RE: Question :BhagavAn svayam - 1
From the Bhakti List Archives
• August 29, 1998
Sri: Srimate Sri Lakshmi Nrusimha Para Brahmane namaha Srimate Sri Lakshmi Nrusimha Divya pAdukA sevaka Srivan Shatakopa - Sri nArAyaNa Yateendra mahAdesikAya namaha Dear Sri rAm gopAlswAmy & other devotees , namo nArAyaNA. Kindly accept adiyenÂ’s pranAmams. Sri rAm gopAlswAmy wrote : shriimad bhaagavta-puraaNam talks about various incarnations of bhagavaan (including kR^shhNaavataara) and says: " ete ca amsha kalaaH pumsaH kR^shhNaH tu bhagavaan svayam | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^****** indra-ari vyaakulam lokam mR^Dayanti yuge yuge || " [1.3.28] "All of the above-mentioned incarnations are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord shrii KR^shhNa is the original Personality of Godhead. All of them appear on planets whenever there is a disturbance created by the atheists. The Lord incarnates to protect the theists." It seems to be apparently inconsistent with paaN^caraatra. Is not, according to paaN^caraatra, shriiman-naaraayaNa is the Original_ Personality of Godhead and shrii. kR^shhNa is a vibhava-avataara ? I wonder what the word "svayam" means in the above context. [ Also, dhyaana-shlokam for shriimad bhagavad giita itself says, "... paarthaaya pratibodhitaaM bhagavataa naaraayaNena svayaM.." Is the dhyaana-shlokam universally accepted as authentic ? ] Have raamaanujaacarya, or vedaanta-deshika commented on this point in their granta-s ? [also curious what shrii.yaamuna says in his work, "mahaa-purushha-nirnaya" ] ----------------------- Various issues are being addressed here by our dear devotee Sriman rAm GopAlswAmy , who in the past has come up with very interesting questions that has given lot of oppurtunities for all of us to know about the sampradAyam much better . 1. Qtn : By the above Srimad BhAgavatham (SB) verse can one come to the conclusion that KrishNA is the actual God & nArAyaNA is secondary ( "expansion ?" ) to Him ? Ans : This verse doesnÂ’t even mention about nArAyaNA . Usage of "KrishNA" here can _atbest_ be considered in "comparison" with other vibhava avatArams (incarnations). The verse simply says that in comparison with the above mentioned avatArams , KrishNA is actually bhagavAn whereas others are amsAs of Him . This doesnÂ’t ( even in the remotest sense ) imply that nArAyaNA is an amsA of KrishNA or something like that . Please note that previously , KrishNA was also listed as one of the incarnation of Hari (nArAyaNA) by Sage SUtar . Actually the sages request Sage sUtar to describe various incarnations of Lord Hari ( SB 1.1.13 & 1.1.18 ) . So , the best extrapolation from this verse that one can obtain is that ,of all the incarnations (avatArams) that so far has been listed by Sage sUtar , KrishNA is the perfect avatAram ( ie. Poorna avatAram ie. Svayam ) of nArAyaNA & all other avatArams are only amsAs of nArAyaNA , ie. KrishNA is non-different from nArAyaNA since KrishNA is svayam bhagavAn & all other avatArams are not same as nArAyaNA since they are only His amsAs . Even if one makes the extrapolation of the greatest order & gives an interpretation which cannot be derived from this verse like "nArAyaNA is also an amsA of KrishNA" it contradicts hundreds of pramAnams from VedAs (including Upanishads ) , IthihAsa purAnAs , Divya prabandham , pAncarAtrA etc . So , such type of claim is obviously not supported by Scriptures . 2. Qtn: If the word "ete" is interpreted to mean _all_ the incarnations that has been described so far by Sage SUtar , it leads to a conclusion that KrishNA is the _only_ poorna avatAram of nArAyaNA & all other avatArams like nrusimhA , rAmA are only His amsAs . This obviously contradicts hundreds of pramAnams . What then is the exact purport of this verse ? Ans : adiyen is giving the answer to this question based on the Srimad BhAgavatham series appearing in "Nrusimha PriyA" . The section pertaining to our discussion was written by late Sri atthi nrusimhAchAryA (vaikuNThavAsi) . Now , it is continued by Sri SthalasayanAchAryA. This tamil series has been released in a book format by "Sri Nrusimha PriyA Trust" during 1995 , which has the description of Srimad BhAgavatham till 3rd Canto , Ch 23 . The answer to the question lies in the "chatri nyAyam" used in sanskrit . It is described as follows : "chatrinO gacchanti" => a group of people having umbrellAs are going . Actually , not everyone in that group needs to hold an umbrellA . But that group is reffered to, asif everyone is holding the UmbrellA because many are holding it => generalization is done. This is the "chatri nyAyam " . All avatArams of the type NrusimhA , RAmA are Poorna avatArams only , since they are taken by the same nArAyaNA . In this verse , "chatri nyAyam" is employed ie. Eventhough all the poorna avatArms ( no umbrellA) seems to be grouped with that of many other avatArams (anupravesA etc; with umbrellA ) by the word "ete" , its actual import from the application of "chatri nyAyam" is that the word "ete" refers to the amsa avatArams ( with umbrella) only . So , the comparison of KrishNAvatAram is strictly not with all the avatArams that has been listed before , but only with other amsa avatArams . If one fails to recognize the "chatri nyAyam " employed , it leads him into a contradiction . 3. Qtn : Can this be further explained in the light of the "context" in which Sage sUtar uttered this verse ? Ans : Actually , the sages were very eager to know about many things . First of all , they payed their salutations to Sage sUtar who was a great rishi having immense knowledge & the fruit of that knowledge viz. ardent devotion unto Sriman nArAyaNA . Sage sUtar was in such a position because he did lot of kainkaryams to his achAryA & got his blessings (in form of kAlakshebams etc) . Since the katAkshA of a sadAchAryA ( AchAryA of a Sat sampradAyam ie. SampradAyam starting with Sriman nArAyaNA ) fell unto Sage sUtar , he could understand all the imports of the vedAs correctly & easily ( All these things are in a way told by the sages themselves to Sage sUtar while glorifying him ) Sages told Sage sUtar that , since the kali yugA will be filled with people who have mandha buddhi (lack of spiritual knowledge ) & short life, aisvaryam etc & will be immersed in samsArA , the upadesam of the sAram (essence) of scriptures needs to be done (ie. Kali yugA people have mandha buddhi => perform lot of speculations instead of understanding the tattvA properly under the guidance of a "sadAchAryA " => they canÂ’t understand the essence of vedAs ) . They wanted to know the things which would be of ultimate benifit to all the jIvAtmAs , acts that needs to be followed by jIvAtmAs so that it will please bhagavAn , __about the incarnation of bhagavAn as son of Devaki__, leelAs performed by bhagavAn in various incarnations , glories of nAma sankeertanam , glories of parama bhAgavathOthamAs whose mere katAkshA will sanctify a person . The sages being ardent devotees of KrishNAvatAram , which got winded up quite recently , they eagerly asked Sage sUtar to especially describe that avatAram in detail in which bhagavAn as KrishNA alongwith BalarAmA did various super human acts . They also wanted to know the person unto whom dharmA has taken shelter off after the departure of KrishNA to Sri VaikuNTham . So , among all the vibhava avatArams , their __focus__ is on KrishNAvatAram , though they wanted to know about all the avatArams of bhagavAn Sriman nArAyaNA . Sage sUtar after briefly explaining about nArAyaNAÂ’s svaroopam , He being antaryAmi of chit & achit , He being the sarIrI of chit & achit (ie. Chit & achit are His sarIrA) & allied tattvAs , starts enlisting various avatArams of Sriman nArAyaNA viz. Yoga nidrA form , BrahmA , 4 kumArAs , Naradar , Nara NArAyaNA , KapilA , DattAtreyA , ya~jnA (son of son of sage ruchi & his wife Ahuti ) , King rushabA , King pruthu , matsyavatAram , koormAvatAram , Dhanvantari , Mohini , NrusimhA , vAmanA , parasurAmA , VyAsA , rAmA , BalarAmA , KrishNA , BuddhA & Kalki . Then Suta pourAnikar continued that the number of incarnations of Sriman nArAyaNA (Hari) are innumerable like thousands of rivulets flowing from a river & goes on to say that RishIs & devAs (demigods), Manus & prajApatis are all amsAs of Lord Hari (1.3.26-27) . Now the stage is set for the verse 1.3.28 in our discussion. Note that there were innumerable amsAvatArAs that has been enlisted in comparison with the svayam avatArAs. The word "ete" if applies to all the incarnations enlisted sofar , then by "chatri nyAyam" we can understand the actual purport of the verse . Alternatively, if we look at the previous two verses ( 1.3.26 & 1.3.27 ) , the focus is on the innumerable avatArAs which are like rivulets from a river & enlisted rishis , manus etc who all are basically amsAvatArAs. So, obviously , SUtar wants to reiterate that they are only amsAvatArAs (ie. They are not same as nArAyaNA) & are different from His svayam avatArams . Now , a good representative from the list of poorna avatArams has to be chosen in order to differentiate from the amsAvatArams. SUtar chose "KrishNA" because all the sages were His ardent devotees & their focus was also with that avatAram. KrishNA is also well known for the shadguna paripoornam . Alternatively , the sages being KrishNAÂ’s ardent devotees, (obvious from their questions) shouldnÂ’t be made anxious since while enlisting various avatArams of Lord Hari , innumerable number of amsAvatArams were mentioned & esp. in verses 26 & 27 this was openly enlisted ie. Sages should be assured that their darling KrishNA is neverthless "svayam bhagavAn" Sriman nArAyaNA & is not a amsAvatArA . So , Suta pourAnikar chose to use "KrishnA" in the verse 28. 4. Qtn : Is there any commentry available on Srimad BhAgavatham by Sri Vaishnava AchAryAs ? Ans : There are atleast 3 known commentries in Sanskrit . a. A commentry attributed to Sri Krishna Guru , disciple of Sri SomayAji AndAn (pre Desikan period) . b. "SukhapakshyA" by the stAlwart Sudarsana sUri of "SrutaprakAsikA" fame . c. "BhAgavatha tAtparya chandrikA " by Sri Venkata KrishnamAchAryA ( probably Late 18th Century ) . adiyen doesnÂ’t know whether the famous "VeerarAghaveeyam" is different from the third one . Neverthless it is also there . Srimad RangapriyA swAmi has translated "Uddhava GeetA" into KannadA if adiyen remembers rightly ( Sri Krishna Kalale has mentioned this ) . Ongoing tamil series in Nrusimha PriyA is also there. Someone should seriously consider publishing the sanskrit commentries of our poorvAchAryAs which are simply lying as manuscripts . Once it comes out , some bhAgavathA(s) should translate it into Tamil , English & other languages for the benifit of all bhAgavathAs. Many Nectar among nectars are being neglected somehow. The bhagavad anubhavam obtained from AzhwAr's Divya Prabandham is more than thousand times the bhagavad anubhavam that one can possibly obtained from Srimad BhAgavatham . So , this granthA is not given that much importance in our sampradAyam . Also , Vishnu purAnam is much superior to Srimad BhAgavatham while explaining tattvAs ( very crucial to interpret many Upanishadic passages ) . SarIra sarIrI bhAvA , nArAyanA tattvam , Sri tattvam etc are well established in Sri Vishnu purAnam . Moreover , it is much shorter than SB though containing almost the same thing . Infact SB of vyAsar is the expansion of VP of his father ParAsarar. Neverthless , SB is another nectar & invaluable commentries of our most merciful AchAryAs should be made available to everyone so that the true tattvam is understood by all the interested baddha jIvAtmAs . --- to be cont --- namo nArAyaNA adiyen anantha padmanAbha dAsan sarvam sri krishNArpanamastu
- Next message: Anand K Karalapakkam: "Re: dhyAna - 2"
- Previous message: V. Chandrasekaran: "Re: dhyana"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]