HerServant

" God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him." - 1 John 4:16

"He who does not love does not know God, for God is love." - 1 John 4:8

"While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take it; this is my body." Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. He said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many." - Mark 14:22-24

That is why Judas betrayed Jesus. Because He ended the Passover "covenant" to take a spotless lamb to the temple to be slaughtered by a priest. He replaced the animal sacrifice with bread and wine and told His disciples this the New Covenant. Do this in rememberence of Him.

When He uttered this order (to celebrate Passover with bread and wine instead of animal slaughter), Judas said "no Jesus .. you can't end Passover ritual.. you can't end thousands of years of tradition and Jewish law" and therefore Judas betrayed Jesus.

Thus by Jesus taking bread and wine and saying it is His Body and Blood it for certain cost Jesus His mortal life (body and blood).

Therefore, the breaking of the bread and the taking of the wine in the name of Jesus is INDIFFERENT from He Himself. Praise be the immortal Savior who sacrificed Himself to protect the innocents and to liberate those in bondage! OM Amen.

PAHMO.

I think this thread is rather interesting and it relates to my personal experience and exposure to ISKCON and Krsna Consciousness.

As many on the forum know, I am not an initiated devotee. I did not take initiation because of "the fairytale".

I had first exposure to ISKCON and the KC movement in the mid 70s. I was not too attracted to the movement at that time because the presentation (in my case) was convoluted by neophyte devotees, either having lack of understanding or intelligence to present the Spiritual science of BG and SB, or because they had personal problems/issues (e.g. drugs, scams, etc.) and could not understand spiritual sciences.

When first exposed, I was a teenager and studying the catholic Mystics and many devotees distributing literature could not even answer the most basic philosophical questions. Therefore, I saw no benefit in following them.

20 years later I became very interested in eastern thought and recalled the HKs, particularly them being in possession of a storehouse of Sacred Literature.

I read and studied BG and SB along with Srila Prabhupada's purports. I visited ISKCON temples all over the US.

What I found was a "crumbled and shattered" fairytale.

Please let me explain further. Many devotees I met were bitter, confrontational, manipulative, and depressed. After many years of "research" I concluded that "Perfectionism" is the BIG problem with the ISKCON brand of Spirituality.

The ISKCON philosophy stresses "top most devotee" ideology but hardly anyone and perhaps no one could "live up to the standard" .

I believe because of this fact , the "good as Jesus" and "Jesus as pure devotee" became a philosophical obsession within ISKCON. Attacking Jesus' divinity became an agenda of the ISKCON philosophical school because "top most devotees that are perfectly situated in Krsna Consciousness" have no need for "The Savior".

Only fallen sinners need a savior.

Therefore, followers of "the fairytale" when experiencing "fall down" after "fall down" cannot bear the failure. Without a Savior, they cannot accept their inadequacies and limitations.

That is why I have said then and now that only Jesus can save the movement. There is no other way .. in my opinion. There needs to be a flawless perfect soul, a lila that we meditate on that helps us navigate us through our transgressions .. because we will likely make sins until the day we die.

So I can read SB and BG through the "eyes of Christ". My faith is such that someday, His Divine Life will illumine me to such a great degree that the darkness of sin will be no more. That the endless reservoir of His Mercy will eventually open my stone heart to such a degree that I will finally understand His endless love. And when this happens, it is His perfect devotedness that will fill me .. His topmost-ness devotion that will rule me .. His love of the Father will saturate me ..

Call Him what you will .. I know Him as the Savior of this world and of the entire cosmic manifestation.

Her servant and yours.

The word soul is used in English in various sense. Sometimes we say, "He is a great soul." What we really mean is: -

He is a great person.

"The man became a living soul." simply means that the man became alive. It does not say that soul comes from body.

So what is soul in Vaisnava terms ? A person? or impersonal? If a person, then what makes up a person? Why no memory of previous lives? Because the "person" of the previous life was not a "person" at all?

What makes a person a person? I know and you know. A person's true identity is only known in relationship with God. But if you are having a life of imperfect relationship, then in fact you have no memory of relationship with God at all.

So I prefer the Christian view .. that Person and Soul go together. You can sit and debate re-incarnation all you like, but you will have to concede that your re-incarnated "person" in a previous life is no person at all if you have no memories of that life.

And even if you have a memory of previous lives .. what is your memory .. A memory of what? Your rapt and saturated loving relationship with Krsna? No .. otherwise you would not be here on this planet.

Come let's see who is mayavadi when speaking of soul as not person. I want to close my ears when all the technical (impersonal) philosophy starts pouring forth.

Thanks HerServant, how to deal with that the Bible doesnt mention the phrases, "eternal soul" or, "immortal soul"? What does the Bible really teach? Life is a combination of earth?

"Theologians frankly admit that the expression 'immortal soul' is not in the Bible."

 

You mean, Protestant theologians who must speculate because they reject the authority of apostolic (disciplic) succession and the GSS in general.

The mention of the soul is right there in the 2nd chapter of the 1st book of the Bible, and I quote from the oldest translation of the Bible in existence (The Septuagint) :

" And God formed the man [of] dust of the earth, and breathed upon his face the breath of life, and the man became a living soul "

Or is it only possible to fear Him? I mean, if you don't love him, you'll suffer on this planet. That's one fear. If you don't follow his rules, you'll suffer again based on karma. That's another fear. Likewise, there are so many fears, so how to love Krishna, when he's creating countless obstacles to our happiness? One can only fear him, his power. At best, we can respect or revere him for this, but is it possible to truly love him?

" Beloved, let us love one another, because love is of God; everyone who loves is begotten by God and knows God. Whoever is without love does not know God, for God is love. In this way the love of God was revealed to us: God sent his only Son into the world so that we might have life through him.

In this is love: not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as expiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also must love one another. " - 1st John 4:7-11

What does the Bible say about reciting the Holy Name of God?

 

"So our this propaganda, “Chant the holy name of God", so somebody may decline that “Why shall I chant the name of Krishna? This is Hindu name,” or “Indian name.” But Caitanya Mahaprabhu says that if you decline to chant the particular name “Krishna,” then if you have got your name of God, you can chant that also. We are not dogmatic. If you have got actually the name of God, you chant that. That is His instruction."

(ACBSP May 24, 1975)

 

And as soon someone chants the Holy Names of God, he/she is already initiated:

 

"Chanting Hare Krishna is our main business, that is real initiation. And as you are all following my instruction, in that matter, the initiator is already there."

 

(ACBSP, Letter to TKG, August 19, 1968)

 

Preaching to Christians by presenting vedic proof would first require to bring them to the point of rejecting the Bible. Better preaching would be to bring them to the point of chanting 16 rounds of Jehovah or whatever Names they might like to chant.

The Bible says a LOT about the Holy Name of God starting with the 10 commandments "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain"

Both Hebrew scriptures and Christian Scriptures, reverence and praising God by invoking His Holy Name is a constant. Jesus taught disciples to pray to the Father saying "Hallowed be The Name" .

Your name spoken is a spreading perfume - that is why the maidens love you - Song of Songs 1:3

The Bible is a Vedic text as well. You can understand this easily when reading Veda, then reading Bible, but it is not so easy the other way around.

Jesus said :

Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?" Matt 7:7-11

This is is a reference to spiritual inquiry. The Bible has an entire book about Madhura rasa too.

See http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/songs/song1.htm

Eve in Hebrew is hv (no vowels)

Hv is jiva .. Adam shares roots with atman

Now read the story of the fall in context of Atman and jiva. The same cause of the "fall" in vedic scripture is the same.

That is, the consciouness of Anu (Atom .. Adam) the masculine individual aspect of Atman with sensual aspect of jiva appears ego, the vain idea of an existence separate from God.

"For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods,.. " Genesis 3:5

The temptation described is one that Atman and Jiva desired an existence separate from God.

Envy God's position. This is why BG ch 9:1 Krsna says "' Because you are NEVER envious of ME .."

Only after the first original sin is removed, then can you get the most confidential knowledge of Krsna.

HS and yours.

I didn't delete that post.

I stand by my words.

The moderator deleted it.

 

Jesus is a myth to me.

 

The only historian that has any record of Jesus was some goof named Josephus.

I ain't gonna buy the Jesus myth because some old goof named Josephus mentioned some Yeshua in his history book.

 

Yeshuas were a dime a dozen back then just like Bill or Steve is a common name today.

 

Jesus only appears in the gospels.

He is not found in any genuine history from the middle-east.

You must love your "Jesus myth" because you spend much of Krsna's energy on Jesus.

You claim need of historians (even if they be atheists) to prove Jesus existed.

And the historical evidence of Krsna?

Since when does faith need to be upheld by historians? In fact, without "myth" there is no faith. It cannot be scientifically proven that a Brahma weapon can be manifest by a devotee. Can you believe it to be possible?

Or Jesus walking on water .. it cannot be scientifically proven. It requires faith.

It is clear your desire is actually to drive the name of Jesus out of this forum.

Ha ha ha ha ha hah ha ha ha hah

Hiranyakashipu cannot make Prahlada stop saying Krsna

ha ha hahahha ha hahahahahah hahah a

Guruvani

You are clearly against Jesus more than Christians in your postings. While you have a right to your opinion about Jesus, I challenge you to start your tirade against Mary. If in fact everything you say on Jesus is correct, then your position of Her Son Jesus should equally apply to Her.

Therefore, please "teach" the entire forum and world what we should think of Her and let us see if Krsna appreciates it. If you are telling the Truth to the world about Jesus, then we will known soon after you tell us about Mary.

"Also, Mary is the representation of the energy of God. Either as internal energy Radharani or as external energy Durga, the energy of Godhead can be considered the mother of the living entities. But there is no clash between the Bible and the Vedas, simply some people formulate their personal ideas and cause quarrelings." - Letter to Sivananda NY April 19, 1968

Originally Posted by Guruvani

I don't take Srila Prabhupada's statements to non-devotees as being absolute.

Preaching tactics and THE TRUTH are often not in perfect accord.

 

 

Q1: Does this mean that everything he said to people BEFORE they became devotees were "not in perfect accord"?

Q2: True or False: Srila Prabhupada's lectures and preaching to non-devotees was not absolute.

Q3: How is it possible for the "TRUTH" to be represented imperfectly (not in perfect accord) by a perfect devotee?

"Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father and the Son." 1John2:22

It is dishonest for B.A. Goswami to claim the vaishnava tradition considers Jesus to be an incarnation of Baladeva. There are many, many vaishnava traditions in existence, of which none accept Jesus as an incarnation of Baladeva. In fact some vaishnava traditions do not even accept Baladeva Himself to be an incarnation (the madhva's).

PAHMO

He is not dishonest. After I found some of his articles in 2002 I searched to contact him (with failure). Eventually though I was able to contact him by phone several years ago and I spoke to him at length.

He stated emphatically that BOTH traditions should not be mingled. He said that he is speaking from his personal realization and calls this "private revelation" between God and his devotee. Further that private revelation is NOT authorative as a general teaching to all the world.

I asked him very specific questions about Mahaprabhu and he told me that for questions about Mahaprabhu go and seek Radhanath swami for answers (Which I did).

He said if you have questions about catholic theology then consult the saints and find the monks who are closest to the realizations of the christian saints.

If you study his writing from either Christian of Vaisnava view, it is challenge to both (for example on the western side, he also says Christ is the Greek god Helios and Asclepius)

So from all sides he is controversial.

So the point is look from one side (without bias and sectarian view) and listen from that side, you have a triune theology that has strong similarities to the vaisnava theology of trinity. Looking (without bias or sectarian view) from vaisnava side, you see strong similarity between the vaisnvava view of the identity of baladeva and how christians worship Jesus.

That is all. Both traditions are respected.

And by the way .. BAG takes just as much "heat" from catholics and christians because he makes these comparisons.

But again .. I've spoken to him and Radhanath swami. They are both very sincere, non sectarian devotees.

In fact, when I walked with HH Radhanath swami to discuss sectarian difference, he told me that "sectarian distinctions are just "not in him

I wish you could see his face as he told me this .. I have nothing more to say.

HS and yours

Its ridiculous to pretend Vaishnava traditions say Jesus is an incarnation of Baladeva. It may or may not be true that he is, but no Vaishnava tradition has ever said this. In fact with the exception of Bhaktivinoda Thakur and Srila Prabhupada, no Vaishnava tradition has even spoken about Jesus.

 

So to write an article about how "vaishnava traditions" consider Jesus to be an incarnation of Baladeva is just stupid. Vaishnava traditions, going back thousands of years, do not even mention him.

 

He may be a pure devotee and an empowered incarnation, but that isn't something the vaishnava traditions have ever said.

PAHMO. You are misunderstanding the title. The authors intent is to present BOTH Vaisnava view and Christian view in the same article and point out similarity. NOT to say at all, that Vaisnava accepts that he is an incarnation in a Vaisnava tradition.

What is being presented is that there is similarity in the theology and that this similarity stems occurs independently in God's revelation to the devotee.

So you can't look at this article like a Christian trying to sell a Vaisnava on Jesus as Baladeva.

This article is pointing out that Christians identify with Jesus (theologically) in the same manner that Vaisnavas take Balarama.

It is my opinion that the author's realization is unity between Balarama and Jesus as one and the same.

I personally have no such realization so I cannot pretend to comment as the two being the same Lord.

But I CAN honestly and sincerely comment, that the similarity of the theology exists.

I posted here not to turn Narad as incarnation thread into a christian thread, but rather to point out, that these controversy among devotee understanding of Krsna's incarnations has different answers among different traditions.

When reading through this information by BAGoswami, and just looking or examining in context of his explanation of divine person to divine person to jiva soul relationship of love, this to me explains the question correctly.

>>> The theology of Sri Baladeva, the Second Person of the Godhead, and how both Jesus and Sri Nityananda Rama are considered in the Catholic and Vaishnava Traditions to be Incarnations of Sri Baladeva.

by HH Bhaktananda gosvami

 

First let us clarify the Vaishnava doctrine of simultaneous oneness-and-difference in the Godhead. Both the Catholic teaching of the Trinity and the teachings of Gaudiya Vaishnavism affirm that there are real differences between the Persons of the Godhead. Still, “God is One”. In fact the Hebrew word for this mysterious Oneness of God is ECHAD and the Sanskrit Name of Sri Krishna-Baladeva-Vishnu-Paramatma is EKA. Hebrew ECHAD and Sanskrit EKA both mean ONE and are both Names of God. In fact, in ancient times the Vaishnavas were called EKANTINS because they worshiped the ONE GOD (were MONOTHEISTS). Their ONE GOD was called EKA-NATHA, EKA-DEVA and similar names. So despite the fact that this ONE / EKA God was worshiped with countless Names and in countless Forms (NAMA-RUPA) according to His countless loving relations with His devotees, the Supreme Mystery of His Oneness was well-grasped by His devotees. Thus His Monotheism was the supreme model of religious unity-in-diversity, and it promoted harmonious, sattvic mutual appreciation, cooperation and peaceful religious social order among His devotees.

 

The question is, If God is One, Why is He manifest so differently to His different devotees? This goes to the HEART of the divine revelation of the TRIUNE PERSONAL-GOD-WHO-IS-LOVE.

 

We are persons, but as persons we are limited. Although GODHEAD IS UNLIMITED, within the mystery of the Godhead there is also a limit of PERSONHOOD, because the PERSONS / PURUSHAS ARE UNLIMITED EXCEPT BY EACH OTHER’S CO-ETERNAL EXISTENCE! Thus there is REAL, ETERNAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SRI KRISHNA, SRI BALADEVA, AND THEIR EXPANSION OF PARAMATMA IN THE MATERIAL UNIVERSES. THEN OF COURSE THERE IS REAL ETERNAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM AND THEIR SHAKTIS! In fact, this realness of difference within the Unity of the GODHEAD and in the unity of Godhead with Shakti / Shekinah is the ultimate cause of LOVE. BECAUSE THERE IS AN ETERNAL PLURALITY OF PERSONS WITHIN THE GODHEAD, IT CAN BE SAID THAT GOD IS LOVE.

 

This ‘Fountain Fullness’ PLENUM (Latin) PURNAM (Sanskrit) of Godhead’s Divine Love creatively over-flows (as Saint Bonaventure said) from the Godhead as the source of all God’s Self-giving creative generosity. Because this Eternal and Unlimited Fountain Plenum / Purnam of Divine Love Originates in the PERSONS OF THE GODHEAD and flows forth from Them in unity with Their Shakti, Who is also PERSONAL, we as beings are also persons who exist to love and be loved! We are eternal personal beings, because the Persons of the Godhead have shared Their being-ness with us! However, the Supreme Personality of Godhead is unlimited, and we are limited.

 

In our eternal limitedness, we are not able to experience the Plenitude of the Godhead. The Plenum / Purnam of Godhead cannot be known fully to any finite being. Thus it has been revealed that even in the Highest PARADISE (Hebrew PARDES, Sanskrit PARA-DESHA, the ‘desha’ of PARA KRISHNA), the devotees of God have very specific (limited) RASA RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE LORD.

 

Now, if this specificity is there in the ULTIMATE PERSONAL REALITY, why should it not also be there in every other personal reality? Love comes from persons and is directed to persons. According to Vedic Divine Revelation even the Medium of exchange of this Divine Love is A PERSON. Sometimes Catholic theologians will say that the Holy Spirit is the Mediator of the Love between the Father and the Son. Jesus also said “Where two or more are gathered in MY NAME, there I AM in the midst of them”. God is the Giver and Receiver of Love and also the Gift Itself...the Mediator of Divine Love. He is the very GIVING-UP or sacrifice of Love. Thus as Mediator of all Divine Love, Baladeva-Vishnu is called YAGNA, ‘Sacrifice’. As Yupa Dhvaja or “Sacrifice Personified” He IS the Supreme Love Offering. The Heliopolitan Greek Monotheists like Socrates and Plato spoke of God as both the OBJECT OF ALL LOVE, as All-Truth-Beauty-and-Goodness, and of Him as the forsaken and despised LOVE WHO IS SELF-SACRIFICED FOR THE SAKE OF THE BELOVED.

 

The First Person is GOD-WHO-IS-WORSHIPED and the Second Person is THE SERVITOR LORD, or GOD-WHO-WORSHIPS, or GOD-WHO-IS-WORSHIP. In Vaishnava theology, it is Sri Baladeva, the Second Person of the Godhead, Who is the Servitor Lord (CC Adi Lila, Ch. 5, Txt. 10 Purport). In Catholic theology, the Second Person of the Godhead and Servitor Lord steps into time and reveals His Cosmic Sacrifice as JESUS CHRIST. In Vaishnavism it is Sri Baladeva / The Second Person (The Servitor Lord), Who as YAGNA PERSONIFIED Purusha Yupa Dhvaja, on the cosmic Yupa Cross, “takes away the sins of the world”. As Jesus Christ, in His “once and all-sufficient” cosmic sacrifice, He ‘karmically’ (Biblical Greek KRIMA / KRINO) reconciled all ‘fallen’ beings to Godhead, becoming the UNCONDITIONAL SELF-SACRIFICE OF REDEEMING LOVE AND FORGIVENESS BETWEEN THEM AND GOD. “When He appears for the protection of His devotees, He naturally accepts trials and tribulations on their behalf.” (CC Adi Lila, Ch. 5, Txt. 41 Purport.) Such CHIVALROUS (root VAL= BALA) Self-sacrifice for the sake of the Salvific Love of all beings is the essential Nature of the Second Person of the Godhead, SRI BALA-DEVA.

 

Srila Prabhupada even emphasized that BALARAMA is the CHIVALROUS Protector and Savior of all devotees of the Lord. So according to both Vaishnava and Catholic Trinitarian Revelation, it is the Second Person of the Godhead, the Servitor Lord, Who as the once-and-all-sufficient cosmic Self-Sacrifice “takes away the sins of the world” as the Original Spiritual Master and Intercessor-Redeemer of all devotees. As the Bible says “None come to the Father but by Him”. This Same Savior Lord has appeared in countless universes and in countless Theophanies and Incarnations, Each as a ‘general’ or ‘private’ revelation to His devotees. So while He is One in His GODHOOD, He is also really Different in His devotees’ collective and individual experience of Him.

 

Sri Chaitanya-charitamrita, Adi Lila, Ch. 5, Text 41 Purport: “Each Incarnation is distinct from all the others. This is possible by the Lord’s inconceivable potency, by which He can simultaneously represent Himself as one, as various partial forms, and as the origin of these partial forms. Nothing is impossible for His inconceivable potencies.” These variegated (Vilasa) Forms / Rupas of the Second Person of the Godhead may be considered ‘partial’ because there is something (for the sake of Lila) that is not revealed in Them. God is actually always fully GOD, but He may express Himself partially according to any love relationship He chooses. Such partiality does not limit His Divinity, even though He can choose to manifest in different or Vilasa Forms and even “accept trials and tribulations” on His loved-ones’ behalf.

 

CC Adi Lila: “Baladeva acts as the spiritual master of all devotees, and by His causeless mercy the fallen souls are delivered.” “...Balarama is the protector of the devotees of the Lord. By His divine grace only one can approach the Supreme Lord Sri Krishna, and thus Sri Balarama is the mercy incarnation of the Lord, manifested in the spiritual master, the savior of the pure devotees.”

 

He alone descends as the Cosmic Purusha Who “takes away the sins of the world” from every material cosmic manifestation! As the Original Spiritual Master, in every finite universe HE manifests Himself and SACRIFICES HIMSELF FOR THE CREATION, MAINTENANCE AND ULTIMATE REDEMPTION OF ALL BEINGS IN THAT UNIVERSE. THIS REVELATION IS THE CENTRAL FOCUS OF THE VEDIC HYMNS, WHICH REVEAL THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE IN THE SELF-SACRIFICE OF LORD BALADEVA-VISHNU AS PURUSHA YUPA DHVAJA IN THE PURUSHA SUKTA HYMN. HE IS YAGNA PURUSHA.

 

Now if we understand that there is ONE GOD ETERNALLY MANIFEST IN THREE IRREDUCIBLE PERSONS, AND THAT THE SECOND PERSON OF THIS GODHEAD IS THE VILASA SOURCE OF ALL VARIEGATEDNESS IN DIVINE MANIFESTATION, INCARNATION AND REVELATION, then we should be able to begin to grasp the importance of Sri Krishna Chaitanya’s simultaneously-one-and-different doctrine of Godhead. This is the doctrine that we must keep in mind and heart as we contemplate the inconceivable simultaneous THEOLOGICAL ONENESS and LILA DIFFERENCE of Sri Baladeva, Sri Nityananda Prabhu and The Second Person of the Godhead as Jesus Christ.

 

So let us reconsider the way that you have posed your question, using some examples. The Lila Avatara Forms of Vishnu are all different or VILASA forms of the same GOD. They are not DIFFERENT GODS. YET for the sake of LILA THEY ARE DIFFERENT. Thus it is not usual to find Radha and Krishna worshiped on the same altar or in the same mood as Lakshmi Narasimha, because the RASA OF THE REVELATION IS DIFFERENT. For this reason it is said that Sri Sri Radha-Krishna should not even be worshiped in the same temple as the ferocious Lion-Headed Form of Lord Nara Hari. Now, in contrast, in the case of worshiping Sri Sri Radha-Krishna and Sri Gauranga, such worship being in the same sweet flavor (rasa or ‘mellow’ of Parakiya or conjugal love), the RASA IS SIMULTANEOUSLY ONE AND DIFFERENT. Thus the worship of Sri Sri Radha-Krishna and Sri Gauranga is compatible, and the SAME but DIFFERENT at the same time. While Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is considered the combined Forms of Sri Sri Radha-Krishna, for the purpose of a specific divine Lila, there is still a distinction between Radha-Krishna worship and the worship of Sri Gauranga. Srila Prabhupada in fact condemns those as Sahajiyas, who think that they can worship Sri Gauranga INSTEAD of worshiping Sri Sri Radha-Krishna. Thus there is a DISTINCTION between Sri Sri Radha-Krishna and Sri Gauranga worship. There is a simultaneous oneness and a difference THAT SHOULD NOT BE OBLITERATED.

 

In the same way, one should not think that they can worship Sri Nityananda INSTEAD of worshiping Sri Baladeva. Many problems in world religious history have resulted from persons trying to worship a Form of the Second Person of the Godhead INSTEAD of the Second Person of the Godhead. Sri Nityananda and Sri Balarama are simultaneously One and Different, and a devotee should be mindful of Lord Baladeva ALWAYS when worshiping Sri Nityananda Rama. In fact, as there is no separate existence of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu from Sri Sri Radha-Krishna, there is also no separate existence of Sri Nityananda Rama from Lord Balarama. Therefore bona fide Gaudiya Vaishnava theology constantly stresses this teaching, so that the devotees will avoid the forms of heretical Sahajiyaism in which Sri Chaitanya or Sri Nityananda might be worshiped separately or instead of Sri Sri Radha-Krishna and Sri Balarama. Besides Sahajiyaism, sectarian fanaticism arises in Vaishnavism and other related Bhakti Traditions when devotees worship their beloved Form of the Savior Lord SEPARATELY or INSTEAD of His Revelation as the Second Person of the Godhead. Thus for example the fanatical exclusivism of some Protestant Fundamentalists because they have no realization of Jesus Christ as an Incarnation of the Second Person of the Godhead. It is their own limitation of understanding of Jesus as the Second Person of the Godhead that is alienating them from the rest of His devotees in the world.

 

As in authentic Vaishnavism, in Catholicism as well the theology of the Second Person of the Godhead is always stressed. In Catholic Theology Jesus Christ can only save souls because He is the Second Person Incarnate. In Vaishnavism, the theology of Sri Baladeva as the Saving Second Person of the Godhead is always stressed. Properly then, in terms of interfaith understanding, devotees should always stress the highest unity IN THEIR ORIGIN of the variegated VILASA FORMS OF THE SECOND PERSON OF THE GODHEAD. Thus theologically one can speak of the revelations of Lord Baladeva, the Second Person of the Godhead, as Jesus Christ or as Sri Nityananda. Historically speaking one can also describe both Jesus Christ and Sri Nityananda Prabhu as revelations of Sri Baladeva or the Second Person of the same historically revealed Godhead. Sometimes while mindful of this unity of Vilasa (Different, Variegated) manifestations within the Second Person of the Godhead, I may glorify Sri Nityananda Balarama, or Nitai-Balarama, and again sometimes I may glorify the Lord as Bala-Yesu or Bala-Yashas / Yashua. Sometimes while contemplating the Savior Lord’s inconceivable potency of oneness and difference, I may glorify Him as Bala-Jesu-Nityananda-Rama, or Bala-Jesu-Amitayus, or Bala-Sankarshan-Shambhu-Sada-Shivayah. In fact, by His causeless mercy, I know thousands of Names of Lord Baladeva, and in this way I invoke Him, and privately worship my Lord and Savior in the unity of His infinite Nama and Rupa. However, I never merge His Manifestations or forget Their Diversity in His Unity. Thus I am not troubled by any desire to pose questions such as “ If Jesus is Nityananda and if Nityananda descends to promote the sattvic movement of Sri Krishna bhakti, could it be true that Lord Jesus had fish or gave away fish for food?” Knowing that the Lord always acts perfectly according to time and circumstance, Rupa and Lila, Rasa and the capacity for Realization of His devotees, I have complete faith in Him to reveal Himself according to His causeless mercy’s Divine Plan. I am thus not compelled to question Him or fault-find His behavior, or the behavior of His great devotees. Even when there appear to be some differences or contradictions, I am content to let God be God, and not to try to second-guess Him when it comes to His relationships with His devotees.

 

Now, if one is disturbed by such questions as yours about fish, then one should consult the authentic Guru, Shastra and Sadhu of Catholic Apostolic Tradition for explanations of these passages. The early Catholic masters (called the Apostolic Fathers) commented on every verse of the Shastra, and in fact did write theological commentaries on the passages about the miraculous catch of fishes, which some compared to Christ’s words: “Follow me and I will make you fishers of men.” (Mark 1.17); and the distribution and taking up of the miraculous loaves, and finally Christ’s eating of IT (honeycomb) in Luke 24.43. In Catholic Tradition, as in Jewish Tradition before it, there are multiple levels of readings and parallel traditions of scriptural understanding. Because people are unaware of this, especially if they are non-Catholics, and anti-Catholics (including Protestants), they will generally only know of the grossest misunderstandings and corrupted literal readings of the scriptures. This is often the cause itself of many disturbances. In such cases the problem is not in the scripture but in the reader, in the way that they are reading the scriptures. Beyond all such questions however is Srila Prabhupada’s “perfect answer” (see his original Book “Perfect Questions, Perfect Answers”). When someone asked him about Jesus and flesh eating, Srila Prabhupada replied that Jesus could eat the whole world!

>>> The theology of Sri Baladeva, the Second Person of the Godhead, and how both Jesus and Sri Nityananda Rama are considered in the Catholic and Vaishnava Traditions to be Incarnations of Sri Baladeva.

by HH Bhaktananda gosvami

 

First let us clarify the Vaishnava doctrine of simultaneous oneness-and-difference in the Godhead. Both the Catholic teaching of the Trinity and the teachings of Gaudiya Vaishnavism affirm that there are real differences between the Persons of the Godhead. Still, “God is One”. In fact the Hebrew word for this mysterious Oneness of God is ECHAD and the Sanskrit Name of Sri Krishna-Baladeva-Vishnu-Paramatma is EKA. Hebrew ECHAD and Sanskrit EKA both mean ONE and are both Names of God. In fact, in ancient times the Vaishnavas were called EKANTINS because they worshiped the ONE GOD (were MONOTHEISTS). Their ONE GOD was called EKA-NATHA, EKA-DEVA and similar names. So despite the fact that this ONE / EKA God was worshiped with countless Names and in countless Forms (NAMA-RUPA) according to His countless loving relations with His devotees, the Supreme Mystery of His Oneness was well-grasped by His devotees. Thus His Monotheism was the supreme model of religious unity-in-diversity, and it promoted harmonious, sattvic mutual appreciation, cooperation and peaceful religious social order among His devotees.

 

The question is, If God is One, Why is He manifest so differently to His different devotees? This goes to the HEART of the divine revelation of the TRIUNE PERSONAL-GOD-WHO-IS-LOVE.

 

We are persons, but as persons we are limited. Although GODHEAD IS UNLIMITED, within the mystery of the Godhead there is also a limit of PERSONHOOD, because the PERSONS / PURUSHAS ARE UNLIMITED EXCEPT BY EACH OTHER’S CO-ETERNAL EXISTENCE! Thus there is REAL, ETERNAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SRI KRISHNA, SRI BALADEVA, AND THEIR EXPANSION OF PARAMATMA IN THE MATERIAL UNIVERSES. THEN OF COURSE THERE IS REAL ETERNAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM AND THEIR SHAKTIS! In fact, this realness of difference within the Unity of the GODHEAD and in the unity of Godhead with Shakti / Shekinah is the ultimate cause of LOVE. BECAUSE THERE IS AN ETERNAL PLURALITY OF PERSONS WITHIN THE GODHEAD, IT CAN BE SAID THAT GOD IS LOVE.

 

This ‘Fountain Fullness’ PLENUM (Latin) PURNAM (Sanskrit) of Godhead’s Divine Love creatively over-flows (as Saint Bonaventure said) from the Godhead as the source of all God’s Self-giving creative generosity. Because this Eternal and Unlimited Fountain Plenum / Purnam of Divine Love Originates in the PERSONS OF THE GODHEAD and flows forth from Them in unity with Their Shakti, Who is also PERSONAL, we as beings are also persons who exist to love and be loved! We are eternal personal beings, because the Persons of the Godhead have shared Their being-ness with us! However, the Supreme Personality of Godhead is unlimited, and we are limited.

 

In our eternal limitedness, we are not able to experience the Plenitude of the Godhead. The Plenum / Purnam of Godhead cannot be known fully to any finite being. Thus it has been revealed that even in the Highest PARADISE (Hebrew PARDES, Sanskrit PARA-DESHA, the ‘desha’ of PARA KRISHNA), the devotees of God have very specific (limited) RASA RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE LORD.

 

Now, if this specificity is there in the ULTIMATE PERSONAL REALITY, why should it not also be there in every other personal reality? Love comes from persons and is directed to persons. According to Vedic Divine Revelation even the Medium of exchange of this Divine Love is A PERSON. Sometimes Catholic theologians will say that the Holy Spirit is the Mediator of the Love between the Father and the Son. Jesus also said “Where two or more are gathered in MY NAME, there I AM in the midst of them”. God is the Giver and Receiver of Love and also the Gift Itself...the Mediator of Divine Love. He is the very GIVING-UP or sacrifice of Love. Thus as Mediator of all Divine Love, Baladeva-Vishnu is called YAGNA, ‘Sacrifice’. As Yupa Dhvaja or “Sacrifice Personified” He IS the Supreme Love Offering. The Heliopolitan Greek Monotheists like Socrates and Plato spoke of God as both the OBJECT OF ALL LOVE, as All-Truth-Beauty-and-Goodness, and of Him as the forsaken and despised LOVE WHO IS SELF-SACRIFICED FOR THE SAKE OF THE BELOVED.

 

The First Person is GOD-WHO-IS-WORSHIPED and the Second Person is THE SERVITOR LORD, or GOD-WHO-WORSHIPS, or GOD-WHO-IS-WORSHIP. In Vaishnava theology, it is Sri Baladeva, the Second Person of the Godhead, Who is the Servitor Lord (CC Adi Lila, Ch. 5, Txt. 10 Purport). In Catholic theology, the Second Person of the Godhead and Servitor Lord steps into time and reveals His Cosmic Sacrifice as JESUS CHRIST. In Vaishnavism it is Sri Baladeva / The Second Person (The Servitor Lord), Who as YAGNA PERSONIFIED Purusha Yupa Dhvaja, on the cosmic Yupa Cross, “takes away the sins of the world”. As Jesus Christ, in His “once and all-sufficient” cosmic sacrifice, He ‘karmically’ (Biblical Greek KRIMA / KRINO) reconciled all ‘fallen’ beings to Godhead, becoming the UNCONDITIONAL SELF-SACRIFICE OF REDEEMING LOVE AND FORGIVENESS BETWEEN THEM AND GOD. “When He appears for the protection of His devotees, He naturally accepts trials and tribulations on their behalf.” (CC Adi Lila, Ch. 5, Txt. 41 Purport.) Such CHIVALROUS (root VAL= BALA) Self-sacrifice for the sake of the Salvific Love of all beings is the essential Nature of the Second Person of the Godhead, SRI BALA-DEVA.

 

Srila Prabhupada even emphasized that BALARAMA is the CHIVALROUS Protector and Savior of all devotees of the Lord. So according to both Vaishnava and Catholic Trinitarian Revelation, it is the Second Person of the Godhead, the Servitor Lord, Who as the once-and-all-sufficient cosmic Self-Sacrifice “takes away the sins of the world” as the Original Spiritual Master and Intercessor-Redeemer of all devotees. As the Bible says “None come to the Father but by Him”. This Same Savior Lord has appeared in countless universes and in countless Theophanies and Incarnations, Each as a ‘general’ or ‘private’ revelation to His devotees. So while He is One in His GODHOOD, He is also really Different in His devotees’ collective and individual experience of Him.

 

Sri Chaitanya-charitamrita, Adi Lila, Ch. 5, Text 41 Purport: “Each Incarnation is distinct from all the others. This is possible by the Lord’s inconceivable potency, by which He can simultaneously represent Himself as one, as various partial forms, and as the origin of these partial forms. Nothing is impossible for His inconceivable potencies.” These variegated (Vilasa) Forms / Rupas of the Second Person of the Godhead may be considered ‘partial’ because there is something (for the sake of Lila) that is not revealed in Them. God is actually always fully GOD, but He may express Himself partially according to any love relationship He chooses. Such partiality does not limit His Divinity, even though He can choose to manifest in different or Vilasa Forms and even “accept trials and tribulations” on His loved-ones’ behalf.

 

CC Adi Lila: “Baladeva acts as the spiritual master of all devotees, and by His causeless mercy the fallen souls are delivered.” “...Balarama is the protector of the devotees of the Lord. By His divine grace only one can approach the Supreme Lord Sri Krishna, and thus Sri Balarama is the mercy incarnation of the Lord, manifested in the spiritual master, the savior of the pure devotees.”

 

He alone descends as the Cosmic Purusha Who “takes away the sins of the world” from every material cosmic manifestation! As the Original Spiritual Master, in every finite universe HE manifests Himself and SACRIFICES HIMSELF FOR THE CREATION, MAINTENANCE AND ULTIMATE REDEMPTION OF ALL BEINGS IN THAT UNIVERSE. THIS REVELATION IS THE CENTRAL FOCUS OF THE VEDIC HYMNS, WHICH REVEAL THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE IN THE SELF-SACRIFICE OF LORD BALADEVA-VISHNU AS PURUSHA YUPA DHVAJA IN THE PURUSHA SUKTA HYMN. HE IS YAGNA PURUSHA.

 

Now if we understand that there is ONE GOD ETERNALLY MANIFEST IN THREE IRREDUCIBLE PERSONS, AND THAT THE SECOND PERSON OF THIS GODHEAD IS THE VILASA SOURCE OF ALL VARIEGATEDNESS IN DIVINE MANIFESTATION, INCARNATION AND REVELATION, then we should be able to begin to grasp the importance of Sri Krishna Chaitanya’s simultaneously-one-and-different doctrine of Godhead. This is the doctrine that we must keep in mind and heart as we contemplate the inconceivable simultaneous THEOLOGICAL ONENESS and LILA DIFFERENCE of Sri Baladeva, Sri Nityananda Prabhu and The Second Person of the Godhead as Jesus Christ.

 

So let us reconsider the way that you have posed your question, using some examples. The Lila Avatara Forms of Vishnu are all different or VILASA forms of the same GOD. They are not DIFFERENT GODS. YET for the sake of LILA THEY ARE DIFFERENT. Thus it is not usual to find Radha and Krishna worshiped on the same altar or in the same mood as Lakshmi Narasimha, because the RASA OF THE REVELATION IS DIFFERENT. For this reason it is said that Sri Sri Radha-Krishna should not even be worshiped in the same temple as the ferocious Lion-Headed Form of Lord Nara Hari. Now, in contrast, in the case of worshiping Sri Sri Radha-Krishna and Sri Gauranga, such worship being in the same sweet flavor (rasa or ‘mellow’ of Parakiya or conjugal love), the RASA IS SIMULTANEOUSLY ONE AND DIFFERENT. Thus the worship of Sri Sri Radha-Krishna and Sri Gauranga is compatible, and the SAME but DIFFERENT at the same time. While Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is considered the combined Forms of Sri Sri Radha-Krishna, for the purpose of a specific divine Lila, there is still a distinction between Radha-Krishna worship and the worship of Sri Gauranga. Srila Prabhupada in fact condemns those as Sahajiyas, who think that they can worship Sri Gauranga INSTEAD of worshiping Sri Sri Radha-Krishna. Thus there is a DISTINCTION between Sri Sri Radha-Krishna and Sri Gauranga worship. There is a simultaneous oneness and a difference THAT SHOULD NOT BE OBLITERATED.

 

In the same way, one should not think that they can worship Sri Nityananda INSTEAD of worshiping Sri Baladeva. Many problems in world religious history have resulted from persons trying to worship a Form of the Second Person of the Godhead INSTEAD of the Second Person of the Godhead. Sri Nityananda and Sri Balarama are simultaneously One and Different, and a devotee should be mindful of Lord Baladeva ALWAYS when worshiping Sri Nityananda Rama. In fact, as there is no separate existence of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu from Sri Sri Radha-Krishna, there is also no separate existence of Sri Nityananda Rama from Lord Balarama. Therefore bona fide Gaudiya Vaishnava theology constantly stresses this teaching, so that the devotees will avoid the forms of heretical Sahajiyaism in which Sri Chaitanya or Sri Nityananda might be worshiped separately or instead of Sri Sri Radha-Krishna and Sri Balarama. Besides Sahajiyaism, sectarian fanaticism arises in Vaishnavism and other related Bhakti Traditions when devotees worship their beloved Form of the Savior Lord SEPARATELY or INSTEAD of His Revelation as the Second Person of the Godhead. Thus for example the fanatical exclusivism of some Protestant Fundamentalists because they have no realization of Jesus Christ as an Incarnation of the Second Person of the Godhead. It is their own limitation of understanding of Jesus as the Second Person of the Godhead that is alienating them from the rest of His devotees in the world.

 

As in authentic Vaishnavism, in Catholicism as well the theology of the Second Person of the Godhead is always stressed. In Catholic Theology Jesus Christ can only save souls because He is the Second Person Incarnate. In Vaishnavism, the theology of Sri Baladeva as the Saving Second Person of the Godhead is always stressed. Properly then, in terms of interfaith understanding, devotees should always stress the highest unity IN THEIR ORIGIN of the variegated VILASA FORMS OF THE SECOND PERSON OF THE GODHEAD. Thus theologically one can speak of the revelations of Lord Baladeva, the Second Person of the Godhead, as Jesus Christ or as Sri Nityananda. Historically speaking one can also describe both Jesus Christ and Sri Nityananda Prabhu as revelations of Sri Baladeva or the Second Person of the same historically revealed Godhead. Sometimes while mindful of this unity of Vilasa (Different, Variegated) manifestations within the Second Person of the Godhead, I may glorify Sri Nityananda Balarama, or Nitai-Balarama, and again sometimes I may glorify the Lord as Bala-Yesu or Bala-Yashas / Yashua. Sometimes while contemplating the Savior Lord’s inconceivable potency of oneness and difference, I may glorify Him as Bala-Jesu-Nityananda-Rama, or Bala-Jesu-Amitayus, or Bala-Sankarshan-Shambhu-Sada-Shivayah. In fact, by His causeless mercy, I know thousands of Names of Lord Baladeva, and in this way I invoke Him, and privately worship my Lord and Savior in the unity of His infinite Nama and Rupa. However, I never merge His Manifestations or forget Their Diversity in His Unity. Thus I am not troubled by any desire to pose questions such as “ If Jesus is Nityananda and if Nityananda descends to promote the sattvic movement of Sri Krishna bhakti, could it be true that Lord Jesus had fish or gave away fish for food?” Knowing that the Lord always acts perfectly according to time and circumstance, Rupa and Lila, Rasa and the capacity for Realization of His devotees, I have complete faith in Him to reveal Himself according to His causeless mercy’s Divine Plan. I am thus not compelled to question Him or fault-find His behavior, or the behavior of His great devotees. Even when there appear to be some differences or contradictions, I am content to let God be God, and not to try to second-guess Him when it comes to His relationships with His devotees.

 

Now, if one is disturbed by such questions as yours about fish, then one should consult the authentic Guru, Shastra and Sadhu of Catholic Apostolic Tradition for explanations of these passages. The early Catholic masters (called the Apostolic Fathers) commented on every verse of the Shastra, and in fact did write theological commentaries on the passages about the miraculous catch of fishes, which some compared to Christ’s words: “Follow me and I will make you fishers of men.” (Mark 1.17); and the distribution and taking up of the miraculous loaves, and finally Christ’s eating of IT (honeycomb) in Luke 24.43. In Catholic Tradition, as in Jewish Tradition before it, there are multiple levels of readings and parallel traditions of scriptural understanding. Because people are unaware of this, especially if they are non-Catholics, and anti-Catholics (including Protestants), they will generally only know of the grossest misunderstandings and corrupted literal readings of the scriptures. This is often the cause itself of many disturbances. In such cases the problem is not in the scripture but in the reader, in the way that they are reading the scriptures. Beyond all such questions however is Srila Prabhupada’s “perfect answer” (see his original Book “Perfect Questions, Perfect Answers”). When someone asked him about Jesus and flesh eating, Srila Prabhupada replied that Jesus could eat the whole world!

Not sure of this as I am not sure of how you mean this. Jesus is always jiva-tattva, before Earth, during His time here, and after Earth. He does not undergo change in being by manifesting a presence in the manifest world.

This the is Christina theology of the christian saddhus from the beginning of Christianity. That He was with God (Visnu tattva) before stepping into time as True Man (Jiva Tattva).

In fact this is the very core to the teaching of Trinity. For 17 centuries and beyond the credo (summary of belief for christians) is of Jesus that He is "True God AND True Man"

In sanskrit terms this means He is Visnu tattva and Jiva Tattva

Which is why he is called by catholic sannyasis as Balarama.

"'But what need is there, Arjuna, for all this detailed knowledge? With a single fragment of Myself I pervade and support this entire universe.'

So the conclusion of any discussion on distinction between avatars is the above quote? And to Arjuna himself, what to speak of us fallen sinners? Krsna is telling Arjuna that this knowledge is of no use as His Fragment is the same as Himself.

Also He is saying there is no distinction in this single quote among the avatar .. simultaneous oneness and difference WITHIN the Godhead is not the SAME as simultaneous oneness and difference in the jiva soul

This is clearly a fact as the Lord's nama rupa (names and forms) are innumerable. This verse makes it clear that Shakta avesya is the One and indifferent with Krsna.

The conditioned soul is lifted up to jiva Tattva

But Jesus stooped down to become like us and be jiva tattva.

Man cannot comprehend God EVER EVER EVER. Hence He reveals Himself to us in nama rupa. Each revelation of nama rupa is simultaneously one and different from others.

Even the nama rupa of shakta avesya and other avatars ... one and different.

Not to God .. but to our limited understanding of Him.

Don't take this the wrong way .. but the comments on this thread are not answers. PAHMO mahak prabhu .. but the answer you give doesn't add up for me.

First of all, comparing Prahlada to demon because of his bloodline is not correct (you left out His mother)

Second He is a Person .. not a weed. We know the Lord never teaches anywhere that His presence in material energy is equal to His personal form, direct or indirect.

Third .. no pure devotee of Visnu is demon.

Krsna say I am Prahlada for other reasons than given. He didn't say He was Narasimhadeva. It means His mercy is present as Great Devotee Incarnation of Himself, among demons AKA US FOOLS!!!!

If we can't even be attracted to the purest worship of Krsna coming from the purest child among us, how can we EVER possibly get to Krsna?

No way to approach Narashimhadeva but by Prahlada .. no way to Father but by Son.

HS and yours.

OK .. I found your reference in CC (sorry I missed it )

Bhaktivedanta VedaBase: Sri Caitanya Caritamrita Madhya 20.376

 

atha va bahunaitena

kim jnatena tavarjuna

vishtabhyaham idam kritsnam

ekamsena sthito jagat

SYNONYMS

 

atha va -- or; bahuna -- much; etena -- with this; kim -- what use; jnatena -- being known; tava -- by you; arjuna -- O Arjuna; vishtabhya -- pervading; aham -- I; idam -- this; kritsnam -- entire; eka-amsena -- with one portion; sthitah -- situated; jagat -- universe.

TRANSLATION

 

"'But what need is there, Arjuna, for all this detailed knowledge? With a single fragment of Myself I pervade and support this entire universe.'

Who is the single fragment is Krsna referring to?

Quote:

prahladah--Prahlada; ca--also; asmi--I am; daityanam--of the demons; kalah--time; kalayatam--of subduers; aham--I am; mrganam--of animals; ca--and; mrga-indrah--the lion; aham--I am; vainateyah--Garuda; ca--also; paksinam--of birds.

 

TRANSLATION

 

Among the Daitya demons I am the devoted Prahlada; among subduers I am time; among the beasts I am the lion, and among birds I am Garuda, the feathered carrier of Visnu.

- BG 10:30

Why does Krsna not say, "among atheists, I am the partial expansion of myself, Prahlada" ?

He does not say that. He says, "I AM Prahlada"

I wasn't aware of this scripture .. what is the source?

prabhu kahe,—caturali chada, sanatana

saktyavesavatarera suna vivarana

 

Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu replied, “O Sanatana, you must give up your intelligent tricks. Now just try to understand the description of the saktyavesa-avataras.

 

saktyavesavatara krishnera asankhya ganana

dig-darasana kari mukhya mukhya jana

 

“There are unlimited saktyavesa-avataras of Lord Krishna. Let Me describe the chief among them.

 

saktyavesa dui-rupa—‘mukhya’, ‘gauna’ dekhi

sakshat-saktye ‘avatara’, abhase ‘vibhuti’ likhi

 

“Empowered incarnations are of two types—primary and secondary. The primary ones are directly empowered by the Supreme Personality of Godhead and are called incarnations. The secondary ones are indirectly empowered by the Supreme Personality of Godhead and are called vibhuti.

 

‘sanakadi’, ‘narada’, ‘prithu’ ‘parasurama’

jiva-rupa ‘brahmara’ avesavatara-nama

 

“Some saktyavesa-avataras are the four Kumaras, Narada, Maharaja Prithu and Parasurama. When a living being is empowered to act as Lord Brahma, he is also considered a saktyavesa-avatara.

 

vaikunthe ‘sesha’—dhara dharaye ‘ananta’

ei mukhyavesavatara—vistare nahi anta

 

“Lord Sesha in the spiritual world of Vaikuntha and, in the material world, Lord Ananta, who carries innumerable planets on His hoods, are two primary empowered incarnations. There is no need to count the others, for they are unlimited.

 

sanakadye ‘jnana’-sakti, narade sakti ‘bhakti’

brahmaya ‘srishti’-sakti, anante ‘bhu-dharana’-sakti

 

“The power of knowledge was invested in the four Kumaras, and the power of devotional service was invested in Narada. The power of creation was invested in Lord Brahma, and the power to carry innumerable planets was invested in Lord Ananta.

 

seshe ‘sva-sevana’-sakti, prithute ‘palana’

parasurame ‘dushta-nasaka-virya-sancarana’

 

“The Supreme Personality of Godhead invested the power of personal service in Lord Sesha, and He invested the power to rule the earth in King Prithu. Lord Parasurama received the power to kill rogues and miscreants.

 

jnana-sakty-adi-kalaya

yatravishto janardanah

ta avesa nigadyante

jiva eva mahattamah

 

“‘Whenever the Lord is present in someone by portions of His various potencies, the living entity representing the Lord is called a saktyavesa-avatara—that is, an incarnation invested with special power.’

 

 

‘vibhuti’ kahiye yaiche gita-ekadase

jagat vyapila krishna-sakty-abhasavese

 

“As explained in the Eleventh Chapter of the Bhagavad-gita, Krishna has spread Himself all over the universe in many personalities through specific powers, known as vibhuti.

 

yad yad vibhutimat sattvam

srimad urjitam eva va

tat tad evavagaccha tvam

mama tejo-‘msa-sambhavam

 

“‘Know that all opulent, beautiful and glorious creations spring from but a spark of My splendor.’

 

atha va bahunaitena

kim jnatena tavarjuna

vishtabhyaham idam kritsnam

ekamsena sthito jagat

 

“‘But what need is there, Arjuna, for all this detailed knowledge? With a single fragment of Myself I pervade and support this entire universe.’

 

eita kahilun sakty-avesa-avatara

balya-pauganda-dharmera sunaha vicara

 

“Thus I have explained specifically empowered incarnations. Now please hear about the characteristics of Lord Krishna’s childhood, boyhood and youth.

 

isvarera avatara e-tina prakara

amsa-avatara, ara guna-avatara

saktyavesa-avatara—tritiya e-mata

amsa-avatara—purusha-matsyadika yata

 

"There are three categories of incarnations of Godhead: partial incarnations, qualitative incarnations and empowered incarnations. The purushas and Matsya are examples of partial incarnations."

 

brahma vishnu siva—tina gunavatare gani

sakty-avesa—sanakadi, prithu, vyasa-muni

 

"Brahma, Vishnu and Siva are qualitative incarnations. Empowered incarnations are those like the Kumaras, King Prithu and Maha-muni Vyasa [the compiler of the Vedas]."

 

amsa-saktyavesa-rupe dvi-vidhavatara

balya pauganda dharma dui ta’ prakara

 

"His incarnations are of two kinds, namely partial and empowered. He appears in two ages—childhood and boyhood."

 

jnana-sakty-adi-kalaya yatravishto janardanah

ta avesa nigadyante jiva eva mahattamah

 

“A living entity who is specifically empowered by the Lord with knowledge or strength is technically called avesa-rupa.”

 

gunavatara, ara manvantaravatara

yugavatara, ara saktyavesavatara

 

"There are incarnations that control the material qualities [guna-avataras], incarnations associated with the reign of each Manu [manvantara-avataras], incarnations in different millenniums [yuga-avataras] and incarnations of empowered living entities [saktyavesa-avataras]."

Among atheists I AM Prahlada.

He is simultaneously Prahlada and Narasimha

Quote:

prahladah--Prahlada; ca--also; asmi--I am; daityanam--of the demons; kalah--time; kalayatam--of subduers; aham--I am; mrganam--of animals; ca--and; mrga-indrah--the lion; aham--I am; vainateyah--Garuda; ca--also; paksinam--of birds.

TRANSLATION

Among the Daitya demons I am the devoted Prahlada; among subduers I am time; among the beasts I am the lion, and among birds I am Garuda, the feathered carrier of Visnu.

- BG 10:30

So Krsna didn't really mean exactly what He said?

I take Krsna as the highest authority.

He is Prahlada!

HS and yours

prahladah--Prahlada; ca--also; asmi--I am; daityanam--of the demons; kalah--time; kalayatam--of subduers; aham--I am; mrganam--of animals; ca--and; mrga-indrah--the lion; aham--I am; vainateyah--Garuda; ca--also; paksinam--of birds.

 

TRANSLATION

 

Among the Daitya demons I am the devoted Prahlada; among subduers I am time; among the beasts I am the lion, and among birds I am Garuda, the feathered carrier of Visnu.

So Krsna didn't really mean exactly what He said?

I take Krsna as the highest authority.

The word shakta-avesya appears nowhere in any bonafide or authorized scripture

HS and yours

Since the beginning, for me it has always been the two:

 

1. The Cause of All Causes, and

 

2. All That Is.

Simultaneously, the Cause of all Causes and All that is - different yet non-different, inconceivably.

This is very interesting, also beautiful, and at the same time a jnana (then to bhakti) meditation

Jnana because "All that is" is "impersonal" . That is, if we meditate on His as the Cause and the Cause of Causes, and All that Is, we naturally enter an introspective state

This introspection ultimately leads us to the Heart where we experience Love.

If we use the sanskrit terms for Cause of all causes and All that is, we can "loosely" say these terms are impersonal.

The experience of God's love, without the revelation of His Divine Person or Personal Form is NOT mayavadi, hence the expression of this experience in technical terms cannot be mayavadi.

This is brahmavadi. The devotees however experience God in His Person and the brahmavadi experience is simultaneously present within an experience of Personal relationship.

It occurs to me as we collaborate on this thread, that we may never be able to exhaust the meaning of bhedabheda

I guess I should have realized that because of the "inconceivable" part