmad asty evaavaTaryavataarayo taaratamyam || KS 28.19 ||

 

Here it is said that both the Original Personality of Godhead and His expansions (amshas) are equally powerful. In the phrase "yathaavidaasinaH kulyaaH sarasaH syuH sahasrashaH" (The incarnations of the Lord are innumerable like rivulets flowing from inexaustible sources of water) (SB 1.3.26) it may be understood that, because the Lord and His expansions share the same nature, as the original Supreme Personality of Godhead is eternal, so His expansions are also eternal. Although Lord Vaasudeva and Lord Anirudha are equal in all respects, Lord Aniruddha sometimes devotedly meditates on Lord Vaasudeva. To argue that this is contradicted by the Shruti-shaastra is wrong. For the Supreme Lord, who is the source of all incarnations, and for all His expansions, there are gradations of higher and lower (kR^iShNa-sandarbha 28.19).

 

The above explains that all of the svaamshas (Krishna, Vishnu, Naaraayana, etc) are all the same. It is ONLY the vibhinaamshas (jiivas and so one) who are less than the Lord. In other words, while Jiva Gosvami accepts a "hierarchy" of sorts of different forms of Krishna, nevertheless They are all the same Supreme Personality of Godhead, only "different" in terms of what potencies they manifest.

 

This point is made even more clear by Srila Baladeva Vidyabhushana in his Vedanta commentary:

 

In the Mahaavaraaha Puraana we read as follows:

 

svaa.mshash chaatha vibhinna.msha iti dvedhaa.msha iShyate |

a.mshino yat tu saamaarthya.m yat svaruupa.m yathaa sthitiH || 1 ||

tadeva naanumaatro'pi bhedaH svaa.mshaamshino kvachit |

vibhinnaa.msho'lpashaktiH syaat ki~nchit saamathyamaatrayugiti || 2 ||

sarvve sarvvguNaiH purNaH sarvdoShavivarjji taa iti cha |

 

"The amsha is used in two senses, (1) the amsha or part of one's ownself and hence identical with himself, (2) a part separate from one's ownself. The first called svaamsha is absolutely identical with the whole, of which it is a part. It has all the powers, the nature and the condition of the original; there is not the slightest difference between it and its prototype. The second called Vibhinna Amsha has lesser power, lesser energy, lesser attributes than the original. The Sva-amshas are all full of perfect attributes and free from all defects."

 

The sense of the above is this: - In the Bhaagavata Puraana it is said, "these avataaras are the partial manifestations (amsha kalaa) of the Supreme Person, but Krishna is the Lord Himself." This verse does not mean that other Avataaras, like the Fish and the rest, are in any respect inferior to the Lord; but that they are the Supreme Lord in His entirety, and are not amshas in the same sense as the jiivas are the amshas of the Lord. On the other hand, they are like the various aspects of the same Lord manifesting different powers, just like the crystal and the rest, which show different attributes at different times. When the Lord in His Avataara manifests all His powers, then He is called a full Avataara, but when He manifests only a portion of His powers, then He is said to be a partial Avataara. In His avataara as Krishna, all the six powers were fully manifested, but in other avataaras, a fewer number of these powers were shown forth, and hence they were called amsha kalaas. It may be illustrated by the example of a great professor, who is master of all the sciences, and who is, therefore, called a perfect master; but when he addresses a lower class of intellects, he may not expound to them all the six shaastras, but only a particular portion; and in that aspect of his teaching, he may be called a partial teacher; though as a matter of fact, he is master of six sciences. It is only in the Lord Krishna, the infant sucking at the breast of mother Yashodaa, that we find the perfect manifestation of all the six attributes which constitute the Godhead, such for example, supreme love for all humanity or an object of supreme love for all humanity, the maker of the supremely sweet heavenly music which turns the head of even the wisest gods like Brahmaa and the rest, the possessor of the most ravishing and beautiful form, which enchants all who behold it, and immeasureable compassion and the rest. These attributes are fully mentioned in the tenth Skandha of the Bhaagavata Puraana. The Lord in His manifestation of Shrii Krishna was attended by all His energies like Raadhaa and the rest, as described in the Purusha Bodhinii Shruiti. But in His other avataaras, like those of the Fish and rest, He did not bring down all His energies, nor did He manifest all His attributes. But these avataaras were identical with the Lord and though called amshas, they were not parts of Brahman in the same sense as jiivas are said to be His parts. In the Rik-parishishta the various powers of the Lord are fully described. (govinda-bhaaShya 2.3.45 commentary).

 

Here, the other expansions of Krishna (like Matsya and so on) are compared to Krishna the way a professor (who knows all sciences but only lectures on some of them) is compared to another professor (who knows all sciences and lectures fully on all of them). The difference is not in terms of what they posess, because They both posess the same knowledge, potency, etc. The difference is only in what they *express.*

 

Thus, it is wrong to say that Krishna is superior to Vishnu. It is more correct to say that Krishna is the original form and Vishnu is another form of Him expressing fewer potencies but nevertheless having all of them.

 

Please also note that Sri Vaishnavas cannot argue for the impropriety of such a view, because they themselves admit that no form of the Lord is fully the Lord Himself. Thus, they cannot object when we say that forms of Krishna other than Krishna do not fully express all of His potencies since they same the same thing about all of the Lord's forms.

 

Nor can Maadhvas object to our view, because they also have a concept of "partial expansion/expression" of the Lord. Only they consider Vishnu the original form. They admit that in the chatur-vyuha, each succeeding expansion is a partial manifestation of the one before it, though each one is the same Supreme Lord.

[Guest guest]

 

"The above explains that all of the svaamshas (Krishna, Vishnu, Naaraayana, etc) are all the same.

 

In the Bhaagavata Puraana it is said, "these avataaras are the partial manifestations (amsha kalaa) of the Supreme Person, but Krishna is the Lord Himself." This verse does not mean that other Avataaras, like the Fish and the rest, are in any respect inferior to the Lord; but that they are the Supreme Lord in His entirety, and are not amshas in the same sense as the jiivas are the amshas of the Lord. On the other hand, they are like the various aspects of the same Lord manifesting different powers....."

 

This is what I mentioned and nobody tried to understand but rather they started talking irrelevant words such as I and you discrimination. Again this I does not mean I the individual, but the ideology of hindus brought up in India.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

Again this I does not mean I the individual, but the ideology of hindus brought up in India.

 

 

I don't think anyone can claim to represent the ideology of all Hindus brought up in India. There are so many systems of belief within Hinduism that it is impossible for all to agree or have the same conclusion. Philosophical debate has gone on for thousands of years in India.

 

Thus the thought that you or anyone else is somehow representing the views of "real Hindus" is just something in your mind. There is no such thing as the official view of Hindus.

 

The Vedic scriptures on the other hand do have a particular conclusion, thus it is possible to claim to represent the conclusion of the shastras through one's ideology. But then if one makes such a claim it would need to be substantiated against Vedic scriptural evidence, not just that it conforms to some "natural Hindu view of things".

 

[Guest guest]

Well, I did not obviously mean to say that really all hindus of India, certainly and ofcourse not, because some of them dont even believe in God Himself. I meant to say based on the views of people's general belief that is based primarily on the following things:

If you read any Sahasranama stothram,

Daily Sandhyavandhana manthras

(The list goes on, and the this post will be full to represent and quote everything.)

Any poojas and rituals irrespective of whatever expansions of the Lord, everything concludes as Namosthu Narayana vallabhaya, or Narayanaya samarpayami and this includes the saivite worship also, which is also evident from Soundaryalahari written by Sankaracharya where he ends up with Narayana. There is no second thought that Krisna is Lord Himself, what I meant all along is the name Krishna refers to just another name of the Supreme only without any difference in His potency or power. While Bagavatham describes the life history of Shree Krishna the mentioning of Supreme as Krishna represents Krishnavathar is Lord Himself and hence Whether He is called as Narayana (as how he was all along referred before Krishnavathar) or Krishna it is the same. Much blatantly its just the change of alphabets but its just inseparably the same like a same person having two names. This is what certainly the Hindus of India beleives and thats how they worship and thats the reason when improperly understood people says they are differnt (like in some of the posts) people find it really funny and thats the reason, honestly some of the hare krishna's abroad (not all) are laughed at sometimes because of their lack of understandings in this concept. Their lack of understanding is also clear if you go through their arguments. I am sorry if I have offended anyone.

[Guest guest]

In the above post I mentioned as Soundaryalahari

I meant to say Kanagadhara Stothram by Sankaracharya

thanks

[Guest guest]

Dear Guest,

 

The purpose of the original posting was to explain the similarity and "difference" between Krishna and Vishnu. As mentioned previously, Vishnu is another form of Krishna - this is the view of the Gaudiyas, and it is based on scripture.

 

You feel cause to laugh at some Hare Krishnas for not understanding this, apparently citing the superior understanding of certain "Hindus" on this matter. But the understanding of yours, and possibly some "Hindus" you mention, holds that any demigod can be worshipped (Vishnu, Shiva, Ganesha - it doesn't matter) and the same result occurs.

 

This latter view is nothing more than crass sentimentalism, and it has no basis in scripture. One can believe in the wrong thing for the right reason, and the right thing for the wrong reason. You are guilty of the latter. There is no difference between Krishna and Vishnu, true. But you understand this to be the case because you don't see any differences at all between Vishnu and any anya-devatas. This is in contrast to the Vedic view which holds that anya-devatas including Shiva are subordinate to Vishnu. Only Vishnu (or some form of Krishna/Vishnu) can be worshipped for liberation. Anya-devatas cannot give this; what they give is only temporary and ultimately comes from Krishna. These points are discussed very clearly in chapters 7 and 9 of the Bhagavad-Gita.

 

In conclusion, please show respect to sAdhakas who are trying to understand this matter. Do not impose non-shAstric views here for the sake of one-upmanship.

 

Unnamed Guest Prabhu

[moorthi]

Krishna and Vishnu are one and the same divine godhead and

Krishna is one of the Avataras of Vishnu in mother earth,

"for the protection of virtue and the destruction of the vicious"

 

As Bhagavad Gita says:

"Paritranaya Sadhoonam Vishasaya ca Dushkrutham

Dharmasamsthapanarthaya Sambhavami Yuge Yuge"

 

One more interesting difference is that Vishnu is specifically mentioned and worshipped in the Vedas while Krishna is not. Refer to the Vishnu Suktam in Vedic verses like Tamu Stotarah purvyam yathavida Rtasya garbham janusa pipartana asya jananto nama cidvivaktana mahas the Visno sumatim bhajamahe.

 

[Guest guest]

 

Krishna is one of the Avataras of Vishnu in mother earth,

"for the protection of virtue and the destruction of the vicious"

 

 

 

Dear moorthi,

 

The bhAgavata purANa, which is held in high esteem by gaudIya vaiShNavas, does not teach that Krishna is merely an avatAra, but rather that He is the Original Godhead in Full. Hence, "kRiShNas tu bhagavAn svayam" (SB 1.3.28). This is in contrast to all other avatAras who are regarded as "amsha kalaH" or plenary expansions of Krishna.

 

The idea that Krishna is an avatAra of Vishnu is taught in some other purANas like viShNu purAna. But gaudIyas accept the bhAgavatam above the viShNu purANa because it is the last one compiled by vyAsa.

 

 

One more interesting difference is that Vishnu is specifically mentioned and worshipped in the Vedas while Krishna is not.

 

 

I can say with certainty that the above is not true. Krishna is specifically glorified in the Krishna Upanishad (part of Rig Veda) and the GopAla-tApaNI upaniShad (part of Atharva Veda). Both upanishads are accepted by all vedAntins as being among the 108 principle upaniShads.

 

yours,

 

Rascal_Number_One

[moorthi]

In reply to

 

"I can say with certainty that the above is not true. Krishna is specifically glorified in the Krishna Upanishad (part of Rig Veda) and the GopAla-tApaNI upaniShad (part of Atharva Veda). Both upanishads are accepted by all vedAntins as being among the 108 principle upaniShads."

 

That's interesting. Can you tell me more about Krishnopanishat? I have heard about the Gopala Tapani Upanishat(it's referred to as Sree Tapaniyam in the Narayaneeyam by Melpattur Narayana Bhattatiri, an erudite Krishna Bhakta of Kerala).

 

By the way, I was referring to Vedas proper in my post.

 

Regarding eulogy of Krishna in the Upanishaths, Devakiputra Krishna is mentioned and eulogised as a great teacher, in the Chandogya Upanishat. I find that teaching interesting, since it is closely similar to the Karmayoga in the Gita, as also referred to in the Uddhava Samvadam in Bhagavatha.

[Guest guest]

<<< yours,

 

Rascal_Number_One >>>

 

LOL! Unmatched humility!

 

But "Rascal_Number_One" has got to be Krsna ... He is the biggest rascal! :-)))

 

Hare Krsna!

[Guest guest]

 

"I can say with certainty that the above is not true. Krishna is specifically glorified in the Krishna Upanishad (part of Rig Veda) and the GopAla-tApaNI upaniShad (part of Atharva Veda). Both upanishads are accepted by all vedAntins as being among the 108 principle upaniShads."

 

That's interesting. Can you tell me more about Krishnopanishat? I have heard about the Gopala Tapani Upanishat(it's referred to as Sree Tapaniyam in the Narayaneeyam by Melpattur Narayana Bhattatiri, an erudite Krishna Bhakta of Kerala).

 

 

Krishna Upanishad belongs to Rig Veda. It is one of the 108 principle Upanishads, and it consists of two chapters. The first chapter explicitly glorifies Lord Krishna and describes various demigods (Brahmaa, Shiva, etc) as being various paraphernalia of His. The second chapter appears to discuss Lord Balaraama in some detail, equating Him with Krishna.

 

The Gopaala-taapanii Upanishad belongs to Atharva Veda. It is also one of the 108 principle Upanishads. This Upanishad also has two chapters. The first glorifies Lord Krishna in particular as the best and most worshipable form of the Supreme Lord. This occurs in the context of a conversation between Lord Brahmaa and Naaraayana. The second chapter consists of a conversation between the gopikas and Durvaasa Muni. The latter instructs the gopis that, despite Krishna's seemingly amorous exploits, He is nevertheless transcendental to material influence.

 

 

By the way, I was referring to Vedas proper in my post.

 

 

 

Correctly speaking, the term "Veda" is inclusive of the Samhitaas, Braahmanas, Aaranyakas, and Upanishads. Secular scholars have a misconception that "Veda" refers to Samhitaas only. For example, when they say "Rig Veda," they are actually referring to Rig Veda Samhitaa, and they consider Braahmanas, Upanishads, etc as being later to the Samhitaas. This is not correct as per traditional viewpoint. "Veda" includes also Braahmanas, Aaranyakas, and Upanishads. Most of the Samhitaas are mantras relating to karma-kANDa, and to take them them out of the context of the rest of the Veda could easily lead one to misunderstanding. Upanishads are also very much a part of the Veda, and it makes no sense to just refer to the Samhitaas when discussing anything, as if they somehow represent a distinct tradition from that of the Upanishads.

 

 

Regarding eulogy of Krishna in the Upanishaths, Devakiputra Krishna is mentioned and eulogised as a great teacher, in the Chandogya Upanishat. I find that teaching interesting, since it is closely similar to the Karmayoga in the Gita, as also referred to in the Uddhava Samvadam in Bhagavatha.

 

 

 

If memory serves, Shrii Madhvaachaarya considers this "Devakiputra Krishna" as mentioned in Chaandogya Upanishad to be a sage who happens to be named Krishna and also happens to have a mother named Devakii, not the Supreme Purusha Shrii Krishna. Why he says this, I am not sure.

 

Alpa-medhasa

 

[Raguraman]

Hae Krishna,

 

Lord Krishna, Vishnu, Narayana, Hari etc. all are IDENTICAL.

 

Vedas proclaim Visnu as SUPREME. Previous posts have clearly showed this. Vedas also proclaim existence of multiple JIVAS and Prakriti that is different from LORD KRISHNA and each other.

 

There is no separate existence of individual Krishna and Lord Krishna(divine Krishna) as claimed by advaita.

[Guest guest]

What do you mean by saying that " there are no separate krishna as Individual krishna and Divine krishna as claimed by advaita. You mean advaita profounded by Sankara. I dont think he separated both of them. Sankara was the one who wrote the interpretation for Vishnu Sahasranamam itself and also for BagawatGita.

[Guest guest]

 

Sankara was the one who wrote the interpretation for Vishnu Sahasranamam itself and also for BagawatGita.

 

 

 

There are many, many interpretation sof the Vishnu Sahasranaama and Bhagavad-giitaa. Only sectarian arrogance would assume that Shankara's are the only ones, or even the definitive ones.

 

But as far as separation of "individual Krishna" and "divine Krishna," I think what Raghuraman is referring to is the distinction Advaitins make between the Supreme Brahman and the person Krishna. Advaitins take Krishna to be a material incarnation of the Supreme Brahman, thus making His body/personality different from His actual existence. This idea is rejected by Bhagavad-giitaa and all Vaishnava Vedaantins. Gaudiiyas in particular hold that the Lord is absolutely nondifferent from His name, form, qualities, and pastimes, all of which are spiritual and thus non-material. In other words, there is no higher concept than the person Krishna, and His having personality does not in any way compromise His supremacy or omnipresence.