Krishna the source of Brahman ?

by Publisher, posted in Arguments against Iskcon, Bhagavat Gita related arguments

It is quite interesting that Iskcon has come up with a proposition that Krishna calls himself as the source of Brahman, as per Bhagavat Gita 14:27 . Following is the verse

                                                          मूल श्लोकः

ब्रह्मणो हि प्रतिष्ठाऽहममृतस्याव्ययस्य च।

शाश्वतस्य च धर्मस्य सुखस्यैकान्तिकस्य च।।14.27।।

We have the translation of the verse as follows, I have taken 3 translations to make sure we are clear that the verse is not interpreted to be mistranslated by me .

English Translation By Swami Adidevananda

14.27 For I am the ground of Brahman, the immortal and immutable, of eternal Dharma and of perfect bliss.

                             English Translation By Swami Sivananda

14.27 For I am the abode of Brahman, the immortal and the immutable, of everlasting Dharma and of absolute bliss.

                            English Translation By Swami Gambirananda

14.27 For I am the Abode of Brahman-the indestructible and immutable, the eternal, the Dharma and absolute Bliss.

So from the 3 translations, it appears that Krishna is the source of Brahman, however I have already explained this with the help of Shankara’s commentary on the Gita in the following . Links below

https://jagatgurublog.wordpress.com/2017/09/21/why-only-krishna-is-not-supreme-part-2/

https://jagatgurublog.wordpress.com/2017/09/20/why-only-krishna-is-not-supreme-part-1/

Although this verse has been answered , people may still argue that why should the direct meaning of the verse not be taken as it is . Why should we take a different meaning for the verse ? Is it because it suits your own philosophy ??? . This is a very good question, however if this verse was to be taken literally , then we have to take the following verse from the Vishnu Purana also literally .

Vishnu Purana Book 1 Chapter 19 verse 86

अहमेव अक्षयो नित्यः परमात्मात्मसंश्रय:
ब्रह्मसंज्ञो अहमेवाग्रे तथान्ते च परः पुमान् ।
I am only that imperishable, eternal, the very basis of Paramatma and Atma .
I am only in the beginning with the name Brahma , I am at the end and beyond it as well.
So, should we take this to be literal then ??, a question may arise as to why we cannot take this to be literal ?? probably this was told by Vishnu right ???…. wrong. These are the words of Prahlada in the Vishnu Purana, so if certain Vaishnavas would like to argue that Krishna is the source of Nirguna Brahman using this verse , then I may also argue that Prahlada is the source of Paramatma using this verse from the Vishnu Purana. Would this actually be acceptable ??? People may argue , when Prahlada says it , it is different, when Vishnu says it is different. Let us work with that, so why should we not accept that Shiva made Krishna say it ??? so in this way the argument turns ugly . In short just as the words of Prahlada as produced from the Vishnu Purana cannot be taken literally, similarly 14:27 of Bhagavat Gita cannot be taken literally . The meaning would be something different . For this reason, the claim of Krishna being the source of Brahman actually holds no water inspite of the verse .

8 thoughts on “Krishna the source of Brahman ?”

  1. Is Sada shiva and rudra same or different? Shaivites say that Sada shiva is the source for Brahma, Vishnu and rudra. They say sada-shiva is nirguna and nirakar. While rudra is saguna. Are these claims true?

    Like

    Reply

    1. See this is from the Saiva and Shakta Agama standpoint, when they want to describe Panchakrutyas like
      Srushti -creation, Sthiti- maintenance, Laya- dissolution , Tirodhana -concealment, Anugraha – Grace. The role of Sadashiva, Ishwara and Rudra comes into picture. Only when we look at Panchakrutyas, the concept of Panchakrutyas does not exist outside of Shaivism and Shaktism. I have not seen any other school adopt this as well. Due to Panchakrutyas we have Rudra doing Laya or dissolution of the cosmos, Ishwara doing Tirodhana or concealment and Sadashiva doing the function of Anugraha or grace. This is the source of the claim. As far as the claim being true, if looked from the standpoint of Panchakrutyas it is true. These are merely different stand points adopted by different Sampradayas.

      Like

      Reply

    1. There is a tendency of Adi Shankaracharya to refer Nirguna Brahman as Shiva, he refers this in the Mundakopanishad Bhashyam as well as Mandookya Upanishad Bhashyam. However the quotations of Shri Adi Shankaracharya have been taken ought of context. Also I have already quoted the Brahma Sutra Bhashyam where Adi Shankara emphstically declared that Ishwara is formless, hence there is no question of him tending towards Shiva or Vishnu.

      Like

      Reply

    1. Thank you very much, at the same time there are verses like in the Padma Purana which states that the body of Hari is illusory as shown below

      श्रीभगवानुवाच
      मायामयमिदं देवि वपुर्मे न तु तात्विकम्
      सृष्टिस्थित्योपसंहारक्रियाजालोपबृंहितम् १६

      Translation: O goddess, this my body is illusory and not real, and is augmented with the mass of the acts of creation, maintenance and withdrawal.

      Reference Padma Purana Chapter 175 verse 16, would you be willing to accept this verse ? Let me know .
      Not only that the Bhagavatam which you hold so dearly states that the form of Shri Krishna is an illusion

      कृष्णमेनमवेहि त्वमात्मानमखिलात्मनाम् ।
      जगद्धिताय सोऽप्यत्र देहीवाभाति मायया ॥ ५५ ॥

      Translation: Oh King, know Shri Krishna to be the Self and essence of all, for the benefit of the world he appears as if with a body due to Maya .
      Reference: Shrimad Bhagavatam Canto 10 Chapter 14 Verse number 55 .

      will you accept these verses ?

      Now coming to those verses, we simply look at them as against the view of the Upanishads. Those which go against what the Upanishads propose we dismiss them simple.

      Like

      Reply

Leave a comment