Originally posted by: _LalithaJanaki_
I think I understand what you're saying, but I'm still a little confused about what you said "Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu but Vishnu is also an avatar of Krishna"😕...so who is the supreme and who is the avatar? Is Krishna "the supreme God head" the same Krishna of Dwapar Yuga, or is the Krishna of Dwapar Yug a different Krishna (avatar of Vishnu)?
The answer is Most clearly given in Garga Samhita Lalitha di. Garga samhita is by Garga Acharaya ji. He did naamkaran of Thakur ji too 😳 I wish you had Garga Samhita because in the first 5 chapters everything gets cleared. As I told earlier, its Kalpbhed. In one kalp Lord Krishna took avtaar from Vishnu ji but avtaar when we talk in terms of Lord Krishnas avtaar from Vishnu bhagvan, we merely mean he descended to earth. But when I say Lord Vishnu and all have come from Thakur ji, I mean Lord Krishna GENERATED them all. We never read/heard that Lord Vishnu/others generated Thakur ji. But I have read in every samhita/puran that he generated them all. Of which detailed shlokas so many I gave in RF. So u understand di wat I mean? And Lord Brahma himself has called Lord Krishna the First Man/GOD in his Brahma Samhita:--
5th adhaya, 39th shlok:
Ramadimurtishu kalaniyamena tishthan
Nanaavtarmakrod bhuvneshu kintu,
krishnah swayam sambhavatparamaha puman yo
Govindmadipurasham tamaham bhajami
Meaning:-- Jinhone Shri Ram, Narsingh, vaman ityadi vegrahon mein niyat sankhya ki kala roop se stith reh kar jagat mein vibhin avtaar liye, parantu jo BHAGVAN SRI KRISHNA ke roop me SWAYAM PRAKAT huye, un adi purash bhagvan Govind ka main bhajan karta hoon.
5th adhaya, 48 shlok:
Yasyakanishvasitkalmathavalambya
Jeevanti lomvilja jagdandanatha:
VishnurMahan sa eha yasya kalavishesho
Govindmadipurasham tamaham bhajami
Meaning:-- Maha Vishnu ke rom chidron se prakat Brahma, avem bahutik brahmandon ke anya swami gadn unke(maha vishnu ke) ek nishwas jitne kaal tak hi jivit rehte hain, paruntu jinki ek vishisht kala matra(i.e. an extraodinary art of Lord Krishna) Maha-vishnu bhi hain, un adi purash Govind ka main bhajan karta hoon.
Adi meaning first! 😊
So its just this much. If we understand the difference b.w avtaar as in descended and generated we ll get it all!! 😊
Is this what you meant by Krishna being an avatar of Vishnu and Vishnu being an avatar of Krishna?
I dont know who wrote that di but Lord Krishna is just one. And rest as I explained from what I have read from our scriptures! 😳
This is the best part of your post. LOL!!! Okk, I ll start....
Also, I have one more question. In Shri Valmiki Ramayana, it says that Shri Ram is the Supreme Godhead reborn on Earth to kill the demon Ravana and his Rakshaskul. Was Shri Ram an avatar of Vishnu (in the sense of one of the das avataras)
There are two Lord Ram. The one being talked about in Ramcharitmanas is Adi Ram whose dhyan Lord Shiv does and he stays in Saket dham and hes a form of Shri Krishna. And then in one Kalp Lord Ram has taken avtaar from Lord Vishnu as well that being told in Valmiki Ramayan. See this sloka from RamCharit Manas di:--
Ramayanshatkotiapara:-- Ramayan shat koti apara.
Meaning:-- Ramayan shat=100 koti=crore
Therefore 100 crore Ramayan have been made till now out of which we have got ONLY 12. So till where will we define and How much can we define about Lord Ram? Like I said Lord Ram is the biggest charitra of our world. There is no one like him and no one in the future will be like him.
It all comes down to Kalpantra. In one Ram bhagvan came from Lord Vishnu then we get to know of Adi Ram that is Ram bhagvan who was there even before the Ram bhagvan who came on earth. Its all the leela of Gods. The basic answer is Kalpantra and we just understand that all this is Leelas of God. And that every yuga has their own supreme God.
or was he (like Shri Krishna) the supreme Lord (as in was Vishnu also an avatar of Shri Ram)?
Nono. Vishnu bhagvan is not an avtaar of Shri Ram. Adi Ram has come from Shri Krishna and then there has been a Lord Ram who has come from Vishnu bhagvan too. Thats how Lord Ram comes. About being supreme, its just that in every different Yuga, there are different god who becomes supreme for just that yuga. Not overall.
How do we know Adi Ram is there? Because I dont think many ppl know:--
When Sati got bhasam in the yagya that had taken in Kankhal, Haridwar, then Lord Shiv got "veragya" as in he got detached from everything and felt no feelings towards everything. Then one day when Lord Shiv had sat and taken samadi on Kaliash THEN Adi Ram came to him. Lord Shiv did his "namashkar" to him and asked him, "Prabhu, how come you are here?" So Lord Ram said, "I have come with a request for u". Lord Shiv said, "You're my god, order me!" So Lord Ram asked him to get married and Shiv bhagvan had agreed.
This had taken place when Treta had Just started and Lord Ram had not taken birth in Ayodhya. So we get this proof that Adi Ram was there even before Lord Ram had come.
Then....are Shri Ram and Shri Krishna the same or was Shri Krishna higher than Lord Rama? Likewise, were Devi Sita and Radhaji the same or different?
I wont say higher di. I have always said that Lord Krishna has generated them but they are all the same. I never make a difference b/w Lord Krishna and Lord Ram. Its just when we talk about generation of everything, it came from Lord Krishna. But otherwise, Gods are all the same. I understood this thought the best in RF only 😊 Sita ji and Radharani are different.
Actually, I made a mistake. In Valmiki Ramayana, it says Ramji is an avatar of Vishnu, but I think in Goswami Tulsidasji's Ramcharitmanas, it says Lord Ram was the Supreme Godhead. Which do you think is a more reliable Ramayana to follow? Ramcharitmanas or Valmiki Ramayana?😕 There are so many different infos in both, the main one being that Valmiki Ramayana insists that Lord Ram did not know he was God until after he killed Ravan, while Ramcharitmanas insists that he did.
See di, pls dont get so confused. Both are right. Bcoz both are written by the same person. Reliable are both. But the one which is "muksha" i.e. more appropriate is Ramcharitmanas. Today it is read more. But whoever told u the last 3 blue lines has given you wrong information. God always knows hes god. Ask the person from where hes reading this like in which part is this mentioned.
Also, the Uttara Kandas of both are totally different. One tends to believe Valmiki Ramayan more because the great sage Valmikiji had gotten divya dhristi from Lord Brahma and saw everything in Ramayana, making his story true. But....Tulsidasji was said to have received the darshan of Lord Hanuman, who personally told him the entire story of Ramayana, so how can we know which is true and which is untrue?
Both are true di. But when you are saying Uttar Khanda is different, then like what is different in it? But both are true. Valmikiji wrote as he understood from Tretayugas time. And Tulsidasji wrote as he understood from Kalyugas time. Its like this:--
Some ppl say 1+1=2
and then some say 1+1 can also = 11.
I know its a funny example but I am just giving an example. That everyone has their own visions on things.
You read so many scriptures so I'd really like to know your opinion on this. People often told me not to give importance to Ramcharitmanas because only Valmiki Ramayana can be called a true source for Ramayana, but when I the slokas in Ramcharitmanas are so deep and heart provoking that it just seems impossible to me that Tulsidasji could have written a false story.😔
Whoever says like that really shudnt if u ask me!. See, Valmiki ji and Tulsidas ji are the same. As we know that Tulsidas ji was reincarnation of Valmiki ji. Why? Because of the shrap given to him by Hanuman ji. Because Valmiki ji got Hanuman ji into a vachan and asked him to put his version of Ramayan in the water and so Hanuman ji gave him the shrap that what you did with my Ramayan, same will happen to yours. And your Ramayan will also not get so popular. Thats why Valmiki ji came again as Tulsidas ji and wrote Ramcharitmanas which today is considered more authentic and more appropriate.
And Tulsidasjis Ramcharitmanas was signed by Ram bhagvan himself. Because there were other scholars of that time who had written their Ramayan and they said to Tulsidasji if your Ramayan is so right then Lord Ram will do his signature on your version. So Tulsidasji put his Ramcharitmanas in his mandir, locked it and left. In the night, Lord Ram had come and put his signature on Ramcharitmanas which everyone saw the next day. So you see what Lord has approved himself then how do we say its not right? 😊
P.S.--- Even very few parts of Hanuman jis Ramayan have been found now u know 😃
Also, you listed Padma Purana, Shrimad Bhagavatham, and so many others as authentic sources for our scriptures. We had a long discussion on scriptures in the Ramayan Forum where some people said where discrepancies occur in the storyline of Ramayana from Valmiki Ramayana to other scriptures, only Valmiki Ramayan should be believed. But then....if that's true, how can we believe everything else written in the other scriptures? But then...we can't take only Valmiki Ramayana as the ultimate source for every other scripture because it only talks about the life of Lord Rama. The great sage Veda Vyasa wrote Mahabharata, but his Ramayana is again different from his Mahabharata. How can we believe his Mahabharata but disbelieve his Ramayana?
No yaar. We dont do like that. Ved Vyas was the greatest Rishi and he is the whole soul of every scripture and litreature that we have today. He was the avtaar of god himself so his every scripture is right. Even I have got these notions put infront of me that Garga Samhita is not considered authentic by scholars or Brahma Samhita isnt. I asked that person who the hell gave the right to todays ppl to say that this is not right and its not authentic? Are they gods? Thats what I told the person. That all these scriptures were written by Gods or their avtaars themselves. So it gives no right to us the ppl of Kalyuga to define whats right/authentic or whats not. So we can never argue about Ved Vyas or our other hindu litreature. So, pls dont listen to ppl. Thats what I wud say. We are very very normal individuals. I call myself as a "tuch" that is next to nothing devotee of Lord Krishna even though my friends and my family say that we dont hve even 10% of the knowledge you have and that too at the age of 19. But still I say I am a "tuch" bhakt of Lord Krishna and I have a looooonnnnnnnnngggggggggggggggggggg wayyy to go before anything. This thing is wrong that Valimiki Ramayan is the ultimate source. Ask those ppl did Lord Ram sign Valmiki Ramayan? No but it doesnt mean we say its wrong. As you had said yourself di, our Hindu religion comprises of many many scriptures. And they are all right. If you want to read the original and the best of our hindu scriptures then buy mostly everything from Gitapress Gorakhpur. They print only the original. They have their site as well for anything you want to order. And this is not right that everything else is wrong. Its all true and correct. Only take your most scriptures from Gitapress. 😊
Sorry about all these questions, but my mind has been going wacko trying to find the answers to these. Our debate in the Ramayan Forum ended in arguments so I couldn't find a satisfying answer. I'd really like to know your answer on this.
And no problem, I too am so glad to have found a friend who knows so much about our Hindu scriptures.😳😃
Awww!!! Thank you! I really dont know much but I tried to explain whatever I could in the best possible way I have understood and known. I dont know if this wud satisfy you in a better way but this is my knowledge. I havent been able to quote with shlokas and all bcoz my litreature isnt with me. Its at my hometown in Delhi. But this is what is mentioned in there! 😊 And if you still get confused then pls write, I ll try and explain more!! 😳
Current Affairs
Shiv Shakti
Hindi TV Shows
