Talk:Bhagavata Purana

I think this article contains a very significant contradiction that needs to be attended to.

I believe the following two statements are contradictory to the other:

Its primary focus is the process of bhakti yoga (loving devotion to the Supreme Lord) in which Vishnu and/or Krishna is understood as the Supreme all-embracing God of all gods (Bhagavan).

Each section or canto describes specific avatars of Vishnu, beginning with a summary of all avatars in the first canto concluding with description of Krishna as Svayam bhagavan.

How can we say "concluding with description of Krishna as Svayam bhagavan" and also say Vishnu and/or Krishna. We need to make the readers aware of the difference in interpretation.

avatar of God?

The Bhagavata Purana contains the following verse:

All of the above mentioned incarnations are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord S'rî Krishna is the original personality of Godhead. All of them appear on planets whenever there is a disturbance created by the atheists The Lord incarnates to protect the theists. (1:3:28).

That is why I changed Vishnu to Krishna. Krishna is the greater and more appropriate name.

That is an absolute ISKON/Gaudiya speculation. There are many of Sri Sampradayam Pandits that can refute that "group" idea. There are a number Vaishnava Sri Sampradayam Swamis that totally refutes and gives the proper interpretation...according to the original Vaishnava understanding, before the Gaudiya "group" came around in the 15th cent. According the original standards and principles of the Vedas,Ramanujacharya and the Sri Sampradayam...Sri Krishna is a Vibhava-avatara form of Narayana. Krishna is Narayana. Narayana, the Four-armed form in Vaikunta is the Param form of VishnuGovinda Ramanuja dasa(USA) (talk) 21:45, 24 Feb 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuspitar (talk • contribs)

I don't understand how the most central truth of the Bhagavad Gita and the Bhagavata Purana cannot be understood by some readers. It's not like they say this in one or two obscure verses - these entire texts revolve around who Krishna is. This is really my last post here. Because I just don't understand. This is not a Gaudiya view point. This would seem like the most obvious conclusion by anyone that read the Bhagavad Gita or the Bhagavata Purana. They tell us who Krishna is in so many many different ways - that I don't understand how one cannot understand who He is. But believe in what you believe. You worship Krishna in your worship of Vishnu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.99.134 (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

A question...Are you reading non-ISKON translations? Or are you reading only ISKON Translations. Any one will tell you that their translations are the most bias translations written. You cant really trust them. I did seva or service at the BBT in Los Angeles for three years...and I was told by very promenant devotees, the people who run it; that nearly all of the books were re-written. Please beware. You first have to study what the original four Vedas, the main Upanishads, the laws of Manu, other Scriptures, the tenets of the Sri Sampradayam- the first Vaishnava Sampradayam, the testimonies of Sadhus before the creation of the other brake-off sampradayams in the 12th to 16th centuries and the vedically based Hindu traditions to know that Narayana/Vishnu is the first. And, then you go to the Mahabharata or the Bhagavad-gita or the Bhagavata purana, then you understand that Sri Krishna is an incarnation of Vishnu. It is all according to the prior original scriptures, sadhus and the vedically Hindu tradition says...and, they all say that Narayana, with four arms in Vaikunta is the Original form. And, that Sri Krishna is a vibhava/avatara form of Vishnu/Narayana. This is an absolute Gaudiya veiw point. The Bhagata purana ALSO mentions Narayana. Many Gurus, vedically trainned pandit(scholar), vedically trainned Swamis-both Vaishnava or Shavite (those outside of ISKON/Gaudiya)...and they all will tell you, according to the original sastra, before the brake offs of the 12th to 16th centuries, that Narayana/Vishnu is the first and that Sri Krishna is an incarnation of Vishnu. This Whole issue is about what was being said in the prior, original text before the Mahabharata/Bhagavad-gita and that the quotes made about Sri Krishna being Supreme are totally out of context to what is Really being said. And, I worship Vishnu/Narayana, who is the First and Original... According to the Vedic scriptures, the Vedic/Vaishnava Religion and the Original Acharyas before the brake-offs of the 12th to 16th century. This "You worship Krishna in your worship of Vishnu." is not Vedically, Shastrically or Acharya backed sentiment. Shastra, Sadhu and Dharma says that Narayana is The Original God. Not His vibhava/avatara form Sri Krishna.Govinda Ramanuja dasa(USA) (talk) 11:22, 03 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuspitar (talk • contribs)

This is neither a Gaudiya speculation, nor is it a widely accepted understanding in Vaishnavism or Hinduism. The Gaudiya and Nimbarka sampradayas both understand the verses in the Bhagavata Purana to describe that Krishna is the ultimate source of all avatars. Other sampradayas, such as Sri Vaishnavas understand the same verses in a different way, and worship Vishnu as the supreme God, of which Krishna is an avatar. Either way, both sets of sampradayas are ultimately worshipping the same Person, so it's not really an argument worth getting too worked up over, at least in my humble opinion. I understand your point of view. Hare Krishna, ys Gouranga(UK) (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes,it still is Speculation...it is only accepted your sampradayam and the other brake-off groups of the 1200's-1600's. This is NOT accepted through out all of Hinduism or vaishnavism. I dont know where you got that information. Even Shaivites and others know, through Sastra and Sadhu and tradition know that Vishnu/Narayana is the original form, not Krishna avatara. According to many verses in the original four Vedas, many verses in the main Upanishads, Chapter one-verse 10 of the Laws of Manu, many ancient stotras, many ancient suktams, many ancient mantras,many verses from the Alwars, Yamunacharya, Ramanujacharya (who you IKSON/Gaudiya put in your disciplic line...and, dont even follow His principles or what He said about Vishnu being first and alot of other things) Vedanta desika...They all say, before the schisms of the 12th-to 16th centuries, that Narayana/Vishnu is the First and Krishna is just a vibhava/avatara form of Narayana. If you truely study and follow what the older text, sadhus, and the well established,vedically back, Original Hindu tradition and what it says about Narayana, and then you study the Bhagavad-gita. You already understand that Krishna is an avatara of Vishnu. Krishna is Vishnu incarnate. First, lets just use the information on Wikipedia...The Sri Sampradayam is first...historical fact. You guys broke off from Madhavacharya line (which He broke off from the Sri Sampr.). You stated above that We "understand the same verses in a different way"...We have the Original Understanding, before the brake-offs occured in the 12th through 16th centuries. Even in a court of law, this position would be understood to be the truth. This is the Sampradaic relativism that has sprang up with in the last 750 years. Even when studying the Western Religions, it is understood that the Jewish religion was the first and that is has the original understandings,traditions and etc. Even when studying the old test., you have to understand, from the original jewish understanding of what is being really said. The same thing with Our issue, You study the older original texts, what acharyas said before the brake-offs and what the scripturally back tradition informs us....and it all says that Narayana in Vaikunta, with four arms is the first. Many trained, schooled Sri Sampradayam Swamis and Pandit; and Shaivite Swamis and Pandits...will tell you, from a Vaishnava stance, Narayana-Vishnu is first and that Krishna is an avatara. The qoutes that you use are actually mis-understandings not taken in accordance with the Original scriptures, Original Acharyas and Scripturally based Hindu traditions. And typical for the schism years between the 12th and 16th centuries. At this time period, people were saying...Krishnas First! and other people were saying...Rama is First! And, they were all trying to prove that their particular incarnation was supreme. Alot of people were trying to form there own sampradayams, coming up with their own interpetations and their own holy books to justify their own ishta-deva as Supreme. In context with this issue; What does the Original Sastra, Sadhu and tradition say. And, then go to what is said about Krishna in the bhagavad-gita and the Bhagavata purana. And, I know...that ISKON/Gaudiya matha does not really accept the Original four Vedas, the main Upanishads, the laws of Manu or any of the other Scriptures. And, the argument that the Vedas are karma kanda or the Upanishads ( with the exception of the Isha-Upanishad) is mayavadaya or the laws of Manu are for Smarta brahmanas...is a very, very incorrect stance that ISKON/Gaudiya has ( I have personally heard many high level ISKON devotees say this). All of these Original texts say....Narayana is first. I beleive that the idea of Krishna and Rama is first came from the fact that alot of people werent able to study the original Vedic and Upanishadic scriptures. And, the only thing that was available for non-brahmins to read was the Ramayana and the Mahabarata/Bhagavad-gita and all the Puranas. When in these later texts, according to a scholarly stance...when they mention the Names of Sri Krishna or Sri Rama, They are the names of Vishnu. Krishna is a name of Narayana, Krishna is a form of Narayana, Krishna is Narayana.Govinda Ramanuja dasa(USA) (talk) 10:49, 03 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuspitar (talk • contribs)

Let's put aside for a moment the names human beings have given to identify themselves with a particular group (ie Gaudiya Vaishnavas). And let's examine the Bhagavad Gita and Bhagavata Purana solely as a Hindu person would. After reading these texts, wouldn't most Hindu's come to the same conclusion as the people who call themselves Gaudiya Vaishnavas has come to? The verses from these two texts that would support the Gaudiya viewpoint are innumerable. It's like your asking a Gaudiya to look for verses to support his belief in these texts, when the entire texts are written on the basis of this belief. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.99.134 (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

A question...Are you reading non-ISKON translations? Or are you reading only ISKON Translations. Any one will tell you that their translations are the most bias translations written. You cant really trust them. I did seva or service at the BBT in Los Angeles for three years...and I was told by very promenant devotees, the people who run it; that nearly all of the books were re-written. Please beware. Again, like I stated in above. The Gaudiyas have taken out of context certain quotes from these books to justify the notion of their ista-deva being the Supreme. You have to study the prior, previous, original scriptures or Shastra, and what the original acharyas before the Gaudiya group and what the Vedically backed Hindu Traditions ALL say...and they say that Narayana/Vishnu is the First and that Krishna is a vibhava form of Him. Even Vedically trainned, school trainned Shavite pandits, swamis, brahmanas etc. will tell you, in context with Vaishnavism, Narayana/Vishnu is the first and that Sri Krishna is an avatara..Govinda Ramanuja dasa(USA) (talk) 11:37, 03 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuspitar (talk • contribs)

Dear Zeuspitar, followers of both Nimbarka and Chaitanya view Krishna and the Supreme source of all avatars. ISKCON follow this view because they are within the Gaudiya tradition of following Chaitanya. It is not ISKCON specific, nor is it Gaudiya specific. See any authoritative book written on the teachings of Nimbarkacharya. I've pulled some quotes from the web just quickly to illustrate this: "Nimbarka identifies the Supreme Brahman with Krishna." and "In Nimbarka, Krishna and Radha (Kirshna’s consort) take the places of Narayana and Lakshmi. Radha is not simply the chief of the Gopis, but is the eternal Consort of Lord Krishna." - both from this link

This belief, of both the above Vaishnava schools is supported by their understanding of the statement in verse 1.3.28 of the Bhagavata Purana wherein, following a list of all of Vishnu's main avatars, the text then states at the end "ete camsa-kalah pumsah, krishnas tu bhagavan svayam" which these schools take to indicate that of all these aforementioned avatars, Krishna (krishnas) but (tu) is the Supreme (Bhagavan) Person (svayam). It is a translation accepted within both these Vaishnava schools. Thus not all Hindu traditions say that Krishna is a avatar of Vishnu. Sri Vaishnavism translations of this verse are different. Okay, not a problem. The aim of Wikipedia is not to argue out, or comment on which is best, but simply to report all notable points of view which are of relevance in the article.

Similarly when Krishna states in the Bhagavad-Gita "aham sarvasya prabhavo, mattah sarvam pravartate... " (from BG 10.8), Nimbarka and Chaitanya's followers see this as refering to Krishna as Krishna. "I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who perfectly know this engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts." From this perspective Krishna when He says He is the Supreme, He means Himself, as Krishna. I know that in the Sri Sampradaya, and amongst other followers of Ramanujacharya and Madhvacharya it is most commonly viewed that when Krishna is saying this He is meaning that He as Vishnu is the source, not as Krishna specifically. Okay, that is a valid point of view. What we have is a difference of opinion between Vaishnava schools, is it not? And are differences of opinion not common within Hinduism? A follower of Advaita Vedanta would read that same verse as something else entirely which none of the Vaishnava sampradayas would agree with. It is a matter of debate. But within the article, we need not debate. We can include all relevant viewpoints. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all,again...it goes back to what the vedas, upanishads, alwars and Ramanujacharaya said...period. What was the standard BEFORE the people that you are qouted like "Nimbarka" beleived in. Still, the standard before the schisms of the 12th to 16th centuries, according to the Vedas, the Upanishads, and sattvic puranas and other scriptures and The ORIGINAL acharyas of Vaishnavism say...Lakshmi and Narayana...period. In the second paragraph that you wrote that "Thus not all Hindu traditions say that Krishna is a avatar of Vishnu." first off, it is a well establish fact in Hinduism that the two "sampradayams" that you mentioned are..."brake off" groups, that re-translated and created their own ideas of what the scriptures are saying. These groups are just minor groups within the greater hindu religious whole. Shavites, Shaktis and others will tell you; because they FOLLOW the original vedic scriptures, that in the context of Vaishnavism, according to the vedas, that Lakshmi Narayana is first. Because many quotes from ALL four vedas, many quoutes from the upanishads, and many quotes from other scriptures and what Vaishnava sadhus have said...Before the "brake off" groups. I dont know what "Hindus" you are talking about...the conceptions and ideas of the "brake off" groups that you mention are Not in accordance with the general vedically backed Hindu religious community. You said; "From this perspective Krishna when He says He is the Supreme, He means Himself, as Krishna." AGAIN, what did the other scriptures BEFORE the Mahabharata/Bhagavad-gita say...Vishnu incarnated AS Krishna. When Krishna was born....He had four arms and all the trapings of...Vishnu. In the Bhagavad-gita Krishna show His Universal form and if I am not mistaken, he also showed His four arm form. Both, I might add, are forms of...Vishnu. You said; "Sri Vaishnavism translations of this verse are different."....we know the correct way because of what shastra and sadhus have said,...again, before the advent of the brake off groups coming up with thier own interpretations for their particular ista-deva. From time in memorial to up to the time of Ramanujacharya was the shastrically correct understandings of the verses that you quoted. After Ramanujacharyas passing...then every one wanted to translate according to what they feel...and, not what is in shastra. And, just to let you know, I agree with what you said about..."But within the article, we need not debate. We can include all relevant viewpoints." Namaskar zeuspitar) Govinda Ramanuja dasa (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Can't we just respect the fact that we both disagree unresolvably, and that clearly both are engaged in devotional service, and simply put 'Visnu/Krishna', like there is in so many other articles? Perhaps if there is a seperate article for this argument, or even just a esction on the page, it will allow readers an unbiased and two-sided view of things. Harrifer (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This page does the Bhagavata Purana a tremendous injustice

The Bhagavata Purana, one of the most central and authoratative of all Hindu texts, is not properly represented on this Wikipedia page.

All existing sections could be expanded greatly, while new sections can be added that would better represent the very significant nature of this Hindu text.

Furthermore, the fact that the Uddhava Gita doesn't even have its own page is saddening.

Let's all make a collective effort to revitalize and greatly improve this page.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.99.134 (talk) 10:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this page in it's current state leaves a lot of room for improvement. Gouranga(UK) (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)