mahakala

bhava dasa wrote

Then whose authority do you accept?

I am just asking for clarifation on what I have read from various web sites

i.e

a) Lord Brahma being a guna avatara

b) Lord Brahma is the head of th Brahma Gaudiya sampradaya and

c) The illusion of Lord Brahma as narrated in Srimad Bhagavatam

My queries

a) why Lord Brahma is not properly accorded the status befitting that of a Sampradaya founder?

b) Why Lord Brahma (but Radha is) isn't the mediatrix in the Brahma Gaudiya sampradaya ?

b) Can a Guru who is subject to illusion be fit to be a founder of a sampradaya ?

The issue is not on whose authority I accept, as long as I get a logical reply to my queries

In my next post, I mentioned the three categories of jivas who are qualified to occupy the administrative post of Brahma.

A) How you reconcile the above with the Gaudiya teaching that Brahma is a guna avatara ?

B) If Garbodaksayi Vishnu manifest himself as Brahma is he subjected to the 3 jiva categories ?

Guna-avataras

(incarnations of the qualitative modes of nature)

They are Brahma (rajo-guna), Visnu (sattva-guna) and Siva (tamo-guna). Brahma is one of the living entities, but due to his devotional service he is very powerful. This primal living entity, master of the mode of material passion, is directly empowered by the Garbhodakasayi Visnu to create innumerable living entities. In Brahma-samhita (5.49) Brahma is likened to valuable jewels influenced by the rays of the sun, and the sun is likened to the Supreme Lord Garbhodakasayi Visnu.

If in some kalpa there is no suitable living entity capable of acting in Brahma's capacity, Garbhodakasayi Visnu Himself manifests as Brahma and acts accordingly.

http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/avatars.htm

In this regard, we have no business as Vaisnavas worshipping him as others do through deva-yajna to obtain some higher material position. This does not mean that we disrespect Brahma, or not honor him as he rightfully deserves.

How is Brahma respected and honoured in the Gaudiya tradition as an acharya ?

(please note the difference - worshipping guru to that of deva)

The devotees of Krsna are not willing to waste their time with deva-yajna, knowing well that the results are only temporary.

 

Furthermore, such worship is specifically not recommended for this age. The worship most recommended is hari-nama-sankirtana. By so doing one actually worships the Lord who Lord Brahma worships, thus following in Brahmas footsteps.

Thanks

Bhava das

Brahma is the founder / head of the Brahma - Gaudiya sampradaya, as such. I would expect Brahma to be honoured by the sampradaya as their founding guru.

For e.g in Sri sampradaya they believe Laskmi is their First guru,

a) they have a parama guru pranam - honouring Laksmi.

b) To Sri vaisnavas, Laksmi as a guru, is the mediatrix between God and the jivas

My questions are simple

a) where is such a parama guru pranam or honour for Brahma is the Gaudiya sampradaya ?

b) If Brahma ji is founder of Gaudiya tradition, then Brhama ji should rightly be the mediatrix between the devotee and the Lord. But why Srimati Radha takes over his role ?

c) Brahma is know to have fallen for his own daughter, and also subjected to illusion by the Lord, as such is he fit to be the founding acharya ?

d) Please provide objective (not subjective) scriptural evidence to support the gradation of Brahma ji

the karmi Brahma, the jnani Brahma, or the bhakta Brahma?

Thanks

The devotees of Krsna are not willing to waste their time with deva-yajna, knowing well that the results are only temporary.

It has nothing to do with deva- yajna.

Isn't Lord Brahma the head of the Gaudiya Brahma sampradaya ? If so shouldn't Brahma be accorded the respect and worship befitting a founder of the great sampradaya ?

Getting tough and demanding huh

Show me evidence that Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhva acharyas, accepted BG as authoritative because it has to reconciled with upanishads and Brahma sutras.

I am stating the obvious, all three acharyas accepted the prasthana trayam as their authority. Its pseudo-vedantists, who have problems with valid pramanas.

In case you cannot, then the following verses below to me clearly shows that Krishna is the source of avatar and are not taken out of context.

“Furthermore, O Arjuna, I am the generating seed of all existences. There is no being, moving or unmoving, that can exist without me” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 10.39)

If you accept the SM cantos 10 and 11, then you should also accept the verse below:

ete cāḿśa-kalāḥ puḿsaḥ

kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam

indrāri-vyākulaḿ lokaḿ

mṛḍayanti yuge yuge

(SM 1.3.28)

You crack me up, My refernence to SB , is to show that one SB verse can't taken out off context to the rest. Also refer to my post # 8 in this thread

How have you arrived to the conclusion that the ME is Vishnu/Narayan? The "ME" most probably means krishna since it is Krishna who is talking.

If Visnu and Krishna are the same entity then "ME" refers to both krishna and Vishnu. Then the question of who is the avatar of whom does not arise.

You are going in circles, read Srimad Bhagavatm Canto 10 to 11 for the answer.

Canto 10 http://vedabase.net/sb/10/1/en

Canto 11 http://vedabase.net/sb/11/31/en

Siva and others created by Me" - Creation in the sense that the soul takes a material body/covering. Since the outer covering is of material in nature,thats why there is illusory energy. That is how I understand it.

This is what, Srila Prabhupad had to say on Shiva.

"In the beginning of the creation there was only the Supreme Personality Nārāyaṇa. There was no Brahmā, no Śiva, no water, no fire, no moon, no stars in the sky, no sun." (Mahā Upaniṣad 1) In the Mahā Upaniṣad it is also said that Lord Śiva was born from the forehead of the Supreme Lord. Thus the Vedas say that it is the Supreme Lord, the creator of Brahmā and Śiva, who is to be worshiped.

First off, I never claimed that krsna is different from Vishnu nor have I claimed they are the same.

 

You said - I never claimed that krsna is different from vishnu

then you say - nor have I claimed they are the same

If they are not the same then are they are different ?

Please reconcile the contradicton.

In the begining of material world yes, there was only the Supreme Personality Narayana. So?

Really !! check this out to find out more on Narayana

Srimad Bhagavatam 12.12.3

atra sańkīrtitaḥ sākṣāt

sarva-pāpa-haro hariḥ

nārāyaṇo hṛṣīkeśo

bhagavān sātvatām patiḥ

TRANSLATION

This literature fully glorifies the Supreme Personality of Godhead Hari, who removes all His devotees' sinful reactions. The Lord is glorified as Nārāyaṇa, Hṛṣīkeśa and the Lord of the Sātvatas.

source : http://vedabase.net/sb/12/12/3/en

Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 11:31:27

ya etad deva-devasya

viṣṇoḥ karmāṇi janma ca

kīrtayec chraddhayā martyaḥ

sarva-pāpaiḥ pramucyate

TRANSLATION

A person who with faith engages in chanting the glories of these various pastimes and incarnations of Viṣṇu, the Lord of Lords, will gain liberation from all sins.

http://vedabase.net/sb/11/31/27/en

Quote:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0>Originally Posted by mahakala

So you claiming Krsna is different from Maha Vishnu, according to Madhva its a serious offence to see a bedha in the 2, if you belong to the Madhava- gaudiya lineage

source : http://vedabase.net/bg/10/8/en

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

 

 

One more quote from BG indicating that Krishna is GOD:

“Furthermore, O Arjuna, I am the generating seed of all existences. There is no being, moving or unmoving, that can exist without me” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 10.39)

 

Unless one can show that Maha Vishnu is not a being then the above does not apply to HIM. If not then it a strong indication that Krishna is the source of avatar.

 

You have explicitly said I (Krsna) does not apply to HIM - (Maha Vishnu). This implies I is not the same (different) as (from) HIM.

What ever Krsna says in the Gita cannot be taken out of context, it has to be reconciled with the upanishads and Brahma sutras. For these reason, BG was accepted as authoritative by Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhva acharyas.

I have shown in Bhagavatam Cantos 10 and 11, how Krsna is described to be the incarnation of Vishnu. So everything that Krsna says in the Gita has to be seen in that light as an avatara and so there is no contradiction in his statement in BG Chpt 7 text 7 Chapter 10 text 8 etc

There is nothing superior to Me, the ME is Vishnu/Narayana unless you prove that Vishnu and his incarnation Krsna are 2 different entities.

1. Support of Krishna as being the source of avatar

 

From what you mention above;

How do you interpret "everything emanates from me" then? How is this verse not explicit to you? Please explain.

 

Not only that Maha Vishnu has NO begining but You, myself and all jivas have NO begining.

 

You said Maha Vishnu etc have "No begining"

then Please reconcile this statement in the Moksa-dharma where Krsna says,

prajāpatiḿ ca rudraḿ cāpy

aham eva sṛjāmi vai

tau hi māḿ na vijānīto

mama māyā-vimohitau

"The patriarchs, Śiva and others are created by Me, though they do not know that they are created by Me because they are deluded by My illusory energy."

If Shiva was created by Krsna, show me evidence where Krsna claims to have created Vishnu / Narayana ?

If you claim Krsna is different from Vishnu / Narayan, please support your claim with a verse showing the difference and not ambigious texts with ME ( No truth beyond Me. Everything rests upon Me, etc).

Nārāyaṇa Upaniṣad

4) Then it is said, eko vai nārāyaṇa āsīn na brahmā na īśāno nāpo nāgni-samau neme dyāv-āpṛthivī na nakṣatrāṇi na sūryaḥ:

In the beginning of the creation there was only the Supreme Personality Nārāyaṇa.

2. Is Krishna really the source of all avatar?

When Krishna is saying "Me" / "I",in the above verses could there be a possibility that the "Me" or "I" is actually refering to Maha Vishnu?

 

I personally dont think so, however it is something which is debatable.

So you claiming Krsna is different from Maha Vishnu, according to Madhva its a serious offence to see a bedha in the 2, if you belong to the Madhava- gaudiya lineage

source : http://vedabase.net/bg/10/8/en

kanista

I feel this dicussion is going off topic - please note this thraed is on who is the avatara of whom.

As to your claim on Krsna's sweetness , leelas etc - to each his/her own, and you cant comment on others' devotional propensities.

If you disagree with me on scriptural interpretation then we can compare Vishnu to Krishna on the basis of rasa-theory. Certainly, whose pastimes are greater is the greater being? No?

 

Anyway, Caitanya is a predicated avatar in the Vedas. Whatever he says is the Absolute Truth. According to him, no one is higher than Krishna and no one is greater than him.

Rasa theory - give me a non Gaudiya pramanam to support it - that Krsna has more qualities than Narayana !!!

So that verse does nothing to prove that Krishna is an incarnation of Vishnu.

AumShanti, are you in denial ? Those verese from SB clearly and explicits states that the pastimes narrated in Canto 10 and 11 is on the incarnation of Visnu.

And NOT the pastimes of Krsna in canto 10 /11 are on the incarnation of Krsna..

I have earlier given the Jesus and God analogy perhaps that will help you to digest the truth.

That verse should not be taken literally. There are loads of verses in the Vedas if taken literally one would come up with ridiculous conclusions. Why did Vyasadeva use Vishnu instead of Krishna? Perhaps, for poetic reasons...Vishnu is an alternate name for Krishna. So that verse does nothing to prove that Krishna is an incarnation of Vishnu.

Then why take the krsna tu bhagavan svayam verse literally, perhaps, for poetic reasons, Krsna was used instead of Vishnu/Narayana as Krsna is an alternate name for Visnu et al

He wouldn't that would be offensive. However, he claims he is the source of the source (MahaVishnu).

 

BG Chapter 10 Verse 8

"I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who know this perfectly engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts."

 

BG Chapter 10 Verse 8

"I am the original generating cause of all causes, everything emanates from Me; comprehending this the spiritually intelligent endowed with devotional sentiments become devoted unto Me."

AumShanti

There is nothing explicit in these vereses to indicate Krsna is the source of Vishnu.

If you imply that the verses you quoted "everything emanates from Me " etc includes the creation of Vishnu by Krsna, then are you suggesting that Vishnu has a begining ?

My post is to provide evidence that Krsna is an incarnation of Vishnu.

Canto 10 deals with the advent of Krishna and Canto11 with the disappearance,

In the beginning of canto 10, King Prakshit has asked Suka to narrate Lord Vishnu's pastimes as Krsna avatara.

yados' ca dharma-s'îlasya

nitarâm muni-sattama

tatrâms'enâvatîrnasya

vishnor vîryâni s'amsa nah

SB 10.1.2: O best of munis, you have also described the descendants of Yadu, who were very pious and strictly adherent to religious principles. Now, if you will, kindly describe the wonderful, glorious activities of Lord Viṣṇu, or Kṛṣṇa, who appeared in that Yadu dynasty with Baladeva, His plenary expansion.

I have highlighted in my previous post how Prabhupad interpreted Visnor liberally as "or Krsna"

The end of Canto 11, concludes by stating - incarnations of Vishnu

ya etad deva-devasya

vishnoh karmâni janma ca

kîrtayec chraddhayâ martyah

sarva-pâpaih pramucyate

SB 11.31.27: A person who with faith engages in chanting the glories of these various pastimes and incarnations of Viṣṇu, the Lord of lords, will gain liberation from all sins.

Radhe Krishna,

 

pankaja netra need not necessarily means lotus coming out of eyes - eyes looking like vikasitha kamalam. pankajanaba and padmanaba specifically refers to lord vishnu. But there are innumerable instances from shrimad bhagavatham where it is perfectly referred that krishna is avataram of lord vishnu.

but,yes, they are one and the same.

You are right, there are many verses in SB that claims Krsna as the incarnation of Vishnu, unfortunately a certain group likes to cherry pick verses whithout seeing the whole picture.

SB Canto 10 Chapter 8 verse 19

tasman nanadatmajo yam te Narayana samo gunaih

O nanda ! This child of yours is equal to Lord Narayana in respect to his qualities

Visnu is an avatar of Krsna; Krsna is the original Visnu

Srimad Bhagavatam canto 10 chpt 1 text 2

This chapter in on the eagerness of King Prakshit to learn about the incarnation of Krsna according to ACBVP.

nitaram muni sattama

tatramsenavatirnasya

visnor viryani samsa nah

Now if you will, kindly describe the wonderful, glorious activities of Lord Vishnu (or Krsna) who appeared in that yadu dynasty with Baladeva, His planeary expansion.

This verse clear shows Vishnu to be the source of Krsna.

a) In the tarnslation AC Bhaktivedanta Swami say Lord Vishnu or Krsna, why is there a need to add "or Krsna" when the verse clear states only Vishnu ?

b) In his summary of this 10th canto - Prabhupad says incarnation of Krsna - what is he implying - Krsna the incarnation of Lord Vishnu or incarnation of Krsna himself ? - or like Jesus, God incarnated as Jesus to sacrifice himself to himself ?

And you could not find these verses yourself?

 

Chapter 10. The Opulence of the Absolute

TEXT 8

 

aham sarvasya prabhavo

mattah sarvam pravartate

iti matva bhajante mam

budha bhava-samanvitah

 

This verse says Krsna is the source of creation nothing to claim he is Superior to Vishnu .

Chapter 11. The Universal Form

TEXT 3

 

evam etad yathattha tvam

atmanam paramesvara

drastum icchami te rupam

aisvaram purusottama

 

Parameshvara - Lord Shiva ?

All that I am asking - show where Krishna claims that he superior or greater than Vishnu

<TABLE class=tborder cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR title="Post 926307" vAlign=top><TD class=alt1 align=middle width=125>2</TD><TD class=alt1>Was Ramanuja a casteist or not?</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Ramanuja's teaching got hijacked by the caste conscious brahmins.

Ramanuja himslef accepted a sudra as his guru and most of the alvars including the founder of the sampradayam - Namalvar was himself a sudra.

Guest wrote

This is the age of Kali. Vihita karma tyagam and nishiddha karma aacharanam are the order of the day. Desikan thathaji, the days of kamsa are reentering. Viparitha interpretations of shasthras by people belonging to neo religious cults give boost to ideas like those who are not born as brahmin can become priests.

As this is a sri vaisnava forum, I wish to ask you Guest, please explain the rational behind your acharya Ramanuja for accepting non Brahmin (harijans) into his fold as thirukulathars and allowing them to conduct rituals ?

Btw as per your sampradaya, any one who has shamasharayana is entitled to conduct temple worship, isnt that true ?

They are least bathered whether even puja is conducted properly in temples. Their main aim is to destroy the temples and plunder the immeasurable wealth existing even today in south indian temples

Dont spew nonsense - most caste brahmins serving as temple achakars are below the mark, do you want me to embarrass you by listing the abominable acts of these acharkars ?

then what a person who is already into nishiddha karma aacharana but not so far indulged in vihita karma tyaga is supposed to do. Do your nithyakarmas with more sincerety. it is on the strength of your nithyakarmas devathas get strength and asura prakruthis become weak.

In many village temples peoples from all castes serve as hereditary priests.

For examples many Mariamman temples non brahmins are priests for generations. In Iskon temples, devotees from race who are devoted to Lord Krishna qualifies to become priests. Many siddhas and saints from other castes have their temples (Eg: Palani temple)

Video clip - Singapore

Thaipusam - Kuala Lumpur - Malaysia 2006

Devotees breaking coconuts during the Chariot prosession on its way to Batu Caves

Devottes making offerings during the chariot procession

Thaipusam festival at Batu Caves - Kuala Lumpur.

Inside the caves

Admiring the beautiful designs of a kavadi

Thaipusam - Singapore 2006

Lord Muruga and the Silver Chariot

Kavadi procession along the streets

P

more pictures

http://www.pbase.com/robert/thaipusam

Kavadi - Penang, Malaysia

Young kavadi bearer

Offerings

Silver chariot

For more photos click

http://penangpage.com/thaipusam/

any source to substantiate the post

Narayana the Supreme Person

Suta's testimony Srimad Bhagavatam Sk 12 Ad 12:2, 3

etad vah kathitam vipra visnos caritam adbhutam

bhavadhir yad aham prsto naranam purusocitam

O learned Ones, in reply to your question about what constitutes the topic most suited to man, I have narrated to you this account of the excellence and pastimes of Vishnu

Really, and BG is not?

It's written clearly in there that Krishna is the source of all spiritual and material manifestations.

 

What more proof does one need?

First you quoted the Srimad Bhagavatam (SB)- Krsnas tu bhagavan svayam verse, now you quote Bhagavad Gita (BG).

Dear visitor, SB can be an authoritative scripture to certain sects but its not the primary source of authority for most other sects.

As for BG, please quote the appropriate verse - claiming Krishna as supreme from a non Gaudiya/ Valalbha source.

Then we can scrutinised this verse using the correct system of interpretation.

nice information thanks