KrushNAstu BhagavAn Svayam
SrI:
SrImatE SrI Lakshmi Nrusimha Para BrahmaNE namaha
SrImatE rAmAnujAya namaH
namO nArAyaNa !
This posting is regarding the validity of the teaching of Gaudiya VaishnavAs (GVs) that "KrishNa
is the original Personality of Godhead and Lord nArAyaNa , other avatArams/forms are His
expansions". They quote the following verse from Srimad BhAgavatham to uphold their theory :
" ete cha amSa-kalAH pumsaH krushNastu bhagavAn svayam |
indra-ari vyaakulam lokam mruDayanti yuge yuge || "[1.3.28]
Translation by Sri A.C.BhaktivEdAnta swAmi :
"All of the above-mentioned incarnations are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary
portions of the Lord, but Lord srI KrishNa 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."
-------------
Please note that the person nArAyaNa is not the form of nArAyaNa. Lord's divine body is made of
the tattva named "Suddha Sattva". It has its own characteristics. Lord as
such is a chEtana, different from Suddha-sattva. Whenever God/ParamAtma/BhagavAn etc is
referred, it refers to the DivyAtma Swaroopa which as a chEtana has all other things
like divine form etc as its attributes. Thus, Lord nArAyaNa is not someone who is restricted to 4
hands.
Qtn 1: By the above Srimad BhAgavatham (SB) verse can one
come to the conclusion that KrishNa is the actual God and
nArAyaNa is secondary ( "expansion ?" ) to Him ?
Whenever GVs say "nArAyaNa", they refer to the four
handed form of PerumAL.
This verse doesn'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 (bhagavAn svayam) whereas others are amSAs of Lord.
This doesn't (even in the remotest sense ) imply that
nArAyaNa( either as a person or as a form) is an amsA of
KrishNa or something like that .
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 (someone inferior) of
KrishNA" it contradicts many pramAnams from VedAs
(including Upanishads), IthihAsa-purANas, pAncarAtrA etc. So,
such type of claim is obviously not supported by Scriptures.
For instance, MahOpanishad (1.1) says " yekO ha vai nArAyaNa
aasIt" { "Only nArAyaNA existed (in the beginning ie. during
praLayam) }". This means that, the "person" nArAyaNA ( who has
_inseparable_ attributes viz. chit <which is eternal ie. can't
be destructed > and achit <which is eternal>, which were in
their sookshma state during the praLayam, was the only one
existing).
---------------------
Qtn 2 : What does the "above mentioned avatArams" ( "ete" )
stand for ?
The whole issue of understanding this verse lies in the
interpretation given to the word "ete" (ie. "above mentioned").
In the previous two verses (1.3.26-27), sUtar says 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.
Now the question arises as to whether, all these incarnations
( rishis, manus and others) are actually "svayam bhagavAn" ie.
nArAyaNa Himself. To clarify that, sUtar is telling in the verse
1.3.28 that rishIs, anya dEvatAs (dEvAs), manus and others ( "
above mentioned avatArams") are not "svayam bhagavAn" ( not
" nArAyaNA Himself), but KrishNa is bhagavAn Himself. So,
obviously, SUtar wants to reiterate that rishis and others
are only amsAvatArAs (ie. They are not same as nArAyaNa) and
are different from PerumAL's svayam avatArams (like KrishNa).
In svayam avatArams like nrusimha, rAma, krishNa, it is the
same person(nArAyaNA) who is taking different forms. But, in
amsAvatArams, nArAyaNa simply bestows extrordinary powers to
a jIvAtma to achieve certain things (but, this is also counted
as a type of "avatAram", though it is not PerumAL who is directly
taking the avatAram, as in the case of svayam avatArams).
We shall later discuss in this posting as to why "KrishNa" was
chosen here by sUtar for the clarification.
-------------------------
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.
This leads to the following question :
Qtn 3: If the word "ete" ("above mentioned") is interpreted to
mean _all_ the incarnations that has been enlisted so far from
the beginning by Sage SUtar( instead of referring it to only the
avatArams like manus, rishis and others enlisted in the previous
verse 1.3.27) it leads to a conclusion that KrishNa is the _only_
poorna avatAram of nArAyaNa & all other avatArams like nrusimha ,
rAma ( which were also listed previously to verse 1.3.28) are only
His amsAvatArAs.
This obviously contradicts numerous pramAnams.
Still, Can a sensible interpretation be given, if "ete" can be
interpretted this way ?
The answer to the question lies in the "chatri nyAyam" used
in sanskrit, as commented so rightly by SrI VIrarAghavAchArya.
It is described as follows for those who don't know Sanskrit:
"chatrinO gacchanti" => a group of people having umbrellAs are
going. Actually, not everyone in that group needs to hold an
umbrella. This usage, though addresses the group as a whole, it
doesn't convey that everyone in that group has an umbrella. Thus,
according to "chatri nyAyam", eventhough the adressing be done to
the whole group, asif everyone has the same characteristic
(eg: holding the umbrella), still, it needn't convey that
_everyone_ in that group has that characteristic ie. the intention
is to just refer to those who actually posses that characteristic
(holding an umbrella), though adressing is done to the whole group
as such.
Lets see how "chatri nyAyam" is employed in this verse (1.3.28).
All avatArams of the type Nrusimha , RAma are Poorna avatArams
only, since they are taken by the same person nArAyaNa.
Eventhough all the poorna avatArms ( no umbrella) seems to be
grouped with that of many other avatArams (anupravesa / amsAvatAra
etc; with umbrellA ) by the word "ete", its actual import from the
application of "chatri nyAyam" is that the word "ete" refers only
to the amsa avatArams (with umbrella). So, the comparison of
KrishNAvatAram is strictly not with _all_ the avatArams that has
been listed before, but only with other amsa avatArams. The word
"ete", though addresses the whole group of avatArams that has been
listed so far, the intention is to refer to only those avatArams
that are amsAvatArams (with umbrella). If one fails to recognize
the "chatri nyAyam " employed, it leads him/her into a
contradiction .
--------------
The next issue is to whether his can be further explained in the
light of the "context" in which Sage sUtar uttered this verse ?
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
and 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 and got his
blessings (in form of kAlakshebams etc). Since the katAkshA of a
sadAchAryA fell unto Sage sUtar , he could understand
all the imports of the vedAs correctly and 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, lack of aisvaryam etc & will be
immersed in samsAra (materialistic pleasures) , 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 can'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. Also, Parikshit, to whom Sage Suka
narrated SB, is none other than the grandson of Arjuna, a close
associate of Lord KrishNa; Hence Parikshi was also highly
interested to know about Lord KrishNa, which Sage Suka explained.
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 nArAyaNA's
divyAtma svaroopam , He being antaryAmi of chit & achit,
etc, starts enlisting various avatArams of Sriman nArAyaNa viz.
Yoga nidra form , Brahma , 4 kumArAs, Narada , Nara NArAyaNa ,
Kapila , DattAtreya , ya~jna (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.
If the word "ete" is interpreted to refer to the amsAvatArams
of the verse 1.3.27, then, it makes proper sense.
Even if the word "ete" be interpreted to apply to all the
incarnations enlisted sofar, then by "chatri nyAyam" we can
understand the actual implication of the word "ete" (ie. it
refers only to the amsAvatArAs listed so far).
Now, a good representative from the list of poorna avatArams has
to be chosen in order to differentiate from the amsAvatArams.
The question is to why was "KrishNa" selected here and said as
"krishNAstu bhagavAN svayam" and not "rAmA is bhagavAn svayam"
OR "nrusimha is bhagavAn svayam", etc, though krishNa, rAma,
nrusimha are all the same nArAyaNa (poorna avatArams ; svayam
bhagavAn; not amsAvatArAs) ??
SUtar chose "KrishNa" because all the sages were very much eager
to know a lot about KrishNA ie. the focus of their questions was
with that avatAram. Also, KrishNA is well known for the shadguna
paripoornam. Also, the sages being KrishNA's ardent devotees (ie.
who wishes to relish the pastimes KrishNA ; pretty obvious from
their questions to sUtar), should be doubly assured that their
darling KrishNa is neverthless "svayam bhagavAn" Sriman nArAyaNa
and is not a amsAvatAra (namba krishnan svayam bhagavAn; manu,
rishi, pruthu ...avAlalAm pOla amsAvatAram illai ). So, Suta
pourAnikar chose to use "Krishna" in the verse 1.3.28 instead of
other svayam avatArams like rAmA and nrusimha.
aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan
anantapadmanAbhan.
krishNArpaNam
