Pariprashnena — Q&A Archive

Krsna Upanisad 2.6 could be interpreted as related to Nityananda Rama and Ramanuja.

Wasnt Krsna-upanisad written just after Ramanujacaryas times?

Can you refer to any scholarly datation attempts?

From the Garga Samhita, Canto 10, chapter 61:

23.
vamanas vidih sesah sanako visnu vakyatah
dharmartha hetave caite bhavisyanti dvijah kalau

Vamana, Brahma, Ananta Sesha and Sanaka Kumara will appear as brahmanas by the order of Visnu, for the preservation of eternal righteousness in kali yuga.

24.
visnuswami vamanangsastatha madhvastu brahmanah
ramanujastu sesangsa nimbaditya sanakasya ca

Visnuswami, Madhvacarya, Ramanuja and Nimbaditya will appear respectively as a portion of Vamana, Brahma, Ananta Sesha and Sanaka Kumara.

25.
These four saviours will be the establishers of the four authorised and empowered spiritual channels of disciplic succession in the period calculated from the reign of King Vikrama in 54 B.C. subsequently through the 432,000 year cycle of kali yuga.

ete kalau yuge bhavyah sampradaya pravartakah
samvatsare vikrama catvarah ksiti pavanah

26.
These four authorised and empowered spiritual channels of disciplic succession are to be fully accepted by all beings; as any word, combination of words or formulation of sound frequencies, invoked or addressed, audible or inaudible, secret or revealed, ancient or contemporary outside their auspices prove to have absolutely no efficacy.

sampradaya vihina ye mantraste nisphalah smritah
tasmacca gamanang hyasti sampradaya narairapi

veda: I was mainly taking if from the perspective that Narasimha upanisad is considered the earliest (??) by some of the same batch and it is related to Gopa Tapani dating. We know that the dating itself is hard, it is part of 108 principal Upanishads (but the list itself is not final until a later date). The Upanishads were not fully recorded until 1656, at the order of Dara Shikoh Krsna upanisad is certainly commented by Upanishad Brahmayogin but that is very late. However did Ramanuja himself ever quoted Krsna upanishad or even Gopala Tapani? No. (Or better I do not know of any instances). Because I do not know if Ramanuja ever quoted it and I know that Madhvas quote mAyayA mohotAM jagat (krsna 12) I suggest it was finalized after just after Ramanuja. (Again a guess...) Now did that part of the Krsna Upanisad ever got a commentary by Upanishad Brahmayogin?

We do accept Garga Samhita...

I have no idea but the fact that Ramanuja didnt quote it means little since he didnt even quote SB.

[quote][cite] narot:[/cite]The Shree sampadayam people say that he is the avatar of Anantashesha (after Lakshman,Balarama). What is Gaudia vashnava view?[/quote]

I may be mistaken, but I dont think that Ramanauja is considered vishnu-tattva even in his own sampradaya. Generally he is considered shaktyavesha avatar.

Sri Vaisanavas do not use the term sakti-avesa. They consider his avatara "better" than the vibhavavataras like Rama or Krishna . [br][/br]

This is stated in Ramanusa Nutranthadhi, 41 [br][/br]

[http://ramanuja.blog.com/2006/11/14/is-avataram-by-lord-better-than-acharya-avataram/]

They use terminology we do not use like acarya-avatara. Nowhere they would use shakti as a term. It is not part of Sri sampradaya vocabulary;-) [br][/br]

There is a place called Thondanur ( Kere Thonnur in Pandavpura Taluk) were that Ramanuja showed His innate divinity, of being the avatara of Adisesa.

[http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia/ramanuja/magazine/RD_0203_online_vers.pdf]

Is there any place where Prabhupada or acaryas suggest he was saktiavesa?

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]Sri Vaisanavas do not use the term sakti-avesa. [/quote]
Do they use the term vishnu-tattva?
The question is framed in the Gaudiya conceptualism so the answer has to somehow relate Sri Vaishnava understanding to those concepts.

The only instance where SP relates Ramanuja and saktyavesa-avatara:

Ramanujacarya sometimes accepts Baladeva as a saktyavesa-avatara, but Srila Jiva Gosvami has explained that Baladeva is an expansion of Krsna and that a part of Baladeva is Sankarsana. (SB 10.1 additional notes)

If you look at works of Jiva Goswami or even at the 20th chapter of Madhya lila of CC you will find that the term visnu-tattva is not used (in original text;-). What Prabhupada refers to here is the general thing about Balarama in different Viasnava traditions, not many accept him to be on the same level as Krishna and in fact only few traditions accept Krishna as the origin of Narayana. I know of no place where Jiva would refer to Ramanuja in this context. (Anyone?) (Dont call it jiva-tattva too, while Krisnadasa kaviraja uses this term even Jiva Goswami does not;-)

Ramanuja did not himself said he was an avatar -- it is based on an interpretation of a sloka about Sesa which explains that during

a)Satya yuga - he is Adi-sesa
b)Treta Yuga - he is Lakshman avatara
c)Dvapara - Balaraman avatara
d)Kali - Bavisyadi avatara

(Bhavisya literary means forthcoming -- one that yet to come)

During Ramanujas period, when his disciples were reciting this sloka, they got doubt about who is that '93bavisyadi'94 which is mentioned in that sloka. Ramanuja called upon some close students and told that '93HE is none other than the bavishyadAchAryar which is explained in that slokam'94 referring to a prediction done by Namalvar. However Namalvar did not specified who it is, he just said it is a murti of a future acarya.

Kulapavana is actually right he is saktiavesa (or part thereof) being an incarnation of Sesa who is sakti-avesa. Sesa-naga in vaikuntha according to the 20th Chapter of CC is sva-sevana-sakti first type of the six types of saktiavesa incarnations. While it is true that Balaramai is also part of Sesa he is also a lila-avatara and also svamsa expansion (no concept of svamsa obviously in Sri Sampradaya, they do not project beyond Vaikuntha). (Sesa himself is also multiple identity (a bit confusing at first ) a saktiavesa incarnation -- a perfect (first) servant of God, an expansion of Ksirodakasai Visnu and (also) of Karanadakasai Visnu, and also a seat of Narayana in Vaikuntha and (most important to us) dhama itself and all paraphernalia in Goloka). That kind of explains (or confuses) the statements about guru as good as God, but a servant of God, Nityananda being the original guru, Balarama the original guru, Guru is one, Govardhana (expansion of Sesa) being the best servant of the Lord and also the Lord himself that is being worshiped... (of course this flow of consciousness needs to be taken in small dozes).

When he met a group of 1000 Jains trying to defeat his philosophy, Ramanuja asked to put a curtain between them, the group of peoples who came for debate and him. So Sri Vaisnavas believe He took his divine avatar as thousand headed Adisesa and answered all questions at the same time. After this event most of the peoples from that group surrendered. That what have happened in Thondanur. I always imagine Prabhupada being like that, with his army of book distributors...

Very good information and interesting points, CCD, thank you! It is good to see you here... :)

I think that seeing powerful acharyas as shaktiavesa avatars reminds us that ALL power ultimately comes from Krishna, and that we are all just instruments in His hands.
The different ways various incarnations are seen in different sampradayas never bothered me one bit. Those differences merely reflect the vastness and complexity of the Absolute, as well as our desire to relate to the Absolute in our own unique way (rasa).

BSST explains that the principle and the persons that are Sri Guru Acarya are by actual substance Sakti-avesa-avatara. This explains why Sri Guru is Saksad Hari.

Of course this could not apply to ordinary Brahmana Guru or Kanishta Guru.

(excuse spelling please).

Ysvt.

Actually,this is Vaisnava Thakur! :o)

Favourite Acarya quote.

One Who is Embraced by Sri Krsna-(Krishna Lingita Vigraha)

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura then comments, '93Without being empowered by the direct potency of Lord Krsna to fulfill His desire and without being specifically favored by the Lord, no human being can become the spiritual master of the whole world. He certainly cannot succeed by mental concoction, which is not meant for devotees or religious people. Only an empowered personality can distribute the holy name of the Lord and enjoin all fallen souls to worship Krsna. By distributing the holy name of the Lord, he cleanses the hearts of the most fallen people; therefore he extinguishes the blazing fire of the material world. Not only that, he broadcasts the shining brightness of Krsna'92s effulgence throughout the world. Such an acarya, or spiritual master, should be considered nondifferent from Krsna'97that is, he should be considered the incarnation of Lord Krsna'92s potency. Such a personality is krsnalingita-vigraha'97that is, he is always embraced by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna. Such a person is above the considerations of the varnasrama institution. He is the guru, or spiritual master, for the entire world, a devotee on the topmost platform, the maha-bhagavata stage, and a paramahamsa-thakura, a spiritual form only fit to be addressed as paramahamsa or thakura.'94 (Cc. Madhya 25.9)

Hare Krishna.

This is Sri Guru,the unalloyed Bhakta,beyond insufficient substitute. Of course there are none manifest right now but soon we hope.
Prema bhakti yaha hoite.