Swaminarayan- Krshna incarnation?

[Guest guest]

Krishna never said that he was avtari. And I have studied the Gita front and back. Also, all vedic shastras say that Krishna is an avtar. Even Bhagvatam says that. And all avtars have a source; an entity which incarnates as the avtar.

 

If you don't believe in Maharaj, accept that Krishna is an avtar.

[Kishalaya 0]

Bhagavatam 1.3.28

ete caamsa kalah pumsah

krishnas tu bhagavan svyam

indraari vyaakulam lokam

mridayanti yuge yuge

 

krishnas TU bhagavan svayam

BUT Krishna is Bhagavan Svayam

[Guest guest]

Avtars always hold back their true powers and divinite nature. Avtars, since they are part and parcel of Lord Purushottam, limit themselves. Krishna is speaking of his hgiher nature as Lord Purushottam. Even Krishna knew that as an avtar that's part and parcel of God, he knew he had limitations. He also knew that his true nature as avtari is the source of all universes and incarnations. In each universe, there is a Brahma Vishnu Mahesh trinity. And each universe has its own infinite avtars and Ramas and Krishnas. But Lord Purushottam is the source of all. Krishna is trying to show that.

 

He even said in the Gita that his human manifestation fools people and that no one knows of his true divine nature as Lord Purushottam.

[Guest guest]

Lord Purushottam, when he decides to cover his original form, and take an avtar, he goes through a process in which Pradhan and Purush create Virat Narayan and Lord Purushottam enters Virat Narayan and gives him life. Then that Purushottam powered Virat assumes the incarnation. Virat is also known as Vairaj, Vairat, Vishnu, Narayan, LaxsmiNarayan.

 

Though there are infinite forms of God and infnite Krishna avtars and Ram avtars in each universe, God is the one who assumes them. So it is actually God himself.

 

But God in his original form is identical to the VISUAL appearance of Krishna and he resides within his own internal energy known as Akshar. Akshar is mentioned in the Gita, Bhagvatam, and other shastras and the context proves that Akshar's one of many aspects is to act as God's abode.

[Guest guest]

Dear Prabhu Ji,

 

I do not know how and why you say Krishna is limited. But

for me a straight interpretation is sufficient.

 

mattah parataram nanyat

kincid asti dhananjaya

mayi sarvam idam protam

sutre mani-gana iva

 

Nothing whatsoever is superior to me, O winner of wealth.

Everything rests on me like pearls strung on a thread.

(Bg. 7.7)

 

atha va bahunaitena

kim jnatena tavarjuna

vistabhyaham idam krtsnam

EKAMSENA sthito jagat

 

But what need is there for all this extensive knowledge,

Arjuna? I sustain this entire universe by a mere fragment

of myself! (Bg. 10.42)

 

[Guest guest]

Guestji,

 

Krsna >= Lord Purushottam/Lord Narayana

 

Krsna Tu Bhagavan Svayam

 

Regarding SB 10.14.14 mentioned above, the entire 12th, 13th, and 14th chapters of the Bhagavata's 10th canto, the Brahma-vimohana-lila, establishes the ultimacy of Krishna over Narayana. Therein Krishna manifests innumerable Narayanas from his body, just as Narayana manifests innumerable universes from his. The 14th chapter spoken by Brahma should be studied in detail. The entire Gaudiya siddhanta is found therein.

 

Krishna says 'aham sarvasya prabhavo', 'I am the source of everything.' This includes Narayana. Later, at the end of the same tenth chapter, Krishna says 'vistabhyaham idam krtsnam ekamsena sthito jagat', 'I support this entire universe by an amsa (plenary portion) of myself.' This plenary portion is Narayana/Visnu. Then in chapter eleven Krishna demonstrates that the 'catur bhuja' (four armed) Lord manifests from his two armed form, his human like form (manasa rupam).

 

We are not lacking in scriptural support for our understanding, nor in feeling (bhava) for Krishna. Those who love Krishna know him best. No one can deny the love of the Gaudiya Acaryas and its spiritual symptoms. Are their experiences falsified because their conclusions are not supported by Sri sampradaya dogma, or should some members of the Sri sampradaya adopt a more enlightened position with regard to the nature of understanding scripture, affording them a more pluralistic stance? After all, the spiritual world is a very big place.

 

Gaudiya Vaisnavas acknowledge that Narayana and Krishna are one in terms of tattva. However, they are different in consideration of 'rasa vicar'. Rupa Goswami says 'siddhantatastvabhede' pi sirsa-krsnasvrupayaoh rasenotkrsyate krsnarupamesa rasasthithi'

 

Again, it would be better for the followers of Ramanujacarya that you are dealing with to take a comprehensive look at our sampradaya rather than trying to fit us into their worldview, resulting in their rejection of us. They fit better into ours than we into theirs

 

http://www.users.qwest.net/~ejgould/krsna_tu_.htm

[Guest guest]

The Sri sampradayam does not give a hoot to the gaudiyas, on the contrary it is the gaudiyas who need the support of the Sri vaisnavas to establish their position.

 

I quote the following instances :

 

a) Bhaktisiddhanta justifies his sanyasa (taken from a picture of his guru) by refering to Ramanuja's (taken from the deity of Lord Varadaraja).

Bhaktisiddhanta's sanyasa and link to the guru parampara is itself questionable ( by the babajis ) etc

 

b) Bhaktisiddhanta spent time in Sri Perumpudur, the birth place of Ramanuja studying sri vaisnava liturgy such as - giving sanyasa. The Tridandi order of sanyasa was a copy from the Sri vaisnava tradition and not the ekadanda of Sankara or Madhva (refer to the book " A Ray of Vishnu)

 

c)The Iskcon ritviks quote sri vaisnavas to support their stand

 

d) gosai.com uses the example of the revelation of divya prabandham to Nathamuni to compare with the ficticious works of Bhaktivinod to pass of as genuine "revelation"

 

e) The gaudiya's achintya bhedabhedha is closer to Ramanuja's visistadvaita than to Madhva's dvaita

 

f) The Padma Purana mentions 4 authorised sampradayas. Where does gaudiya fit ?

 

You cannot claim allianace to Madhva as you have

 

i) rejected his stand on Narayana, for a dualistic God Radha Krishna (similar to the Sri sampradayam)

 

ii) rejection of Madhva's commetary on he Bhagavatam in preference to the advaita commetary by Sridhara swami

 

iii) rejected dvaita for the inconceivable one and different doctrine.

 

iv) By writting your own commetary on the vedanta sutras you have further established gaudiya being a separate sampradayam from Madhava.

 

 

These proves that gaudiyas can not survive as a sampradayam on their own.

 

It is not a question of fitting in. Obviously you are ignorant on Indian philosophy.

 

Your view that Krishna is source of Narayana is also not acceptable to Madhvacarya. And the gaudiyas claim lineage to him ? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

 

Regarding Rupa goswami's which will appeal to some ill informed sentimental bangla deshis.

 

It will be futile to have a constructive argument with fanatics, who don't have a clue to standard vedic rules on debate, logic etc ..

 

[Guest guest]

 

 

what is the problem here ?

 

Krishna on earth is an avatar,on goloka he is not.

 

Krishna is the supreme personality of godhead,

in that male personality Vishnu is displaying

the full scope of qualities, the rest of the

avatars are displaying less .

 

this is the difference.

 

this is the conclusion of the bhagavatam,the conclusion

of the acharyas, the gaudiya sampradya is in that line,

the line of krishna, whether it is in this line or that

line, the truth is that it is unique.

 

Sri Caitanya created his own line, he included Madhva

becuase of his staunch opposition to advaita,

he included Ramanuja because of his staunch preaching,

as he includes nimbarka, for his.

 

Mahaprahu is teaching soemthing different,so his lineage

while accepting the previous acharyas, is unique,

an arm of the previous ones.

 

what is the problem ?

 

Is that a wrong thing ?

 

the followers of Ramanuja who reject sri Chaitanya

do so out of ignorance.

 

they do not accept the conclusion of the bhagavatam,

Krishna is not just another avatar,

he is the supreme personality, the full personality

of Vishnu.

 

the concept of narayana or vishnu is incomplete,

it speaks of the power ,the glory and the magnificence

of god.

 

Krishna is not like that, he is the enjoyer,

the Rasa Raja, his pastimes are not concerned

with majesty,magnificence or power,( a little

bit maybe), they are concerned with the

inner man, the life of God as the enjoyer

of intimacy with his CLOSEST companions.

 

this is not avaiable with narayana, or even Ramachandra,

there Rama is a king with subjects, a ruler

with a job.

 

krishna is simply living a casual life in Vrndavana

with no cares,or duties, other then enjoyment.

 

this is god at play, the inner life of God.

[Guest guest]

Shivadasa

 

1) You said Chaitanya created his own line. Then, is that line mentioned in the Padma Purana ?

 

(if you claim lineage to Madhva .. then technically Gaudiyas have deviated in substance & form from Madhva and cannot be considered as a branch of Madhva's sampradayam , refer to the on going debate on this in the dvaita list)

 

2) Puranas (such as Bhagavatam etc) are used as inference but never as a source of authority. This is the position of the 3 schools of Vedanata i.e Advaita, Visistadvait and dvaita. Sorry, one cannot compromise on it, The failure to accept the prastana trayam would put the gaudiyas in similar position as the buddhist - i.e non vedic

 

3) First and formost get your translation on the text " krsna varnam tvisakrsnam" correct. Where do you find the reference to Chaintanya ?

(Unless you accept the gaudiya fabrications such as - Chaitanya Upanisad etc)

 

4) There is no need for the Sri Vaisnavas to accept Chaitanya becuase ;

 

a) He was not an avatar

 

b) He belongs to the advaita school

 

c) The Alvars were the only devotees in kaliyuga who were predicted in the 10th Canto of srimad Bhagavatam. Furthermore, they were the pioneers of bhakti, saranagati and hari nama sankirtan.

 

d) Lord Krsna's teaching in the Gita is final and complete. There is no need for another avatar to appear and teach "something different" /images/graemlins/cool.gif.

[Guest guest]

Avtaars of course limit themselves! God, as he resides within his own internal energy called Akshar or Aksharbrahman, cannot come as he is. Otherwise all the light and glory emanating from him would destroy this whole universe.

 

Krishna is the source of all incarnations for this one universe. Why? Even in the Gita he said he is the supreme controller of the universe. He is proving that he himself is Lord LaxshmiNarayan. But there are infinite universes. And infinite Brahmas and Vishnus and Shivas. As well as infinite avtars, infinite Ramas and Krishnas.

 

Krishna born in Mathura was Lord Purushottam Narayan, but when God takes an avtar, he suppresses and limits his powers. Why? Because in certain tasks he doesn't need all his powers. Did Vaman or Parshuram do the things Krishna did? No. But they are still the same entity. Does Krishna do the same thing in this universe as Lord Purushottam Narayan does in his abode? No. Lord Purushottam assumes these forms and therefore Krishna is part and parcel of him. So don't get confused. Lord Purushottam has infinite forms but IS the one who assumes the forms.

 

Avtars can NEVER be the source of all universes. Only avtari Lord Purushottam can.

 

All shastras proclaim Krishna as an avtar.

 

Vishnu doesn't create infinite universes and that is cited in the Brahmand Purana. Vishnu or LaxshmiNarayan creates ONE universe and maintains the one universe. Lord Purushottam, the source of all, manifests himself as LaxshmiNarayan on infinite universes.

 

The lord has an internal energy called Akshar. It is the most powerl, greatest, and super entity next to Lord Purushottam himself. Akshar has been cited in the Gita and all other scriptures. Akshar acts as the Lord's abode, therefore, the Swaminarayan devotees refer to it as Akshardham, because Akshar takes the role of dham or abode.

 

The amount of bliss happiness and ecstasy in Vaikunth is surpassed in Golok the land of cows. And Golok's happiness is surpassed in God's own energy, Akshar. Krishna says that his abode is supreme. He didn't say Golok. Vyas said that the Vasudev Krishna maifestation resides in Golok. But the suprem is Akshardham Param DHam. Krishna says that people deride in him when he ASSUMES a human form like Lord Purushottam assumed the Krishna form. And that no one knows his true supreme nature as Lord Purushottam in Akshardham. He even said that he has a higher nature than that of the Krishna manifestation. He said that he is the source of all worlds and is Purushottam. He is proving that he, in his higher nature in Akshardham, is the incarnator, but that he has assumed a limited manifestation for the redemption of all.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Guestji,

 

When does God descend in His original forum, what does He look like, and what are His lilas?

 

 

[Guest guest]

You said:

 

"He even said that he has a higher nature than that of the Krishna manifestation."

 

Where did Krsna say that?

 

This higher nature, according to you, is called Purushottam Narayana. In the Bhagavad-gita Krsna says:

 

mattah parataram nanyat

kincid asti dhananjaya

mayi sarvam idam protam

sutre mani-gana iva

 

"O conqueror of wealth [Arjuna], there is no Truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread." (7.7)

 

If you accept Krsna's words, then that means that Purushottam Narayana cannot be superior to Krsna's manifestation on earth.

 

-Satya

[Guest guest]

Again, before he spoke that verse, he said earlier that fools deride in him and that NO ONE truly knows his true supreme nature. did you stop and think maybe it was that he was referring to? god on earth is god, but because material nature can be destroyed by his true appearacne and effulgence, he has to limit his powers, suppress his glory, and go through a porcess to take an avtar/ n i think god does that just to make sure the material nature isnt destroyed by his glory. nothing is superior to krishna, true. because krishna in his original non avtar form and limitations is the supreme amongst all forms. because it is the orignal form.

 

what does god look like?

 

i announce that god is in the form of satchitanand. he is complexioned dark like the rain cloud but so much light emanates from him, that he seems fiar skinned. he likes to play the divine murli(flute). he is served by his devotees from various of his infinite avtars, forms, and leelas. though Akshar, his internal energy, is king amongst abodes, he never forgets about his other abodes. by his mercy, he appears before his devotees in the other abodes like LaxshmiNarayan in Vaikunth, Vasudev Krishna in Golok, Vasudev in Svetdeep, and NarNarayan in Badrikashram. Once one attains one of God's abodes, he never takes birth again and attains Brahm. He experiances SO MUCh happiness but the happiness in the internal energy of god, Akshar, is unquestionably supreme.

[Guest guest]

Krishna and Purushottam Narayan are the same. Purushottam is the incarnator, and Krishna is the incarnation.

 

ALL SHASTRAS PROCLAIM KRISHNA AS AN INCARNATION OF VISHNU. AND VISHNU IS A MANIFESTED FORM OF LORD PURUSHOTTAM NARAYAN.

[Narayanidd 1]

Sri Brahma Samhita text 1 & 48

 

 

isvarah paramah krsnah

sac-cid-ananda-vigrahah

anadir adir govinda

sarva-karana-karanam

 

"Krsna who is known as Govinda is the Supreme Godhead. He has an eternal, blissful, spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has know other origin and He is the prime cause of all causes.

 

yasyaika nisvasita-kalam athavalambya

jivanti loma-vilaja jagad-anda-nathah

visnur mahan sa iha yasya kala-viseso

govindam adi-purusam tam aham bhajami

 

"Brahma and other lords of the mundane worlds, appearing from the pores of the hair of Maha-Visnu, remain alive as long as teh duration of one exhalation of the later [Maha-Visnu]. I adore the primeval Lord Govinda of whose subjective personality Maha-Visnu is the portion of a plenary portion.

 

YS,

Narayani d.d.

[Kishalaya 0]

Dear Prabhu Ji,

 

My humble obeisnaces!

 

It is said that respect is due to All Vaishnavas simply on

the strength that they accept Sri Hari as The Supreme

Truth. It is also said by Sri Narad, that too much debate

is not conducive to bhakti. However when it comes to

replying offensive accusations, no untoward words shall be

used for logicians who are also Vaishnavas. Defence is

sufficient. Defence is also necessary when the opposition

reaches to a stage of blasphemy. I shall humbly try to

follow that paradigm.

 

"The Sri sampradayam does not give a hoot to the gaudiyas"

 

Well there is no need of "a hoot" (whatever that means)

from *any* sampradaya for Gaudiya siddhanta, nor does a

Gaudiya vaishnava care. The prime objective of following

Gouranga Mahaprabhu is to return to Krishna, not to become

a nitpicking grammarian. The Gaudiya siddhanta is based on

all Shastra which include, but extend beyond, the prasthana

traya.

 

a),b),c) There is no need to say anything here. It is

clearly seen here that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta had great

regard for Sri Sampradaya saints. It is a True Vaishnava's

glory that he will not shy away from glorifying other true

Vaishnavas.

 

d) I have not seen this, but there is no need to conclude

a-priori that the work of one saint is revelation and that

of another is "fictitious work" simply on that strength

that the other one is not of one's own sampradaya.

 

e) If you say so. However Sri Hari's moola svaroopa cannot

have *any* defective parts. The reconciliation is achintya

bhedaabheda. Sri Gouranga graced Madhvaacharya because he

left no stones unturned to blow mayavada to bits.

 

f) Gaudiya sampradaya is the sampradaya started by

Brahma. It does not matter at all if the present day

Madhva followers do not accept Gaudiya vaishnavas as

followers of Madhva. The reconciliation is possible only

by directly asking Sri Madhva and Sri VyaasaTeertha. Till

that time let everybody be happy with their notion of what

constitutes a valid sampradaya.

 

Now on "You cannot claim allianace to Madhva as you have"

 

Gaudiyas do not claim allegiance to some of what is

today propagated as the *only* teaching of Madhva. Nowhere

it is written that, one has to follow only those few who

today claim sole propreitorship of Madhva's teachings, to

be recognised as a valid part of Brahma-Madhva sampradaya.

In fact Gaudiya parampara does not make any reverse claims

since such claims are simply born of ignorance.

 

i. "rejected his stand on Narayana". Not at all.

Sriman Narayana is worshipped with all grandeur in

Paravyoma Vaikuntha. However, Gaudiya vaishnavism accepts

more.

 

ii. Sridhar Swamin was a great bhaagvat, not a mayavadi, as

is apparant to some people by his apparant advaitic nuances

in his commentary of Srimad Bhagavatam. Sridhar Svamin was

born into an age of mayavada, where any conception of

dualism was to bring havoc on society. Therefore He had

hidden the bhaagavat interpretation. Later Sripad

Vidyadhvaaj Teerth (Jayadharma Muni) in his

"Bhakti Ratnavali" commentary on Bhagavatam brought out

the dualistic import of Sridhar Svamin's commantary.

 

iii. None of Dvaita's dualistic imports are rejected by

Gaudiya siddhanta. Baladeva Vidyabhushana in his commentary

"Govinda Bhaashya" of BrahmaSutras at the very start

mentions the 9 premayas of Sri Madhvacharya. Nothing is

contradictory to AchintyaBhedaabheda. However one must

remember that the sole purpose of Madhvaacharya was

"kevale-advaita-nirasana" - complete defeat of advaita

philosophy. Hence it was a cardinal sin for him to speak

anything on abheda. Last but not the least, one must

remember that achintya bhedabheda is more about difference

than about oneness.

 

iv. As stated earlier, Baladeva completely accepts Madhvas

9 prameyas right at the beginning of "Govinda Bhaashya".

His commentary is an elucidation of what Sri Madhva did

not write.

 

"These proves that gaudiyas can not survive as a

sampradayam on their own. It is not a question of fitting

in. Obviously you are ignorant on Indian philosophy."

 

Proofs in siddhanta are not established in half a page!

 

"Your view that Krishna is source of Narayana is also not

acceptable to Madhvacarya. And the gaudiyas claim lineage

to him ?"

 

Sripad Madhvachaarya said, all avatars of Sriman Narayan

and Sriman Narayan Himself are equal in tattva. There is

no argument in that. However Sri Madhva did not descend as

a rasaacharya. So, it is not from him that teachings about

rasa are to be learnt. As for why Gaudiya's claim Sri

Krishna is Supreme, the following link will suffice:

 

http://www.raganuga.com/d//index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=626

 

(See posts by "jiva")

 

"Regarding Rupa goswami's which will appeal to some ill

informed sentimental bangla deshis."

 

Well! Standard vedic rules on debate, logic etc ...

 

"It will be futile to have a constructive argument with

fanatics, who don't have a clue to standard vedic rules on

debate, logic etc .."

 

Fanatics!! Very evident indeed! Thank you :-)

 

Your servant,

Kishalaya

[Kishalaya 0]

Dear Prabhu Ji,

 

My humble obeisances to you again!

 

1. About validity of sampradaya, it has been discussed in my

last post, so no need to repeat it again. Suffice it to say

that the debate that you say "ongoing" in the dvaita list

has been there for the last 8 years of so.

 

2. It is also a precept of the Madhva school (or whatever

it is being propagated nowadays by a few

neo-internet-savvy Madhavites) that the *ONLY* valid

Sampradaya is that of Madhva. There is *NO* sampradaya like

Sri, Rudra or Kumar Sampradaya. You will be hard put to

prove the validity of your own sampradaya in the dvaita

list simply on the basis of the Padma Purana quotation.

ante siddhastu siddhAnto madhvasyAgama eva hi <-- This is

what is there in the dvaita homepage.

 

What this means is that one need not accept a dogma simply

because it is a hard held belief. Similarly, nothing other

than prasthana traya is authority reeks of advaitic

concept of arthavada. We have sufficient proof of Srimad

Bhagavad's superiority as pramaan, and no the logic is not

sva skandha aarohan. It is build from Sruti itself.

"The failure to accept the prastana trayam". I fail to see

the failure. Gita, Shruti are accepted as authority and

there is a bhaashya on BrahmaSutras. However there is no

need to confine oneself!

 

3. I hope that one is not so naive to think that scripture

has one meaning. Even if they do as Madhva sampradaya

insists, other schools are unlikely to accept. The meaning

of "tat tvam asi" of saam veda is being debated for the

last 800 years. To say that someone's interpretation is

wholesale wrong is to stretch the line too thin.

 

krsna-varnam is "of a black color." But tvisakrsnam means "His luster is not black."

 

For more information on Gouranga and how He is revealed in

*all* of shastra:

http://gauranga.blogspot.com

 

4. Please as you wish. However that is not teaching of

Gouranga. His mood is "You give me 100 lashes, but I beg

you kindly chant Hare Krishna." So PrabhuJi, I beg you

please chant "hare Krishna".

 

a. Kindly see the above link.

 

b. Ahem!

 

c. Sri Gouranga and His Paarshads, were no pioneer in Hari

Naam Keertan. Ah! All the biographies cry out that!

 

and the final one:

"d) Lord Krsna's teaching in the Gita is final and complete. There is no need for another avatar to appear and teach "something different"

 

For that matter what is the need for the other prasthans??

Let us just dump Shruti and BrahmaSutras and yes,

there was absolutely no need for Sri Ramanuja to write

The Gita Bhaashya. ;-)

 

Bhaja Nitai Gouranga,

 

Your servant,

Kishalaya

[Guest guest]

 

what is the standard of authenticity ?

 

who is to be the judge and what is the criterion ?

 

the conclusions of the gaudiya line are their

conclusions, the Ramanuja line accept their

conclusions,Sankaras theirs and so on.

 

Who can say what is authoritative and what is concoction ?

 

The one school claims supremacy and derides another as bogus, this is the situation ,as always.

 

the real test is in the taste, the real test is

in the realization of the sadhaka.

 

Claiming what you and your school believe

as supreme and negating those who disgaree

based on your interpretations and echastology

while rejecting the other schools siddhanta

is the pastime of the unrealized.

 

The realized soul knows that what is being taught

in all the schools is coming from the will and design

of the supreme being.

 

they are all bonafide to one degree or another,

they all serve the purpose of Bhagavan.

 

to argue against this or that school as being

a concoction is itself unrealistic, as they are all

under the control and dissemination of God.

 

ultimatelly you are where you are meant to be,

change or growth or higher realization of truth,

Tattva-jnana is given to the humble soul.

that is the qualification, humility, the ability

to see our selves as creatures able to error,

without that attitude how can we grow or learn ?

We will see ourselves as correct all the time, regardless

of what we believe.

 

this is Mahaprabhus message in his sikastakam,

the only thing one really needs is humility.

 

[Guest guest]

 

Are you following Mahaprabhu's message of humility? No, because you are criticizing Mayavada all the time. If you cannot follow Mahaprabhu's message yourself, why are you preaching to others?

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

there is a difference between critique

for the sake of helping the other,

and critique as a form of attack in defending

ones own belief.

which are you doing, one is based on dharma,helping

those in illusion,one is based on arrogance

claiming superiority on the grounds of egotism.

[Guest guest]

Those who have trouble accepting Krishna as an avtar and incarnation of God, and who have no interest in looking beyond the avtar, shall reefrain from any further debate. If one wants to attain an abode of God like Viakunth or Golok, he may do so. But if one does that, he has no right to say that Golok is the transcendental highest abode with full supreme happiness because no shastra says that. Shastras say that happiness and liberation in Golok is immense and that the Krishna avtar resides there.

 

Avtari resides within his own internal energy Akshar, called Akshardham.

 

If one can't accept this and chooses not to, he shall continue to worship Krishna avtar and aspire for Golok.

 

This is the only way out and it is my opinion.

[Guest guest]

This is originally founded by Ramanand Swami, an incarnation of Uddhav and the sampraday in its roots is called Uddhav sampraday.

 

Ramanand Swami got diksha ito the Ramanujacharya sampraday by Ramanujacharya in a samadhi state. After Ramanand Swami awoke, he found a tulsi kanthi around his neck, an altered urdhav pundra vaishnva mark on his head(Altered because it was an orange U with a red full moon shape in the middle), and the 12 sampraday tatoos(chapp, usually burned on with hot iron) on his arms.

 

They follow the full and manifest version of Vishishta Advait. Unlike Gaudiyas Dvati philosiphy.

 

We worship Lord Purushottam Narayan, the avtari of all avtars in all universes. He took birth as Lord Swaminarayan.

 

Note that an avtar goes through a certain process to attain its body while Lord Swaminarayan came as he was, Lord Purushottam Narayan of all that be.

[Guest guest]

Could you provide descriptions or references to Akshardham in the sastras if you say that is the Supreme Abode?

[Guest guest]

What you call "Akshardham" is also known as Vrndavana, the central portion of Gokula.

[Kishalaya 0]

One should not grind one's own axe taking cue of just one

teaching and neglecting others. If Gouranga said "trinaad

api sunichena", He also said "maayaavadi bhaashya shunile

hoye shorbonaash"

 

As for the Gaudiya siddhanta:

 

sivasya sri-visnor ya iha guna-namadi-sakalam

dhiya bhinnam pasyet sa khalu hari-namahita-karah

 

It is an aparadh to separate the Name, Form, Qualities,

Lila etc. of the Lord from Himself.

 

The FILTHIEST of the conclusions of mayavada is that the

saguna brahman is the product of maya and at the

paramaathik (ultimate) level there is no form.

 

Your servant,

Kishalaya