Questions and Answers

[77_Krishna 0]

Hazrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad (aba)

The Review of Religions, October 1996

 

 

--

On 13 January 1996, on the occasion of the inauguration of a new Ahmadiyya centre in Leicester, UK, the Fourth Head of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Association in Islam, Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad, hosted a large session with guests representing various faiths. He gave enlightening answers to all the questions that were put to him. Presented below is an edited transcript of two questions raised at that session and the response to them by Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad. Transcribed by Amatul-Hadi Ahmad.

--

 

 

Krishna - `I am the Beginning and the End'

Questioner: My question is about Lord Krishna (as). We Hindus treat Lord Krishna (as) as the creator, the preserver and the destroyer of all beings. As he himself said, 'of all the creations, I am the beginning and the end and the middle. I am unborn and without beginning. Though I am the Lord of all sentient beings, I still appear every millennium in my original transcendental form.' My question is, how far does this religious philosophy conform with the philosophy of Islam?

Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad: First of all, I beg to differ with you as far as the interpretation of these lines is concerned. I have been a student of comparative religion. I found that every religion, however idolatrous it may appear to us today, was fundamentally a monotheistic religion because if one does not accept this universal principle then arguments between religions will have no end whatsoever and each religion will be understood to have emanated from a different source, from a different God.

 

Now, as against the understanding of the Vedas which you have presented to us, you should have remembered also that this is exactly what Jesus Christ (as) said, that I am the Alpha, I am the Omega, and this is not only said by Jesus Christ (as) but also in the Holy Qur'an there is mention of this truth that the Holy Prophet Muhammad (as) is the source and means of people reaching God and when you say Khatemun Nabiyyeen (i.e. the `seal of all the Prophets') then it can be understood as Omega. But in another `Hadith' (tradition of the Holy Prophet (saw)) he claims himself to be the very first, the Alpha and according to all the Muslim sects together, in view of some Qur'anic verses and declarations of the Holy Prophet (saw), he was the first to be born.

 

Now, the question here is that there are some translations made by yourself or somebody else, which indicate that Krishna (as) claimed that he was never born, that he is eternal. I have read the Bhagawat Geeta myself with deep attention and I have discovered only evidence of the truth and unity of God, and Krishna (as) himself only claimed to be a Messenger, no more. For instance, his being called `murli dhar' (flute player). Apparently, the flute is singing the song or creating the music but there is breath behind it. Then he has more hands than ordinary people and he has a body, a well defined body, but instead of two hands he has four hands and he is also known to have possessed wings. Now, what do these symbols, or if they are not symbols, the literal facts indicate, that is the question! As you said, he gave us the glad tiding that every one thousand years `I will reappear in my original form'. Is this the original form of God? Is this the space of human stature, with four arms, he can be confined and then disappear somewhere and then begin to rule from there. This is a very, very limited understanding of the nature of God which he has created. How could Lord Krishna (as) say that? There has to be some misunderstanding of his message or misinterpretation of his words. Such misunderstandings do appear in every religion because of the specific religious terminology. Take, for instance, the use of the word `wings'. The Holy Qur'an also uses the word `wings' in relation to angels. But the Holy Qur'an makes it specifically clear that these are not the `wings' used to fly with, only that the `wings' are indicative of attributes. So, if there are `two arms', the attributes are half the number possessed by a person who has four arms. The angels grew in attributes and in this world, according to the Holy Qur'an, they have four wings. But in the hereafter they will have eight 'wings' and these are all metaphorical terms and figures, let's say. For instance, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw) himself is told to lower his 'wing' of mercy over those who believe him. Then the people are told to lower their 'wings' over their parents. So these usages of the same word 'wing' elsewhere in the Qur'an makes it very clear to us that they are just terms which have been misunderstood and misapplied.

 

In short, according to the Ahmadiyya belief, Hadhrat Krishna (as) was a holy Messenger of Allah. He used a language of symbols to convey to the world of that time some truths and if you read the Bhagawat Geeta in detail, it is not just an account of war between two factions. It is, in reality, a masterpiece of description of goodness pitched against evil, or evil pitched against goodness. A battle between darkness and light.

 

Now, turn to Zoroastrianism, what Zoroaster says is again the same thing in different terms. He speaks of fire against darkness, and makes fire the symbol of truth which is God and darkness a symbol of falsehood which is the devil. One finds similar symbolic statements in the Bible and in the Holy Qur'an, but there they do not mean that evil had a separate entity in itself and emanated from a God who was independent of the God of goodness.

 

So, these are symbolic terms and the use of similar terminology is found in every religion. It is our duty not to be confused by them but to come to a reasonable, sensible understanding whereby we could reconcile the world religions as have emanated from the same single source that is God.

 

I hope this will be sufficient as I don't think it will be very profitable to go much further into a debate on this issue.

 

 

Jesus - 'I am the Way, the Truth and the Light'

Questioner: I am engaged in private Catholic Evengalisation. As Jesus (as) was dying on the cross he said, 'Father, forgive them for they know not what they do'. My question is, Jesus (as) said, 'I am the way, the truth, and the light - nobody can come to the Father except through me'. Any comment, please?

Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad: I have already answered this question in answer to the question raised here by our Hindu friend when he spoke of Krishna (as) having made the same claim, long before Jesus (as) mind you, I have read the fundamental books of all major religions and I find reference to exactly the same thing in so many statements of either the prophets or the divine scriptures. The Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw) has made exactly the same claim. So, you must remember that it is a time related claim. It has to be made by every Prophet because if a Prophet says, 'I am not the way', then he is denying himself. He is rejecting the necessity of the people to find God through him. Hence, in Islamic terminology, in the Holy Qur'an, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw) is mentioned as Waseela, the 'doorway' to God. I have read that so many times. I love reading the Bible as well but because I have studied other religions (and read their books) I can immediately find similarities between the style of expression. But this only means that in relation to God, a Prophet becomes himself an eternal truth because if he speaks the language of God and God alone then he also becomes eternal, not in person, not in relation to his human form, but in relation to his views and ideas and ideology. So, if a person belongs to an eternal God, he must have some features of that eternal God or aspects of his character transferred to himself, otherwise the claim of such a person that he is in communion with God, or that he belongs to him, would be falsified if he cannot show any signs. So these are the fundamental signs which are shown by all the major Prophets of the world that they have become identified with an eternal Super Being and in them you find the 'Alpha' and the 'Omega' and the 'door'. I hope this will be sufficient for you to understand our viewpoint on this issue.

 

 

 

 

 

by Ahmadiyya Muslim Community 1995-2001. All rights reserved.

15000 Good Hope Road, Silver Spring MD 20905

If you have questions, comments or suggestions, email at info@alislam.org

or call 1-800-WHY ISLAM between 8AM and 5PM USA

 

Yours in Krishna

[77_Krishna 0]

The word Allah, according to several Arabic lexicons, means "the Being Who comprises all the attributes of perfection", i.e. the Being Who is perfect in every way (in His knowledge, power etc.), and possesses the best and the noblest qualities imaginable in the highest degree. This meaning is supported by the Holy Quran when it says:

 

"His are the best (or most beautiful) names." (17:110; 20:8; and 7:180)

Contrary to popular belief, the word Allah is NOT a contraction of al-ilah (al meaning 'the', and ilah meaning 'god').

Had it been so, then the expression ya Allah ('O Allah!') would have been ungrammatical, because according to the Arabic language when you address someone by the vocative form ya followed by a title, the al ('the') must be dropped from the title. For example, you cannot say ya ar-rabb but must say ya rabb (for 'O Lord'). So if the word Allah was al-ilah ('the God'), we would not be able to say: ya Allah, which we do.

 

Lane's Arabic-English Lexicon (which is based on classical Arabic dictionaries), says under the word Allah, while citing many linguistical authorities:

 

"Allah ... is a proper name applied to the Being Who exists necessarily, by Himself, comprising all the attributes of perfection, a proper name denoting the true god ... the al being inseparable from it, not derived..."

Allah is thus a proper name, not derived from anything, and the Al is inseparable from it. The word al-ilah (the god) is a different word.

The word Allah is unique among the names of God in all the languages of mankind, in that it was never applied to any being other than God. The pre-Islamic Arabs used it to refer to the Supreme Being, and never applied it to any of the other things they worshipped. Other names of God used by mankind, such as "lord", "god", "khuda", etc. have all also been used for beings other than God. They have meanings which refer to some particular attribute of God, but "Allah" is the name which refers to the Being Himself as His personal name.

 

The Holy Quran itself refers to the uniqueness of the name Allah when it says:

 

"Do you know anyone who can be named along with Him?" (19:65)

Arabic is the only language, and Islam is the only religion, that has given the personal name of God (as distinct from attributive names such as lord, god, the most high, etc.) There are clear prophecies in previous scriptures (the Bible, the Vedas etc.) about the man who will come and give the name of God, which in previous religions was regarded as a secret.

 

David prophesied:

"Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord" (Psalms 118:26).

This is also repeated in the Gospels (Matt. 21:9, etc.), and was fulfilled by the Holy Prophet Muhammad whose first revelation was "Read in the name of thy Lord" (the Quran, 96:1).

 

Zechariah prophesied:

"And the Lord shall be king over all the earth, in that day there shall be one Lord, and his name one." (Zech. 14:9)

All Muslims, anywhere on the earth, speaking totally different languages, recognise the name "Allah", thus fulfilling this prophecy, "his name one". (All Christians, to take an example, do not recognise a single name of God, and therefore do not fulfil this prophecy.)

 

Isaiah prophesied:

"And in that day shall you say, Praise the Lord, call upon His name." (Isaiah 12:4)

So Muslims say repeatedly exactly this: al-hamdu li-llah, and call upon His name Allah.

An objection answered.

The following objection has been raised regarding the name Allah:

Al -'The', lah - 'God'. It means the God. It was one of the gods worshipped by the Arabs. His female equivalent was Allat, al- 'the', Lat 'goddess'. Muhammed's followers did not like the concept of worshipping a female diety.

Answer.

"Allah" was NOT "one of the gods" of the pre-Islamic Arabs, but was recognised by them as the supreme, abstract God. There was no idol which they called "Allah". The Quran quotes the idol-worshippers as presenting the argument that:

"We worship them (i.e. the idols) only so that they may bring us nearer to Allah." (39:3)

Obviously then, "Allah" was not just one of the gods.

It is also entirely wrong to say that Al-Lat was a feminine form of Allah. Besides Allah, the different tribes of the Arabs believed in their tribal gods. "Al-Lat" was the tribal god of the Thaqeef tribe who lived in the city of Taif (where there was a shrine with an idol of Lat). The Quraish worshipped Uzza as their tribal god, and similarly with other tribes.

 

So it is simply incorrect to say that the Arabs regarded Lat as being a female equivalent of "Allah". "Allah" was, as said above, regarded by them as their supreme God. Lat, Manat etc. were believed in as tribal gods.

 

Moreover, Lat, Manat and Uzza were believed by them to be daughters of Allah, as the Quran says:

 

"Have you then considered Lat and Uzza, and the third, Manat? Are the males for you and for Him the females" (53:19-21).

The Quran is here pointing out the contradiction in their beliefs, that they ascribed daughters to Allah, but preferred to have sons themselves! So Lat being believed as a daughter of Allah, could not possibly be regarded by them as the female equivalent of Allah.

 

In Lane's Arabic-English Lexicon the words ilah (god) and Allah occur under the root A-L-H, but the word Al-lat is given under an entirely different root L-T. Therefore, "Al-lat" is not the feminine form of the word Allah (for in that case it would occur under the same root as for "Allah"), but is derived from a completely different root with a totally different meaning.

 

The root from which al-lat comes means (among other things) "to moisten". Lane quotes several reports on how the idol came to be so called. It is named after a man called Al-Lat. Sometime before Islam, there was a man who used to give pilgrims a barley meal (known as saweek), moistened with either water or clarified butter. He thus became known as Al-lat. After he died, the rock where he was buried came to be worshipped and was known by his name. And thus there came to be the idol named Al-lat.

*Yours in Krishna*

ripleymido7@hotmail.com (email only)

[Guest guest]

So if the word Allah was al-ilah ('the God'), we would not be able to say: ya Allah, which we do.

 

Allah means the God. The fact that muslims make mistakes cannot cause you to redefine the meaning of allah. for that matter, even Quran has mistakes. it is just natural in any man made literature.

 

 

There are clear prophecies in previous scriptures (the Bible, the Vedas etc.) about the man who will come and give the name of God, which in previous religions was regarded as a secret.

 

if you believe in this prophecy, then you should accept Krishna as God and Srila Prabhupda as the prohet. He gave the name of God very explicitly. Your interpretation that Krishna Himself says He is a prophet is foolish.

[Guest guest]

islam was more a political need than a spiritual need and it is time it died. it has caused people to rape women in the name god and cause inhuman atrocities against innocent people. even mohammad committed inhuman acts against non-muslims and even some muslims. so many muslim women want to break free from the clutches of islamic oppression. out of decency non-muslims dont want to interfere and protect islamic women. but it is time that thinking muslims gave up their religion in the interest of social welfare.

 

any man with knowledge and heart will not follow this religion.

[Guest guest]

Brave statement Ram, but it is true, it is one huge deception enviously preventing aspirants from approaching The Absolute Truth, and tasting the real rasa of service to the All attractive Personality of God.

Many souls are waylayed in it's incomplete conception of divinity. Half Truth is worse than a lie. But it is so insidiously saturated into the consciousness of so many.

It puzzles me how they can't break out to a progressive higher taste.

[Vaishnava_das108 1]

 

On 13 January 1996, on the occasion of the inauguration of a new Ahmadiyya centre in Leicester, UK, the Fourth Head of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Association in Islam, Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad, hosted a large session with guests representing various faiths. He gave enlightening answers to all the questions that were put to him.

 

 

The Ahmadiyya "branch" of Islam is unauthorised and is regarded by much of mainstream Islam to be nothing but a "wacky offshoot" of Islam. This is due to the Ahmadiyya's holding of certain beliefs that are in direct conflict with much of Islam's strongly-cherished tenets. One example would be that Islam says (with scriptural authority) that Prophet Muhummad would be the last (rather, the 'seal') of the Prophets sent to the earth by Allah. Ahmadiyyas conflict with this by stating that the founder of the Ahmadiyya sect was himself a prophet of Allah.

 

Therefore I fail to see how a representative of an unauthorised branch of Islam would be qualified to give "enlightening answers" about a subject he obviously knows very little about, least of all his own religion.

 

 

Now, as against the understanding of the Vedas which you have presented to us, you should have remembered also that this is exactly what Jesus Christ (as) said, that I am the Alpha, I am the Omega, and this is not only said by Jesus Christ

 

 

This is fine. Jesus seems to say more or less the same thing as stated by Krishna. But Hazrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad obviously has not noted that Krishna is alone is stating that He is the supreme goal and that only He should be worshipped (mam ekam saranam vraja), and that Jesus did not claim divine status for himself but instead clearly said that he was the son of God.

 

 

Now, the question here is that there are some translations made by yourself or somebody else, which indicate that Krishna (as) claimed that he was never born, that he is eternal. I have read the Bhagawat Geeta myself with deep attention and I have discovered only evidence of the truth and unity of God, and Krishna (as) himself only claimed to be a Messenger, no more. For instance, his being called `murli dhar' (flute player).

 

 

This is foolish. First of all, there is no record of Krishna being addressed as 'Muralidhara' in the entire BG, and secondly the idea that Krishna being a messenger of god (and no more) leads one to think if Hazrat Ahmad properly read Bhagavad Gita. Otherwise how can one explain such verses as:

 

"mattah parataram nanyat" - "O conqueror of wealth [Arjuna], there is no Truth superior to Me." BG 7.7

 

"aham sarvasya prabhavo mattah sarvam pravartate" - "I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me." BG 10.8

 

... and so many more?

 

I fail to see how one who reads Bhagavad Gita with "deep attention" comes to the conclusion that Krishna is simply a "messenger of God."

 

 

Apparently, the flute is singing the song or creating the music but there is breath behind it. Then he has more hands than ordinary people and he has a body, a well defined body, but instead of two hands he has four hands and he is also known to have possessed wings.

 

 

This just proves that Hazrat Ahmed simply does not know what he is talking. He is obviously mixing up the traditional image of Syamasundara with Parthasarathi. Krishna never played His flute on the battlefield of Kurukshetra. Also, where in the modern world does it mean that someone who wants to play a flute MUST have more than two hands?

 

It is also evident that Ahmed is confusing the description as given in the Eleventh Chapter of the virat-rupa. More precisely, he is thinking of the Narayana form that was shown to Arjuna after the display of the virat-rupa. Ahmed is obviously ignorant of the fact that Narayana is not the same as Krishna, and Narayana certainly does not spend any time playing flutes. This confusion certainly does not show how Krishna in any case is simply a messenger of God.

Also, there is no mention of any wings anywhere. Confusion confounded!

 

"Arjuna saw in that universal form unlimited mouths and unlimited eyes. It was all wondrous. The form was decorated with divine, dazzling ornaments and arrayed in many garbs. He was garlanded gloriously, and there were many scents smeared over His body. All was magnificent, all-expanding, unlimited. This was seen by Arjuna." - BG 11.10-11

 

"O Lord of the universe, I see in Your universal body many, many forms--bellies, mouths, eyes--expanded without limit. There is no end, there is no beginning, and there is no middle to all this. Your form, adorned with various crowns, clubs and discs, is difficult to see because of its glaring effulgence, which is fiery and immeasurable like the sun." - BG 11.16-17

 

Any mention of wings? No. Although it may be that Krishna had wings but that Arjuna never saw them because the virat-rupa was very "difficult to see." /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

 

This is a very, very limited understanding of the nature of God which he has created. How could Lord Krishna (as) say that? There has to be some misunderstanding of his message or misinterpretation of his words.

 

 

Yes, it certainly seems that Hazrat Ahmed has misunderstood and misinterpreted the Gita. This is what happens when you study the Gita with "deep attention." /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

 

Take, for instance, the use of the word `wings'. The Holy Qur'an also uses the word `wings' in relation to angels.

 

 

And using this logic, the fact that Krishna had wings PROVES that He was simply an angel, a messenger of God and nothing more. This is a very weak argument even by Islamic standards.

 

Just one problem though,.. Krishna does not possess any wings.

 

 

if you read the Bhagawat Geeta in detail, it is not just an account of war between two factions. It is, in reality, a masterpiece of description of goodness pitched against evil, or evil pitched against goodness. A battle between darkness and light.

 

 

Typical impersonalist argument. Hazrat Ahmed's "deep attention" to the Gita has simply produced faulty conclusions about symbolism that do not represent the Gita, and also lead to an impersonalist conclusion.

 

Also, Hazrat Ahmed has simply proved Krishna right:

 

"I am never manifest to the foolish and unintelligent. For them I am covered by My eternal creative potency [yoga-maya]; and so the deluded world knows Me not, who am unborn and infallible." - BG 7.25

 

"Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature and My supreme dominion over all that be." - BG 9.11

 

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[sushil_kanoria 0]

Hari Bol to all of you,

Vaishnava das 108, you have given am excellent repartee to Hazrat, I feel he is a fool no. 1 who doesn't know anything, just blabbering something whatever is coming to his mind.

 

Sushil

[leyh 0]

Krsna can be understood only by His pure devotees. We have to beg them for information. All other sources of "information" about Krsna is imperfect.

[Raguraman 0]

 

Vaishnava_das108 wrote:

It is also evident that Ahmed is confusing the description as given in the Eleventh Chapter of the virat-rupa. More precisely, he is thinking of the Narayana form that was shown to Arjuna after the display of the virat-rupa. Ahmed is obviously ignorant of the fact that Narayana is not the same as Krishna, and Narayana certainly does not spend any time playing flutes. This confusion certainly does not show how Krishna in any case is simply a messenger of God.

Also, there is no mention of any wings anywhere. Confusion confounded!

 

 

 

This is very wrong !

 

Narayana is Krishna and Krishna is Narayana. There is no difference. To say such a thing amounts to saying that GOD becomes different things or GOD has different parts. Virat Rupa is the form of "the one Purusha" which is same "the eternal Brahma" which is the same "Narayana=Krishna".

[madhav 0]

The Nar-Narayan incarnation occured a long time ago before Krishna inarnation. Both are same - vishnu tatva.

 

Vaishnav aacharya believe that the original God is Krishna

who appeared and displayed his full opunelce when he came as Himself - Krishna.

 

The lilas of both are different.

 

Jai Sri Krishna!

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

advaitam acyutam anadim ananta-rupam

 

"The Lord has unlimited infallible forms, which are nondifferent from Him."

 

[ethos 0]

Vaisnava das 108, Nice reply. You certainly have more patience than I.

 

Sushi, We're all fools. As Leyh pointed out, our fund of knowledge is vastly superior. Can you even remember how you used to think before KC? Maybe our Muslim friend will see the light through Vaisnava das. Hint.

[Vaishnava_das108 1]

Thanks for all your good wishes.

 

You may be interested to know that I have written another response to the "Muslim Critics" on this thread;

 

http://www.indiadivine.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB1&Number=33104&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

 

This time, I have quoted verses from the Quran ad Hadiths to backup my points.

[Vaishnava_das108 1]

 

This is very wrong !

 

Narayana is Krishna and Krishna is Narayana. There is no difference. To say such a thing amounts to saying that GOD becomes different things or GOD has different parts. Virat Rupa is the form of "the one Purusha" which is same "the eternal Brahma" which is the same "Narayana=Krishna".

 

 

Dear Raghuraman,

 

I can only say that there are two ways of perceiving the concepts that you have written about. First there is the correct way; it is indeed true that Narayana is Krishna by virtue of being of the same spiritual substance viz., Visnu-tattva. There is also an incorrect way; Narayana and Krishna are two distinct personalities, one is worshipped with opulence whereas the Other is worshipped with sweet madhurya-rasa. However, it is a fact that They are two different persons both in lila and in tattva.

Please allow me to present my answers according to the parampara of Srila Prabhupada.

 

Evidence from Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura:

 

"Among them [living entities], those who desire to serve the Lord with opulence see their worshippable Lord as Narayana and those who desire to serve the Lord with sweetness see their worshippable Lord as Krsna. Those who serve the Lord with opulence have a natural mood of awe and reverence. Therefore their affection ends with prema, or love, for due to insufficient faith there is no pranaya, or intimacy. The faith of those who serve the Lord in the conjugal rasa is extremely strong. Therefore their affection advances up to mahabhava." - Sri Krsna-samhita 1.8-10

 

"There is no difference between Krsna and Narayana. He appears as Narayana to eyes absorbed in opulence, and He appears as Krsna to eyes absorbed in sweetness. Actually there is no difference in the Absolute Truth. A difference is considered only among people who discuss the Absolute Truth and in the discussions of the Absolute Truth." - Sri Krsna-samhita 1.13

 

"Sri Krsna is the Supreme Absolute Truth without a second. He is the moonlike Lord who is always absorbed in the ecstasy of His pastimes, and He manifests different forms due to the variety of rasas." - Sri Krsna-samhita 1.14

 

 

Evidence from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura:

 

"The light of one candle being communicated to other candles, although it burns separately in them, is the same in its quality. I adore the primeval Lord Govinda who exhibits Himself equally in the same mobile manner in His various manifestations."

 

PURPORT

The presiding Deities of Hari-dhama, viz., Hari, Narayana, Visnu, etc.. the subjective portions of Krsna, are being described. The majestic manifestation of Krsna is Narayana, Lord of Vaikuntha, whose subjective portion is Karanodakasayi Vishnu, the prime cause, whose portion is Garbhodakasayi. Ksirodakasayi is again the subjective portion of Garhhodakasayi Visnu. The word "Visnu" indicates all-pervading, omnipresent and omniscient personality. In this sloka the activities of the subjective portions of the Divinity are enunciated by the specification of the nature of Ksirodakasayi Vishnu. The per- sonality of Vishnu, the ennbodied form of the manifestive quality (sattva-guna) is quite distinct from that of Sambhu who is adulterated with mundane qualities. Vishnu's subjective personality is on a level with that of Govinda. Both consist of the unadulterated substantive principle. Visnu in the fornn of the manifest causal principle is identical with Govinda as regards quality. The manifestive quality (sattva-guna) that is found to exist in the triple mundane quality, is an adulterated entity being alloyed with the qualities of mundane activity and inertia. Brahma is the dislocated portion of the Divinity, manifested in the principle of mundane action, endowed with the functional nature of His subjective portion; and Sambhu is the dislocated portion of the Divinity manifested in the principle of mundane inertia possessing similarly the functional nature of His subjective portion. The reason for their being dislocated portions is that the two principles of mundane action and inertia being altogether wanting in the spiritual essence any entities, what are manifested in them, are located at a great distance from the Divinity Himself or His facsimiles. Although the mundane manifestive quality is of the adulterated kind, Vishnu, the manifestation of the Divinity in the mundane manifestive quality, makes His appearance in the unadulterated manifestive principle which is a constituent of the mundane manifestive quality. Hence Vishnu is the full subjective portion and belongs to the category of the superior isvaras. He is the Lord of the deluding potency and not alloyed with her. Visnu is the agent of Govinda's own subjective nature in the form of the prime cause. All the majestic attributes of Govinda, aggregating sixty in number, are fully present in His majestic manifestation, Narayana. Brahma and Siva are entities adulterated with mundane qualities. Though Vishnu is also divine appearance in mundane quality (guna-avatara), still He is not adulterated. The appearance of Narayana in the form of Maha-Visnu, the ap- pearance of Maha-Visnu in the form of Garbhodakasayi and the appearance of Visnu in the form of Ksirodakasayi, are examples of the ubiquitous function of the Divinity. Vishnu is Godhead Himself, and the two other guna-avataras and all the other gods are entities possessing authority in subordination to Him. From the subjective majestic manifestation of the supreme self-luminous Govinda emanate Karanodakasayi, Garbhodakasayi, Ksirodakasayi and all other derivative subjective divine descents (avataras) such as Rama, etc., analogous to communicated light appearing in different candles, shining by the operation of the spiritual potency of Govinda." - Sri Brahma-samhita commentary (Text 46)

 

Evidence from Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada:

 

"Although Visnu is is equal to Krsna, Krsna is the original source. Visnu is a part, but Krsna is the whole. This is the version given by Vedic literatures. In Brahma-samhita the example is given of an original candle which lights a second candle. Although both candles are of equal power, one is accepted as the original, and the other is said to be kindled from the original. The Visnu expansion is like the second candle. He is as powerful as Krsna, but the original Visnu is Krsna. Brahma and Lord Siva are obedient servants of the Supreme Lord, and the Supreme Lord as Visnu is an expansion of Krsna." - Teachings of Lord Caitanya, p.87-88

 

"Krsna is so wonderful and attractive that He Himself becomes attracted by His ownbeauty, and this is proof that He is full of all inconceivable potencies. As far as Krsna's ornaments are concerned, when they decorate His body it appears that they do not beautify Him, but the orinaments themselves become beautiful simply by being on His body. When He stands in a three-curved way, he attracts all living entities. Indeed, He even attracts the Narayana form which presides in each and every Vaikuntha planet." - TLC P.102-103.

 

"There is no beauty to compare with Krsna's, for no one posseses beauty greater than or equal to His. Since He is the origin of all incarnations, including the form of Narayana, the goddess of fortune, who is a constant companion of Narayana, gives up Narayana's association and engages herself in penance in order to gain the association of Krsna, the everlasting mine of all beauty ... In the form of Narayana the beauties of mercy, fame, etc., are all established by Krsna, but Krsna's gentleness and magnanimity do not exist in Narayana. They are found only in Krsna." - TLC, p.106.

 

Also, the qualities of Lord Krsna have been analysed by spiritual authorities such as Srila Rupa Goswami, who totalled them to 64 and noted them down in his Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu:

 

"Besides these sixty transcendental qualities, Krsna has four more, which are not manifest even in the Narayana form of Godhead, what to speak of the demigods or living entities. They are as follows. [61] He is the performer of wonderful varieties of pastimes (especially His childhood pastimes). [62] He is surrounded by devotees endowed with wonderful love of Godhead. [63] He can attract all living entities all over the universes by playing on His flute. [64] He has a wondeful excellence of beauty which cannot be rivaled anywhere in the creation. Addint to the list these four exceptional qualities of Krsna, it is to be understood that the aggregate number of qualities of Krsna is sixty-four." - Nectar of Devotion, p.157.

 

The conclusion is clear.