Gaudiyas vs Madhvas - Series 2

Answers by Shri Kesava Rao Tadipatri

Link to Series 1 

The following is a detailed explanation sent to me aimed to conclusively rebut the Tatvavada objections and prove beyond any doubt that Krishna is the Original bhagavan. 

KT:This indeed is not any different from many other pUrvAgraha positions like chArvAka sidhhAnta or the like. Some decide upon something and then set out to prove that. The simple aim should be to understand the purport of vedas and then do samanvaya based on that. When the infinite vedas speak of one Supreme Lord, how can one dwell on the ignorance that one form of the Lord is superior to others? Believing in the supremacy of many deities seems to be lesser form of ignorance as I am not aware of any other faith on earth, which speaks of one form of the Lord being superior to another form of the same Lord. 

Even in case of humans (who are subject to all kinds of flaws), we do not claim Mr. X in blue shirt is smarter than the same X in red shirt. Even if that happens because of some defect in X, such possibility ceases in case of the Lord, Who is free of all the flaws. I still wonder why persist in this "tamassAdhana" of differentiating various forms of the Lord. Their very starting position is defective and so it is easy to defeat their arguments even by an open minded average person of average argumentative skills. Having started the series, with the grace of Sri Hari Vayu Gurugalu, I will start to shred apart all their following arguments and may the open minds see the truth that emanates from this. 

> In SB 1.3.1, Bhagavan is said to take the form of > the purusa. This follows from the previous chapter and > the Bhagavan mentioned here is the VAsudeva feature of > the lord. 

 KT: Where is it mentioned that "feature" ? Also where is it mentioned that one "feature" of the Lord is different from other features ? Is this based on Prabhupada's (or his followers') explanation? 

  http://vedabase.net/sb/1/3/1/en 

Even this does not talk of any "features". Of course this has other defects like "improper translation" - like "expansion", etc. 

Where are the expressions for "extending His plenary expansions", "The innumerable universes are generated from the skin holes of this Karanodakasayi Vishnu, and in each one of the universes the Lord enters as Garbhodakasayi Vishnu." Where is this concept of "three purusha" (with gradation?) Also note the disharmony between "word by word" meaning, the translation and the purport. The author takes off with the wildest of explanation, unsupported by this verse or any other scriptural statement. How wise is it to proceed with the assumption of what is to be proven? 

This Purusa expands as Garbodakasayi Vishnu > in 1.3.2 and 1.3.5 says that this second purusa is the > source of all the incarnations. 

KT: Is this based on Prabhupada's (or his followers') explanation?http://vedabase.net/sb/1/3/2/en 

http://vedabase.net/sb/1/3/5/en 

These are packed with incoherence and wild explanations. Where are the expressions for "A part of the Purusha lying down", "filled half of the universe with water from His own perspiration" ? Proof of the pudding is in its eating. How can anyone rely on the explanations that are so wild and unreliable? 

From 1.3.6 onwards the > various incarnations are listed till 1.3.25. 1.3.23 > mentions Krishna and balarama too as incarnations, but > are distinguished from others by calling them Bhagavan. 

KT: Another classical example for lack of ability in 1. understanding the context 2. doing the anvaya 3. grammatical aspects 4. the knowledge of Sanskrit terms 

 1. The context is not to prove or conclude that God's some forms are better trhan His other forms. 

2. The anvaya is completely off by the author. There is no mention of "original forms" or lack there of in the verse. 

3. If Vedavyasa wanted to call "Balarama and Krishna" alone as "Bhagavan", then he must have said "bhagavantau" and not "bhagavAn". 

There is something called "dvivachana" (duals) in Sanskrit. "aharat" is also in singular and not dual. 

4. Prabhupada's version of BG says "Lord Krishna is not an incarnation of the purusha, as we learned from the beginning of this chapter. He is directly the original Personality of Godhead, and Balarama is the first plenary manifestation of the Lord. From Baladeva the first phalanx of plenary expansions, Vasudeva, Sankarshana, Aniruddha and Pradyumna, expands. Lord Sri Krishna is Vasudeva, and Baladeva is Sankarshana." If this person has understood the commentary of Acharya Madhva, he would not have created so much confusion for himself and others. 

> Then 1.3.27 mentions Manus, rishis, Prajapatis etc as > Kalas of the purusa. > JG says: > "" In the verse 1.3.28, the word "ete"(all these) > refers to the incarnations previously described in this chapter of Srimad > Bhagavatam. The word "ca"(and) is meant to include all the incarnations not > mentioned in this list. 

KT: So be it. 

The word "pumsah" means of the Supreme Personality of Godhead who expands as > the purusa-incarnations"and the words "amsa-kalah"mean plenary portions and > portions of the plenary portions." > Someone may protest: Krsna has already been > described as the twentieth in the list of incarnations. 

 KT: First let them tackle the obvious protest from us 

1. Where does it say "Supreme personality of Godhead expands as..."? 

2. Where from did they derive this "amsa-kalah" mean plenary portions and portions of the plenary portions? 

What is their understanding of this expansion, etc.? So if Vamana expands as Trivikrama, Trivikrama form is infereior to Vamana form? What a weird approach? If God is infinite in all His forms, where is the question of portions? 

For this reason, when Suta Goswami says "Krsnas tu > bhagavan" the intention is that Bhagavan refers to > Lord Vasudeva, the origin of the purusa incarnation. 

 KT: No one is objecting to "Krishna being Bhagavan". The simple statement, we wish that the Gaudiyas may see, is "All the incarnations of the Lord are Bhagavan Krishna ONLY". Why this somersault of saying that only Krishna is Bhagavan and no other form of His is Bhagavan? 

Also, why are they getting bumped off the arena with this term "BhagavAn"? Further, if they claim that Bhagavan exclusively applies here only to Krishna, but not His other forms, they are implying indirectly that who ever else is referred as Bhagavan in Bhagavata is even superior to Lord's other incarnations, which are unworthy of the title Bhagavan in lieu of ONLY Krishna seizing that! 

For ex. sUtasUta mahAbhAga vada no vadatAM vara | kathAM bhAgavatIM puNyAM yAmAha bhagavAn.h shukaH || 1-3-2 

Here Sri Shuka is addressed as Bhagavan. Thus Shuka must be superior to Lord's other forms as per the Gaudiyas. 

 To this objection we reply: The following > grammatical rule is found in the Ekadasi-tattva: "One should not state a predicate before its subject." Therefore it cannot be avoided that in this sentence Krsna is the subject and Bhagavan is the predicate. 

 KT: Allright. Let us apply your own rules. You are saying "Bhagavan" is the predicate. On what basis are you saying that "ete svAMshakalAH puMsaH" can not be the subject? 

Just like Krishna, does n't this expression also come before the predicate you are mentioning? There is one more reason why this expression is the subject. The actual verb in this compound sentence is "mR^iDayanti", which is in the plural form. Thus only this expression(ete..) has to be the subject. 

By word-jugglery no one can change the clear meaning of this verse: 

 KT: That is precisely what we are saying. Also, even if someone wishes to do the word jugglery, it need not be this pathetic as the what the Gaudiyas are doing. 

 that Krsna is the original form of the Personality of Godhead (Bhagavan) and 

 KT: What is this original and duplicate business? 

 no one can say that Lord Vasudeva assumed the form of Krsna. 

 KT: What are you trying to say? Don't you see that Lord VAsudeva is Krishna? 

 In this way this verse clearly demonstrates that Krsna is the original form of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and not merely a form expanded from Vasudeva. 

KT: Why are you swimming in the waters of "original and duplicate" , "expansion and contraction" , "gradation in various forms of God" and "one incarnation being source for His other incarnations (as if His other forms are helplessly depending on so called original form)"? 

 This verse conclusively proves that Krsna is the original Personality of Godhead and the source of all the incarnations and not simply an expansion of Visnu. 

KT: Mere repitition will not do any good. Get freed up from the fetters of JG and SP and revel at the simple meaning of 

"ete svAMshakalAH puMsaH kR^ishhNastu bhagavAn.h svayam.h | indrArivyAkulaM lokaM mR^iDayanti yugeyuge" 

 "These Self-same forms of the Lord are nothing but Bhagavan Krishna Himself, which protect the worlds oppressed by the demons (that are foes of Indra) again and again." 

 This is emphasized by the use of the word "svayam"(in person). You can see all the emphasis you like in the above sentence "Self-same, nothing but, Himself". What else do you want? Krishna is the original Godhead in person, He is not merely an expansion of the original Godhead and the status of the original Godhead is not falsely attributed to Him. 

KT: You have repeated "original Godhead" three times in the above sentence. Why? What are you trying to imply? Are His other forms Duplicates or fake? 

Someone may object: Has not Krsna already been mentioned in the list of incarnations of Godhead ? To this I reply: The rules of literary composition state: "More significant facts and facts meant to be emphasized should be placed at the end of a composition, for the final parts of a composition are naturally considered more important by the reader." 

 KT: Isn't it the most significant to think that all the forms of the Supreme Lord have to be Supreme and it is a great sin to grade them? 

Have you ever noticed the last few verses in Bhagavata? Whether you see the "Gita Press version" or the one critically edited by PPVP, you see the mention of "Hari"(and not Krishna). Does that agitate your mind (if you apply your above logic). Otoh, if you apply the vedic concept that all the forms of the Lord are same and Supreme, you can have peaceful and tranquil mind. 

Therefore, because the statement "Krsna is the > original Personality of Godhead"is placed at > the end of the list of incarnations, that is > to be stressed more than the fact that He is > also included in that list. 

 KT: For your information the Lord is present with all His names in all His incarnations and His mUlarupa at all times. It is high time to shed this ad nauseum repition of "original" (and thereby implied duplicate/fake) for the Lord. This is one of the weakest and most puerile arguments, I have ever seen. The rule of "what is placed at the end is to be considered as conclusive" applies to "a sequence of arguments", where pUrvapaxa is presented and then after a flow of arguments, the sidhhAnta is stated at the end.

It is ridiculous to apply such a rule to a list, especially when the list contains the forms of the same Supreme Being. Even in the other instances, such a rule does not stand.If a list of helpers or a list of perormers or a list of actors or a list of participants is made, it is more likely that the most important is placed at the very beginning.

Who likes to be placed at the end of the list? Thus a mere list can be random, or in the order of importance (ascending or descending), or in chronological order or in some other order. Do Gaudiyas also imply, by their very weird approach, that the one mentioned first in the list, is least important or lowest form of the Lord? You may please a four year old child, whose name is placed at the end of music performers'list, by saying "Oh your name is placed last because you are the most important one". Certainly such an argument is not meant for a mature mind.

Although Krsna is sometimes not specifically declared the original Personality of Godhead, when Krsna is counted in this (Bhagavatam, Ist Canto, 3rd Chapter)list of incarnations, He is declared the original Godhead in the phrase "bhagavan aharad bharam (The original Personality of Godhead then removed the burden of the world).

KT: "In your posting, you have used twenty times the word "original" and twice the word "origin",without presenting even a single argument, which atleast makes the reader pause and think - this is worth looking into. Your argument that "bhagavAn" means "original Personality of Godhead" and thatapplies to only Krshna" leads you to immeasurable difficulties.

1. Narasimha, Shri Rama, Hari, Narayana and other forms of the Lord are not Bhagavan.

2. Shri Shuka, who has been explicitly called Bhagavan in Bhagavata itself, is higher than the above forms of the Lord.

3. Shri Shuka is also equal to Krishna, by virtue of being Bhagavan.

4. The gurus or the saints, whoever is addressed as Bhagavan, are also equal to Krishna.

Therefore, even though counted in the list of > incarnations, Krsna is the original Personality of> Godhead who, to fill His associates with bliss and> wonder and to expand the sweetness of His birth and other pastimes, sometimes comes to this world and is seen by all.

KT: No one is disputing that Lord Krishna came to this world, on His own, to perform many divine deeds and also bless His devotees, etc. What has that to do with "original"? What is the other side of the coin?

Are the other forms of the Lord duplicate or fake? How are they deficient? Is such a thing mentioned anywhere in Bhagavata or for that matter in any of the scriptures?

The words "pumsah"(the purusa-incarnations) and "bhagavan"(the Original Personality of Godhead) are also used in this chapter of Srimad Bhagavatam (Canto one Chapter three), in the first verse (jagrhe paurusam rupam bhagavan mahad-adibhih)

KT: There is a saying in Sanskrit - pR^shhTatADanAddantabhangaH (From a smack on the back the teeth fell off).

The uasge of the words and the argument presented have no correlation at all. If one is entitled to take your kind of approach, it can also run like this -

1. Bhagavan took the form of Purusha.

2. In the very first chapter Shri Shuka was called Bhagavan.

3. So, Shri Shuka took the form of Purusha.

4. Shri Shuka is an incarnation of Rudra.

5. Thus Rudra took the Purusha form and all other

forms of Lord Hari came from there.

6. Thus Rudra is all Supreme.

and in verse 23, where the Lord is described with His brother (rama-krsnav it bhuvo bhagavan aharad bharam).

KT: I only have to feel sorry for your difficulties. You are saying Bhagavan applies to Rama (Balarama) and Krishna. Then why is not the word "Bhagavantau" used instead of Bhagavan to apply for both of them? After

this why did you drop "Balarama" like a hot potato? Thus is Balarama more than Shrirama, Vedavyasa and Narasimha?

 To refute any argument by the learned that it should be interpreted to have a different , hidden meaning, the word "bhagavan"is used twice in this chapter.""

KT: There is no hidden meaning. It is crystal clear. You don't need highly learned for understanding this. There is no need for any literary gymnastics. In fact, Bhagavan is used more than twice in this chapter and several times in Bhagavata. What does that buy you? I am shocked that JG and SP fell for this kind of silly argument or may be I shouldn't be, seeing their take in the other instances.

mR^iDayanti is in plural form and if only Krishna is meant then, it should be singular.

Here, the SV idea that 'Krishnas tu Bhagavan svayam' is mentioned to differentiate Krishna from the various kalas mentioned in 1.3.27 seems very shallow,

KT: I don't know who this SV is. If you mean "Sri Vishnupada",who exactly is he? Doesn't Prabhupada accept him as his guru? Don't Gaudiyas regard him high? Where does he say what you claim that he said? What is his time period and what are his works? You seem to disagree with SV. Atleast in this case SV seems to have some common sense (if he said what you claimed) that atleast he is seeing the context. Why are you quoting him and refuting him as well?

as the listeners, sages of naimisaranya very well know Krishna to be Bhagavan and  SAtvatAmpati (1.1.12), Yogeshvara and Brahman (1.1.23).

KT: No one is denying that Krishna is Bhagavan. Why do you say that "only that form" is Bhagavan? "He alone is Bhagavan" means "no other Caitanya (sentient being) is Bhagavan" (well the pun may be taken in good standing as well).

In his reply ... both suta goswami and the sages are well aware that Krishna is Bhagavan, definitely not a kala like manus and rishis.

KT: Very well, they may be. The question is that they want the future generations also to be aware of that. There are the following important concepts:

 1. God takes vibhinnamsha in rishis, manus, et al (as mentioned in Vibhutiyoga).

2. God takes His own Amshas like Matsya, Kurma...Sri Krishna, Buddha, Kalki, et al.

3. Only svAmshas are His own forms, but not VibhinnAmshas.

They are non-different from Lord Krishna.

4. These svAmshas protect the worlds, by destroying the evil forces.

There are some, who miss out on one of these and some on more than one. You can probably make an assessment as to how many Gaudiyas missed. Of course they are dangling on one point that is not there - Krishna alone is Bhagavan!

Suta goswami makes it very clear with the paribhasa-sutra "krishnas tu Bhagavan svayam", that He is the Original personality of Godhead.

KT: In his "paribhasa-sutra", he has chopped of the prior part and latter part, he has ignored the context, he has gone against the shruti and smriti pramana-s, he has ignored the rules of logic and grammar, and most of all shut off the common sense. "ete svamshakalAH....yuge yuge"

"These Self-same forms of the Purusha form of the Lord are nothing but the Bhagavan Krishna Himself, who (the forms) protect the world again and again, tormented by the evil demons, who are the enemies of Indra".

Isn't the stress there in "Self-same"?

Isn't the stress there in "nothing but"?

Isn't the stress there in "Himself"?

God's all names are applicable to His mUlarUpa as much as His incarnations and all His forms are presenet in all places at all times (sometimes becoming vyakta and sometimes remaining avyakta).

Regarding Krishna vs. NArAyANa, Krishna is Narayana, so there is no question of His being superior or inferior to Himself..

KT: Then why are you creating confusion to yourself and others? You can just leave it right there.

The name NarAyaNa is explained as follows: Apo nArA iti proktA Apo vai narasUnavah:  / ayanam tasya tAh: pUrvam tena nArAyaNah: smrtah:// V.P 1.4.6 . The water generated from the Lord in the beginning of creation is called nArA and He makes it His abode, thus He is called NäräyaNa. He is also called so because, a) He (näram) is the shelter of all living beings (ayanam). b) Because He knows (ayati) all beings (näram). c) Because all activities (ayanam) of  the living beings proceed from Him.

KT: Despite the shortcomings like incompleteness and lack of details about the process of derivation from the roots of the words and proper etymology, we can appreciate your attempt to understand the word Narayana.

If you read the original work of Sri VijayindratIrtha (known as "NarayanashabdArtha nirNaya"), where in the acutal derivations and pramaNa-s also are given, you will perceive what is real scholarship and also true devotion, another subliminal instance to prove the need for the confluence of true devotion and the right knowledge. This will also make the works of JG fade into insignificance. 

The question is who this personality nArayaNa is.

KT: More pertinent is the question as to what has this to do with Krishna vs. Narayana. What is the big idea in creating a ludicrous competition between Lord's one form and His other forms?

 JG establishes very clearly in Bhagavat Sandarbha that NarAyaNa is Bhagavan.

KT: Why are you causing so much confusion? If that were so, Why say that only Krishna is Bhagavan?

Various expansions are called by this name at various places:

KT: What exactly is this concept of "expansion"? Is one expansion different from another? To add insult to injury (to add chaos to confusion), Gaudiyas make free use of terms like "plenary expansion", "mere expansion" and "transcendental expansion" and make a hellish attempt to differentiate the outcomes of these. What a pity? That is why Acharya quotes in Gitabhashya from Mahabharata :

 "bibhetyalpashrutAdvedo mAmayaM prachalishhyati |"

Vedas are afraid of those who do not know or know very little about Vedas, as they will misinterpret and displace the true meaning of Vedas.

Primarily, the Lord of vaikuntha, in some places Karanodakasayi Vishnu and in many places garbhodakasayi Vishnu.

KT: Is Karanodakasayi Vishnu different from garbhodakasayi Vishnu? If you don't think so, why are you bringing this line of argument? If you claim they are, then you have a lot more to chew on. Having treaded the dangerous path of differentiating various incarnations of Narayana, now do you really wish to venture into the realm of differentiating Karanodakasayi Vishnu and garbhodakasayi Vishnu?

That will really be a uphill battle and I hope you don't even dream of it. What are your sources for drawing your conclusions? If you claim that the sources are JG, then what are his sources, especially when these are against the existing pramanas.

Now with the same kind of arguments, Gaudiya-s may also venture into saying GopikAvallabha Krishna, VAsudeva Krishna, DwArakapati krishna, PArthasArathi Krishna and VishvarUpapradarshaka Krishna and various other forms of Krishna are all different! That will be a real disaster.

As far as creation is concerned, Narayana is mostly refers to Garbodakasayi Vishnu, from whose navel lord Brahma is born and who is also described in 1.3.2 to 1.3.5 and who is four handed.

KT: If Narayana is Vishnu, what is this vague usage of term "mostly refers"? What has Lord Brahma born to Vishnu to do with present argument?

Hence, when our acharyas mention that Krishna is the source of even the four handed Narayana, it refers to Garbodakasayi Vishnu within the material world.

KT: Was it not mentioned earlier that Krishna is Narayana? Then what is this "Krishna is the source of..."? And as if that is not enough, "even the four handed" is used. What is meant by "even"? Then the explanation further uses "it refers..." - an ambiguous term. Now here Narayana refers to GarbhodakasAyi Vishnu!? Now all this is "within the material world"!? Does this mean that the reference is within the materail world or GarbhodakasAyi Vishnu is within the material world or "Krishna being the source of Narayna" is within the material world? Why is the Lord limited by this material world? This is real hopeless case.

Lord Brahma clarifies in SB 10.14.14, on the basis of his personal experience that Krishna satisfies all the above 3 definitions and hence is the Original Narayana and not the purusha avataras who are otherwise called most often.

KT: As mentioned earlier on, the 13th and 14th adhyayas are praxipta (or interpolations). However they were not introduced by the Gaudiyas and perhaps had been existing for a long time. Thus even they do not support any of the Gaudiya claims. Notwithstanding their spuriousness, I shall set out to prove the ridiculousness of Gaudiya claims.

What are the 3 definitions and where are they mentioned? How do these verses prove that Krishna is different from Narayana? In fact the verse starts with "Aren't you the Narayana?" In a sneaky way the word "Narayana" is translated as "original Narayana". Now one has to get hold of this. We do not how many kinds of "Narayana" Gaudiyas wish to claim. Naturally they like to differentiate these varous Narayana-s as well!? Now Krishna is not Purusha avatAra!? So Krishna is not the Purusha mentioned in shruti "sahasrashIrshA purushhaH shasrAxa..." !?

"...avataras who are otherwise called most often"!? What a mishmash?

In the spiritual world, the personality Narayana simultaneously has two features or forms, one which is Madhuryamaya , in goloka surrounded by cows, cowherds and cow herdesses and the other which is aishwaryamaya, in vaikuntha (paraVAsudeva) surrounded by various potencies such as Sri, Bhu, Nila and served by Garuda, Sesa, Vishvaksena etc.. Of these, the form of Krishna is even superior on the basis of rasa and hence called the Original form.

KT: Firtsly this entire goloka is a totally spurious stuff. Secondly making gradation based on rasa-s is preposterous and unsupported. Who are these insignificant mortals that venture into grading the Lord's forms without even a bit of hesitation? Does this mean Krishna is deficient in Aishvarya and VaikuNThapati is deficient in Madhurya? What is this?

 The wonderful form of Krishna is not just a display ...Leela. JG goes on to prove that...eternal as is goloka and all his associates in goloka. This abode Goloka is the highest planet in the spiritual world.

KT: How come nowhere in the shrutis, this goloka is mentioned (this being so important)?

There are numerous quotes to support this: from Hari-vamsa quoted by JG and which is also quoted by SP in CC and Padma Purana. Brahmanda purana, Skandha purana, Naradiya purana, Narada pancaratra, Devi Bhagavata and numerous tantras state how this goloka is in the spiritual world.

KT: How come no quote is provided? How come Bhagavata,which has described Sri Krishna Lila in so much detail does not even mention this "goloka"? There is no mention of it in MahabhArata.

This does not in anyway contradict the glorification of Narayana by all the scriptures.

KT: In a way it does. To claim that one form of the Lord is superior to His another form is totally unacceptable and goes against all shruti paramana-s. To see atleast one aspect of His glory, pls realize that infinity is always infinity and can not be graded.

 Regarding the tattvada interpretations, JG writes as follows: The tattvavada-gurus accept a different reading of this verse, replacing the word "ca"(and) with the word "sva"(own). They say: "The word "ete" in this verse refers to the incarnations of the Lord and the word "bhagavan svayam" refers to the Lord Himself, ...

KT: I do not know where your claim of what tatvavadis say ends.

To add to the confusion, you wrote: 

This is confirmed in the Varaha Purana:

KT: Though you like to claim that Varahapurana confirms your position, it is evident that it is confirming tatvavada position.

 "The two kinds of expansions from the Supreme

 Personality of Godhead are :

 1. svamsa (personal expansions) and  2. vibhinnamsa (separate persons).

KT: Leaving out this queer usage of "expansion" by Gaudiyas,it seems that your translation of Varahapurana also supports tatvavada. Further you keep on proceeding with statements supporting tatvavada. They go at length:

The svamsa expansions are unlimitedly powerful... In the phrase "yathavidasinah kulyah sarasah syuh sahasrasah"(The incarnations of the Lord are innumerable like rivulets flowing from inexhaustible sources of water) (1.3.26) it may be understood that, because the Lord and His expansions share the same nature, as the original Supreme Personality of Godhead is eternal, so His expansions are also eternal.

KT: Then suddenly and without any support, rhyme or reason, you change the gear -

Although Lord Vasudeva and Lord Aniuruddha are equal in all respects, Lord Aniruddha sometimes devotedly meditates on Lord Vasudeva.

KT: Not only you don't give any supporting statement for this, you also say -

To argue that this is contradicted by the Sruti-sastra is wrong.

KT: Why? Because JG says so? Or because SP says so? Is shruti so wrong that it has to be discarded so that Gaudiya statements have to get precedence over shruti?

For the Supreme Lord, who is the source of all incarnations and for all His expansions, there are gradations of higher and lower.

KT: An utterly false claim and goes against the words of Lord Krishna Himself (from Bhagavadgita):

"vidyAvinayasampanne brAhmaNe gavi hastini |

shuni chaiva shvapAke ca paNDitAH samadarshinaH || V-18"

The wise see the Lord's forms that are present inside the Brahmana filled with knowledge and humility, cow, elephant and the Chandala to be the same. If that were so, just imagine how unwise it is to see difference in the direct forms of the Lord Himself.

 This is confirmed in Srimad Bhagavatam (3.8.3-4): "Some time ago, being inquisitive to know, Sanat-kumara, the chief of the boy-saints, accompanied by other great sages, inquired exactly like you about the truths regarding Vasudeva, the Supreme, from the Lord Sankarsana, who is seated at the bottom of the universe. At that time Lord Sankarsana was meditating upon His Supreme Lord, whom the learned esteem as Lord Vasudeva."

KT: I am sorry that I am forced to cut asunder the translations given to Bhagavata verses by Gaudiyas and also point out how pathetic are SP and JG in Sanskrit grammar.

"AsInamurvyAM bhagavantamAdyaM

saN^karshhaNaM devamakuNThasatvam.h |

vivitsavastattvamataH parasya

kumAramukhyA munayo.anvapR^ichchhan.h || 3 ||

If you see the pratipadartha, translation and purport given there and if any person with some basic Sanskrit knowledge points out the flaws in there, you will be shocked.

Just couple of examples:

The incorrect translation by Gaudiyas can be seen at:

http://vedabase.net/sb/3/8/3/en

In pratipadartha, the translator translated "kumAramukhyAmunayaH" as "the boy-saint headed by great sages"(meaning the sages are given more prominence than Sanatkumara as he is headed by the sages).

Then he had no clue how to handle his own translation. So, he said "Sanatkumara, accompanied by other great sages". This way he thought that he escaped the difficulty, but this way he ignored all the grammar (pls see below). The subject is not Sanatkumara, but the great sages.

The anvaya of "tatvam ataH parasya" as "ataH parasya tatvaM" was not done. Then he (The Gaudiya translator) split into "tatvam ataH(truth like this)" and "parasya (regarding the Supreme Personality of Godhead)". How

can ataH give the meaning of "like this"? It can mean "for that reason" or "more than that".

Is it not a pity that even in such a long tradition of Gaudiya-s, there has not been one person, who has a reasonable knowledge of Sanskrit, who could step forward and rectify the situation?

We are not even talking of intricate Sanskrit grammar. It is simple singular and plural usage and simple anvaya.

"anvapR^ichchhan" is in plural. This means "more than two asked the question". Also the term "vivitsavaH" (desirous to know) is also in plural.

The term "exactly like you" is not implied in the verse and is mere extrapolation.

A simple anvaya of the verse goes like this:

kumAramukhyA munayaH urvyAM asInaM bhagavantaM AdyaM

saN^karshhaNaM devaM akuNThasatvaM ataH parasya tatvaM

vivitsavaH anvapR^ichchhan.h |

"Thereafter, the great sages headed by Sanatkumara inquired the god saN^karshhaNa, seated in pAtALaloka, who is born much earlier than them, undeterred in knowledge (of the Supreme due to his Vaishnavabhakti), with a desire to know about the tatva of one who is more Supreme than him."

Here SaN^karshhaNa refers to Sheshha only. One must not confuse between Lord's names and the names of other deities. It is to be known that Lord Hari stays in the name of Brahma in Brahma, Rudra in Rudra, Pradyumna in Pradyumna, Aniruddha in Aniruddha and saN^karshhaNa in saN^karshhaNa. We apply different etymologies for Lord and other deities. For ex.

1. In case of Lord: 1a. samhArakAle sarvANi bhUtAni svAtmAnaM prati AkarshhatIti saN^karshhaNaH "During annihilation, all beings are pulled into Him and so He is saN^karshhaNa" 

1b. samyak.h karshhatIti saN^karshhaH nayatIti naH

saN^karshhashcha asau nashcha saN^karshhaNaH

"One who has potence to pull well and also one who controls." 

1c. bhaktAnAm manaH svAtmAnaM prati aamkarshhatIti saN^karshhaNaH

"One who attracts the minds on the devotees towards Him."

 2, In case of Sheshha

2a. brahmANDadhAraNe samyak.h karshhatIti saN^karshhaNaH

"In the supporting of BrahmANda, one who makes up the gravitational force."

2b. In case of BalarAma incarnation,

"balarAmaH mAsatrayaM devakIgarbhe sthitvA tataH

anantaraM rohiNIgarbham prati durgayA samkR^shhyata"

"BalarAma after being in Devakigarbha for 3 months, gets pulled into RohiNIgarbha."

Also to be noted is that the AntaryAmi Lord of Sheshha and BalarAma (Shesha's incarnation) is also called saN^karshhaNa for doing the saN^karshhaNa kArya.

and the next verse:

(pls see : http://vedabase.net/sb/3/8/4/en for an incorrect Gaudiya translation)

svameva dhishhNyaM bahumAnayantaM

yaM vAsudevAbhidhamAmananti |

pratyagdhR^itAkshhAmbujakosham\-

IshhadunmIlayantaM vibudhodayAya || 4 ||

Basic corrections to Gaudiya translation:

dhishhNyaM does not mean "situated" (it means AdhAra or support).

"Himself thus situtated" was hard to fit in and so had to drop from the translation like a hot potato. "Amananti" does not mean "acknowledge" (It means proclaim or extoll) and in the translation, this was replaced by "meditating upon." "kosam" does not mean "eye" (it means bud). Then it

was hard to handle "eyes settled for introspection lotuslike eye" and so smudged.

 This verse has to be taken in combination of prior verse. The sages inquired Sankarshana (Shesha). The adjectives describing him are given below.

"He is meditating upon the Lord and adoring Him a lot, Who is his support and Whom the vedas and the wise proclaim and extoll as VAsudeva. He is seeing his antaryAmi Lord (and would not have liked to be disturbed) and yet for the sake of enlightening the knowledgeable sages, he opened his lotus-bud like eyes slightly." (They inquired such Shesha).

Note:

This Sankarshana (Shesha) is so absorbed in seeing the Lord with his inner eye that he closed his outer eyes (that is why they are compared to a lotus bud, rather than a flower.) "svaM" can be taken to mean svIyaM or sadAnandarUpaM or svatantraM - which will give following meanings,

   - Lord VAsudeva is his support

   - Lord VAsudeva is sadAnandarUpa and support to all

   - Lord VAsudeva is svatantra and support to all

The Lord is known as vAsudeva. This means that the Lord Sankarshana, Who is antaryami of Sankarshana (Shesha) is also known as VAsudeva. This is to emphasize that all the forms of the Lord are same. Shesha would not have liked to open his eyes (as it is a disturbance for him), but he did open skightly for enlightening the deserving souls that came there and inquired.

This verse clearly states that Lord Vasudeva is superior to Lord Sankarsana.

KT: Here one must be clear about which Sankarsana is being mentioned and hence careful.

These gradations of higher and lower do not refer to Krsna.

KT: A simple self-contradiction. If the gradations do not refer to Krishna, why are you saying Krishna is higher than His other forms? If the gradations do not apply, just say Krishna and all His forms are the same.

 The phrase krsnas tu (but Krsna) separates Him from them. Krsna is then declared to be "bhagavan svayam"(the original Supreme Personality of Godhead).

KT: "Separates Him from them" - them means whom? "them" can only mean ones mentioned just prior to that phrase (those are Manus and Rishis who are vibhinnAmshas). It is a futile struggle to dangle onto this one single misinterpretation and try to reinterpret the entire canon of Vedic literature, puranas and itihasas to comply with this single misinterpretation and in this course misinterpret a lot very unsuccessfully.

Even in the other instances, such a rule does not stand. It appears that the original poster is referring, not to vAda (where there is a pUrvapaxa or siddhAnta) or other scenarios,

KT: That is my point. Since the original poster is not referring to a vAda, why bring this reasonong "If something is placed at the end, that is to be stressed more..." 

but to upasaMhAra, which is one of the 6 tAtparya lingas: upakramopasaMhArAvabhyAso.apUrvatA phalam |

arthavAdopapattI ca liN^gaM tAtparyanirNaye ||

KT: If tatvanirNaya has to be made based on the six linga-s (signs/indications), it is also very important that a presentor of this has to bring proper correlation from Upakrama (Commencement, which can be in the form of pratij~na) to upasamhAra (conclusion). The purpose and meanings of other 4 linga-s is also to be understood properly. Otherwise their tAtparyanirNaya will only be defective. For ex, by interpreting "apUravatA vAda", the advaitins say that shAstra must say something that is not very obvious and since the jIva-Brahma bheda is obvious, the vedas and upanishads must convey their abheda only. That is a strange argument. If one applies such a rule, what about statements like "satyAnna pramaditavyaM", "dharmAnna pramaditavyaM", etc. Since it is obvious that one must not swerve from truth and dharma, do we conclude that the veda-s are saying the opposite?

"abhyAsa" is repitition and this is also not in favor of Gaudiyas as their way of "kR^ishhNastu bhagavAn svayam.h"

is not repeated in another place in a way they like to have. ArthavAda is also not in their favor and their upapatti is shown to be defective.

JG says the following in his Krishna sandarbha:  ataH shrI kR^iShNasyaivAdhikyaM siddham | ata eva "asad vyapadeshAnneticenna dharmAntareNa vAkya-sheShAd.h" [BS. 2.1.17] iti nyAyAd upasaMhArasyaivopakramArthasya ca sarva-shAstrArthatvAt tatroktaM vishvarUpam abhi tadadhInAm eva |

KT: I think it must be a typo - 'abhi' should be 'api', I guess.

Let us look at two things.

1. The Upakrama itself

2. The argument that precedes the above statement (since he

is concluding "ataH = for this reason"). What is that reason?

1. In the beginning of Krishna sandarbha, JG says:

"Having established all supremacy of the Lord by the prior three sandarbhas (tatvasandarbha, Bhagavata sandarbha and Paramatma sandarbha), this Krishna sandarbha is commenced for  procuring the knowledge about the Lord (There are six sandarbha-s, the next two being Bhakti sandarbha and Priti sandarbha.)

Then he proceeds on the wrong footing that the purpose of the question of Shaunaka and others to Suta is to find out how many God's incarnations/forms are there and which one of them is the greatest.

Having taken this turn, the rest of the arguments proceed with this defect and every statement that speaks of the greatness of Krishna is automatically translated to "other forms of the Lord do not have these special abilities". This is a gross mistake as such a thing is not mentioned anywhere.

2. Here he quotes Gita 7-30, which does not undermine other forms of the Lord. Then look at his arthavAda.To drive his point, he gives the example of DroNa and AshvatthAma (during the incident when AshvatthAma is brought to Draupadi). "Just as DroNa is present in the form of his son AshvatthAma" (Draupadi says this and asks Arjuna to untie AshvatthAma). Though DroNa is present in AshvatthAma, he is superior to AshvatthAma and similarly thogh Krishna is present in all His other forms, He is superior to all His other forms. I don't have to point out the defect in this kind of argument as it is quite evident.

Then he goes with another argument. Just as there is "bhajanIya tAratamya", there is also "upadesha tAratamya". Since Krishna's Upadesha is treated as highest, He is to be treated highest (of His forms). The whole concept of tAratamya is overhauled. The defect is self-evident. The purpose is to establish His superiority over other deities and not over Himself or over His own forms.Then what good is it to say "for this reason" and for the reason that all the shastras teach this, Krishna's supremacy is established"? Again the million dollar question is "Krishna's supremacy over what?". No one denies that He is higher than other deities. Does it make sense to say He is higher than Himself? Then what happens to His title "anabhyadhikasama"?

Regarding the objection of 'mRDayanti' being in plural, JG offers the following criticism:  indrArIti padyArdhaM tatra nAnveti | tu-shabdena vAkyasya bhedanAt | tac ca tAvataivAkAN^kShA- paripUrteH | eka-vAkyatve tu ca-shabda

evAkariShyat | tatash cendrArIty atrArthAt ta eva pUrvoktA eva mR^iDayantIty AyAti | For a quick reference, the verse is as follows

ete svAMshakalAH puMsaH kR^ishhNastu bhagavAn.h svayam.h | indrArivyAkulaM lokaM mR^iDayanti yugeyuge || 1.3.28||

 "The hemistich beginning with 'indrAri' does not fit there (with the previous half: ete chAmshakalA pumsA kRSNastu bhagavAn svayaM). The word 'tu' indicates the ending of the sentence. And just by that (i.e. the previous half itself), the AkANkSha is fulfilled i.e. there is no need to specify the later half. And if they (those two parts) were to be part of one sentence, the word 'cha' should have been used. Only then, one would obtain the meaning of the line 'indrAri vyAkulaM..' as "they, the ones previously mentioned, protect the world troubled by the enemies of Indra". In short, JG makes the following points: a. The verb "mRDayanti" belongs to a different line, and not as a continuation of 'kRSNastu bhagavAn svayaM'. Therefore our demand that the subject should also be in plural is invalid. b. If mRDayanti were to fit in with the first half, the word 'cha' and not 'tu' should have been used.

KT: With this kind of explanation JG is hurting himself. I will use his own points to show how he acually lands up in a quagmire.

Now let us take just three verses 1-3-26 to 1-3-28. Also, I will take their pATha of "chAMshakalAH" and establish that even with that pATha, their mode of interpretation cannot be reached and their pATha also clearly establishes tatvavAda position only.

avatArA hyasaN^khyeyA hareH satvanidherdvijAH |

yathA vidAsinaH kulyAH sarasaH syuH sahasrashaH || 26 ||

R^ishhayo manavo devA manuputrA mahaujasaH |

kalAH sarve harereva saprajApatayaH smR^itAH || 27 ||

ete chAMshakalAH puMsaH kR^ishhNastu bhagavAn.h svayam.h |

indrArivyAkulaM lokaM mR^iDayanti yugeyuge || 28 ||

Let us see their version:

(The translations are from the following url:and are enclosed between '======' signs.

http://vedabase.net/sb/1/3/26/en

http://vedabase.net/sb/1/3/27/en

http://vedabase.net/sb/1/3/28/en)

===================

26. O brahman?as, the incarnations of the Lord are innumerable, like rivulets flowing from inexhaustible sources of water. 

27. All the r?s?is, Manus, demigods and descendants of Manu, who are especially powerful, are plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord. This also includes the Prajapatis.

28. All of the above-mentioned incarnations are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord Sri Kr?s?n?a 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.

====================

There are translation errors, which is a minor issue in the current discussion and so I will not touch upon for now. Let us just concentrate on the logical problems in their approach.

What is meant by "plenary portion"? Is it "svAMsha" or "bhinnAMsha" or something else? And then what is meant by "portion of a plenary portion".

Why use such ambiguous terms?

In their line of argument, we have 3 classes/groupings.

1. All the demigods, saints and gods, in whom God has special presence (as Krishna said in Vibhutiyoga in BG).

2. All the incarnations of the Lord.

3. Lord Krishna.

A. According to them, if tatvavada position is desired, then "cha" should have been used. Their pATha has "cha" (ete cha aMshakalAH puMshaH...). If they claim "cha" should be in the place of "tu", the simple thing is the specialty of Sanskrit language allows rearrangement of words.

However their very claim is wrong. If "cha" is used and there is no "tu" at all, then the whole thing becomes ridiculous as with only "cha", the double mention of Krishna brings in a flaw of redundancy. Thus with "tu" the

tatvavada position alone holds. 

B. "tu" is for "avadhAraNa" and speaks out distinction. There is only one "tu", which means only one distinction can be taken. They preferred to have distinction between 2 and 3 and let 1 and 2 be clubbed together, rather than

having distinction between 1 and 2 and let 2 and 3 be clubbed together. What a damage!

C. According to them, "tu" indicates the ending of the sentence. Thus verse 28 should be translated:

"All of these (above-mentioned) are also incarnations of the Lord. Lord Sri Kr?s?n?a is the original Personality of Godhead. ? protect the worlds tormented by  the enemies of Indra, again and again."

Since "tu" has caused the end of the sentence, the last leg remains without a subject(kartA) and thus I used "?". It is quite inappropriate to borrow it from prior verse. If there is a break between prior verse and first hemistitch, what to speak of the break between prior verse and the second hemistitch of this verse - tattu siddhameva.

Thus the very argument of "tu causing a break" does cause a break in their own argument.

On the contrary, even with their pATha:

"ete puMsaH aMshakalAH tu svayam.h bhagavAn.h kR^ishhNaH

yugeyuge indrArivyAkulaM lokaM mR^iDayanti cha |"

"These incarnations of Purusha are Lord Krishna Himself and also again and again protect the worlds, tormented by the daitya-s, who are enemies of Indra."

From the above it is evident that only the ones that satisfy the above criteria have to be taken and naturally we don't include the rishis and manus there.

KT: My flow of argument has taken a branching. My next part will answer Krishna's rest of the mail and then I will continue with the reply to the original poster.

JG says the following in his Krishna sandarbha: ataH shrI kR^iShNasyaivAdhikyaM siddham | ata eva "asad vyapadeshAnneticenna dharmAntareNa vAkya-sheShAd.h" [BS. 2.1.17] iti nyAyAdupasaMhArasyaivopakramArthasya ca sarva-shAstrArthatvAt tatroktaM vishvarUpam abhi tadadhInAm eva |

KT: First of all JG picked a wrong BS, which infact goes against their argument. The sutra is saying  -

If one claims that nothing existed because of shruti sentence

"nAsadAsInno sadAsIt (neither 'sat' existed nor 'asat' existed)", it is not so, as one must see the rest of the shruti vAkya "tama AsIt.h".

In other words the BS is saying "don't take a part of a statement, but take it fully". Here also Gaudiyas must realize that we have to take the rest of the statement following "kR^ishhNastu bhagavAn svayaM". (like indrArivyAkulaM lokaM mR^iDayanti....").

This is also a clear warning that they need to do "samanvaya (consistency check)".

Infact if JG wanted to pick a BS which speaks of upasamhAra, he should have picked the BS (2-1-25). Of course, if we look at it, we realize why he did not pick that. That sutra infact completely throws out their argument out of the window. That means our refutation of their statement is irrefutable.

"OM upasamhAradarshhanAnneti chenna xIravaddhi OM".

"If one says that jIva has doership as seen by the upasamhAra (conclusion of action), then it is not so as in the case of milk".

In other words, it is saying "you better be not fooled by the apparent conclusive statement or upasamhAra".

If we apply that here, we should not be fooled by the apparent meaning of "kR^ishhNastu bhagavan svayam.h" as given by the Gaudiyas.

To explain the BS - it is quite apparent from the act of milking that the cow has made the milk and the person who milked the cow has the doership also. Strictly speaking neither of the two have any doership. It is the prANa (in both cases) that has full doership. So, see beyond what is apparent. For this sarva-shAstra-samanvaya is important.

This idea of 'paribhASha' is puzzling.

KT: Need not. We are not new to "kind of fighting this approach". Actually "paribhAsha" can be understood as "maxim" or "axiom". In other words, a statement (or a set of statements are taken as ultimate authority) and everything else must come under this umbrella. Advaitis have taken MahavAkyas" as paribhAsha and everything must be fitted to this.

Shaivites have taken "Shiva supremacy" as paribhAshha. Gaudiyas did the exact the same thing. Only thing is instead of a set of statements - they have one statement. This does not mean that they don't use other things. They do use six linga-s and other logical tools - but they all must support their basic

principle. If not, they just reject the opposing statements - like "advaitis calling them vyAvahArika" or "Gaudiyas turning a blind eye to the shrutis".

or "Shaites turning a blind eye to statements of VishhNu supremacy." Well the natural boomerang is "Aren't Vaishhnava- turning blind eye to Shiva

supremacy?" Not really. Those statements are taken and reasons are explained as to whether they are to be rejected or reinterpreted.

Do you know the source of this?

KT: The source is just "durAgraha" (why? - see below)

 Is this accepted by anybody else?

KT: I guess you mean "this approach". Each one who depends on a limited subset without a logical reason has one's own approach. In that case each one accepts his own approach.

It is clear that the other accepted tAtparyalingas of abhyAsa, upakrama etc are thrown to winds by JG.

KT: Not all the time. Only when their paribhAsha is questioned, they do that. Now let us see "why this is durAgraha". When a school chooses the path of paribhAshha, it is subject to the following flaws.

1. Every one claims liberty to decide which statements are picked as "paribhAsha" (or axiom).

2. While picking this "paribhAshha", one can even claim the liberty to take partial sentences (by chopping the earlier part or latter part or both of a full statement).

3. The need is felt to be only to do samanvaya selectively and sarva-shAstra-samanvaya left out. 

Or else it is done in sneaky ways (like just calling vyAvahArika or the like, with no supporting pramana-s). These flaws can, in theory, lead to many defective siddhAnta-s.

> Regarding the question of Purna avatara, both RG and JG discuss this: JG says, ""The Padma Purana Uttara-khanda explains: nrsimha-rama-krsnesu sad-gunya-paripuranam.  "The six opulences of wealth, strength, fame, beauty, knowledge and renunciation are fully present in the forms of Lord Nrsimha, Rama and Krsna."

KT: What a self-contradiction? If all display fully, why compare them? I think you must understand what "fully" means.

Although all the forms of the Personality of Godhead fully display these six opulences, these three forms are singled out as especially displaying them.

KT: What a silly argument? If PadmapurANa should not single out some forms of the Lord, then it should list all the forms of the Lord. There are infinite forms of the Lord. So the work should list those infinite forms of the Lord!?

 Because the most significant word "nrsimha-rama-krsnesu" is a dvandva-compound and because the most important word is generally placed at the end of a compound-word,

KT: Is it? What about the expressions that come in Bhagavata itself

"kR^ishhNArjunabalAdibhiH" and "kR^ishhNArjunavR^ikodarAn.h"?

They are also dvandva-compounds. Does it mean arjuna is more thanKrishna? Does it mean Bhima is more than Krishna? Why such silly arguments?

we may conclude that because Krsna is placed at the end of this compound, He is the most important of all the forms of the Lord.""

KT: Wow! An assumption is made and right away it is concluded?

Srila RG quotes VP (4.15.1-17) to say how the two demons hiranyakasipu and hiranyAksa could attain the lord because they thought of Him in hatred, only with the form of Krishna not with the forms of Rama or Nrsimha.

KT: This is another big mess that Gaudiyas landed themselves in. They assumed by wrongly concluding that those who have hatred towards the Lord also go to moxa, just because they constantly think of the Lord. This issue was dealt in depth by our Acharya on the basis of Jivadvaya vAda. Some one "possessed by a spirit" is a well known concept even in western faiths. It is quite possible for two jIvas to live in one body. If one jIva constantly hates the Lord, he will go to andhatamas and the one who is constantly devoted to the Lord goes to mukti. It is ridiculous to say that both get the same result.

Is it not Asuric tendency to see the difference between various forms of the Lord. If that were the case, where is the wonder that they see the difference?

Is RG trying to imply that they got better off by hating Krishna than hating Narasimha? How do those asuras know verious forms of the Lord?

Tatvavada condemns strongly the thought that one can attain moxa by hating the Lord.

JG says : According to the descriptions of the Vedic literatures, although the enemies of the Supreme Lord attain liberation by constantly thinking of the Lord..

KT: Nowhere in vedic literature is it mentioned that the enemies of the Lord attain liberation. That is against shrutipramana-s. It is like saying a criminal is punished ifhe commits crimes occasionally, but he will not only be spared but will be given highest honor if he commits constant crime, but thinking of his king all the time or something like that.

By killing and liberating these demons, Lord Krishna reveals His transcendental opulence, greater than the opulence of any other form of the Personality of Godhead.

KT: It is an extremely sinful act to compare the opulence of various forms of the Lord. His opulence is greater than that of other deities.

These statements are all confirmed by the explanations spoken by Parasara Muni and recorded in the Vishnu Purana.

KT: Misunderstandings should not be misconstrued as confirmations.

When Lord Krsna considered how Putana and other demons had already become liberated, He began to suspect that perhaps Kalanemi and the other remaining demons would not attain liberation.

KT: What a helpless situation for the Lord? He had no clue as to what is happening? Why should an Omniscient Being suspect? Who is the decision maker here? There is no "perhaps" in the dictionary of the Lord. I think this is real berserk. This seems more like "Vishnumohana". Terrible!

This possibility became completely intolerable for the Lord.

KT: Doesn't the Lord decide the possibility? How can something be a possibility if it is intolerable to the Lord. This is oxymoron. What is intolerable to the Lord is to say that "He is deluded or puzzled in this way".

 Parasara muni said (Visnu Purana 4.15.9): "The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Krsna, freely gave liberation to the demons who, although full of hatred for Him, somehow became immersed in remembering Him or talking about Him. If the Lord gave to these demons liberation, which is ordinarily very difficult for them, or even for the demigods or anyone else to achieve, then how shall we be able to describe the benediction He gave to the pure devotees full of love for Him ? "The Srimad Bhagavatam explains that Jaya and Vijaya were cursed to take three births as demons. We may note in this connection that they were ultimately liberated by Krsna. Their liberation was possible only from the hand of Krsna and not from any other form of the Lord.

KT: It is a gross misunderstanding. Just see chapter 14 of BG; Krishna's own words should open your eyes. Why do you wish to contradict Krishna's own words. Even the translation from Gaudiyas (for BG) clearly indicates this fact. The kaimutyanyAya is this way. If those who share the body with the demons (and yet constantly think of the Lord with devotion) get such great benefit, what to speak of those who constanly are devoted to the Lord without sharing those of hatred? - Meaning they will be even more benefited.

There is no difference Krishna and His other forms. Jaya and Vijaya had to be born only 3 times and in Krishna's incarnation, that was satisfied and so, they went to moxa. Lord Rama also gave moxa and Vedavyasa also gave moxa (even to a kITa after making it/him a king with a different body). So, pls don't make wrong conclusions. Note that not all who were killed by Krishna got moxa.

 Even demons who are killed by Lord Krsna, ... * skipped *think of Him at the time of death in a spirit of enmity, attain liberation.

KT:Pls see above. Hatred of the Lord is bad. Period. "As you sow, so you reap" is seen even in the west. If that were not so, God will have to be attributedflaws like "vaishhamya, nirghR^inya". That will be terrible and unacceptable.

 This is confirmed by Narada Muni in the following verse of S.B. (11.5.48): "Kings like Sisupala, Paundraka and Salva meditated in envy upon the movements, playful gestures, glances and other attractions displayed by Lord Krsna. Thus fixing their minds while engaged in lying down, sitting and in all activities, they attained a status equal to His.

KT: First of all "vaira" is enemity and not envy. No one can attain a status equal to His. Here also SAmyaM means "similarity" only and not equality. Further the good souls in there obtain sadgati, not the eveil ones. For confirmation of this, see bR^ihatsamhita -

"pauNDrakAdishhu daityeshhu surAMshAH santi sarvashhaH".

"In the demons like Paundraka, the amshas of gods are also present in all respects." They are the ones who go to moxa.

How then to compare with those whose minds are naturally attached to Him in a favourable mood ? "

KT: Pls see above for kaimutyanyAya explained.

It is also confirmed by Lord Brahma in these words (S.B. 2.7.34):"All demonic personalities like Pralamba, Dhenuka,Baka, Kesi, Arista, Canura, Mustika, Kuvalayapida elephant, Kamsa, Yavana, Narakasura and Paundraka, great marshals like Salva, Dvivida monkey and Balvala,> * skipped *...His personal abode in the Vaikuntha planets."

KT: Pls see above. It is two jIvas in one body. Also note that even andhatamas is also inside the Lord only. In that ense all enter the Lord only.

By His own transcendental potency, Lord Krsna can grant liberation to anyone, regardless of how they think of Him.

KT: Wll, if you mean that going to andhatamas is also liberation, then that part is fine.

It is only Lord Krsna who will always grant liberation to the demons killed by Him. If one is thinking of Lord Krsna, even adversely, at the time of death, he will certainly become liberated.

KT: 1. There is no difference between Krishna and His other forms.

2. Thinking adversely of the Lord at the time of death will lead to andhatamas and not moxa.

If one hatefully thinks of any other from of the Lord at the time of death, he may not necessarily become liberated. For example, the demon Vena was unable to think of the form of Sri Krsna at the time of his death, and therefore the demon did not attain liberation.

KT: One has to go by pramana-s and cannot indulge in wild guesses as to what one is thinking at the time of death. There is no difference between Krishna and His other forms. Also note that Vena is born again as Paundraka and it is ridiculous to talk as if Vena and Paundraka had different destinations. In both the births, he claimed that he is the Lord. That is jIvasvabhAva.

 One who, at the time of his death meditated on the Personality of Godhead in a spirit of animosity is only assured of liberation if the object of his meditation is specifically the form of Sri Krsna.

KT: That is ridiculous and against all the pramana-s. It is contrary to common sense.

 Because liberation is attainable even for one who remembers the form of Sri Krsna, even in a spirit of animosity, it is said in the Srimad-Bhagavatam (7.1.33)  "Therefore one must somehow think of Krishna, whether in a friendly way, or inimically."

This is what happens if superficial meanings are taken. When the context is to speak of glory of devotion,why extoll animosity?

RG writes: Considering his explanation that (this demon) attained liberation from the pastimes of child (Krishna), but when he was in the form of Kalanemi or other forms did not attain liberation from the Lord's activities in other circumstances,

KT: Kalanemi never attained liberation - not even during or after Krishnavatara. The Ishopanishad says :

"andhamtamaH pravishanti ye avidyAmupAsate..."

kAlanemi had wrong knowledge and those who have hatred for the Lord have wrong knowledge and they are bound to go on a path that does not lead to moxa.

"nAnyaH panthA ayanAya vidyate".

(There is no way to moxa, other than the path of right kind of knowledge).

These Agamic prammANa-s make stronger what comes to one's common sense as well. 

(Parasara) said , "ayam hi bhagavan" (Krishna is certainly the Supreme Personality of Godhead).

KT: Of course. What this means is that those who are other than Krishna are not Supreme Lord. This does not mean Krishna in His other forms is not the Supreme Lord. This is another point of common sense, which RG missed completely.

 In this passage Parasara did not mention the Lord's wo associates that took birth three times in the world.

KT: Whether mentioned or not, what has this to do with current discussion?

These two associates are not thought to take birth in every kalpa for then they would fall down in every kalpa.

KT: What has taking birth in every kalpa to do with falling down in every kalpa? Totally disjointed arguments.

That is not an acceptable idea. What is not an acceptable idea ? What is the idea in fact? RG also analyses the issue of gradation between various forms of the Lord. He says: It may be said: Because He is the Supreme Lord, all His forms are perfect and complete. Still, He does not show all His potencies in His forms.

KT: This is pure conjecture and misplaced argument. Who are these insignificant mortals, who tend to pass judgements on what potencies Lord shows or what His intentions are?

When a small measure of His potencies is manifest, (His form) is called amsa-avatara. When by His wish many different potencies are manifest, (His form is called) purna-avatara.

KT: If someone claims any kind of connection to Madhva sampradaya, one of the first lessons will be to understand the shrutivAkya:

"pUrNamadaH pUrnamidaM pUrNAtpUrNamudachyate |

pUrNasya pUrNamAdAya pUrNamevAvashishhyate ||"

The Lord in His every form is "pUrNa" (complete and infinite).

Opulence, sweetness, mercy, and strength are prominent among His many potencies.

KT: These are loose statements without any justification.

(The different forms of the Supreme Lord are considered) more or less complete according to the extent to which His various potencies are manifest or not manifest.

KT: Even a politician does not talk this kind of language. Why does a person talk of "more or less" in case of God. What is manifest or not is God's will. Why make a ridiculous effort to judge the God?

A small lamp and a great fire are equally effective in burning a house or something else, but only the great fire brings relief from the sufferings of cold weather.

KT: Examples are given to understand a theory. They are not given to establish a theory. A great fire can bring relief or cause grief. How silly it is to say : "Just as there is difference between small lamp and great fire, there is difference between Krishna and Rama or Narasimha" !

 In the same way, the more the Supreme Lord manifests His transcendental qualities, the more the devotees and living entities in general find relief from the cycle of birth and death.

KT: This is a very ridiculous statement. This goes against all existing pramANas. This statement has too many flaws. One speaks of "relief from the cycle of birth and death" or "no relief". What does it mean by "more relief"?

Why should the Lord manifest different levels of His transcendental qualities? Why should that factor control the amount of relief? Mathematically speaking, the notation can be something like this. Let X be the amount of manifestation and Y the amount of relief for the devotees.

As X increases, Y increases and as X decreases Y decreases. This kind of approach has inherent flaws. Be rest assured X is infinite (A devotee may perceive more or less based on its ability. God is always infinite). Y is a boolean factor(true or false). Either jIva gets relief or no relief from the cycle.

I've been following this discussion for a long time, whether Bhagavan and his forms are one and the same... I feel things are not as simple as all that.

KT: They are not. If they were so, there would not have been centuries long discussions on that subject. That is why Acharya rightly said - "tanna kiM na" iti vidvatsu mImAmsitaM. When it comes to any aspect of the Lord, discussions start among vidvAns (or even others) "that is true or that is not true. If it is true why and if not why not..." and so on.

 For instance, even though Krishna and Rama are one, we don't say Krishna went to the forest, or that Rama killed Sishupal. It's because we do perceive a difference and even though we call it 'visesha', why can't that visesha, far from being a separate padartha, be another form of bheda?

KT: Of course, we don't say that Krishna went to forest or Rama killed ShishupAla, but the wise see that they are non-different and even to see that one needs the grace of the Lord. Remember shyamantakopAkhyAna. Even a great j~nAni like Jambavanta fights with Sri Krishna (of course he wished for that just to enjoy such pastime of the Lord). Then Krishna appears in the form of Sri Rama to Jambavanta and blesses him. Thus there exists a difference between our perceiving a difference and a difference in potencies of various forms of the Lord. The former is our limitation and the latter is Lord's limitation. Thus the former is understandable and the latter is unacceptable. This concept is not very simple and yet it is simple. Not only the scriptures proclaim that the Lord is limitless, the devotees agree on that too. Yet, by the very will of God, some of the same devotees knowingly or unknowingly attribute the limitedness to some forms, gratifying themselves that attributing limitlessness to one of the forms of the Lord redeems them from the pitfalls of other kinds of ignorance. 

If the claim were that some forms manifest or show some abilities and some don't, that is fine. We ourselves perceive that some are "balakArya avatAra-s" and some "j~nAnakArya avatAra-s" and so on. However claiming that some have potencies and some don't and that too use some slipshod arguments of "mAdhuryarasa" as if they are aware which forms lack what qualities and how much is a little too much.

 While Visheshha does speak of the difference from one entity to another, the same visheshha also speaks of non-difference between one entity and itself. Then what about Rama and Krishna, where we do not attribute the LIla of one form to another? That is where the concept of "savisheshha abheda" comes. We speak of difference, where there really is no difference. How is that possible? This is how.

 If one asks a question - Could Sri Rama kill ShishupAla or Could Sri Krishna perform the LIla of going to the forest, the answer is plain simple "yes". Then why does the Lord behave differently? The answer comes from Sri Krishna Himself. Pls see the verses 21-23 of 3rd chapter of Gita.

yadyadAcharati shreShThastattadevetaro janaH | sa yatpramANaM kurute lokastadanuvartate || 3-21||

na me pArthAsti kartavyaM triShu lokeShu kiJNchana | nAnavAptamavAptavyaM varta eva cha karmaNi || 3-22||

yadi hyahaM na varteyaM jAtu karmaNyatandritaH | 

mama vartmAnuvartante manuShyAH pArtha sarvashaH || 3-23||

The gist of this is that Even though there is no need for the Lord to do any thing, He does it to show the way for others.

The important thing is that one must do his duty. The Lord does exactly what He thinks is appropriate for that AvatAra. Just because He does certain things, why are this mortals branding that He has some abilities during some course of some forms or some such similar unacceptable things?

Or, is difference beteen Lord's forms maya? If it is, can all differences, including the difference between jiva and Iswara, be rejected as maya?

KT: That is what exactly is "MAyAvAda". On the surface of it itself, one can perceive where one lands. Yet some/many relish that.

There may be many more questions such as these, bottom line, it is a complicated subject matter and there's no easy answer. Discussions can only take you so far.

KT: Absolutely. Finally the solace comes from one thing "yamaiveshha vR^iNute tena labhyaH". If God blesses, one gains be it the knowledge or be it moxa, or be it anything else. One can only take the horse to the water. It depends on the horse (and antaryAmi ParamAtma), whether it drinks the water or not.

Just one small query, though. Let's consider an apple. Whole=Apple=Vishnu ,Part1=color=Krishna=madhurya, Part2=shape=Rama=karuna, part3=taste=Narasimha=bala. Even though whole=part1=part2=part3, which means apple=color=shape=taste, still part1 represents color, even though it is one with shape (part2) and taste (part3). Similarly, can we say rama is karuna, even though he contains bala and other attributes? I am not sure if I am making myself clear.

KT: The appleness of say apple A1 is an aggregate of all its attributes. its own color is inseparable from its own shape, etc. One may say "well if you peel the apple, the color is gone; you cut the apple, the shape is gone, you dry the apple the taste is gone, etc.". The thing is the resulting ones are "peeled apple, cut apple, dried apple", which are vikAra forms of original apple.

One may see the taste of apple A1 to be lot closer to the taste of apple A2 than to the color or shape of A1 itself. The aggregate of the attributes of a substance is what gives its own uniqueness. Trying to bring the above kind of analogy twists our vision or thinking. The physical attributes can undergo "vikAra" or mutation.

The sentient entity, ParamAtma has no "vikAra" or mutation. When there is no question of "dehadhAraNa" in His incarnations, there is no question of any kind of variation, be in terms of mAdhurya or vIrya, or bala or any other quality.

Even though color and shape and taste are one,

KT: They are one in the sense that they are inseaparable and they in aggregation define the apple.

we still refer to the red thing as color and to the sweet sensation as taste. Likewise, even though Rama and Krishna are one and the same, is it correct to refer to Krishna as madhurya form of Vishnu, even if that form is one with every other form, every other attribute?

KT: In case of infinity, all the qualities converge. One kind of infinity cannot be different from other kind or else it is not infinity at all. The limitation of any kind must cease at once.

It seems Vishesha does permit that. If one argues that Krishna cannot be restricted to madhurya, then it's tantamount to saying color (of the apple) cannot be reduced to redness, which means there is no basis for its existence.

KT: The problem with this approach is two fold. The physical attributes are taken as one-to-one relation with non-physical attributes. The second thing is that those who argue for supremacy of one form over another do claim that Krishna cannot be restricted to mAdhurya.

It is hard to extend your "imaginative horizon", to apprehend an infinite entity and no example can lead one anywhere even close to it.

The only reason why some of His incarnations intend to show "balakArya" and some "jn~AnakArya", etc. are purely His will, unlike even other gods, what to speak of mortals. The variation in His manifestation is purely His lIla and this becomes quite evident if one gets some hint of His independence.

Infinite and Independent Sentient entity cannot have any kind of fluctuation.

 Shri KrishNarpanmastu !

Link to Series 1 

Other Websites of Tadipatri Gurukula:

sites.google.com/site/madhwaprameyaqa/
Follow on: https://soundcloud.com/shriharivayu-gurugalu 
Paata recordings also available at 
http://www.sujnanaprapti.org/portal/tiki-list_file_gallery.php
Subscribe: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCE-8TjZt6JQ3pQwyp6kEOjw
Facebook grp- https://www.facebook.com/groups/1416358585310116/
Join Telegram grp: https://t.me/joinchat/SJkC7fPy4D6Y6pvM