VISHNU vs KRISHNA

[Guest guest]

HARE KRISHNA

 

pls can u tell me who is avatar of whom?

is krishna vishnu's avatar?

or vishnu krishna's avatar?

pls explain n do let me know any sites

thank u

[shuvo 0]

Namaskar,

 

 

Lord Vishnu and Lord Krishna are both same. you will get about this in Puranas.

 

 

For more information, you can try viewing this site: www.urday.com

[JLdd 0]

"Krsnas tu Bhagavan svyam" Krsna is the highest. He is the one from whom all else eminates. Also, Krsnalila is the most intimate pastime. That is not found between Lord Visnu and Srimate Laksmi devi. Laksmi worships Her Lord in awe and reverence. Srimate Radharani worships in loving devotion.

 

 

Krsna is the higher form.

 

Hare Krsna

ys

JayaLalita dd

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Vishnu and Krishna are the same supreme person, so it isn't so important as to who is an avatar of whom. According to Gaudiya Vaishnava's, Krishna is Bhagavans svayam rupa, or original root personality. According to Sri Vaishnava's, Narayana is the root personality of Bhagavan.

[mahakala 0]

 

"Krsnas tu Bhagavan svyam" Krsna is the highest. He is the one from whom all else eminates. Also, Krsnalila is the most intimate pastime. That is not found between Lord Visnu and Srimate Laksmi devi. Laksmi worships Her Lord in awe and reverence. Srimate Radharani worships in loving devotion.

 

Your above explanation is based on Gaudiya Siddhanta who have their own authoritative scriptures, which are not accepted by Hindus.

[Guest guest]

 

Your above explanation is based on Gaudiya Siddhanta who have their own authoritative scriptures, which are not accepted by Hindus.

 

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?

[roy_utpol 0]

Krishna and vishnu are both names of supreme god . From scriptures we know that lord vishnu took incarnation as krisna during dawapur yuga. But they are same;in many yugas tke incarnation in many forms to save the virtuous people. It is all that is happening according to his wish.

 

Hare Krsna......

[mahakala 0]

 

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.

[mahakala 0]

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

[vrajavasi 0]

Radhe Krishna,

 

There are so many occasions in Shrimad Bhagavatham to enunciate this fact. In kunthi sthuthi, kunthi praises lord krishna as :

 

Namaha pankaja naabaya namaha pankaja maaline

namaha pankaja nethraya namaha pankajangraye

 

kunthi refers krishna as pankaja naaba - vishnu and not vice versa.

 

through the sthuthi of kunthi vyasacharya also opines thus.

 

Radhe Krishna

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Though that verse could be interpreted to refer to Vishnu, I believe a more direct interpretation is that his navel looks like a lotus, as she is describing different parts of his body. If one interprets pankaja naabha as refering to padmanabha swami, then one will have to find an incarnation with a lotus coming our of his eye for pankaja-netra.

 

I believe Bhaktirasamrita sindhu describes Krishna as having seven parts that look like a lotus, including his eyes, palms, feet, navel, etc.

[Guest guest]

 

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.

 

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

 

Chapter 11. The Universal Form

TEXT 3

 

evam etad yathattha tvam

atmanam paramesvara

drastum icchami te rupam

aisvaram purusottama

[vrajavasi 0]

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.

Out of bhakthi, to consider shri krishna as all pervasive is also not offensive.

 

 

Radhe krishna

[Guest guest]

 

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.

Out of bhakthi, to consider shri krishna as all pervasive is also not offensive.

 

 

Radhe krishna

 

"But there are innumerable instances from shrimad bhagavatham where it is perfectly referred that krishna is avataram of lord vishnu."

 

Can you please give us the passages where it is perfectly referred that krishna is an avatar of lord vishnu? You don't have to go through a book, Bhaktivedanta Swamis' Bhagavatam is online.

[Bhava dasa 0]

 

HARE KRISHNA

 

pls can u tell me who is avatar of whom?

is krishna vishnu's avatar?

or vishnu krishna's avatar?

pls explain n do let me know any sites

thank u

 

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

[Guest guest]

 

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.

Out of bhakthi, to consider shri krishna as all pervasive is also not offensive.

 

 

Radhe krishna

 

"Out of bhakthi, to consider shri krishna as all pervasive is also not offensive."

 

What are you implying? That out of love one can consider krishna all pervasive but objectively he is not? BG the main book of Hinduism directly and unequivocally states that he is the source of everything including Maha-Vishnu.

[mahakala 0]

 

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

[mahakala 0]

 

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 ?

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

 

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

 

A person doesn't show that he is superior to himself.

[mahakala 0]

 

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

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Actually none of what Mahakala has posted says anything about who is the origin of the other. No one is denying that Vishnu is Bhagavan, so verses glorifying Vishnu are pointless here. Simply because the name Vishnu or Narayana shows up in a verse in the Bhagavatam means nothing.

 

Gaudiya acharyas accept Krishna as the source of all incarnations, and that is what Sri Caitanya taught, based on verses such as krishnas tu bhagavan svayam. If Malakala doesn't like it, that is his choice. He can believe that blue cheese is the source of all incarnations if he likes.

 

As far as Mahakala's "evidence" that Narayana is the origin of Krishna, he has written:

 

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

How he draws the conclusion that this verse states Narayana to be Supreme and the origin of Krishna is really beyond me. There is no point debating someone who can't put a proper evidential equation together.

[mahakala 0]

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.

 

[Guest guest]

 

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

 

 

 

 

Parameshvara - Lord Shiva ?

 

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

 

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."

[Bhava dasa 0]

 

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

 

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

Krsna states in Bg. 7.7: “Mattah parataram nanyat” ("There is no truth superior to Me.")

[Guest guest]

 

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 ?

 

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

 

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.