Krsna Upanisad 2.6 could be interpreted as related to Nityananda Rama and Ramanuja.

Can you refer to any scholarly datation attempts?

veda: I was mainly taking if from the perspective that Narasimha upanisad is considered the earliest (??) by some of the same batch and it is related to Gopa Tapani dating. We know that the dating itself is hard, it is part of 108 principal Upanishads (but the list itself is not final until a later date). The Upanishads were not fully recorded until 1656, at the order of Dara Shikoh Krsna upanisad is certainly commented by Upanishad Brahmayogin but that is very late. However did Ramanuja himself ever quoted Krsna upanishad or even Gopala Tapani? No. (Or better I do not know of any instances). Because I do not know if Ramanuja ever quoted it and I know that Madhvas quote mAyayA mohotAM jagat (krsna 12) I suggest it was finalized after just after Ramanuja. (Again a guess...) Now did that part of the Krsna Upanisad ever got a commentary by Upanishad Brahmayogin?

I have no idea but the fact that Ramanuja didn't quote it means little since he didn't even quote SB.

Sri Vaisanavas do not use the term sakti-avesa. They consider his avatara "better" than the vibhavavataras like Rama or Krishna . [br][/br]

This is stated in Ramanusa Nutranthadhi, 41 [br][/br]

[http://ramanuja.blog.com/2006/11/14/is-avataram-by-lord-better-than-acharya-avataram/]

They use terminology we do not use like 'acarya-avatara'. Nowhere they would use shakti as a term. It is not part of Sri sampradaya vocabulary;-) [br][/br]

There is a place called Thondanur ( Kere Thonnur in Pandavpura Taluk) were that Ramanuja showed His 'innate divinity', of being the avatara of Adisesa.

[http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia/ramanuja/magazine/RD_0203_online_vers.pdf]

Is there any place where Prabhupada or acaryas suggest he was saktiavesa?

The only instance where SP relates Ramanuja and saktyavesa-avatara:

Ramanujacarya sometimes accepts Baladeva as a saktyavesa-avatara, but Srila Jiva Gosvami has explained that Baladeva is an expansion of Krsna and that a part of Baladeva is Sankarsana. (SB 10.1 additional notes)

Kulapavana is actually right he is saktiavesa (or part thereof) being an incarnation of Sesa who is sakti-avesa. Sesa-naga in vaikuntha according to the 20th Chapter of CC is sva-sevana-sakti first type of the six types of saktiavesa incarnations. While it is true that Balaramai is also part of Sesa he is also a lila-avatara and also svamsa expansion (no concept of svamsa obviously in Sri Sampradaya, they do not project beyond Vaikuntha). (Sesa himself is also multiple identity (a bit confusing at first ) a saktiavesa incarnation -- a perfect (first) servant of God, an expansion of Ksirodakasai Visnu and (also) of Karanadakasai Visnu, and also a seat of Narayana in Vaikuntha and (most important to us) dhama itself and all paraphernalia in Goloka). That kind of explains (or confuses) the statements about guru as good as God, but a servant of God, Nityananda being the original guru, Balarama the original guru, Guru is one, Govardhana (expansion of Sesa) being the best servant of the Lord and also the Lord himself that is being worshiped... (of course this flow of consciousness needs to be taken in small dozes).

Very good information and interesting points, CCD, thank you! It is good to see you here... :)

I think that seeing powerful acharyas as shaktiavesa avatars reminds us that ALL power ultimately comes from Krishna, and that we are all just instruments in His hands.
The different ways various incarnations are seen in different sampradayas never bothered me one bit. Those differences merely reflect the vastness and complexity of the Absolute, as well as our desire to relate to the Absolute in our own unique way (rasa).

Actually,this is Vaisnava Thakur! :o)

Favourite Acarya quote.


One Who is Embraced by Sri Krsna-(Krishna Lingita Vigraha)

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura then comments, “Without being empowered by the direct potency of Lord Krsna to fulfill His desire and without being specifically favored by the Lord, no human being can become the spiritual master of the whole world. He certainly cannot succeed by mental concoction, which is not meant for devotees or religious people. Only an empowered personality can distribute the holy name of the Lord and enjoin all fallen souls to worship Krsna. By distributing the holy name of the Lord, he cleanses the hearts of the most fallen people; therefore he extinguishes the blazing fire of the material world. Not only that, he broadcasts the shining brightness of Krsna’s effulgence throughout the world. Such an acarya, or spiritual master, should be considered nondifferent from Krsna—that is, he should be considered the incarnation of Lord Krsna’s potency. Such a personality is krsnalingita-vigraha—that is, he is always embraced by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna. Such a person is above the considerations of the varnasrama institution. He is the guru, or spiritual master, for the entire world, a devotee on the topmost platform, the maha-bhagavata stage, and a paramahamsa-thakura, a spiritual form only fit to be addressed as paramahamsa or thakura.” (Cc. Madhya 25.9)

Hare Krishna.


This is Sri Guru,the unalloyed Bhakta,beyond insufficient substitute. Of course there are none manifest right now but soon we hope.
Prema bhakti yaha hoite.