Who is superior? Krishna or Vishnu - The Tattva-vadi point

This topic has been lifted from "Misc Discussions" in the hope that devotees will take notice of it in the appropriate forum and make their contributions.



Are you sure about this? I was under the impression that they worshipped Hari, even though there is a murti of Bala-Krishna in their main mutt at Udupi.



Krishna-bhaktas.

No, not really, to be honest! This is actually what I once learned from Narayan Maharaja's Prabandha Pancakam, when he argued how Gaudiyas are a part of the Madhva sampradaya.

I don't think it is a murti of Bala-Krishna though; I recall hearing the name "Nartaka-gopala".

Here is a picture of the deity worshiped in the Udupi Mutt. The text relates, "The picture shows the icon of Udupi Krishna dressed as Satyabhama." It sure does not look like Bala-Krishna to me.

Yes it is indeed interesting how various Gaudiya teachers such as Narayana Maharaja are rather insistent on the point that all the four sampradayas worship Krishna as all-in-all, when this is simply not true. I was not immediately able to find a reference for this from Madhvaite sources, but I found the following paragraph from Nitai's essay rather interesting:

"Of the five teachings in Srinatha's verse [aradhyo bhagavan, etc] that are said to be the core of Caitanya’s belief, the followers of Madhva at best would accept only three: that Krsna is to be worshipped, that his abode is Vrndavana, and that the Bhagavata is the pure source of truth. Krsna, however, is not considered the highest or most complete manifestation of deity in the Madhva community, nor is his home Vrndavana thought to be the supreme abode. Krsna is but one of the many faces of Visnu whose home is called Vaikuntha. The Bhagavata Purana, while accepted as an authoritative scripture, is not the only “pure” source of truth for the Madhva tradition. More importantly, the Madhva tradition does not accept the manner of worship of the cowherd women as the best, and divine love (preman) like theirs as the ultimate issue of bhakti."

There are several archived postings in the Dvaita List archive that show where the Madhvas specifically attempt to show that Visnu is superior to Krishna. Currently, a series of articles entitled "Vishnusarvaottamatva" is being posted, which contain excellent examples of Visnu-tattva being superior to the demigods. Although several examples from Krsna-lila are employed, the idea is always clear that Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu as this is evident from their first prameya; hariH parataraH.


What does 'nartaka' mean?

I don't know where I got the Bala-Gopala part from, probably from some book. Although the picture looks to me some form of Laddu Gopala, in the way He is holding His hand up. There is also a picture on the Avatara site of this same Udupi Krishna dressed in Kalki-vesa.

Speaking of which, it might be interesting to analyse why if Sripada Madhvacharya established the authority of Vishnu over all else, why personally install Krishna in his Udupi headquarters?

I can't recall him claiming that all four sampradayas worship Krishna, only the Madhvites. In fact, I can't recall anyone making such a claim.



Baladeva makes it rather clear in his tika on Tattva-sandarbha.

bhaktAnAM viprAnAm eva mokSaH, devAH bhakteSu mukhyAH, viriJcasyaiva sAyujyaM, lakSmyA jIva-koTitvam ity evaM mata-vizeSaH dakSinAdi-dezeti tena gauDe ’pi mAdhavendrAdayas tad upaziSyAH katicid babhUvur ity arthaH.

“Only a brAhmaNa devotee is eligible for liberation, the demigods are foremost among devotees, Brahma attains sAyujya-mukti (merging in Brahman), and LakSmIdevI is included among the jIvas – these are differences in opinion. Nevertheless Madhavendra Puri and some others from Bengal became his followers.”

Mahaprabhu also speaks of "your sampradaya" (not "our") to the Madhvite teacher.

zuni’ tattvAcArya hailA antare lajjita
prabhura vaiSNavatA dekhi, ha-ilA vismita

AcArya kahe – tumi yei kaha, sei satya haya
sarva-zAstre vaiSNavera ei sunizcaya

tathApi madhvAcArya ye kariyAche nirbandha
sei Acariye sabe sampradAya-sambandha

prabhu kahe karmI, jJAnI, dui bhakti-hIna
tomAra sampradAye dekhi sei dui cihna

sabe, eka guNa dekhi tomAra sampradAye
satya-vigraha kari’ Izvare karaha nizcaye

Hearing these words of Sriman Mahapbrahu, the the AcArya of the TattvavAda sampradAya became ashamed, and was struck with wonder upon seeing His degree of Vaishnavism.

The AcArya said, “Whatever you have told, that is the truth proclaimed in all scriptures, and the firm conviction of the VaiSNavas. However, whatever Madhva AcArya has firmly established, that we practice due to our sampradAya connection with him.”

Prabhu said, “KarmIs and jJAnIs are both devoid of bhakti. In your sampradaya, I can see symptoms of both. All in all, the only qualification I see in your sampradAya is your firm acceptance of the truth of the Lord’s form.”

(Caitanya CaritAmRta, Madhya-lIlA, 9.273-276)

Anyhow, this would divert to a whole another discussion worth a new thread.



Dancer.






I am personally a bit exhausted with all this stuff right now, I can't guarantee my full-fledged participation in such a discussion. I'll follow with curiosity though, but I have no energy resources for research.

Yes, let's take it to Theological Discussions. Perhaps some devotees may take notice who have not noticed it in this thread.

I just now received an email which contains a message from the late HH Vidyamanya Teertha Swamiji, which may contribute to this topic:



Very interesting how he states at least twice that Krishna is an avatara and svarupa of Narayana.

Another interesting side-question is worth asking; how many Gaudiya-diksa-paramparas have got Sri Madhvacarya as a member of their parampara? How is Madhvacharya meant to be respected since Sri Gaurasundara took diksa from Sri Isvara Puri despite not accepting many Tattva-vadi tenets?