Krishna/Vishnu in Bhagavatam

[Guest guest]

Dear Krishna Susarla,

 

Unfortunately I deleted your latest post by mistake, but as I recall, you

were asking for shastric evidence concerning (among other things) Krishna

being an avatara of Vishnu. As a former GV and member of ISKCON for more

than a decade (now concverted to SV), I know how sensitive this issue can

be, and I appreciate your initiative to base such a discussion strictly on

shastras, and not on sectarian prejudice.

 

For evidence on Krishna being an avatara of Vishnu, we need not go outside

the Bhagavatam itself (though corroborative evidence could be collected

from other Puranas, Mahabharata, and Agamas; and I believe Sri Anand has

already given a few references of this latter kind). For instance, Bhag.

10.1.2 reads:

yadoz ca dharmaziilasya nitaraa.m munisattama /

tatraA.MZENAAVATIIR.NASYA VI.S.NOR viiryaa.ni za.msa na.h //

The direct meaning here is 'of Vishnu, descended through a part (amsha) [of

Himself]'. Sri Bhaktivedanta Swami (doubtless following earlier GV acaryas)

takes the instrumental (a.mzena) as indicating association: 'along with a

part', which he interprets as referring to Balarama. Even if this is

accepted, however, it does not change the fact that Krishna is here

referred to as 'Vishnu descended'. Likewise, Bhag. 10.3.8 reads:

niziithe tama-udbhuute jaayamaane janaardane /

devakyaa.m devaruupi.nyaa.m VI.S.NU.H sarvaguhaazaya.h /

aaviraasiid yathaa praacyaa.m diziindur iva pu.skala.h //

-- and the following verses, as you are surely aware, describe the infant

Krishna as 'caturbhujam za"nkhagadaadyudaayudham', etc.

 

I think an independent observer would agree that the direct meaning

(mukhyartha) of these and similar Bhagavatam verses is that Vishnu has

appeared in the form of Sri Krishna, rather than vice versa. And certainly

that has been the understanding of all Vaishnava sampradayas except the

Gaudiyas (including the Maadhvas, from whom some Gaudiyas trace their

origin), as well as of the smaarta community. The only texts explicitly

advocating Krishna as avataarin are exclusively Gaudiya texts, like the

Brahmasamhita reportedly discovered by Caitanya Mahaprabhu.

 

In the light of such explicit verses as the above, I think it obvious that

the word 'ete' in Bhag. 1.3.28 (recently discussed) must refer to the

categories listed in the verse immediately preceding, and not to the entire

list of avataras in 1.3.6-25. There are at least two further text-internal

arguments to support such a conclusion:

1. Bhag. 1.3.3-5 describes a shuddha-sattva form of the Lord (bhagavato

ruupa.m vizuddha.m sattvam), endowed with thousands of limbs, etc

(sahasrapaadorubhujaananaadbhutam), as the sources of all avataras

(naanaavataaraa.naa.m nidhaanam). This is clearly not the two-armed Krishna

form.

2. Bhag. 1.3.23 explicitly includes Krishna in the list of avataras

emerging from this shuddha-sattva form. This would be inconsistent with any

intention of distinguishing Krishna as the avataarin.

 

Ramanujadasa,

Martin Gansten

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Martin,

 

I thank you for identifying the verses from SB which throw light on the

avatara issue. On a different note -

 

You wrote : *****

 

I think an independent observer would agree that the direct meaning

(mukhyartha) of these and similar Bhagavatam verses is that Vishnu has

appeared in the form of Sri Krishna, rather than vice versa. And certainly

that has been the understanding of all Vaishnava sampradayas except the

Gaudiyas (including the Maadhvas, from whom some Gaudiyas trace their

origin), as well as of the smaarta community.

****************

 

I don't think Madhvas and SMarthas accept the GV view regarding Krishna /

Vishnu avatar issue. Sri Madhvacharya's work - Vishnu Tattva vinirnaya -

clearly accepts unquestioned supremacy of Vishnu. In fact his quotations in

Anubhasya and Upanisads are famous, in the sense all words only mean Vishnu

for him. Smarthas, come from advaitic background with a strong

"ritualistic" bent ie. regarding observations of festivals. They have a

difficult task of bringing to practice idealistic monism and such a process

itself makes all dieties to have the same status of being a part of the

conventional reality and not absolute reality. For smarthas the diety does

not make a difference, since nirguna brahman is the absolute reality.

However, Sri Sankaracharya definitely leans towards Krishna / Narayana /

Vishnu in his prasthana traya bhasyas.

 

adiyen Krishna Kalale

[Guest guest]

>Unfortunately I deleted your latest post by mistake, but as I recall, you

>were asking for shastric evidence concerning (among other things) Krishna

>being an avatara of Vishnu.

 

Thanks for these references. Of course, the more you can provide in support of

this (both within the Bhaagavatam and from other mainstream scriptures), the

more I would appreciate it.

 

I would also appreciate evidence supporting the idea held by Sri Vaishnavas that

the Lord is different from His form. In the past, I have been directed to read

entire books to get this evidence. But given that time for me is very much at a

premium, a more practical thing would be to give the exact verse numbers of the

pramaanas, and/or the specific sections of the Sri Vaishnava books which discuss

this point.

 

Vishnu has

>appeared in the form of Sri Krishna, rather than vice versa. And certainly

>that has been the understanding of all Vaishnava sampradayas except the

>Gaudiyas

 

While I am certainly no scholar, I am under the impression that the Vaishnavas

following in the lines of Vallabha, Vishnuswami, and Nimbarka Swami also accept

that Krishna is the svayam bhagavaan in the same sense that the Gaudiyas do.

>advocating Krishna as avataarin are exclusively Gaudiya texts, like the

>Brahmasamhita reportedly discovered by Caitanya Mahaprabhu.

 

Actually, I have been collecting evidence from mainstream scriptures which say

the same thing. I have chosen not to rely on less well known scriptures (like

Brahma-samhita) to prove this point.

 

regards,

 

- K

[Guest guest]

Dear Krishna Kalale,

>I don't think Madhvas and SMarthas accept the GV view regarding Krishna /

>Vishnu avatar issue.

 

You are right, they don't; that's what I wanted to make clear. Sorry if I

didn't express myself clearly. To the best of my knowledge, *only* GV's

hold the Krishna form to be ontologically prior to Vishnu. Everyone else --

Vaishnavas and Smartas alike -- holds the opposite.

>However, Sri Sankaracharya definitely leans towards Krishna / Narayana /

>Vishnu in his prasthana traya bhasyas.

 

Yes; and he is also clear that the Krishna avatara is an amsha of Vishnu,

as seen from the introductory passage of his Gitabhashya: naaraaya.naakhyo

vi.s.nu.h ... devakyaa.m vasudevaad a.mzena k.r.s.na.h kila sa.mbabhuuva.

 

Ramanujadasa,

Martin Gansten

[Guest guest]

Dear Krishna Susarla,

>While I am certainly no scholar, I am under the impression that

>the Vaishnavas following in the lines of Vallabha, Vishnuswami,

>and Nimbarka Swami also accept that Krishna is the svayam

>bhagavaan in the same sense that the Gaudiyas do.

 

I have never heard of this, but as I lack access to the texts of these

traditions, I cannot really say. Perhaps someone else has studied the

writings of these acaryas and is able to provide references, either way?

>>advocating Krishna as avataarin are exclusively Gaudiya texts ...

>

>Actually, I have been collecting evidence from mainstream scriptures

>which say the same thing.

 

Explicitly claiming the Krishna form to be ontologically prior to Vishnu?

What texts would that be?

 

Ramanujadasa,

Martin Gansten

[Guest guest]

> Dear Krishna Kalale,

>

> >I don't think Madhvas and SMarthas accept the GV view regarding Krishna /

> >Vishnu avatar issue.

>

> You are right, they don't; that's what I wanted to make clear. Sorry if I

> didn't express myself clearly. To the best of my knowledge, *only* GV's

> hold the Krishna form to be ontologically prior to Vishnu. Everyone else --

> Vaishnavas and Smartas alike -- holds the opposite.

Recently I had the oppurtunity to read Dr.B.N.K Sharma's book ( a

Dvaitin ) The philosophy of Madhvacharya... there he clearly says that

Krishna's form is eternal... So, I am not very sure how that

"ontologically prior " is to be understood here!!! I believe this is to

be understood as: Krishna's form was eternally present and it was made

visible by Him only during Dvapara yuga . Krishna is considered "

Purnavathara " in Madhva Philosophy.

With best regards,

rajiv

[Guest guest]

>> To the best of my knowledge, *only* GV's

>> hold the Krishna form to be ontologically prior to Vishnu.

> Recently I had the oppurtunity to read Dr.B.N.K Sharma's book ( a

>Dvaitin ) The philosophy of Madhvacharya... there he clearly says that

>Krishna's form is eternal...

 

Yes. In the same way, GV's consider Vishnu's form to be eternal. That is

why I wrote 'ontologically prior' rather than 'temporally prior'. In fact,

not only the various forms of the Lord, but even the jivas and material

nature are eternal. Still, Brahman is considered prior to, or the cause of,

jivas and prakriti in the sense that their being is founded in His.

 

Ramanujadasa,

Martin Gansten

[Guest guest]

Dear devotees

 

In a message dated 4/25/00 4:45:53 AM Eastern Standard Time,

bhakti-list writes:

 

<<

>While I am certainly no scholar, I am under the impression that

>the Vaishnavas following in the lines of Vallabha, Vishnuswami,

>and Nimbarka Swami also accept that Krishna is the svayam

>bhagavaan in the same sense that the Gaudiyas do.

 

I have never heard of this, but as I lack access to the texts of these

traditions, I cannot really say. Perhaps someone else has studied the

writings of these acaryas and is able to provide references, either way?

>>

 

In the Nimbarka tradition, there is Nimbarka's Dasa-sloki and its commentary

by Giridhar Prapannam which was published as "The Theology of Nimbarka" by

Gita Khurana, Vantage Books, NY, which describes not only that Krishna is

superior to Vishnu, but that the two-armed Krishna is superior to the

four-armed Krishna form, from a rasa standpoint.

 

I am fairly sure that Vallabha also says Krishna is superior in the same way,

but i don't have the references.

 

Regarding the Sri Vaishnava viewpoint, i met Sri Venkat of the Pomona temple

in NY and this was his explanation: Sri Narayana and Sri Krishna are both

the original aspect of God, and

Vasudeva/Sankarsana/Pradyumna/Anidruddha/Vishnu etc are other aspects of the

original Narayana/Krishna.

 

The hierarchy of Vishnu forms is evident from the Pancaratra which frequently

glorify Narayana as the source of other forms. However, various recent

writers on Pancaratra refer to the Vihagendra samhita which states that even

Narayana has His source in a two handed crystal colored form. Since

Vihagendra samhita is still unprinted, it would be helpful if someone could

check the originals, Perhaps it is in the Adyar or Melkote collections. I am

not sure who that two armed crystal colored form is, but presumably, even He

has His origin in the two armed Krishna.

 

Gerald Surya

[Guest guest]

Dear Gerald,

>In the Nimbarka tradition, there is Nimbarka's Dasa-sloki and its commentary

>by Giridhar Prapannam which was published as "The Theology of Nimbarka" by

>Gita Khurana, Vantage Books, NY, which describes not only that Krishna is

>superior to Vishnu, but that the two-armed Krishna is superior to the

>four-armed Krishna form, from a rasa standpoint.

 

Thank you for this reference. It is the first time I've heard of this, and

I'll do my best to follow it up. It would be interesting to see, also, if

Nimbarka or his followers cite any shastra-pramana for this standpoint,

especially in the face of many contrary statements from various Puranas,

Agamas, and Mahabharata.

>Regarding the Sri Vaishnava viewpoint, i met Sri Venkat of the Pomona temple

>in NY and this was his explanation: Sri Narayana and Sri Krishna are both

>the original aspect of God

 

With all due respect for this particular archaka (whom I do not know), I

think we should stick to commonly accepted pramanas in establishing the SV

standpoint. As far as I know, all SV's accept the view that God manifests

on five levels: para, vyuha, vibhava, arca, and antaryamin (cf., for

instance, Yatindramatadipika) -- and that Krishna, like Rama or Narasimha,

etc, belongs to the vibhava category. In other words, the Krishna form is

not identical with the para or 'original' form.

>I am

>not sure who that two armed crystal colored form is, but presumably, even He

>has His origin in the two armed Krishna.

 

Such presuming might be somewhat premature, especially if you aim at

preserving the unity of meaning of all shastras (shaastraikaarthyam). Those

statements which are obscure or capable of multiple interpretations must be

understood in the light of those which are explicit and unambiguous.

 

Ramanujadasa,

Martin Gansten

[Guest guest]

SrI:

SrI Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha

SrI Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrIvaN SataKopa-

SrI nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESikAya namaha

 

Dear devotees,

namO nArAyaNa.

 

 

SrI Martin Gansten wrote :

> For evidence on Krishna being an avatara of Vishnu, we need not

> go outside the Bhagavatam itself (though corroborative evidence

> could be collected from other Puranas, Mahabharata, and Agamas;

> and I believe Sri Anand has already given a few references of

> this latter kind). For instance, Bhag.10.1.2 reads:

> yadoz ca dharmaziilasya nitaraa.m munisattama /

> tatraA.MZENAAVATIIR.NASYA VI.S.NOR viiryaa.ni za.msa na.h //

> The direct meaning here is 'of Vishnu, descended through a part

> (amsha) [of Himself]'. Sri Bhaktivedanta Swami (doubtless

> following earlier GV acaryas) takes the instrumental (a.mzena)

> as indicating association: 'along with a part', which he

> interprets as referring to Balarama. Even if this is accepted,

> however, it does not change the fact that Krishna is here

> referred to as 'Vishnu descended'.

 

 

VishNu purANam (5.1.2) gives the same account in the following

way and makes the point explicitly very clear again :

 

< Sage MaitrEya asks Sage ParASara > :

 

amSAvatArO brahmarshE yO(a)yam yadukulOdbhavaha |

vishNOstam vistarENA(a)ham SrOtum icchAmi tattvataha ||

 

" O Brahma Rishi ! I desire to hear the accurate, detailed

account on this amSAvatAra of ViSNu born in yadu kula(race).

 

( bhavaha = birth; tattvataha = true account, as it is ).

 

 

This ofcourse doesn't mean that KrishNa is an "amSAvatAra"

like Sage VyAsa, who was a jivAtma empowered by Lord. We very

well know from other pramAnas that Lord KrishNa is none other

then Lord ViSNu Or Lord NArAyaNa. This is what asserted by

the likes of BhIshma and Brahma (verses quoted earlier by

SrI HarikrishNa) through their verses. The purport is :

KrishNa is not merely human being who was playing at GOkula etc

and He is certainly the Supreme Lord NArAyaNa ie. God Himself.

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

 

The account of the birth of Lord KrishNa in SB itself is

very clear on this issue.

 

After Lord VishNu appeared with His foou arms etc, SrI VasudEva

recognized Him to be the Supreme Lord and offered glorifications

/prayers. Then, DEvaki offered her glorifications/prayers.

 

In SB 10.3.28, DEvaki requests Lord VishNu to make His form

(which denotes Supreme Lord and meditated upon by yOgis)

invisible to the general public { "...........rUpam cEdam

paurusham dhyAna-dhishNyam mA pratyaksham mAmsa druSAm

krushIshThAha" }.

 

In the next verse (10.3.29), she says that she is afraid

of Kamsa and is in anxiety, and requests the Lord to do

something so that Kamsa will not understand that Lord VishNu

Himself has been born. Kamsa already knew that Lord VishNu is

after killing Him, soon after Sage NArada briefed him about

these things (SB 10.1.65-66 : " ...............dEvakyA garbha

sambhUtam vishNum ca sva vadham prati|| ....). Thats why DEvaki

wanted Lord VishNu to make His identity unknown to others.

 

She then requests (10.3.30) :

 

"upasamhara viSvAtmannadO rUpam alaukikam |

Sankha Cakra gadA padmaSriyA jushtam catur-bhujam ||"

 

Trans. by Sri BhaktivEdAnta SwAmi of ISKCON :

 

"O My Lord, You are the all-pervading Supreme Personality of

Godhead and Your transcendental four-armed form, holding

conchshell,disc, club and lotus, is unnatural for this world.

Please withdraw this form [and become just like a natural

human child so that I may try to hide You somewhere] ".

 

DEvaki is adding one more reason here. Not only that Kamsa

will find Him out, but also that this form is un-natural for

a child in this world.

 

Another point to be noted is that, Lord is glorified as

"ViSvAtma" ie. all-pervading aatma, who is the aatma for

everything. Though the Lord is the "aatma" which is all

pervading, He has taken a four handed form and its being

addressed here. This also enables us to understand the

distinction between the aatma (Lord Himself) and divine

form of Lord.

 

She elaborates her request in the next verse (SB 10.3.31) :

 

"ViSvam yad etat .....purushap param parO bhavAn ........"

 

Trans. by Sri BhaktivEdAnta SwAmi :

 

"At the time of devastation, the entire cosmos, containing

all creatures moving and non-moving entities, enters Your

transcendental body and is held there without difficulty.

But now this transcendental form has taken birth from my

womb. People will not be able to believe and I shall become

an object of ridicule".

 

Thus, she desparetly pleads Lord VishNu to make His

identity unknown to the people and take a form resembling

a human child. She doesn't say, "Get back Your Original

form of KrishNa" etc here. Also, Kamsa identified God (ie.

Vishnu) with the four-handed form only and its well known

to him and many of the people.

 

Lord VishNu then narrates about the past two lives of

VasudEva and DEvaki, in which He Himself was born to them.

 

Lord then says (SB 10.3.45) :

 

"etad vAm darSitam rUpam prAg-janma-smaraNaya mE |

nAnyathA mad-bhavam jn~yAnam martya-liNgEna jAyatE ||"

 

Trans. by Sri BhaktivEdAnta SwAmi :

 

"I have shown you this form << of VishNu >> just to remind

you of My previous births. Otherwise, if I appeared like an

ordinary human child, you would not believe that I << the

Supreme Personality of Godhead, VishNu >> has indeed

appeared".

 

This makes extremly clear that Supreme Lord is identified

with four handed form and the human form with two hands

is only now going to be taken by Him.

 

SB 10.3.46 says that " ......bhagavAn aatma maayayA ....

babhUva prAkruta: SiSuhu" ie. Lord by His sankalpa (divine

will) became a human child (ie. took the two handed form).

 

Here, SrI BhaktivEdAnta Swami adds : "In other words, He

transformed Himself into His original form : krushNAstu

bhagavAn swayam".

 

Well, there is no indication in the original texts even

remotely regarding this. There were plenty of oppurtunities in

these chapters of SB to say that Lord transformed into His

original form. But, this has never been said and the reasons

given are in the contrary ie. Lord transformed Himself into

the two handed form like a human, since the four handed form

would make people understand that He is the Supreme Lord. Also,

in SrI VishNu purANam which describes the birth of Lord

KrishNa, there is no mention of Lord VishNu getting back His

original form ; rather it is clear that Lord VishNu is taking

an avatAra ie. vibhava avatAra. Infact, it states Lord KrishNa

as Lord VishNu's amSAvatAra, which is quoted above.

 

 

There is no doubt that Lord KrishNa is a vibhava avatAra

of Lord NArAyaNa (VishNu). Already many pramAnas have been cited

from pAncarAtra, SrImad BhAgavatham and SrI VishNu purANam.

 

 

Sri Martin Gansten wrote :

> I think an independent observer would agree that the direct

> meaning (mukhyartha) of these and similar Bhagavatam verses is

> that Vishnu has appeared in the form of Sri Krishna, rather than

> vice versa.

 

Absolutely ! I too agree with you.

 

 

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

anantapadmanAbhan.

krishNArpaNam.

[Guest guest]

Sri Rajeev wrote:

 

Recently I had the oppurtunity to read Dr.B.N.K Sharma's book

( a

Dvaitin ) The philosophy of Madhvacharya... there he clearly says that

Krishna's form is eternal... So, I am not very sure how that

"ontologically prior " is to be understood here!!! I believe this is to

be understood as: Krishna's form was eternally present and it was made

visible by Him only during Dvapara yuga . Krishna is considered "

Purnavathara " in Madhva Philosophy.

 

rajiv

********

 

Regarding this issue, I just wanted to give an authentic Madhva View from

Professor Balaji Hebbar who is a good friend of mine. Please do remember

that his tone in his writings are very pro-madhva. HOwever, a reader should

rather focus on getting a clear understanding of the issue from Madhva

point of view rather than the style of presentation.

 

***********

 

Dear KP:

 

Here is the cadence of the 3 main schools of VedAnta on the

mUlarUpa-avatArarUpa issue:

 

 

1. Shankarite view:

 

mUlarUpa: Real & Eternal (nirguNa Brahman)

avatArarUpa: Unreal & non-eternal (saguNa Brahman)

 

 

2. RAmAnujite view:

 

mUlarUpa: Real & Eternal

avatArarUpa: Real & non-eternal

 

 

3. Madhvite view:

 

mUlarUpa: Real & Eternal

avatArarUpa: Real & Eternal

 

 

regards

 

Dear KP:

 

Such things do not arise in the case of the MAdhvas. Jaya

TIrtha makes it a sin to differentiate between the mUlarUpa

and the avatArarUpas of ViShNu. The "distinction" between them

is purely one of reference and NOT one of essence. The

distinction is explained thru "visheSha". Therefore it is

"savisheShAbheda" (visheSha-laden non-difference).

 

In fact, the ShrI-VaiShaNava notions of amshAvatAra and

pUrNAvatAra are also abhorrent to the MAdhvas. Also, the

RAmAnujite conception of calling shrI RanganAtha as

Periya-PerumAL ("BIG GOD") is equally unsavory to them.

 

As far as the MAdhvas are concerned, the LORD is ONE

(ekamevAdvitIyam, neha nAnA'sti kincana etc.) and any sort of

differentiating between the mUlarUpa and the avatArarUpas,

outside of visheSha, (either of the RAmAnujite kind or the

Caitanyite kind) would be, according to the MAdhvas, both

scripturally unwarranted and spiritually blasphemous.

 

regards,

Balaji

 

KP:

 

Here is the cadence of the 3 main schools of VedAnta on the

mUlarUpa-avatArarUpa issue:

 

 

1. Shankarite view:

 

mUlarUpa: Real & Eternal (nirguNa Brahman)

avatArarUpa: Unreal & non-eternal (saguNa Brahman)

 

 

2. RAmAnujite view:

 

mUlarUpa: Real & Eternal

avatArarUpa: Real & non-eternal

 

 

3. Madhvite view:

 

mUlarUpa: Real & Eternal

avatArarUpa: Real & Eternal

 

 

regards,

Balaji,

 

******

 

adiyen Krishna Kalale