Untitled

Contents—
1— Krishnas tu Bhagavan Svayam.
2— Confidential Krishna.
3— Scriptural Proofs.
4— Bhagavatam's Stand.
5— Lame excuses.
GURAVE GāURACHANDRAYA RADHIKāYA
TADāLAYE KRSNāYA KRSNA-BHAKTāYA TAD
BHAKTāYA NAMO NAMAH
"I OFFER MY HUMBLE PRANAMS UNTO MY GURUDEVA, UNTO SRI GAURACHANDRA, UNTO SRI RADHA
KRşņA AND UNTO THE DEVOTEES OF DEVOTEES OF SRI KRISHNA"
CHAP 1 - KRISHNAS TU BHAGAVAN SVAYAM.
Srimad Bhagavatam 1.3.28:
एते चांशकलाः पुंसः कृ ण तु भगवान् वयम् । इ ा र ाकुलं लोकं मृडय त यु गे यु गे
"All of the above-mentioned incarnations are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary
portions of the Lord, but Lord Sri Krsna 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."
 Objection:
In 1.2.27. Sukadeva Goswami counted some avesha avatar like rishis and munis. In next verse
1.2.28; he says that before mentioned 24 avtars are not aavesh-avtars but 'Swayam Bhagwan'.
"chatri nyayam" used in sanskrit. It is described as follows: "chatrino gacchanti" => a group of
people having umbrellas are going. Actually, not everyone in that group needs to hold an
umbrella. 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", even though the adressing be
done to the whole group, as if 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
addressing is done to the whole group as such.
Lets see how "chatri nyayam" is employed in this verse (1.3.28). All avatars of the type
Narasimha, Rama are Poorna avatars only, since they are taken by the same person narayana.
Even though all the poorna avatar (no umbrella) seems to be grouped with that of many other
avatArs (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 avatars (with
umbrella) Then Suta 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)
Thus concluding: The word "ete", though addresses the whole group of actOrs that has been
listed so far, the intention is to refer to only those actors that are amsavatarams (with umbrella).
 Refutation:
First let's observe the term "Bhagawan" Here. In the complete chapter, this term occurred in the
following Verses only:
1. SB 1.3.1
2. SB 1.3.23
3. SB 1.3.28
4. SB 1.3.40 (Not related to the context)
Now let me quote these four for everyone's ease and not to trouble the readers to open
Vedabase again and again. [Note: the word Bhagawan is highlighted in the shlokas]
suta uvāca jagrhe paurusam rupam bhagavān mahad-adibi sambhūtarn sodaśa kalam adau
loka-ksaya
Suta said: In the beginning of the creation, the Lord first expanded Himself in the universal form
of the purusa incarnation and manifested all the ingredients for the material creation. And thus
at first there was the creation of the sixteen principles of material action. This was for the
purpose of creating the material universes.
ekonavimse vimsatime vrsnisu prāpya janmani rama-krsnäv iti bhuvo bhagavān aharad bharam
"In the nineteenth and twentieth Incarnation, the Lord advented Himself as Lord Balarama and
Lord Krsna in the family of Vrsni (the Yadu dynasty), and by so doing He removed the burden of
the world."
ete camsa-kalāh pumsah krishnas tu bhagavān svayam indrāri-vyakulam lokam mrdayanti yuge
yuge
"All of the above-mentioned incarnations are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary
portions of the Lord, but Lord Sri Krsna 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."
Srimad Bhagavatam 1.3.40 (not related to the context):
idam bhagavatam nama puranam brahma-samhita uttama-sloka-charita cakra bhagavān sih

nihśreyasāya lokasya dhanyam svasty-ayanam mahat
"This Srimad Bhagavatam is the literary incarnation of God, and it is compiled by Srīla
Vyāsadeva, the incarnation of God. It is meant for the ultimate good of all people, and it is all
successful, all-blissful and all-perfect."
Observation and Refutation: The word Bhagavan is anonymously attributed to someone in SB

1.3.1 & 1.3.40. (1.3.40 may be directed towards Vyasdev, but doesn't matter because its out of
our SB 1.3.28 context) But it also occurs in 1.3.23 & 1.3.28, Where Krishna is mentioned. Before
SB 1.3.23, Giant Incarnations such as Lord Rama and more were mentioned but the term
"Bhagawan" Didn't sacrifice & Appeared only with Krishna. Hence, the argument that "Krishna's
tu bhagawan svayam" Differentiates Vishnu Tattvas from some avesha avataras:- Rishis and
munis (SB 1.3.27) is refuted, Krishna's tu Bhagavan Svayam differentiates Krishna from all
Vishnu Tattvas too. Infact this refutes every single objection.
Further refutations are, Why only the name "Krishna" was used to denote all of the Incarnations?
Sri Vaishnavas try to explain this in the name of PrashansaVaad, Or somewhat near to it. Saying
that because the audience of the speaker of Bhagavatam were Krishna Bhaktas, hence he used
the word Krishna to denote. I know it sounds very absurd. PrashansaVaad doesn't sound logical
here, because of the term "Bhagavan" Already explained above. And not only that, the very idea
is absurd, because anyone can defend anything in the name of prashansaVaad. Thus all
scriptures can be said to be filled with sentimental statements with philosophical errors. Similar
arguments are used by the Saivas and Shaktas to reconcile the contradictory statements of the
Puranas, neglecting their Guna classification.
Srila Prabhupada in his Bhasya:
"The specific mention of the word bhagavān in this text indicates that Balarama and Krsņa are
original forms of the Lord. This will be further explained later. Lord Krishna is not an incarnation
of the purusa, 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, Anirudh and
Pradyumna, expands. Lord Śrī Krishna is Vasudeva, and Baladeva is Sankarsana."
To put up fin layman terms, Here's a neophyte example—
Me: Now coming on stage Akshay Sharma .....
[Few mins later] Me: Now coming on stage, Mr. Mahesa, the Vice Principal....
Now here we understand, the announcer, thats me, distinguished akshay who here in the role is
a contestant, came to perform or whatever he is about to do. But by the term "Principal" made
others understand that now Mahesa is not a contestant although coming in the line of
contestants, he is not a mere contestant. Even the term "Mr" Differentiates a student and a
authority, which is a very basic term.
 Objection:
Let's go by sanskrit, As per Madhvacharya, here verb is plural (mridayanti) and so Subject
(Krishna) should also be plural. Thus, here "Krishna" means all the avatars of Narayana who are
swayam Bhagwan.
 Refutation:
The way "Bhagawan" Appears everywhere in the chapter refutes every single objection factually.
But still, let's continue. Madhvacharya didn't say anything such. This argument is based on Sri
Raghavendra Tirtha & Jayatirtha taken from Dvaita.org, not Madhvacarya. Even if it was
Madhvacarya himself, there would have been no problem. Because Mahaprabhu had said to
Madhvacarya that he will come and develop Madhvacarya's pure philosophy and concepts.
Hence a better version to mean. (Nawadwip Dham Mahatmya by Bhaktivinoda Thakur) Because
I don't know Sanskrit, its not appropriate to comment on this. But our Acaryas were all well
learned in Sanskrit Grammar. Jiva Goswami himself was a master of Panini Grammar. Hence
We can safely rely on them. Also, why would only then name "Krishna" Be used out of so many?
If it was in plural sense? any name could have been used. If you say prashansaVaad, it's also
illogical because even the term "Bhagavan" Appeared with Krishna alone. Motilal Banarsidas
edition found Gaudiya Translation of this verse to be most logical, so much so that although
their many translations contradict Gaudiya translations, but this verse is same.They even
mentioned Jiva Goswami (JG) in Note section.
 Objection:
Padma-Purana says: Ramastu Bhagwan swayam. Even Sukadeva Goswami, Yamraj are
sometimes referred as "Bhagawan".
 Refutation:
Sukadeva Goswami's or Yamraja's reference has nothing to do with Srimad Bhagavatam's third
chapter, hence it is absolutely weakest argument kept till now. Whenever " Bhagawan " Occurs
for someone else, it's referring that person in the secondary sense, not primary. Take example
of the word "Bhagavat".Ramanujacarya himself explains it.
Vishnu Purana, 6:5:75:
"Thus the great name "Bhagavat" denotes Vasudeva, the highest Brahman. It applies to none
else. It also carries the significance of the word "adorable". Its application to the highest One,
Vasudeva, is direct and primary. When it is used for any one else, it is used in a secondary sense.
This is quoted by Ramanujacarya in Vedartha Sangraha. However, this argument of Ramas tu

Bhagavan svayam being present in Padma Purana, no one has provided reference for it, it's just
a claim. But for the sake of argument, Let's imagine that it does exist, but it doesn't prove
anything. Because Rama's tu bhagavan svayam or even Krishna's tu Bhagavan svayam doesn't
make it independently great. Krishna's tu bhagavan svayam is great because of the context.
What's the context of the claimed ramas tu bhagavan svayam verse in Padma Purana?
 Objection:
But Saying Narayana is an expansion of Krishna is a heavy contradiction. As maho upanishad

says, when there was nothing, nor Brahma or Shiva, that time, Narayana was there and so on. As
per Vyas smriti 1.4, whenever Puranas contradict Vedas, Vedas should be considered. Also,
whenever the smritis (Dharma Shastras) contradict Vedas, Vedas should be considered.
 Refutation:
To this objection, We have two rebuttals:
 Here, (Maho Upanishad quotation) Narayana is referring to Krishna only.
Even according to Nimbarkacarya who is not from Gaudiya Sampraday, all terms such as "
Narayana", "Vishnu", "Brahman" Denote Krishna only.
Nimbarkacharya in his Vedanta Sutra bhasya 1.1.1 says:
"Brahman is Krishna,.and is denoted by the words 'supreme brahman', 'Narayana" "Vasudeva'

and so on..let us meditate on Krishna."
Confirmed in scriptures, where we see Krishna is addressed as Vishnu while being related to
Goloka, or as Narayana:
Skanda Purana 2.9.10, 11-12:
There he saw Lord Krishna called 'Narayana' devoid of all inauspicious qualities, sitting on the
throne, who is adored as the 'Ancient Lord', 'Supreme Person', 'Vasudeva' by His devotees. Some
of them call Him the Supreme Self and some others call Him Supreme Brahman', others say He
is the greater than the greatest. Some call Him as "Brahman', others as 'Bhagavan'; some
devotees call him 'Parameshwara'.
Padma Purana 2.3.59-60 Says:
पु ा ऊचुः-य द तात स ो स वरं दातु महे छ स अ मा ेषय गोलोकं वै णवं दाहव जत प तोवाच ग छ वं वै णव लोकं यू यं
वगतक मषाः
"O father, if you are pleased, and desire to give aboon now, then send us to Goloka, the heaven
of Vishnu, which is free from tormentation"
Padma Purana 2.4.1 Says:
सू त उवाच-गतेषु तेषु गोलोकं वै णवं तमसः पर मश वमा महा ा ः क न ं वा यम वीत्
Suta says: "When they had gone to the Goloka of Vishnu, beyond darkness, the very wise
Sivasarman said to his youngest (son)"
 BhedAbhed (Simultaneously difference & non difference) between Narayana and Krishna
solves this. Hence there's no contradiction.
For example,
Garga samhita, Ashvamedha khanda, 13.7 says:

"He (Balarama) plays the flute"
We know its Krishna who plays the flute. this is a example of BhedAbhed verses. As padma
purana says: Goloka of Vishnu, Goloka, the heaven of Vishnu, this can also be a example of
BhedAbhed verse. Hence there's no contradiction.
In addition, When Krishna himself says he is hidden from the vedas (check upcoming chapters),
and vedas themselves say puranas are the fifth veda, 90% vedic texts are lost, all 18000 Verses
of bhagavatam the fruit of all Vedic Scriptures are preserved, then on what basis we say:
Narayana coming from krishna is contradictory? This itself is nowhere mentioned in the Shrutis.
Vyas smriti is itself an smriti (as the name). By that logic we can even dare to dismiss Vyas
smriti 1.4 using the opponents own logic. What do we understand here is, When Vedas
themselves delcared Puranas to be the fifth veda, and when Puranas themselves say that which
is not found in the Upanishads and Vedas is found in Puranas, then on what basis is this called
a contradicion? Absence of something here and presence of something there is not called as a
contradicion says Skanda Purana very clearly.
In the Prabhasa-khanda of the Skanda Purana (5.3.121-124) it is said –
" O best of the brahmanas, the meaning of the Puranas is unchanging just like that of the Vedas.
The Vedas are all sheltered within the Puranas without a doubt. The Veda has a fear that
unqualified people will read her and then distort her meaning. Thus, the significance of the Veda
was fixed in the Puranas and Itihasas. That which is not found in the Vedas is found in the Smrti.
That which is not found in the Smrti is to be found in the Puranas. Those who know even the
Vedas and Upanisads are not learned if they do not know the Puranas."
Yamunacarya himself in his Agama Pramana 96 Says—
“It is not a very proper procedure to deny things that are proved by smrti ; since both sruti and
smrti spring from perfect knowledge, they are equally valid.”
 Objection:
There is rule of Purv-Mimansa known as chAga pashu nyaya, ("Vishesha sabdaartha pratipadit
arthe saamaanya sada ganaartha paryavasaanam"). Comprehending the meaning of common
nouns using the meaning conveyed by the particular noun and identifying the common nouns
with the entity that is denoted by the particular noun. In the given relevant context is "Chaaga
Pasu Nyaaya". Those general terms, common nouns occurring in the same context as a specific
term (proper noun like narayaNa) would make these general terms connote the specific term.
As per Vyakaran (Panini Ashtadhyayi (8.4.3); "Narayana" is a proper noun. All other names e.g.
Shiva, Indra, Krishna etc. All are common noun; thus they all mean NARAYANA only. Anywhere,
common noun is used as 'Supreme deity, it means Narayana only.
 Refutation:
Vedanta desika, the great authority of Sri Vaishnavism in his work known as dramidopanishad
tatatparya ratnavali, 2.7.29 Says Narayana means "Master of all." But Krishna is also Master of
all. Then Narayana is common aswell as proper depending upon the context. Narayana also
means one who's abode is water or one who dwells in water (Markandeya Purana) and so on.
Fishes too have their abode, water. A linguistic scripture like Panini grammar cannot be used
independently to interpret divine scriptures. We have many such examples in the scriptures
where Narayana appears to be common noun. For example the Skanda Purana's reference,
already quoted above, quoting again.
"There he saw Lord Krishna called 'Narayana' devoid of all inauspicious qualities, sitting on the
throne, who is adored as the Ancient Lord', 'Supreme Person', 'Vasudeva' by His devotees. Some
of them call Him the 'Supreme Self' and some others call Him "Supreme Brahman', others say
He is the greater than the greatest. Some call Him as 'Brahman', others as 'Bhagavan'; some
devotees call him 'Parameshwara'. Krishna can also be a common noun, As Krishna also means
'Black'. Same with NNarayana, All names can be both, proper aswell as common.
However, Authorities of Sri Vaishnavism themselves do not agree to the claim "Narayana is
proper noun alone". This is believed only by Sri Vellukiddi Swami, a renowned Sri Vaishnav
Scholar. However, Sri Vaishnavas reject his views saying even an elephant can slip at times.
Because Vellukiddi Swami had once accepted Gautama Buddha to be Vishnu's Avatar, later
changed his thought. First and above of all, As per the research of Narayanastra Bloggers, very
respected Sri Vaishnavas, Shri Ramanuja never used this proper noun excuse to claim Narayana
refers only to Vishnu, the proof that Narayana is a proper noun arose sometime in the 18th
century. Shri Ramanuja does not use it. The Panini grammar thing was never referred to by
traditional Sri Vaishnava Acharyas. However, it appears to be a fairly ancient idea. The oldest
reference occurs in Bhatta Bhaskara's (A Saiva, not even a Vaishnava) gloss of the Narayana
Sukta. He claims that "Nārāyana" is a proper noun on account of Panini and the presence of the
"Na-Kara", Bhatta Bhaskara was not a Vaishnava or a Vishishtadvaita. He was a Shiva-Bhakta
and a Veda-Bhashyakāra like Sayana. Hence, the very origin of this Panini "Na-Kara" claim is not
from Vaishnavas, but from a Shaiva or Shiva worshippers Bhatta Bhaskara's proof are not
accepted. Shri Ranga Ramanuja Muni actually criticizes his commentary on Pancha-Brahma-
Mantras.
CHAP 2 - CONFIDENTIAL KRISHNA.
There's a famous misconception: "Because everywhere in the Vedas Lord Vishnu is being
celebrated, hence Vishnu is superior than Krishna. Krishna is very negligible in the Vedas and
Upanishads, if we compare to the fame of Vishnu in Vedas."
To debunk this myth, understand that Krishna is hidden from the Vedas. Everything related to
Krishna, his pastimes, his beloved Radha, his form are all more or less confidential and not to be
found easily in the scriptures everywhere. Here, I'll only provide pramanas for Krishna's
confidential matter and not that of Srimati Radha Rani. And, Although, Mention of Lord Krishna
is found both, Directly & indirectly in the Vedas and upanishads, I will not go into that, because
this chapter or even the book itself is not to prove mention of Lord Krishna in the Vedas. But to
explain why are they not to be found as much as Lord Vishnu's mention.
In Padma Purana (Patala-khanda 73.12-13), Srila Vyasadeva words to Sri Krsna, revealed in a
conversation with Maharaja Ambarisa:
"tvam aham drastum icchami caksurbhyam madhusudana yat tat satyam param brahma jagad-
yonim jagat-patimi vacanti veda-siramas caksusam natha me'stu tat"
"O Krsna, the Upanishads describe You as the Supreme Brahman, the Absolute Truth, and the
creator and master of the universes. O Lord I desire to see you with my own eyes. O Lord, please
let me see You."
Padma Purana, Patala-khanda 73.17-19:
sri-krsna-vakyam "pasya tvam darsayisyami sva-rupai veda-gopitam tato pasyam aham bhupa
balam kalambuda-prabham gopa-kanyavaram gopa hasantam gopa-balakaih kadamba-mula
asinam pita-vasasam acyutam
"Lord Krishna then said to me, I will show you My form, which is hidden from the Vedas. O king,
then I saw the infallible Lord as a cowherd boy, splendid as a dark cloud, dressed in yellow
garments, sitting at the base of a kadamba tree, laughing with cowherd boys, and surrounded by
gopis.
The above verse is also quoted by Rupa Goswami in his Laghu Bhagavatamrita text 399. This is
again confirmed in Gautamiya Tantra. According to which all other forms of the Lord are much
rarer than the impersonal Brahman, Rarer than the other forms is that of Krishna. Says who?
Say's Vedas personified themselves.
Gautamiya Tantra 1.42-49:
"The Vedas said: We know of the Lord, Narayana forms, but we do not know of the infallible
Lord in His original form, filled with transcendental qualities. We recite the word Brahman, We
know Brahman, which has no qualities, and which is beyond the mind and words, but we do not
know what is beyond Brahman. The great sages of ancient times say Your original form is filled
with bliss. O Lord, if you wish to give a boon to us, please show us that form. Hearing these
words, the Lord showed to them His original form, a form beyond the world of matter, a form
eternal imperishable, and filled with spiritual bliss. He showed them the forest called Vrndavana,
a forest filled with many trees and Kamdhenu cows, a forest opulent with many beautiful forest
groves, a forest served by the pleasures of spring. In that place was a hill named Govardhana, a
beautiful hill field with clear streams, beautiful caves, graceful birds, and many jewels and
minerals. In that place was the Yamuna, the best of rivers. Both its banks were studded with
jewels. It was filled with many swans and lotus flowers. In that place were many gopis
intoxicated by tasting the nectar of many kinds of rasa dances. In the midst of them stood the
infallible Supreme Personality of Godhead Godhead."
"Lord Krishna Says: "O Vedas, this form is the supreme reality. It is eternal, spiritual, blissful
auspicious, and all-pervading. It has neither beginning, middle nor end. This handsome and
graceful dark form is splendid and transcendental. It is beyond the touch of the illusory material
world. It is beyond the knowledge of the Vedas."
In Gautamiya Tantra 1.75-76 Lord Siva asks Lord Brahma to narrate Krishna and his associate's
name. To which, Lord Brahma replies in Gautamiya Tantra 1.78.
Gautamiya Tantra 1.78:
"O fortunate and glorious one, I heard these names, names hidden even from the Vedas, directly
from the mouth of Lord Krishna, whose navel is graceful like a lotus flower."
After hearing many details related to Krishna and Krishna himself, Lord Brahma tells to Maha
Vishnu the following in Gautamiya Tantra 1.212-213.
"O Lord, you have said that Lord Krsna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, will appear on the
earth at the end of Dvapara-yuga. You have told me the secret knowledge hidden in the
Upanishads, the knowledge of He who is the Lord of the heart. This truth of Lord Krishna, the
beloved of the vraja-gopis, should not be told to they who have no devotion for Him.
This is again confirmed in Srimad Bhagavatam.
"the activities of the Supreme Lord are very confidential, no ordinary man being able to
understand them, I shall speak about them to you, for spiritual masters explain to a submissive
disciple even subject matters that are very confidential and difficult to understand."
Where as, we have the exact opposite of Lord Vishnu. Lord Vishnu is well known in the Vedas,
which all of us agree. And this is confirmed by the scriptures.
"You are fit to be approached by the people desirous of salvation. You grant boons fulfilling the
desires of devotees who have taken refuge in you. We bow to You, who are well known in the
scriptures and Vedas and who resides in the Vedas. O Supreme Vishnu who has a beautiful
form stationed in the orb of effulgence! We offer our respects to you."
Why is Krishna confidential from the vedas? In addition to the previous quotation from SB
10.13.2, The two-handed form of the lord, that lord who rolls in the dust of Vrindavan, dances
with the gopis, eats mud, rolls and plays with gopas, teases the gopis is the very same lord
whom all intellectuals try to understand, is bewildering and too precious. Lord Brahma the
creator of this universe, himself got bewildered of Krishna, what to speak of others?
In Srimad Bhagavatam 10.14.1. Lord Brahma describes Krishna's form.

"O son of the king of the cowherds, Your transcendental body is dark blue like a new cloud, Your
garment is brilliant like lightning, and the beauty of your face is enhanced by Your gunjā earrings
and the peacock feather on Your head. Wearing garlands of various forest flowers and leaves,
and equipped with a herding stick, a buffalo horn and a flute. You stand beautifully with a morsel
of food in Your hand.
And then in the very next verse, he says something interesting (SB.10.14.2).
"I (Brahma) cannot understand your personal form."
Lord Brahma was bewildered of Krishna's form, activities etc is again confirmed in the previous
chapter, Srimad Bhagavatam 10.13.15.
"O Maharaja Parīkşit Brahma, who resides in the higher planetary system in the sky, had
observed the activities of the most powerful Krishna in killing and delivering Aghasura, and he
(Brahma) was astonished. Now that same Brahma wanted to show some of his own power and
see the power of Krsna, who was engaged in His childhood pastimes, playing as if with ordinary
cowherd boys. Therefore, in Krsna's absence, Brahma took all the boys and calves to another
place. Thus he became entangled, for in the very near future he would see how powerful Krsna
was."
Knowledge of the absolute truth is precious and not to be found everywhere. Hence, we don't
find description of Bhakti as deep as Puranas do in the vedas. Rather, Vedas are absolutely
universal, they have Karma Kand for materialistic people to elevate them gradually towards gyan
- yoga. This is again confirmed in Pancharatras, people often mistake Krishna as a mere human
being, hence this is one of the many reasons Krishna being confidential.
Narada pancaratra 9.196:
ndvaisnavdya ddtyavyarh vikalpopahatdtmane bhakti-sraddhd-vihindya visnu-sdmdnya darsine

"You should not reveal these holy names to those who are faithless, who are not inclined toward
the devotional service of the Lord, who consider Lord Vishnu to be an ordinary human being, and
who are non-devotees."
Therefore, Purv Acarya of Sri Vaishnavism and Vaishnav Gem Sripad Ramanujacarya in his Sri
Bhashya says (Quotes from Mahabharat 1.1.264):
"The Veda should be amplified and supported (Studied) by the Itihasas and the Puranas,
because the Veda is afraid of him who has little learning that he would do it wrong. "
Vedanta Desika in his Dramidopanishad Tatparya Ratnavali, 4th verse Says:
"The Itihasas and the Puranas have but sought to clarify the import of the Vedas!...
In the Prabhasa-khanda of the Skanda Purana 5.3.121-124 it is said:
"O best of the brahmanas, the meaning of the Puranas is unchanging just like that of the Vedas.
The Vedas are all sheltered within the Puranas without a doubt. The Veda has a fear that
unqualified people will read her and then distort her meaning. Thus, the significance of the Veda
was fixed in the Puranas and Itihasas. That which is not found in the Vedas is found in the Smrti.
That which is not found in the Smrti is to be found in the Puranas. Those who know even the
Vedas and Upanishads are not levied if they do not know the Puranas"
Garuda Purana 3.1.66-67:
"The wise declare that the Purana is equal to the Vedas in the weightiness of purpose and the
greatness of glory. It is more valuable than the Vedas so far as the meaning is concerned. This
is declared by those who understand the mystery of Vişņu."
Padma Purana Shristhi Khanda, 1.51:
"One should nourish Veda with Itihāsa and Puranas. Veda, thinking 'he would deceive me', is
afraid of a (person) of little learning."
Narada Purana says:
Lord Shiva says: ‘O beautiful Parvati, I consider that the Puranas and the Epics are superior to
the Vedas, for whatever truths are present in the Vedas -and quite a bit more-are also explained
in these ancient works.’ Of this, there is no doubt.”
(Quoted by Jiva Goswami in some Sandharbha (Readers can check themselves to locate the
exact sandharbha) Anuccheda 16, text 11)
CHAP 3 - SCRIPTURAL PROOFS.
There's a common misconception that Gaudiya doctrine of Krishna being the source of all other
incarnations is based on SB 1.3.28 only, and we have no other reference, Factually, We have
tons of pramanas, some of them were already quoted in the 2nd chapter of the book. In this
chapter, without quoting SB 1.3.28, proofs will be given.
Chapter is divided into 4 sections, they are as follows:
1. Krishna: Source of all Incarnations.
2. "Krishna": The best of holy names.
3. Goloka: The topmost Abode.
4. Krishna's Bhagavatam: King among all Puranas.
Note: All the Padma Purana, Skanda Purana etc references are translated not by Gaudiyas but
by Motilal Banarsidass edition except the one Jiva Goswami quote. All the Bhagavatam verses
except SB 2.6.43-45 are same as Motilal Banarsidass edition, this is to ensure neutrality.
 Lord Krishna, Source of all Incarnations:
Brahma Vaivarta Purana 4.5.111:
ekanika-loma-vivare brahmandam kam ekakam yasyalva mahato visnoh sodasamsas tavaiva

sah
"Maha-Visnu, who manifests the material universes, one by one, from His bodily pores, is but a
sixteenth part of You (Krishna), O Lord"
Padma Purana VI.252.99:
अ ोकाः - अ ये सवऽवताराः युः कृ ण य च रतं महत् भूभारक वनाशाय ा भूतो रमाप तः
"There might be all other incarnations. (But) the deeds of Krishna are great"
Quotes by Gaudiya Acharyas, from Brahmanda Purana:
"Although I appear in many different forms, all ful in six opulences, none of these forms is equal
to My form as the cowherd boy Krishna"
Padma Purana 5.69.108-115:
Parvati said: O lord, tell me everything about the highest cause Krishna, the highest position
called Krishna, the lord of Vrindavana, the eternal one, and the only cause of the qualityless
(Brahman), tell me the importance of each secret, about the lovely wonder. O lord of lords, I
desire to hear it. (Then) The lord said : Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva are equal to the parts of the
measure of a croreth of a croreth of Krishna's feet (These) arising from him are endowed with
creation, maintenance, and destruction...
Srimad Bhagavatam 2.6.43-45:
"I myself (Brahma], Lord Shiva, Lord Vishnu...may appear to be the specific truth and the form of
the Lord, but actually they are not so. They are only a fragment of the transcendental potency of
the Lord."
gatva narayano devo vilinah krsna-vigrahe drstvä ca paramascaryam te sarve vismayam yah
"Then Lord Narayana approached, entered Lord Krsna's form, and disappeared When they saw
this, everyone became filled with wonder"
sa capi linas yayuh tatralva radhikesvara-vigrahe te drstvå maha ascharyam vismayam

paramam
"Then Lord Vishnu also merged into the form of Lord Krishna. Seeing this, everyone became
filled with wonder."
lino 'harm krsna-padabje babhuva phalguno narah brahmesa-sesa-dharmās ca tasthur tatra

tatra vai
"Then I (Narayan Rsi) merged into Lord Krsna lotus feet and Nara Rsi became Arjuna. Then
Brahma, Siva, Sesa, and Yamaraja came to that place"
Devi Upa-Puran XXXVIII 7-79:
“The Creator Brahma gets dissolved in the navel of Sri Krisna. The four-armed Visnu, of
Vaikuntha, sleeps on Ksira Samudra, the ocean of milk, i.e., He dissolves on the left side of Sri
Krisna, the Highest Spirit. All the other Saktis (forces) dissolve in Mula Prakriti, the Maya of
Visnu. The Mula Prakriti Durga, the Presiding Deity of Buddhi (reason) dissolves in the Buddhi of
Krisna. Skanda, the part of Narayana, dissolves in His (Krishna's) breast. Ganesa, the foremost
of the Devas, born in part of Krisna, dissolves in the arm of Sri Krisna. And those who are born in
parts of Padma, dissolve in Her body and Padma dissolves in the body of Radha. All the cow-
herdesses and all the bodies of the Devas dissolve in Radha’s body. But Radha, the Presiding
Deity of the Praana of Sri Krisna, dissolves in the Praana of Sri Krisna.”
Garga Samhita 1.3.2:
Sri Narada said: "As everyone looked on, Lord Hari, the eight-armed master of Vaikuntha,
appeared and merged in the the body of Lord Krsna.*
Garga Samhita 1.3.3 :
"The perfect, ferocious, and powerful Lord Narasimha, who was effulgent as millions of suns,
merged in Lord Krsna's effulgence."
Garga Samhia 1.3.6-8:
"Then, holding a bow and arrows, glorious with Sita and accompanied by His brothers, lotus-
eyed Lord Ramacandra came in a golden chariot that was effulgent as a hundred million suns,
(decorated) with swaying camaras, opulent with countless monkey-kings, rumbling with ten
thousand wheels, (decorated with) ten thousand flags, and (pulled by) ten thousand horses, and
merged in the body of Lord Krsna. "
Garga Samhita 1.3.11-13:
"Then Lord Nara-Narayanaa, whose eyes were large, who had four arms, who was dressed as a
sage, who was splendid like a dark cloud, whose matted hair was a lightning flash, who
observed an unbroken vow (of celibacy), and who was surrounded by splendid multitudes of the
kings of sages, suddenly merged in the handsome dark form of Lord Krsna as everyone looked
on, their hearts filled with wonder."
Satvata Tantra 3.25-26:
"The form of Lord that manifests all these qualities in full is called Lord's full (Purna)
manifestation, an incarnation that manifests these qualities in part is considered an partial
(Amsa) incarnation, and an incarnation that manifests these qualities in a lesser part is sub
partial (Kala) Incamation. An incarnation that manifests these qualities in still lesser part is
considered a potency (vibhuti) Incarnation. Sri Krishna is not an incarnation or a partial
expansion of the supreme, for He is the original, eternal, pure, spiritual, soul supreme personality
of Godhead himself. "
Satvata tantra 3.36-39:
Narada says: 0 Siva, please describe to me the nature of the original source of the incarnations.
Is that source impersonal Brahman or the supreme personality of Godhead? Are Lord Krishna
and Lord Narayana, the master of Vaikuntha, the same person or are they different?
Sri Siva said O son of Brahma, O Brahma, O best of devotees, please hear as i tell you the great
secret of the original source of all incarnations. The source of the incarnation is one, so the
supreme appears as Krishna, Brahman, and the purusa incarnation (Supersoul).
Etc, Complete 3rd chapter of Satvata Tantra sings Krishna's Supremacy.
 Objection:
What's the authenticity of Satvata tantra?
 Refutation:
Satvata tantra is a Vaishnav Agama mentioned in Garuda Purana 1.1.16. Quoted many times by
Gaudiya PurvAcaryas. It is also quoted by non-Gaudiya Purv Acaryas like Vallabhacarya in
Srimad Bhagawatam 1.3.1. What more is needed to prove its authenticity? Satvata Tantra is
said to be best and among top 3 Samhitas by Isvara Samhita 1.64. (Here Samhitas means
Tantras only)
 Objection:
We find Vishnu Purāna clearly stating Vishnu as the source of Krishna.
Vishnu Purāna 5.1.59–60:
एवं सं तु यमान तु भगव परमे रः उ जहारा मनः केशौ सतकृ ण महा मुनेः॥ उवाच स सु रनेतौ मत् केशौ वसु धातले अव तय
भुवो भार ले शहा न क र ततः॥
"And therefore, being praised (by Brahma) the Supreme Lord, God of all gods, plucked two black
and white hairs and said to other deities “These My hairs shall descend upon earth, and shall
relieve her of the burden of her distress.”
 Refutation:
उ जहारा मनः सतकृ ण केशौ is interpreted as: Lord Vishnu (आ मनः) plucked (उ जहार) His white( सत)
and black(कृ ण) hairs(केशौ). This meaning severely damages other authentic references and
convincing quotations, thus should not be accepted blindly without any further study. Being
misguided, it pictures erroneous and fallacious depictions of Lord which hoodwinks the
unfamiliar students of Vaishnavism. To refute this unusual interpretation, this phrase is
genuinely interpreted as: Lord Balarama( सत) and Lord Krishna(कृ ण) who has the cloud-like
complexion(उ ज meaning that which pours the water down ie the cloud) will manifest
bearing(हार meaning to bear) all the splendour (क) and two types of Supreme potencies(ईशौ,
internal and external) similar to Me ie Lord Vishnu(आ मनः).
Lord Vishnu's Hairs cannot be Plucked.

It is not possible that black and white hairs grew at a certain time on the head of the changeless
Supreme Person which were plucked out of His head. Saying so is the expression of absurdity
and irrational perception.
Lord Vishnu's Hairs cannot become White.

The interpretation which mentions Balarama and Krishna as incarnations of two hairs of Lord
Vishnu is simply unsound and inappropriate. What to speak of the Personality of Godhead, even
the inferior demigods are free from the defects of old-age. Because the Personality of Godhead
is always free from the symptoms of age, His hairs do not turn grey or white like those of the
conditioned human beings. The Vedic literature always describes the hairs of the Supreme Lord
as black; there is no description of white hairs, and no one can think about the hairs either
artificially becoming white or turning white naturally with old age in the spiritual body of the
Personality of Godhead. For this reason, the misguided interpretation of white and black hairs of
Lord Vishnu is not at all plausible.
Meanings:
केशौ does not mean hairs but two white and black Gods with Splendour ( सत कृ ण क+ईशौ)
In the Vedic literature, Krishna and Balarama are very rarely described as white and black
`keshas’. In this context, the word `Kesha’ does not mean `hair’, but it is used in the sense of
`splendour’. The Supreme Lord Krishna and His eternal brother Balarama are enormously
magnificent with the brilliant display. Thus, with these verses which are often misunderstood,
Krishna's extraordinary position is described, nothing else. It just refers to the Personality of
Godhead Krishna, who is supremely renown, in His splendid original form as Balarama, who
relieved the burden of the earth. If one tries to (mis)interpret the word `Kesha’ in these passages
as hair and contends that Balarama and Krishna are mere incarnations of two of Lord Vishnu’s
hairs, he will contradict the clear statements of many authentic verses in the Vedic literature,
and he will especially contradict the authoritative statement of the verse `Krishnas tu Bhagavan
svayam’ (Shri Krishna is the Original Personality of Godhead) found in Shrimad-Bhagavatam
(1.3.28). —Shridhar Swami (who is also accepted as a Purvacharya by Advaitins) says in
Bhagavatam 2.7.26
Correct translation:
भगवन्(Godhead) परमे र(great God) सं तु यमान तु (being praised) सत(white-hued) कृ ण(dark-hued)

उ ज(cloud-like) क(splendour) हार(bearing) इशौ(two Personalities of Godhead)। स(He) सु रन े ेतौ(to
demigods) उवाच(said), “हे महामुने(O great oracles), इशौ(two deities) वसु धातले (on earth) अव तय(will
incarnate) मत्(with my) क(splendour) भार ले शहा न(to destroy the bourdon and distress) क र तत(to
do so)।”
"Thus, after listening (to Lord Brahma's prayers), Lord Vishnu, the Supreme Personality of
Godhead, Governor of all deities revealed, “(Lord Balarama or) One with silvery hue and (Lord
Krishna or) One who possesses glistening complexion like a cloud, will manifest having the
fascinating brilliance and potencies similar to Me.”
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Srimad Bhagavatam 10.13.46- 47:
"Then, while Lord Brahma looked on all the calves and the boys tending them immediately
appeared to have complexions the color of bluish rain clouds and to be dressed in yellow silken
garments. All those personalities had four arms, holding conch shell disc, mace and lotus flower
in their hands. They wore helmets on their heads, earrings on their ears and garlands of forest
flowers around Their necks on the upper portion of the right side of Their chests was the
emblem of the goddess of fortune. Furthermore, They wore armlet on Their arms, the
Kaustubha gem around Their necks, which were like a conch shell, and bracelets on Their wrists.
With bangles on their ankles ornaments on Their feet, and sacred belt around Their waists. They
all appear very beautiful "
To this Srila Prabhupada comments:
All the Vishnu forms had four arms, with conch shell and other articles, but these characteristics
are also possessed by those who have attained sarupya-mukti in Vaikuntha and who
consequently have forms exactly like the form of the Lord. However, these Visnu forms
appearing before Lord Brahma also possessed the mark of Srivatsa and the Kaustubha gem,
which are special characteristics possessed only by the Supreme Lord Himself. This proves that
all these boys and calves were in fact directly expansions of Visnu, the Personality of Godhead,
not merely His associates of Vaikuntha Visnu Himself is included within Krsna All the opulences
of Visnu are already present in Krsna, and consequently for Krsna to demonstrate so many
Visnu forms was actually not very astonishing The Srivatsa mark is described by the Vaisnava-
tosani as being a curl of fine yellow hair on the upper portion of the right side of Lord Vishnu's
chest. This mark is not for ordinary devotees. It is a special mark of Vishnu or Krishna
Sī Nārada said: I offer my obeisances to Him of spotless fame, the Supreme Lord Krishna, who
manifests His all-attractive personal expansions so that all living beings can achieve liberation
If we observe SB 10.87.46. quoted above, Narada says that Krishna assumes various forms,
that too infront of Narayana rishi. According to our opponent, Narayana rishi is an incarnation of
Vishnu and Krishna also is an incarnation of Vishnu. But SB 10.87.46 Contradicts this heavily. If
Krishna was an incarnation of Vishnu, why would Narada that too in front of another Incarnation
of Vishnu say "Krishna assumes all forms?" The only correct interpretation here too is that
Krishna is the source of Narayana Rishi too. Hence Narada says so.
This also refutes the argument of our opponent that "Krishna is an incarnation of Narayana
Rishi". Which will be explained in the next chapter.
Sukadeva Goswami said. Thus questioned by the most affectionate Uddhava, Lord Krishna, the
supreme controller of all controllers, who takes the entire universe as His plaything and
assumes the three forms of Brahma, Visnu and Siva, began to reply, lovingly displaying His all-
attractive smile.
Srimad Bhagavatam 2.6.43-45:
I myself (Brahma), Lord Shiva Lord Vishnu, may appear to be the specific truth and the form of
the Lord, but actually they are not so. They are only a fragment of the transcendental potency of
the Lord.
Brahmanda Purana 2.3.36.12:
"Sri Krishna, the direct lord of the four Vyuhas (Vasudeva, Sankarsana, Pradyumna, Aniruddha ."
"We mediate upon you Oh, Lord Vasudeva, who is in the forms of Pradyumna, Aniruddha and
Sankarshana. To you the Supreme Brahman in the form of 'Om-kara' and Who has appeared in
three forms viz. Brahma, Vishnu and Maheshwara. You are the sole cause of creation,
sustenance and destruction of this universe. You are devoid of all evil qualities o Keshava! We
bow down to You, who are pleasing to the eyes, the destroyer of the sufferings of persons who
take refuge in You, who has got an independent form. We offer our respects to You, O Krishna,
treading the path of Dharma. You are in bliss forever You keep all your devotees in happiness.
You cause illusion to death and Maya"
 Objection:
Garuda Purana confirms Vishnu as the source of Krishna.
Garuda Purana 3.2.6:
müla rūpo hyato jeyo visnugad visnur avyayah lavatāram Idam proktam pumatvad eva suvrata |
The eternal indeclinable Vishnu is the root form. Because of His all-pervading nature this
incarnation, Krsna is known as complete.
 Refutation:
The sanskrit verse nowhere mentions the name Krishna. It's interpreted in the translation and
most importantly, If we check the context, lets go 1-2 verse behind that is Garuda Purana 3.2.4-5
we find:
Garuda Purana 3.2.4-5:
"When the process of creation is revealed your excellence is manifested. shall like know the
relative superiority of the gods, Brahma, Vishnu and others. What are the means whereby one
can attain moksha Thus questioned by Garuda lord Krsna spoke in reply. "
And as a reply to Naradas question on who is supreme between Brahma, Vishnu & Siva, he said
Vishnu is the Mula Roopa, Brahma and Siva are the Guna Avatars of Vishnu. Krishna is proving
the superior position of Vishnu above Brahma & Siva and rest of the demigods, which is very
obvious. But even if we agree (Imagine) Krishna is mentioned, still it proves Krishna to be
superior than Vishnu, how? Because it is saying the complete form is of Krishna not Vishnu,
although Vishnu is the Mula Roopa of Brahma, Siva etc. Hence in both ways claim is refuted.
Cherry picking verses are not appreciated.
ीकृ ण(Lord Krishna) उवाच(said), सु त(O Suvrata) इदं (This) अ यः(indestructible) व णु वत्(all-
pervasive character of) यतो(This) व णु (Vishnu) ह(surely) यो(know as) मुला पे(elementary form)।
अवतार(Any incarnation of Him) ो ं (is said to be) पूण वात्(complete) एव(certainly)।
Correct translation: Lord Krishna said, “O Suvrata, this indestructible and all-pervasive character
of this Lord Vishnu is surely to be known as His elementary form. His incarnation, therefore,
should be certainly called complete.”
 Objection:
Varaha Purana also says the same.
Varaha Purana 4.1-4:
matha kürmo varāhasca narasimha vamana rāmo rāmaśca krnasca budhah kalki ca te
dašatyetah kathitās tasya murtayo bhutadharini darshanam prāptum icchunām sopananiva
sobhane lyat tasya paramai rupam tanna pasyanti devatäh, asmadadi svarüpena pürayanti tato
dhrtim |
Sri Varaha said, "Matsya, Kurma, Varaha, Narasimha, Vamana, Rama (parashu) and
Ramachandra, Krsna, Buddha and Kalkin are His ten incarnations, O Dharani, thou supporter of
beings, which are like the steps leading to a glimpse of that Great God by those eager to have it,
O charming lady. Even the deities cannot see Him in His real form. He fulfils His mission
through incarnation in the form of us and others."
 Refutation:
This verse also proves Krishna's supremacy only. We have plenty of verses where it's seen
Maha Vishnu, sometimes Narayan Rishi, are eager to see Krishna, Narayan Rishi infact declared
Krishna as his source. What to speak of demigods? Hence, the form which is being discussed
here as the real form being very desirous form of the demigods is that of Krishna only.
"Maha Vishnu Says Have taken away the brahmana's sons because I am so eager to see You
(Krishna)"
Check any translation, whether ISKCON'S or Motilal editions.
yuva yog" means "of You two", "didriksha maya" means "by Me, who was desiring to see me
means "My"bhuvi means "abode and panttah' means "taken away"
In Skanda Purana, Narayana rishi says the same thing to Narada after Narad Muni had come
from visit to Goloka.
Narayana Rishi says: "You are blessed and favoured since you have seen that Lord (Krishna)
Himself. Oh, Brahmin! A person, neither a demigod nor a sage has seen Him. Those devotees
who have devotion (within their hearts) and have obtained indestructible likeness with Him,
alone will see Him, the cause of everything. It is not easy to see that divine and supreme being.
He is not easily seen. Narada! My words are true."
If we see the context of this Skanda Puranas verse, that is Vasudev Mahatmya of Vaishnava
Khanda, entire Vasudev Mahatmya khanda sings Krishna's supremacy not only above demigods
but even among Vishnu Tattvas. So Krishna only, is being discussed by Lord Varaha.
But even if we agree to opposite argument, it doesn't prove anything. Because Varaha dev says
clearly "These are the steps for those who wish to attain the vision of him."
So it's for those who desire to attain the vision of him. Just like a Ramanandi will desire see
Rama.
The Verse doesn't surely say anything, it doesn't even mention Vishnu, but Narayana, Scriptures
also say Krishna is the Original or first Narayana, hence the translation may have fault by
Motilal edition. But even if we consider the translation as it is, still it doesn't prove anything.
Because Lord Varaha said "for those who desire". Where as we have verses where Vishnu,
Narayan Rishi himself saying the opposite. Anyone can Desire anything, desire of Mahavishnu
and Narayan Rishi are way serious than Jivas. Hence PrashansaVaad may have taken place in
Varaha dev's statement. PrashansaVaad is such a incident where the speaker in praise of a
particular object contradicts the reality. For example: "Oh my friend danced so good, he is even
above the heavenly dancers". This however doesn't really mean that his friend is superior to the
heavenly dancers.
Thus in summary:
1) The verse is talking of Krishna only, indirectly mentioning him as the Narayana. If someone
thinks why then Krishna is mentioned in the list, the answer is already given when we find a
similar incident in Bhagavatams 3rd canto. Check out the first chapter.
2) Better argument is to say, Maybe The Verse is talking of Maha Vishnu, but still it doesn't
make him superior to Krishna in terms of origin, because of Varaha Devs clear statement
"Those who desire", whereas we already showed how Mahavishnu, Narayan Rishi, all desire to
see Krishna, and hold it as the most rarely seen form, the desire of Vishnu Tattvas is obviously
higher than Jivas. Just as a Ramanandi will desire to have a vision of Lord Rama only.
 "Krishna": The best of holy names:
Benefit of uttering "Krishna" Once is equal to 3000 times recital of Vishnu's holy names. And
equal to 3 times recital of Lord Rama's Holy names.
Brahmanda Purana, 2.3.36, 16-24:
"The pious results derived from chanting the thousand names of Lord Vishnu three times can be
attained by only one repetition of the holy name of Krishna. "
Jiva Goswami in his Brahma samhita commentary, Baladev Vidyabhushana in his Vedanta Sutra
Commentary etc, quote the following from Padma Purana:
Krishna Says: 0 Arjuna, of all My holy names, Krsna is the most important."
Padma Purana, 6.254.20-29 Conversation between Lord Siva and his wife Durgā:
"Lord Siva Says: O Varānanā, I chant the holy name of Rama, Rāma, Rama and thus enjoy this
beautiful sound. This holy name of Rāmacandra is equal to one thousand holy names of Lord
Visnu."
Parvati says: "You said Rama's name is equivalent to the thousand names of Vishnu. The enemy
of Ravana, Rama has other names also. O lord of gods, tell them to me. Devotion has arisen in
me."
Lord Siva Says. "O Parvati, whatever common and Vaidika words are there, they are
Ramacandra's names. Among them the Vishnu Sahasranama is superior, and among them the
hundred and eight names told (below) are chief. Just one name of Vishnu is said to be superior
to all Vedas ; so also are the thousand names equal to Rama's names. O dear one.
that fruit which one who recites the hymns of all Vedas, gets obtained crorefold by Rama's
name only. O you of an auspicious appearance, listen to the principal names of Rama. "
 Objection:
Regarding the supremacy of Krishna's Holy name, its nothing but prashansa Vaad
 Refutation:
No, Because, this is not only told by others, but even Krishna himself. Jiva Goswami quotes the
following from Padma Purana, Krishna himself Says: "O Arjuna, of all My holy names, Krsna is
the most important" Hence PrashansaVaad cannot be applied here when Krishna himself is
saying this about himself.
The same thing is told by Lord Siva in Padma Purana, Lord Krishna In Padma Purana, and Sesha
in Brahmanda Purana, all these cannot be foolishly added into Mere prashansaVaad
Interpretation. Because, then we should find diverse statements. In some places we must find 1
utterance of Vishnu is equal to 1000 utterance of Rama or Krishna. Or 1 utterance of Rama is
equal to 3 utterance of Krishna. But we don't find any diverse statements, hence proving this to
be not just mere prashansa but fact. In PrashansaVaad, the verses must have a total
contradictory verses in the opposite position, and diverse statements.
Another objection can be raised is, Padma Purana 7.15.86–89, Lord Siva says, Among all names
of Vishnu, Rama is the greatest. In reply, Here PrashansaVaad can be applied because its a
direct contradiction to what krishna himself said in the same purana, padma. And also,
brahmanda purana's reference.
 Objection:
Vishnu Sahasranama contains names like "Krishna' And "Rama" Then on what basis is this
claim that one utterance of Krishna is equal to 3 times reciting 1000 names of Vishnu when
among the thousand Krishna is also there?
 Refutation:
The objection is a result of incomplete understanding the quotations. VishnuSahasranama, that

contains "Krishna" And, as so many pramanas from Shastras say that one utterance of Krishna
is greater than any other name, then why one will chant Sahasranama? Specially Kali Yug
Jeevas? whats the need to chant other 999 names in the sahasranama along with "Krishna" if
just single "Krishna is enough? This is not me, but Lord Siva himself says. This is the correct
meaning of the quotations. Ma Parvati herself asks Lord Siva to tell such a name that will be
benefiting the utterance of 1000 names of Vishnu by just one utterance because she is
somehow not able to recite 1000 names of Vishnu
Padma Purana 6.71.330:

"Parvati says. O lord due to my mind attached to lust etc. due to my having been one with you,
due to an error, if I am unable to recite every day these thousand names of Vishnu, then tell me,
O bull-bannered god, that name, by which I shall get that fruit (obtained by the recital of Vishnu
thousand names)."
In the next verse, that is 331:
"Mahadeva says: you beautiful one, you charming one (recite) Rama, Rama, Rama'. The
thousand names (of Vishnu) are equal to that (Rama)."
 Goloka: the topmost abode:
Padma Purana 5.69.4-15:
Parvati says: "The place of Vishnu staying without and within the Crores of universe, is beyond
them is the chief one, the best one, and excellent. There is no place superior to the one which is
Krishna's charming place, dear to him. O great lord, I desire to hear it all. (Please) tell it
Lord replies: "This place of Vishnu is the chief among the places of the Sattvatas, is extremely
difficult to reach is eternal, is called Vrindavana and is situated above the
universe. It is the complete Brahman, happiness and glory, is eternal, is bliss, and is
imperishable Vaikuntha is a part of it's (Goloka's) portion on the earth there is Vrindavana Itself.
Whatever is the glory of Goloka is settled in Gokula
Brahma Vaivarta purana, prakriti khanda, 54.15-1:
urdhvam vaikuntha loka ca panchayat koti yojanat goloka vartulakaro varistha sa sarvalokatah
"The highest abode of Goloka is situated fifty crore yojanas (1 yojana-8km) above the abode of
Vaikuntha. It is the best of all the places. "
Brahma vaivarta purana, Krishna janma khanda, 4.18:
brahmanda bahir urdhvam ca na asti loksatta urdhvakah urdhvam sunyamayam sarvam tadanta
sister eva ca
"This abode of Goloka is situated outside the Brahmanda(universe).It is the topmost abode.
There is no other abode higher than this. Beyond this nothing exist, only void remains (infinite
emptiness and darkness). Indeed, this Goloka is the end of all the creation. "
Brihat Brahma samhita 3.1.122, one of the important pancaratra samhita:
urdhvam tu sarvalokebhyo goloke prakriteh pare
"The abode of Goloka is situated above all the places. It is completely beyond
matter(transcendental)."
 Bhagawatam: King among all Puranas:
Simple logic is, because Krishna is superior to Vishnu in the sense of origin, hence Krishna's
bhagavatam is considered to be the greatest among all Puranas, not Vishnu Purana.
Garuda Purana 3.1.43-44-45 :
"In Kali yuga, three puranas( Srimad Bhagavatam, Vishnu purana and Garuda purana) are very
dear to Lord Hari. Even amongst those three, Srimad Bhagavatam is the chief of the puranas
and awards the highest merit."
I don't think we need to quote any more reference to prove Bhagavatam's superiority, as most of
the people know about it.
CHAP 4 - BHAGAVATAM'S STAND.
People try to point out that Bhagavatam declares Vishnu's supremacy over Krishna in terms of
origin. We shall see how true is the allegation, and what is the actual stand of Bhagavatam in
this matter.
 Objection:
Let's look into Srimad Bhagwat Puran itself, and that too Prabhupad's translation
"Lord Maha-Vishnu said: I brought the brahmana's sons here because I wanted to see the two of
you, My expansions, who have descended to the earth to save the principles of religion. As soon
as you finish killing the demons who burden the earth, quickly come back here to me. "
As Maha Vishnu says: "my expansions" Proves Krishna to be an incarnation of lord Vishnu.
 Refutation:
Before refuting, let it be clear that Prabhupada only translated bhagavatam till canto 10, chapter
13. As he had left for Goloka. The rest was translated and commented by his direct disciples
who did that based on Prabhupada's teachings and lectures.
Now coming to refutation. They wrote in the purport of the same verse the following:
"As explained by Srila Visvanātha Cakravarti, the secret import of these words spoken for
Arjuna's edification is as follows: "You two, who have descended along with your kalas, the earth.
Please quickly send these demons here to Me for the sake of their liberation."
Opponent quoted this translation that too cherrypicked without purport because motilal edition
of bhagavatam and etc available on internet does not convey Krishna to be an incarnation of
Lord Vishnu. Here is the translation of this verse by Motilal edition due to which, opponent was
helpless to quote Prabhupada's version:
This interpretation is same as that of Jiva Goswami. In his Krishna sandharbha, Jiva goswami
gives the correct interpretation/Translation of this verse as follows:
"I wanted to see both of you, and therefore I have brought the sons of the brahmana here. Both
of You have appeared in the material world to re-establish religious principles, and you have
appeared here with all your potencies and the incarnations who have expanded from You.
Please kill all the demons, and cause them to quickly return to the spiritual world"
And he explains how's that in the following way:
"In the Bhuma-purusha's (Maha Vishnu) first statement we may note the following definitions of
words. yuva yog means of You two didriksha maya" means "by Me, who was desiring to see me
means "My , "bhuvi" means "abode", and "upanitah" means "taken away In the Bhuma-purusha's
second statement, He addresses Krishna and Arjuna as "kalavati mau" in this compound word,
the word "kala" means "expansions", and the phrase along with is understood. In this way the
word is a "madhya pada-lop-samasa"and it means "o Supreme Lord, who has descended along
with all your vishnu-tattva expansions Because the material world is an expansion of the
Supreme Lord's energy the word "kala may also be interpreted to mean in the material world" In
this interpretation the word "Kalavati Mau" means "O Lord who has descended to this material
world" That the material world is as expansion of Lord Krishna's energy is confirmed in the
Purusha-sukta prayers "padosi vishva-bhutani" (The material world is one quarter part of the
energy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead). The word "bhuyah" means again" The last part
of the Bhuma-purusha statement is "Please kill the demons who still remain on the earth, and
liberate them bringing them quickly back to Me This means that the demons who are personally
killed by the Personality of Godhead become liberated and enter the Brahman effulgence
emanating from the transcendental body of the Lord's Bhuma-purusha expansion The Bhuma-
purusha glorified Krishna and Arjuna, saying "You appear with Your transcendental potencies
and various incarnations and expansions.
This interpretation of the word "kalavatirnau" may be accepted If the word is understood as a
tritiya-tatpurusha-samasa This interpretation is very logical and easy to accept. If one wants to
interpret "kalavatimau' as two words in the nominative case, and interpret the two words to
mean "Krishna and Arjuna are My expansions", this interpretation will be difficult for the learned
reader to accept
Which makes no difference than Motilal edition's translation.
Opponent's interpretation is bogus due to the following reasons:
 Opponent's interpretation contradicts entire 3rd chapter of Srimad Bhagavatam, 1st

canto. And so many Bhagavatam pramanas that says Krishna is superior. For this, refer
Chap 1 and Chap 3 of this book.
 Mahavishnu said in the first half of the verse "I have taken away the brahmana's sons
because I am so eager to see You" prove krishna's supremacy. Hence the latter half
interpretation to belittle Krishna is already bogus.
 Objection:
How does the first half of the shloka promote Krishna's supremacy? it doesn't. It's nothing but
Maha Vishnu's eagerness to see the wonderful form with his wonderful activities of his own.
 Refutation:
It does because in Skanda Purana, 2.9.19, 13-15 Narayana rishi says the same thing to Narada
after Narad Muni had come visitng Goloka
Narayan Rshi says: "You are blessed and favoured since you have seen that Lord Himself. Oh,
Brahmin! A person, neither a demigod nor a sage has seen him. Those devotees who have
devotion (within their hearts) and have obtained indestructible likeness with Him, alone will see
Him, the cause of everything. It is not easy to see that divine and supreme being. He is not
easily seen Narada! My words are true. "
If we see the context of this verse, that is Vasudev Mahatmya of Vaishnava Khanda, entre
Vasudev Mahatmya khanda sings Krishna's supremacy not only above demigods but even
among Vishnu Tattvas. Thus, Maha Vishnu's eagerness to see Krishna is same as Narayana
Rishi said in Skanda to Narada. Both of them, that is, Vasudev Mahatmya Khanda of Skanda
Purana and SB 10.89.58 have similar context where Krishna is said to be superior than Vishnu in
terms of origin.
 Objection:
lets shift to the next verse next verse, that is Srimad Bhagavatam 10.89.59, Maha Vishnu says
Krishna is an expansion/incarnation of Narayana rishi only.
 Refutation:
No it doesn't. Neither ours, nor Motilal Banarsidas edition support the defective translation.
The actual translation/interpretation given by Jiva Goswami as follows:
"My dear Krishna and Arjuna, You are both great transcendental personalities, and all Your
wishes are always automatically fulfilled. You have both formerly appeared as Nara-and
Narayana Rishis, the best of persons. Appearing as these two sages, you performed exemplary
pious activities for the benefit of all living entities."
Opponent's interpretation/translation of SB 10.89.59 is bogus due to the

following reasons:
1) Again contradicts 3rd Chapter of 1st canto of Bhagavatam
2) Contradicts Agama shastras. In Agama Shastras, That is Satvata Tantra, Narayana risi is
declared clearly as an expansion of Krishna
Satvata Tantra 3.30-31:
"Incarnations headed by sukla, Rsabha, Nar-Narayana risis, Dattatreya, and in kaliyuga, buddha
and kalki. These incarnations are said to have displayed only a part of Vishnu's (Krishna's)
Knowledge, pastimes, powers, and other oppulences. Nara rishi entered Arjuna and therefore
Arjuna is an Avesa incarnation of Nara rsi. Lord Krishna, however, is the original supreme
personality of Godhead himself."
Infact, entire 3rd chapter of Satvata Tantra declares Krishna to be the source of all Incarnations,
for having a glance checkout the 3rd chapter.
3) It contradicts Srimad Bhagavatam 10.87.46 which goes as follows:
Sri Nārada said to Narayan Rishi: "I offer my obeisances to Him of spotless fame the Supreme
Lord Krishna, who manifests His all-attractive personal expansions so that all living beings can
achieve liberation."
If the opponent doubts Gaudiya translation (most authentic), check motilal editions translation:
Observe SB 10.87.46, quoted above. Narada says that Krishna assumes various forms and all
are his expansions. Here itself opposite claims are proven bogus. but there's more. If we check
the context, this has been told by Narad, that too infront of Narayana rishi. According to our
opponent, Narayana rishi is an incarnation of Vishnu and Krishna is an incarnation of Narayana
Rishi. But SB 10.87.46 Contradicts this heavily, If Krishna was an incarnation of Narayana Rishi
and Narayana rishi himself is an expansion of Vishnu, why would Narada that too in front of
another Incarnation of Vishnu say "Krishna assumes all forms, all are his expansions?" The only
correct interpretation here too, is that, Krishna is the source of Narayana Rishi too. Hence
Narada says so.
4) It also contradicts SB 4.1.59, according to which, Nar-Narayan were partial expansion of

Krishna.
"That Nara-Narayana Rsi, who is a partial expansion of Krsna, has now appeared in the
dynasties of Yadu and Kuru, in the forms of Krsna and Arjuna respectively, to mitigate the
burden of the world."
5) Your interpretation contradicts Brahma Vaivarta Purana where it is described: Narayana,

Vishnu, And Narayan Rishi all merged into Krishna's Transcendental body.
gatva narayano devo vilinah krsna-vigrahe drstva ca paramascaryam te sarve vismayam yayuh
"Then Lord Narayana approached, entered Lord Krsna's form, and disappeared When they saw
this, everyone became filled with wonder."
se capi linas tatraiva radhikesvara-vigrahe te drstva maha ascharyam vismayam paramam

yayuh
"Then Lord Vishnu also merged into the form of Lord Krishna Secing this, everyone is Then Lord
Vishnu also merged into the form of Lord Krishna Secing this, everyone became filled with
wonder."
lino 'harm krsna.padabje babhwa phalguno narah brahmesa-sesa-dharmās ca tasthur tatra tatra
vai
"Then I (Narayan Rishi) merged into Lord Krsna lotus feet and nara Rsi became Arjuna, Then
Brahma, Siva, Sesa, and Yamarija came to that place.
6) Error in translation.
The word ‘amshau' cannot be ascribed to Lord Krishna and Lord Balarama because of the
previous verse 4.1.58. This verse speaks about Maitreya informing Vidura about Lord Nara
Narayana. The next verse is a continuation of this. Therefore, the word ‘amshau' refers to Nara
Narayana only.
 Objection:
In 11th Canto (11.5.29). Narada too prays Krishna as Narayana rishi, Why would Narada address
Krishna as Narayana rishi?
 Refutation
Krishna's incarnation and his Narayan rishi's incarnation have many Similarities due to their
similar accompany, Nar and Arjuna. Hence, addressing Krishna as Narayana rishi is not
astonishing.
 Objection:
Uddhava, Arjuna, Rukmini Shishupal etc described and saw Krishna as four handed many times
in Bhagavatam.
 Refutation:
This is answered by Two Krishna concept. The Krishna they (Rukmini, shishupal, arjuna &
Uddhava) described to be four handed at many certain times was the son of Vasudeva and
Devaki, a four-handed plenary portion of Krishna.
 Objection:
What Shastra supports this Siddhanta?
 Refutation
Yamala Tantra says:
"krsno nyo yadu-sambhuto yah purnah so sty atah parah vrndavanam parityajya sa kvacin naiva
gacchasi dvi-bhujah sarvada so tra na kadacic catur-bhujah gopikaya yutas tatra prakriti nautiyal
"The Krishna known as Yadukumara is Vasudeva Krishna. He is different from the Krishna who
is the son of Nanda Maharaja. Yadukumara Krishna manifests His pastimes in the cities of
Mathura and Dwarka but Krishna the son of Nanda Maharaja never at any time leaves
Vrindavana, Vrindavana-Krishna always has two arms. He never has four arms. He eternally
enjoys pastimes a certain gopi."
This is also quoted by Purv Gaudiya Acaryas like Rupa Goswami.
Brahma Vaivarta Mahāpurana, 4:6:252-253 says:
Krishna says: O dear one, during the time of separation of a hundred years from you, both of us
will always meet in the dream daily. Getting separated from you and reaching Dvārakā all the
important tasks will be performed by Me from the amsa (expansion) of Nārāyana, during all
these hundred years. This is certain thereafter we shall again engage ourselves in the divine
dance at Vṛndāvana.
Srila Vishwanath Chakrawati Thakur in his Sarartha Darsini (Bhagavatam bhashya), SB 10.3.47
comments the follows:
"In the Hari Vamsa it says that in the eighth month of incomplete pregnancy Devaki and Yasoda
gave birth at the same time to their children. But here in Bhagavatam it is stated that Yasoda
gave birth after Devaki. How to correlate the two contradictory statements? Exactly when Devaki
gave birth to Krsna, Yasoda also gave birth to Krsna. After that, as described in this verse,
Yasoda gave birth to Yogamaya. Yasoda gave birth to two children at different times. This is
confirmed in SB 10.4.9, for when Yogamaya falls from the hands of Kamsa, she is called the
younger sister of Krsna. But when Krsna was born to Yasoda it is not stated that he had four
hands. It is understood that he was born from Yasoda with two hands."
The HariVamsa Verses that Vishwanath Chakrawati Thakura referred are the following:
HariVamsa 2.4.11-14:
garbhakAle tvasaMpUrNe aShTame mAsi te striyau | devakI cha yashodA cha suShuvAte
samaM tadA (11)
"Before the period of conception was complete, in the eighth month both Devaki and Yashodā
simultaneously gave birth to their children."
yAmeva rajanIM kR^iShNo jaj~ne vR^iShNikulodvahaH | tAmeva rajanIM kanyAM yashodApi

vyajAyata || (12)
"In the same night in which Krishna was born in the race of Vrishnis, Yashodā gave birth to her
daughter. "
nandagopasya bhAryaikA vasudevasya chAparA | tulyakAlaM cha garbhiNyau yashodA devakI

tathA (13)
"Vasudeva's wife Devaki and Nanda's wife Yashoda, both of them, conceived at the same time."
devakyajanayadviShNuM yashodA tAM tu dArikAm | muhUrte.abhijiti prApte sArdharAtre

vibhUShite (14)
"In the auspicious midnight and in Abkijit Muhurtta, Devaki gave birth to Vishnu and Yashodā to
that daughter."
Observation: 11th verse says both (Yashoda and Devaki) gave birth to their children at the
same time. Whom they got as children is not mentioned. 12th verse says in the same night
yogmaya and krishna appeared. 13th verse says both, Yasoda and Devaki got pregnancy at the
same time, here too names are not given of the children. 14th verse says in the same night
yogmaya and krishna appeared.
Note: whenever "Same time" Occurs, that is 11th and 13th verse, names are not given.
Whenever same night occurs, names are given and are of Yogmaya and Krishna.
Now, if our opponent interprets the 13th and 11th verse also to be indicating Yogmaya and
Krishna as the context too supports it, then it's leading a serious problem. Why? Because it
contradicts Bhagavatam 10.3.47 and 10.4.9. That means, 3 contradictions from 2 verse.
First contradiction, According to 10.3.47 of SB, Yogmaya appeared much later than Krishna,
that means different time but at the same night. confirming 12th and 14th verse of the
harivamsa quoted above.
"Thereafter, exactly when Vasudeva, being inspired by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, was
about to take the newborn child (Krishna) from the delivery room, Yoga-māyā, the Lord’s
spiritual energy, took birth as the daughter of the wife of Mahārāja Nanda."
Then the question is, who are those who appeared not only at the same night which is common
for all births taking place that night, but at the exact same time that Harivamsa 2.4.11 is talking
about? coming to second contradiction, according to SB 10.4.9, Yogmaya is said to be the
younger sister of Krishna, means she appeared later, If we interpret harivamsas 11th verse to
yogmaya and krishna only, then how Yogmaya becomes Krishna's younger sister if both
appeared simultaneously? Third contradiction is, if Yashoda did not gave birth to Krishna and
only devaki did, then on what basis Yogmaya is said to be the younger sister of Krishna? Thus,
its directly leading towards two Krishnas.
 Objection:
We can argue that, when HariVamsa Says “same time”, it means more or less same not exactly.
Thus, there's no contradiction at all. Hence, it refers to Yogmaya and Krishna only.
 Refutation:
No.
1) Then there's no need to mention "same time" Along with same night again. That means, its
indicating exact same moment and stressing on that point.
2) According to SB's verse quoted, Yogmaya appeared quite later. When Vasudeva was about
to leave the prison along with Krishna, that time YogMaya appeared. Too late. Hence,
harivamsa's “more or less same time” bogus interpretation doesn't sound logical.
But even if we agree to your interpretation, Still it doesn't escapes third contradiction mentioned
above, it can only escape from first two contradictions.
 Objection:
Kalpa Bheda can solve this.
 Refutation:
I hope there's no need to provide Shastra Pramana for Krishna never leaving Vrindavana. Kalpa
Bheda excuse is not applicable because if we reject Dvi Krishna Siddhanta, then Krishna actually
leaves Vrindavan. But, even if we agree to your Kalpa Bheda argument, again, doesn't escapes
third contradiction. Thus, bounded to lead towards two Krishnas.
 Objection:
Srimad Bhagavatam 12.12.27 doesn't support this Siddhanta.
"How Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead and Lord of the universe, descended into
this Yadu dynasty, how He took birth in the home of Vasudeva, and how He then grew up in
Gokula — all this is described in detail"
 Refutation:
We can quote the opposite of your objection. As in SB 10.4.9, Yogmaya is said to be the younger
sister of Krishna. But still, let's continue.
Srila Vishwanath Chakrawarti Thakura in his SB 10.3.55 commentary said:
"The fact that Krsna was also born to Yasoda is not very well known. But because of friendship,
Yasoda gave her fame to Devaki (and let Devaki become famous as the mother of Krsna)."
Krishna's two handed form is confidential subject as discussed in the 2nd chap of the book.
Thus the conclusion can be drawn that कृ ण स ा त is a confidential subject.
 Objection:
What is the connection of Dvi Krishna Siddhanta and 2nd chap of the book?
 Refutation:
Connection is that the two handed form of lord Krishna is more confidential than 4 handed
form. For details, refer 2nd chapter properly.
CHAP 5 - LAME EXCUSES.
Myth— It is possible for Gaudiyas to have Interpolated scriptures inorder to prove Krishna above
Vishnu, because Previous Acaryas like Ramanujacarya and Madhvacarya always held Vishnu as
supreme. It can be argued that the later Krishnite acaryas are inauthentic.
Debunked— By that logic Mayawadis can claim Ramanujacarya and Madhvacarya Interpolated
scriptures to prove Dvaita, Shankara coming before is more authentic. This excuse is flat out
nonsense. At least Sri Vaishnavas and the Tattvavadis accept Bhagavatam's Krishnas tu
bhagavan svayam as authentic (Sri Vaishnavas consider the entire Bhagavatam as Interpolation
free). In the beginning of the book, Krishna's supremacy is proven using Bhagavatam's Krishna's
tu Bhagavam Svayam only. In the fourth Chap the same was continued in the entire Bhagavatam.
We have provided tons of references in the second and third chapter, To claim Interpolating
these many is possible, is straight Illogical. Moreover, at the time when our acaryas quoted such
verses to establish Krishna's Supremacy, no anti-party came forward to deny the authenticity of
these quotes and their origin. In fact, Gaudiyas are not alone of the Sampradaya's within
Vaishnavism who accept Krishna to be Supreme. Rudra Sampradaya, Kumara Sampradaya also
accept Krishna to be the original root of all Incarnations.
The reason behind Madhvacarya and Ramanujacarya not propagating Krishna's Supremacy in a
clear manner is explained by Chaitanya Charan Prabhu. He explains and here's the quotation—
QUOTE "The vedic conclusion is given in Srimad Bhagawatam as "Krishnas tu bhagawan

syawam" And it is also indicated in the Bhagawad Gita "vedaiśh cha sarvair aham eva vedyo" In
15.15 that by all the Vedas I am to be Known. If we compare these two important scriptures,
Bhagawad Gita and Srimad Bhagawatam, the Vedic conclusion is quite clear. At the same time,
if we look at the historic Unfoldment of Revelation. That Unfoldment has been progressive. Just
as within the vedic literature there is a progressive development of the revelation of the
absolute truth. In the Karma Kand of Vedic literature there is only talking about the Vedic Rituals
by which one can get material sense gratification then a seeker keeps practicing more and more,
then that person starts realizing that, actually these rituals don't satisfy me much, there that
person comes to gyana Kand and that person becomes detached from material things and
focuses on the eternal aspect of the absolute truth that is the Brahman aspect. That's how the
person comes to the impersonal conception, And beyond that, the person may realize now I
have detached from material things and I am peaceful. But peaceful necessarily doesn't mean
Joyfulnes and then his longing for love within the heart will gradually inspire him for the Bhakti
revelation, and within the bhakti revelation also there can be various rasas, common rasa is
dasya ras, and higher rasas are also there. That is actually progressive revelation is indicated in
Brihat Bhagawatamrita's story told by Sanatan Goswami about the Gopa Kumar, so we know
this is the gradual progressive plan of the Vedic literature. Now in Kali Yuga, this gradual
progressive plan has also actually been implemented or revealed progressively. If we look back
at the history of India 2500 or 3000 years ago not at the time of kali yuga but after Kali yuga
started and took off, as it spread more and more, the religion that existed in India was mostly
karma kandi and that centered mostly on animal sacrifice because of which they started
abusing those injunctions that's why Lord Buddha Came and said stop all this. Buddhism and
Jainism which were the two schools of thought that evolved around 2500 years ago, they
focused more on rejection of karma kanda and rejection of world itself. So when they rejected
the world, they indirectly focused on making people detached from material things and
progressively then Shankaracarya came after 6th century and he said ok, you want to talk about
rejection and world renunciation but this is there in the Vedic literature also, and then he
introduced the people of India to the
Gyana Kanda section of the vedic literature and he showed that was was actually being
promised by Buddhism and Jainism was provided within the Vedic fold itself through the
literature of the Gyana kanda section of the vedas. And then after that Shankaracarya was very
successful in bringing various parts of the India back into the Vedic fold, and then after that
when the vaishnav acaryas came as a response to the intellectualized presentation of
impersonal teachings of the vedas, The Acaryas were forced to present intellectualized versions
of the devotional conclusions of the Vedas, so if we look at the teachings of Ramanujacarya, his
commentary on Athato Brahma Jijnasa, at a particular font size in a particular printed style can
draw it to almost 100 pages of his sri bhashya commentary and he is commenting on the
Upanishads, he is commenting on the vedanta sutra and using very high level, intellectual
arguments to show how even if one is attracted to intellectual aspects of philosophy one should
not think that the bhakti aspect is lesser, personal conclusion is based on sound intellectual
philosophy. Similarly when Madhvacarya came, at that time he also gave heavily intellectual
presentations of the vedic literature. In fact, Madhvacarya's teachings were such that those who
met and debated with him used to get converted because they found him to be an incredible
philosopher, but those who heard his arguments from a distance or heard about him, found his
teachings incomprehensible. And sometimes even almost absurd. There's only when
successors like jaya teertha and vyasa teertha who wrote commentaries elaborating
Madhvacarya's writings then the depth and profundity of Madhvacarya's teachings became
accessible to the intellectual people of India. So the point which I'm making here is, that
progressively from the 10th century when Ramanujacarya appeared, to 12-13th century when
Madhvacarya appeared, when the impersonal notions were countered at that time it was
important to present intellectualized aspects of Bhakti. So the Madhuryarasa and especially the
love of the gopis for Krishna, in fact the whole conception of Krishna Himself seems too playful,
romantic, mundane and at times even immoral to actually appeal to an Audience that is
primarily not exclusively intellectual. So, after the intellectual credentials of the Bhakti path were
established after that the Lord arranged to himself decend as Lord Chaitanya and he created a
widespread awakening of Krishna Bhakti. Before that there were poets like Jayadev Goswami
and there are songs of Krishna bhakti even in the alwars but at that time the social cultural and
social intellectual situation was not receptive for the widespread dissemination of the
understanding that actually this bluish black cowherd boy who plays a flute and he has a
peacock feather and dances in a full moon night with young cowherd damsels, eats mud and
crawls like a baby sometimes, is the absolute truth. He is that same absolute truth that the
vedanta sutra is talking about in highly intellectualized ways. Even Lord Brahma the creator of
this universe was bewildered of seeing Krishna, that is famous and known as Brahma vimohan
leela in the Bhagawatam. Vishnu Swami and Nimbarkacarya are of course successors in terms
of Vallabhacarya and others, they do talk of Radha Krishna Bhakti only, but if we look at the
other prominent sampradays like the Dwaita and Vishishtaadvaita their prominent Acarya are
systematizers. Ramanujacarya and Madhvacarya they appeared in a historical situation that
was not conducive for the understanding of the lost vision of the beautiful form of Lord Krishna.
That's why the Vision of God as protector, the Vision of God as the imposing majestic Vishnu,
who is served in a Aishwarya rasa, that was the most sober conception for countering the
intellectual potentials of the Mayawad and therefore that was the presentation that they
emphasized. Now they did not minimize or reject Krishna worship in any way, but they did not
highlight or emphasize it. Because that was what required at that particular situation and that's
why when Lord Chaitanya Comes he gives highest conclusion of the Vedic literature which is
not brought forth till now and certainly not propagated till now, that's why it is the Gaudiya
Vaishnav Sampraday which builds on the spiritual restoration that was started by Buddha and
continued by Shankara and further continued by Ramanuja and Madhva and culminated in the
teachings of Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and his mission. That revelation, Krishna is the
ultimate conclusion of the Vedic Literature that was revealed and established and propagated."
END QUOTE.
Bhaktivinoda Thakur notes in his Nawadwip Dhama Mahatmya 15.85, where Chaitanya
Mahaprabhu tells to Madhvacarya the following—
“‘Now (O Madhvacarya), carefully eradicate illusionism and false scriptures from all regions,
and establish the glory of the Lord’s Deity form. Later, I (Chaitanya) will develop your pure
conception.’'
In the same chapter, Verse 38 - 39 we find the following—
“Seeing the eagerness of Rāmānuja, Jagannāth said, ‘O Rāmānuja, do not speak this way. “‘My
Pastimes as Gaura are very confidential; keep them secret. Only after they are unmanifest will
everyone receive them."
It is also found in the other parts of Nawadwip Dham Mahatmya that certain revelations of the
scriptures and even entire scripture were hidden from the common masses by the Lord through
his Illusory power.
Objection— Why should Sri Vaishnavas and the like accept Nawadwip Dham Mahatmya, an
Sampradayik Grantha, not a well known Vedic Scripture?
Refutation— It doesn't matter, References from Nawadwip Dham Mahatmya were additional
support, the logical explanation refutes the objection sufficiently, the one quoted of Chaitanya
Charan Prabhu. Having said that, We can use kind of a deductive logic to establish the
authenticity of Nawadwip Dhama Mahatmya. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is Krishna himself is
established in the Scriptures very well. Srila Prabhupada was predicted by Sri Vaishnav Purv
Acaryas themselves, like Nammalvar, even in well known Vedic Scriptures like Brahma Vaivarta
Maha Purana, Bhavisya Maha Purana, We find Prabhupada's prediction. Srila Prabhupada was
also predicted by Mahaprabhu himself which is evident from Chaitanya Bhagavat and Chaitanya
Charitamrta. Bhaktivinoda Thakur the author of Nawadwip Dhama Mahatmya can't be lying
because he was the Spiritual Master and Father of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur, Bhakti
Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur was the Spiritual master of Srila Prabhupada. The same Srila
Prabhupada accepts Bhaktivinoda Thakur. Note— On YouTube channel named "DAS" More
books that do the job of providing Prabhupada's and also Mahaprabhu's Scriptural mentions will
be uploaded, one can access them from their Promo Video's description Box. If one is not able
to find the channel, then search this "Gaur Gopal Das Exposed" This is a title of one of the
famous video of the channel, due to which you'll get access to the channel "DAS".
गु गौर जयतु। जयतु वै णवधमः। इदं सव
कृ णापणम्।
“May victory be unto Guru and Gauranga. May the doctrine of Vaishnavism be triumphant. All
this is thus offered to Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead.”

Untitled

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Untitled

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Contents—

1— Krishnas tu Bhagavan Svayam.

Srimad Bhagavatam 1.3.28:

एते चांशकलाः पुंसः कृ ण तु भगवान् वयम् । इ ा र ाकुलं लोकं मृडय त यु गे यु गे

4. SB 1.3.40 (Not related to the context)

Srimad Bhagavatam 1.3.1:

Srimad Bhagavatam 1.3.23:

Srimad Bhagavatam 1.3.28:

Srimad Bhagavatam 1.3.40 (not related to the context):

idam bhagavatam nama puranam brahma-samhita uttama-sloka-charita cakra bhagavān sih

Observation and Refutation: The word Bhagavan is anonymously attributed to someone in SB

Srila Prabhupada in his Bhasya:

Me: Now coming on stage Akshay Sharma .....

Vishnu Purana, 6:5:75:

This is quoted by Ramanujacarya in Vedartha Sangraha. However, this argument of Ramas tu

But Saying Narayana is an expansion of Krishna is a heavy contradiction. As maho upanishad

To this objection, We have two rebuttals:

 Here, (Maho Upanishad quotation) Narayana is referring to Krishna only.

"Brahman is Krishna,.and is denoted by the words 'supreme brahman', 'Narayana" "Vasudeva'

Skanda Purana 2.9.10, 11-12:

Padma Purana 2.3.59-60 Says:

Padma Purana 2.4.1 Says:

सू त उवाच-गतेषु तेषु गोलोकं वै णवं तमसः पर मश वमा महा ा ः क न ं वा यम वीत्

Garga samhita, Ashvamedha khanda, 13.7 says:

In the Prabhasa-khanda of the Skanda Purana (5.3.121-124) it is said –

Yamunacarya himself in his Agama Pramana 96 Says—

Skanda Purana 2.9.10, 11-12:

Padma Purana, Patala-khanda 73.17-19:

Gautamiya Tantra 1.42-49:

Gautamiya Tantra 1.60-61:

Gautamiya Tantra 1.78:

Gautamiya Tantra 1.212-213:

This is again confirmed in Srimad Bhagavatam.

Srimad Bhagavatam 10.13.2:

Skanda Purana 2.9.17, 28-29:

In Srimad Bhagavatam 10.14.1. Lord Brahma describes Krishna's form.

Srimad Bhagavatam 10.14.2:

"I (Brahma) cannot understand your personal form."

Srimad Bhagavatam 10.13.15:

Narada pancaratra 9.196:

ndvaisnavdya ddtyavyarh vikalpopahatdtmane bhakti-sraddhd-vihindya visnu-sdmdnya darsine

Vedanta Desika in his Dramidopanishad Tatparya Ratnavali, 4th verse Says:

In the Prabhasa-khanda of the Skanda Purana 5.3.121-124 it is said:

Garuda Purana 3.1.66-67:

Padma Purana Shristhi Khanda, 1.51:

Chapter is divided into 4 sections, they are as follows:

1. Krishna: Source of all Incarnations.

2. "Krishna": The best of holy names.

3. Goloka: The topmost Abode.

4. Krishna's Bhagavatam: King among all Puranas.

 Lord Krishna, Source of all Incarnations:

Brahma Vaivarta Purana 4.5.111:

ekanika-loma-vivare brahmandam kam ekakam yasyalva mahato visnoh sodasamsas tavaiva

अ ोकाः - अ ये सवऽवताराः युः कृ ण य च रतं महत् भूभारक वनाशाय ा भूतो रमाप तः

Quotes by Gaudiya Acharyas, from Brahmanda Purana:

Padma Purana 5.69.108-115:

Srimad Bhagavatam 2.6.43-45:

Brahma Vaivarta Purana 4.6.89:

Brahma Vaivarta Purana 4.5.93:

sa capi linas yayuh tatralva radhikesvara-vigrahe te drstvå maha ascharyam vismayam

Brahma Vaivarta Purana 4.5.98:

lino 'harm krsna-padabje babhuva phalguno narah brahmesa-sesa-dharmās ca tasthur tatra

Devi Upa-Puran XXXVIII 7-79: