Why Brahman being the light of Krishna is untenable.

We come across the theory from Iskcon that Brahman is the light which comes from the body of Shri Krishna. Iskcon uses Brahma Samhita and the Bhagavat Gita verse 14.27, Brahma Samhita cannot be considered since it is a sectarian text, it is believed only by Iskcon and not even by other Vaishnava Sampradayas. Hence we will look at the verse in Bhagavat Gita again, although we have looked at it. This time we will look in little more detail. 
मूल श्लोकः

ब्रह्मणो हि प्रतिष्ठाऽहममृतस्याव्ययस्य च।
शाश्वतस्य च धर्मस्य सुखस्यैकान्तिकस्य च।।14.27।।

It means, I am the Pratishta of Brahman which is immortal and unchanging whose property is to be ever present, whose bliss is born of aloneness.

 
Now Pratishta here is taken by Iskcon, to mean the basis, but does this agree with the Veda ? Pratishta as per the Veda seems something different, following is what the Chandogya 7.24.1 says “भगवः कस्मिन्प्रतिष्ठित इति स्वे महिम्नि”

meaning: Oh Bhagavan in what is that Pratishta of Bhuma, in it’s own expanse.

  
Hence Pratishta here means expanse, hence Shri Krishna sees himself to be the expanse of Brahman, therefore”ब्रह्मणो हि प्रतिष्ठाऽहम्  means I am the expanse of Brahman, and Brahman and it’s expanse are not different. 

How do we say this ?

Vishnu Puranam says the following 
ध्रुवमेकाक्षरं ब्रह्म ओमित्येव व्यवस्थितम्बृहत्वाद्बृंहणत्वाच्च तद्ब्रह्येत्यभिधीयते २२
Ref:3.3.22 Vishnu Purananam 

Translation: That Brahman which is undecaying is established in the letter Om. That which is big, that which is pervasive that is known as Brahman. 

बृंहणत्वात् – that which pervades. 
तत् ब्रह्म इति अभिधीयते – that is called as Brahman in this way. 

Hence Brahman and it’s expansion are not different. 

Alternatively even if we take the sentence ब्रह्मणः हि प्रतिष्ठा अहम् – I am the abode or base of Brahman, there is no way to prove that the अहम् or I is referring to Shri Krishna’s body.

In fact Adi Shankaracharya says the following in his commentary 
“इति प्रतिष्ठा अहं प्रत्यगात्मा” meaning Abode in the way of Inner Self.

Here Inner self refers to as the “I” which is present in all as the witness.

Now on what basis I say this, again I say this on the basis of Gita itself. 
क्षेत्रज्ञं चापि मां विद्धि सर्वक्षेत्रेषु भारत Gita 13.3 
Meaning: Know me to be the knower or witness present in all bodies oh Arjuna. 

Iskcon may argue, that this refers to merely the Paramatma aspect, this also the Gita does not allow. Since it defines क्षेत्रज्ञ or knower very clearly. 

The Gita says the following 
इच्छा द्वेषः सुखं दुःखं सङ्घातश्चेतनाधृतिः।
एतत्क्षेत्रं समासेन सविकारमुदाहृतम्।।13.7।।

Translation:Desire, repulsion, happiness, sorrow, the aggregate (of body and organs), sentience, fortitude- this field, together with its modifications, has been spoken of briefly. 
Here the whole gambit of thoughts and emotions are included in the field of क्षेत्र (Kshetra) or known,not the क्षेत्रज्ञ (Kshetrajna) or knower. Hence the Paramatma proposed by Iskcon is not the क्षेत्रज्ञ (Kshetrajna) or knower, why ? Since the Paramatma told by Iskcon is responsible for creation of the world, for creating the world an इच्छा or intent has to be present, but that is also क्षेत्र (Kshetra) or known. Not the क्षेत्रज्ञ (Kshetrajna) or knower, such a witness does not even have इच्छा or intent. Therefore Paramatma told by Iskconites is not the क्षेत्रज्ञ (Kshetrajna) or knower talked about by Shri Krishna. 

Shri Krishna himself acknowledges that he was in the state of Aham Brahmasmi when he told the Gita to Arjuna.

The proof is from Mahabharata 
परं हि ब्रह्म कथितं योगयुक्तेन तन्मया इतिहासं तु वक्षामि तस्मिनर्थे पुरातनम् 
Ref: Mahabharata , Ashwamedha Parva Chapter 16 verse 12

Meaning: I have talked of the Parabrahman in the state enjoined in Yoga ( state of Aham  Brahmasmi) and full of it. Now I will tell you an old history for explaining what you asked for. 
So this means Shri Krishna is very emphatically telling that he was in a state of Aham Brahmasmi and did not consider himself as merely as his body as told by Iskconites.

One more proof for this is the Bhagavat Gita is as follows 

मूल श्लोकःवृष्णीनां वासुदेवोऽस्मि पाण्डवानां धनंजयः।
मुनीनामप्यहं व्यासः कवीनामुशना कविः।।10.37।।

Meaning: Among Vrishnis I am Vasudeva, among Pandavas I am Dhananjaya among Munis or Saints I am Vyasa among the poets I am Ushana. 

Here Vrishni is a subclan in the Yadavas, Shri Krishna belongs to that clan, (वासुदेव) VAsudeva signifies son of Vasudeva (वसुदेव), this refers to his own body and identity as Krishna having the dark cloud complexion wearing a golden garment. Such an identity is seen at the same level as that of Arjuna. This clearly shows that Shri Krishna sees his identity beyond his dark cloud complexioned yellow garment wearing body. This completely disables Shri Krishna being the Supreme personality God head, which if seen from the perspective of the Bhagavat Gita alone not based on commentary but simply verses, disables the very prospect of Supreme personality Godhead.

Now there is only one more weapon which Iskconites have to prove the personality Godhead, the quote from the Kathopanishad, 

नित्योऽनित्यानां चेतनश्चेतनानाम् 
Ref:Kathopanishad 2.2.13

Actually it is Nityaha Anityanam,meaning eternal among the non eternal. But let us take the way Iskconites take it,  “nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām” they take it as eternal among the eternals and conscious among the conscious ,here the eternal among eternal is the Supreme Personality Godhead as per them, this verse confirms that there is an Ishwara and there is Jiva, ok but where in the verse it is clearly indicates that Supreme reality ought to be personal with a form ? No where, also we can very easily interpret this verse from an Advaitic perspective, how one may ask, just think of various empty pots in an open field.

So it is the space among all pots spaces, which here indicates oneness, similarly the eternal principle in all Jivas the conscious principle in all Jivas, the Jivas are like the pot spaces, just as the space is apparently limited by pot and due to the pot it is called pot space, similarly the all pervading eternal consciousness is called Jiva due to the limiting adjuncts of body and mind. This way there is no harm to Advaita Vedanta done by this verse.

Now we will look at how Madhvacharya interprets this verse , the commentary is as follows

ब्रह्मण इति। ब्रह्मणो मायायाः।

Meaning: Of that Brahman indicates Brahman’s Maya.

What is the Maya as per him, Maya is Lakshmi he quotes the Padmapurana as follows in his Gita Bhashya 14:26, following is what he quotes

“बद्धा वापि तु मुक्ता वा न रमावत्प्रिया हरेः इति पाद्मे”

Meaning: No one bound or liberated is dear to Hari like Lakshmi.

This means that even Madhwacharya who according to the Iskconites is from their own Sampradaya, does not agree with them on the interpretation of the Gita verse 14.27

We also quote the Antaryami Brahmana, from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad

Verse 3.7.4-योऽप्सु तिष्ठन्नद्भ्योऽन्तरः, यमापो न विदुः, यस्यापः शरीरम्, योऽपोऽन्तरो यमयति, एष त आत्माऽन्तर्याम्यमृतः ॥ ४ ॥
That who inhabits water but is within it, whom water does not know, whose body is water, and who controls water from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own Immortal Antarayamin Atman/Self.
Verse 3.7.5:योऽग्नौ तिष्ठन्नग्नेरन्तरः, यमग्निर्न वेद, यस्याग्निः शरीरम्, योऽग्निमन्तरो यमयति, एष त आत्मान्तर्याम्यमृतः ॥ ५ ॥
5. That who inhabits fire but is within it, whom fire does not know, whose body is fire, and who controls fire from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own Antarayamin Atman/Self.

That is why Shri Krishna states the following

मूल श्लोकः

अहमात्मा गुडाकेश सर्वभूताशयस्थितः।

अहमादिश्च मध्यं च भूतानामन्त एव च।।10.20।।

English Translation By Swami Gambirananda

10.20 O Gudakesa, I am the Self residing in the hearts of all beings, and I am the beginning and the middle as also the end of (all) beings.

Shri Krishna is stating from this view point of being the Self of all beings.

As a final blow, we quote the Padmapurana

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.

अतोऽन्यदात्मनोरूपं द्वैताद्वैतविवर्जितम्
भावाभावविनिर्मुक्तमाद्यंतरहितं प्रिये १७

Translation: O dear one, the nature of the soul is different from this. It is without duality and unity. It is free from existence and non-existence; and without beginning or end. 

शुद्धसंवित्प्रभालाभं परमानन्दैकसुंदरम्
रूपमैश्वरमात्मैक्यगम्यं गीतासु कीर्तितम् १८

Translation: It is pure consciousness, has acquired lustre, is beautiful due to great joy, is the form of lord, can be known only through the oneness of the soul, and is told in the Gītā.

Reference: Padmapurana Book 6 (Uttara Khanda) Chapter 175 verses 16 to 18

This completely disables Iskcon’s claim that Brahman is a sort of light from Shri Krishna’s body, they have no basis to prove this.