Post by Jagannāth Miśra Dās on May 28, 2023 2:07:12 GMT -6
HareKrishna. Some more of my idle thoughts, this time loosely centred, or scattered around the apparent distinction existing between Narayana and Krishna, which members of this group may perhaps enjoy reading.
Toward the end of the tenth skanda Vishnu summons Krishna and Arjuna to Vaikuntha because Vishnu apparently wanted to have darasana of Krishna, which is supposed to show that Krishna is more beautiful than Vishnu; but Vishnu called for Dwaraka Krishna, not Vrindavana Krishna, thus this example does not support the notion that Vrindavana Krishna is more attractive than the Mathura or Dwaraka Krishna. When the Gopis say Krishna is more beautiful than Narayana, they are not making a distinction between Krishna and Narayana; although Bhagavan must be charmed and delighted to be rated over and above himself, and that they, the Gopis, had failed to see through his disguise. When the gopis saw Narayana, he was playing a joke on them; the four handed form is not the form they are now associated with, hence they simply did not recognise him. Even Laksmi not attaining the rāsa dance is just līlā because she, according to the first verse of the krishnakaraṇāmritam, is, by way of coordinate predication, Rādhā anyway: līlāsyambararasah labhate jayasrī, “syambara” meaning she chose her own bara, or husband, obviously referring to Laksmi choosing Vishnu as her consort. Krishna is syam bhagavan (S.B./1/3/28) only because he appears with four arms. In the beginning of the tenth skanda, it is Narayana who promises to appear, and that is what happened: and after a few years of hiding in Gokula, he then comes into his own being, assuming his original swarupa of four arms after slaying the tyrant Kamsa. The often quoted, “perfect, more perfect, most perfect,” could equally apply the other way round: in other words, he is perfect in Vraja, more perfect in Mathura, and most perfect in Dvaraka. The Vraja form is attractive because it is him, i.e. Vishnu appearing incognito. Krishna in Gokula is no one else other than Narayana, or Vishnu, as a boy, concealed in rustic cowherdmans’ attire, brahma gopla veṣam. Seeing Krishna and Narayana as different will probably be more offensive than seeing them as the same; or if perchance there is any offence to be considered here, it would be in distinguishing them, as Krishna in Vraja is just Vishnu as a child. Krishna is Narayan in hiding; and all that creates so much intriguing matter for līlā; it’s him in disguise. Even if Krishna is more beautiful than Narayana, it really does not matter because it is him, or Bhagavan Vishnu, anyway. He is not in any other role when he (Vishnu) appears as Krishna; hence we call Krishna “syama bhagavan.” Whereas in other appearances Vishnu incarnates in a diminutive stature (as Vāmana,) or as a composite figure (like Nrisiṁha,) or even as a boar, tortoise or fish. But Krishna is him, i.e. Bhagavan Vishnu Narayana. It’s an obvious inversion to try and make Krishna the source of Narayan. As far as Sridhara Sawmi is concerned, Krishna is an aṁśa of Narayana; perhaps this explains why, despite Gaurānga saying that one who does not follow “swami” (Sridhara Swami) is a harlot, we do not as yet have an unabridged English translation of Sridhara’s commentary on the Bhagavat Purana. Sridhara Swami, appearing as he did before Gaurānga, and therefore before the creation of Gaudiya doctrine, it would perhaps prove problematic for certain fanatics to appreciate many things Sridhara says. Many argue over the original swarupa of Bhagavan, but it is no reason to fall out with people; especially seeing as such matters are inconceivable to beings as Brahma and Shiva. Gaudiyas can read the first line of the Bhagavatam, oṁ namo bhagavate vāsudevāya, to mean “I offer my respects to Krishna, the son of Vasudeva,” (this is obviously incorrect as Krishna’s father is Vasudeva, not Vāsudeva) but to insist that it means that, and only that, and to then translate it like that, seems wrong to me: distorting the original intention of the author, not translating things literally, but according to their interpretations. So much of the text is inconceivable after that. If you just read it, it is plain to understand; it’s only when you interpret, that it becomes problematic. In this manner Gaudiyas have been widely accused of purposefully contradicting the Bhagavatam. Gaudiyas can imply that this is their preferential reading, but not that the text is actually saying that. Krishan līlā is merely an enactment of Narayana’s līlā. Krsna is often compared to Vishnu and this allusion upheld and maintained through out the narrative of the Bhagavatam.
Toward the end of the tenth skanda Vishnu summons Krishna and Arjuna to Vaikuntha because Vishnu apparently wanted to have darasana of Krishna, which is supposed to show that Krishna is more beautiful than Vishnu; but Vishnu called for Dwaraka Krishna, not Vrindavana Krishna, thus this example does not support the notion that Vrindavana Krishna is more attractive than the Mathura or Dwaraka Krishna. When the Gopis say Krishna is more beautiful than Narayana, they are not making a distinction between Krishna and Narayana; although Bhagavan must be charmed and delighted to be rated over and above himself, and that they, the Gopis, had failed to see through his disguise. When the gopis saw Narayana, he was playing a joke on them; the four handed form is not the form they are now associated with, hence they simply did not recognise him. Even Laksmi not attaining the rāsa dance is just līlā because she, according to the first verse of the krishnakaraṇāmritam, is, by way of coordinate predication, Rādhā anyway: līlāsyambararasah labhate jayasrī, “syambara” meaning she chose her own bara, or husband, obviously referring to Laksmi choosing Vishnu as her consort. Krishna is syam bhagavan (S.B./1/3/28) only because he appears with four arms. In the beginning of the tenth skanda, it is Narayana who promises to appear, and that is what happened: and after a few years of hiding in Gokula, he then comes into his own being, assuming his original swarupa of four arms after slaying the tyrant Kamsa. The often quoted, “perfect, more perfect, most perfect,” could equally apply the other way round: in other words, he is perfect in Vraja, more perfect in Mathura, and most perfect in Dvaraka. The Vraja form is attractive because it is him, i.e. Vishnu appearing incognito. Krishna in Gokula is no one else other than Narayana, or Vishnu, as a boy, concealed in rustic cowherdmans’ attire, brahma gopla veṣam. Seeing Krishna and Narayana as different will probably be more offensive than seeing them as the same; or if perchance there is any offence to be considered here, it would be in distinguishing them, as Krishna in Vraja is just Vishnu as a child. Krishna is Narayan in hiding; and all that creates so much intriguing matter for līlā; it’s him in disguise. Even if Krishna is more beautiful than Narayana, it really does not matter because it is him, or Bhagavan Vishnu, anyway. He is not in any other role when he (Vishnu) appears as Krishna; hence we call Krishna “syama bhagavan.” Whereas in other appearances Vishnu incarnates in a diminutive stature (as Vāmana,) or as a composite figure (like Nrisiṁha,) or even as a boar, tortoise or fish. But Krishna is him, i.e. Bhagavan Vishnu Narayana. It’s an obvious inversion to try and make Krishna the source of Narayan. As far as Sridhara Sawmi is concerned, Krishna is an aṁśa of Narayana; perhaps this explains why, despite Gaurānga saying that one who does not follow “swami” (Sridhara Swami) is a harlot, we do not as yet have an unabridged English translation of Sridhara’s commentary on the Bhagavat Purana. Sridhara Swami, appearing as he did before Gaurānga, and therefore before the creation of Gaudiya doctrine, it would perhaps prove problematic for certain fanatics to appreciate many things Sridhara says. Many argue over the original swarupa of Bhagavan, but it is no reason to fall out with people; especially seeing as such matters are inconceivable to beings as Brahma and Shiva. Gaudiyas can read the first line of the Bhagavatam, oṁ namo bhagavate vāsudevāya, to mean “I offer my respects to Krishna, the son of Vasudeva,” (this is obviously incorrect as Krishna’s father is Vasudeva, not Vāsudeva) but to insist that it means that, and only that, and to then translate it like that, seems wrong to me: distorting the original intention of the author, not translating things literally, but according to their interpretations. So much of the text is inconceivable after that. If you just read it, it is plain to understand; it’s only when you interpret, that it becomes problematic. In this manner Gaudiyas have been widely accused of purposefully contradicting the Bhagavatam. Gaudiyas can imply that this is their preferential reading, but not that the text is actually saying that. Krishan līlā is merely an enactment of Narayana’s līlā. Krsna is often compared to Vishnu and this allusion upheld and maintained through out the narrative of the Bhagavatam.