@Krishna The Mausala Parva is one of the most well-preserved parts of the Mahabharata (unlike the Shanti and Anushasana Parvas), with manuscripts in almost verbatim agreement, so it's unlikely that it's an interpolation. In any case, the Vishnu Purana says the same thing: sacred-texts.com/hin/vp/vp155.htm As far as Vasudeva goes, he died earlier in that Mausala Parva chapter. And Vajra was rather young at the time, but he may have been involved in the actual ritual; Arjuna might have just been helping Vajra out.

@Krishna That Gita verse is just referring to the fact that people think Krishna is an ordinary human, when the truth is that he's an incarnation of Vishnu, the supreme lord of all the worlds. That doesn't mean he can't leave his physical body. In any case, if you have access to any commentaries by Sri Vaishnava acharyas discussing how Krishna departed the Earth, I'd be happy to hear what they say. By the way, have you seen my question on Alavandar and Thirumangai Alwar? hinduism.stackexchange.com/q/7826/36

@Krishna I certainly agree that Krishna's body is not due to karmas; Ramanujacharya says that in his Gitabhashya bhagavad-gita.us/bhagavad-gita-4-6 "The purport is that His birth is quite unlike that of ordinary beings. The dissimilarity consists in that He is born out of His own will unlike ordinary beings whose birth is necessitated by their Karma." But I don't see how that implies that Krishna's body is not made of ordinary matter. In any case, Sridhara Swami's Bhavartha Dipika and the later chapters of Madhva's MBTN aren't available online in English, so you'll have to tell me.

@Krishna How does that imply that it's not physical? Why can't Vishnu create a physical body by his own will and then incarnate in that body?

@Krishna What makes you say that all physical bodies are due to past karmas? I agree that physical bodies of ordinary people are due to past karmas, but why does that have to apply to a physical body created by Vishnu?

"It is because the scriptures say so. All vedas, brahmasutra bhasyas uneuivocally say so." Can you give me references for that?

"brahmasutras bhasyas clearly, say that jiva takes the suitable body which as per his past karmas." Yeah, but that's different. How does the fact that physical body of jivas are due to past karmas imply that if Vishnu created a physical body, it would also be due to past karmas?

@Krishna I agree that Vishnu's body in Paramapadam is not made of physical matter, but that doesn't imply that the bodies of Vishnu's incarnations are not made of physical matter.

@Krishna That Sutra in the Brahma Sutras is about how jivas acquire physical bodies. We're talking about bodies that would be created by Vishnu, so that fact that bodies of jivas are due to past karmas is not relevant to what we're talking about.

@Krishna "the pancha bhutatmaka sariram comes because of Karmas only" Again, what makes you say that? Why is it impossible for Vishnu to create a body out of five elements that is not due to karma? Quoting a Sutra from the Brahma Sutras which discusses how jivas acquire a body doesn't address that point.

@Krishna "Nothing is impossible for the Lord, but due his intrinsic nature of the Lord, his own body will never decay or die." Do you know of any scriptures which say that Vishnu's incarnations never die?

@Krishna Also didn't you claim in another post that Ramanujacharya was an incarnation of Vishnu, while I disagreed with you and said he was an incarnation of Adiseshan? If Ramanujacharya was an incarnation of Vishnu then how did he die?

@Krishna Also, Vishnu's incarnation Prithu died, as described in this chapter of the Srimad Bhagavatam: vedabase.com/en/sb/4/23

What is contestable?

I do not believe this is true because there are many scriptures in which the story is. It is quite unlikely that all this is just an interpolation.

Acaryas also never said that story is an interpolation!

Not just me and Keshav but all the acaryas!

I'll try to find ...

Lord Krishna created a material body, so that a hunter allegedly killed Him. He, in fact, at the same time had another body, His own sat cit ananda body which is eternal.

I remember that I saw acaryas explanation about it, I'll try to find some references.

No, I do not think the Lord was killed, but He just created a material body and allowed the hunter that just looks like he killed the Lord! This material body was only a trick to fool people into thinking that the Lord was killed.

They say so in the Bhagavatam comm. and elsewhere.

@Krishna @brahmajijnasa I just wanted everyone to know where we're all coming from. Krishna and myself are Sri Vaishnavas, and brahma jijnasa is a Gaudiya Vaishnava. So we two believe Krishna is an incarnation of Vishnu, and brahma jijnasa believes Vishnu is an incarnation of Krishna.

Yes that's right

@brahmajijnasa By the way, out of curiosity, do you share Krishna's belief that all incarnations are incapable of dying? Like do you believe that Rama never died?

some die and others do not

@brahmajijnasa Apart from whether Krishna died or not, what are some other incarnations which you believe have not died and will never die?

some Vishnu incarnations are just a Jiva souls who have material bodies, and they die ... but, ...

some Vishnu incarnations are so called Vishnu tattva, ie they are the Lord Himself ...

@brahmajijnasa I'm talking about human incarnations. Like do you think that there are any incarnations who are born to human parents but are incapable of dying (leaving Krishna aside)?

... and they do not have a material body, they have eternal sat cit ananda brahman bodily form, they never die!

yes, e.g. Lord Balarama, Ramacandra, ...

they never die!!!!!!!!!

@brahmajijnasa OK, so you do agree with Krishna on this point.

Where is the problem then?

@brahmajijnasa The problem is that I disagree with the two of you :-)

Why?

@brahmajijnasa Well, for one thing as far as I know all the scriptures make clear that Adiseshan exited the body of Balarama in the form of a white snake coming out of his mouth, so Balarama's body was left behind.

that 's the same case as with the Lord Krishna, see my explanation above, two bodies....

@brahmajijnasa Do you have a reference for the two-body thing? Is it in one of Prabhupada's commentaries?

yes, I think so

@brahmajijnasa OK, let me know if you find it.

Okay, I'll try to find some references

@Krishna Concerning Prithu, you can read the original Sanskrit verses here: vedabase.com/en/sb/4/23/chapter-view

for starters see the quotations at vedabase.net/sb/11/31/28/en ---- those relating to the form of the Lord

@brahmajijnasa Thanks. I wonder where the "amṛtāḿśo 'mṛta-vapuḥ" quote is in the Mahabharata.

it's in the Vishnu sahasra nama stotra part, search for that part of Mbh on google ...

@brahmajijnasa What verse of the Sahasranamam? swami-krishnananda.org/vishnu/Sri_Vishnu.pdf

814. Amṛtavapuḥ: One whose form is deathless, that is, undecaying.

OK, but that just means Vishnu's original form is immortal. Where is the "amṛtāḿśo" part?

813, but a misprint!

see all the quotations at the link I gave you

The Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa states, nanda-vraja-janānandī sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ: [Bs. 5.1], "The body of the Lord, who gives ecstasy to the residents of King Nanda's pastures, is eternal and full of knowledge and bliss."

@brahmajijnasa Yeah, it looks like you're right; this version says amritamso: sanskrit.safire.com/pdf/VISHNU_TRANS.PDF

yes I know it is a misprint, :)

@brahmajijnasa Have you found any references to the two bodies thing?

well, see above Quote from the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa --- it just proves the theory of two bodies, Right?

see also there at the vedabase link quote from the Nṛsiḿha Purāṇa states, yuge yuge viṣṇur anādi-mūrtim āsthāya śiṣṭaḿ paripāti duṣṭa-hā: "In each age, Lord Viṣṇu assumes His various eternal forms in order to protect those who are civilized [the devotees] and to destroy those who are evil [the demons]."

it also proves the theory of two bodies, Right?

@brahmajijnasa Well, I'd need to examine the context of those quotes. The Brahmanda Purana one could refer to Goloka - doesn't it have an eternal version of the Nandavavam?

no it's about Lord Krishna's life here on earth!

@brahmajijnasa Do you know which Pada of the Bramanda Purana it's in?

see above I copy-paste from Nṛsiḿha Purāṇa states, yuge yuge -- "In each age" --- anādi-mūrtim "eternal forms"

@brahmajijnasa Again, I'd like to see the context. Anadi can also mean beginningless. So it could refer to the fact that these same forms have been coming again and again forever.

no, it's about eternal murtis or bodies

@brahmajijnasa Do you know where these verses are in these Puranas?

no Nri Pur, but see the verse from the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa at gretil.sub.uni-goettingen.de/#Pur

see at gretil.sub.uni-goettingen.de/gretil/1_sanskr/3_purana/…

@brahmajijnasa OK, I don't know Sanskrit, so I'll try reading the surrounding passage in the Motilal Banarsidass translation.

yes I find it ... once in the past ...

@brahmajijnasa By the way, something very strange is going on with that Sahasranamam verse: Look at this webpage, which says the the name is amritasah, and even quotes Adi Shankacharya, Parashara Bhattar, and others explaining the name amritasah in their commentaries. So I'm not sure which one is the correct version of the verse.

you have the critical version of the Mbh by BORI institute, I think, at sacred-texts.com

the evidence is also Bhagavad gita 4.6 --- vedabase.net/bg/4/6/en

the evidence is also Bhāgavatam 10.27.11 --- vedabase.net/sb/10/27/11/en

there are a plenty of evidence for the theory of two bodies!

@Krishna Where in the Rahasya Traya Sara does he say that?

vedabase.net/sb/3/2/11/en purport says: "When the Lord was present, persons who were able to satisfy their material hankerings by seeing Him in true perspective were thus able to go back with Him to His kingdom. But those persons who were unable to see the Lord as He is remained attached to material hankerings and were not able to go back home, back to Godhead. ...

... When the Lord passed beyond the vision of all, He did so in His original eternal form, as stated in this verse. The Lord left in His own body; He did not leave His body as is generally misunderstood by the conditioned souls. ...

This statement defeats the false propaganda of the faithless nondevotees that the Lord passed away like an ordinary conditioned soul. The Lord appeared in order to release the world from the undue burden of the nonbelieving asuras, and after doing this, He disappeared from the world's eyes."

vedabase.net/sb/10/27/4/en is also the evidence ... and many, many more, ...

Now, how Lord Krishna left this world is very elaborately described in the Bhagavatam --- vedabase.com/en/sb/11/31/chapter-view

Some of the verses to think about are these:

(read the purport also!!!!!)

SB 11.31.11 — My dear King, you should understand that the Supreme Lord’s appearance and disappearance, which resemble those of embodied conditioned souls, are actually a show enacted by His illusory energy, just like the performance of an actor.

- verse 11.31.11 says "... are actually a show enacted by His illusory energy, just like the performance of an actor"

- verse 11.31.6 says His body was not destroyed !!!!!

- verses 11.31.8 and 9 say that some demigods "did catch sight of Him" when He ascended to his Goloka!!!! ---- so they did see His sat cit ananda vigraha or eternal spiritual bodily form!!!!!

just a small remark, in the above quote from the Sri Krsna-sandarbha by Srila Jiva Goswami, Sridhara Svami explains the phrase ‘adagdhva dhamavisat’ which is verse 11.31.6 and not 11.31.5, it seems to me

@Krishna see above I give Quote from the Sri Krsna-sandarbha by Srila Jiva Goswami, Sridhara Svami explains the phrase ‘adagdhva dhamavisat’ ...

Some people say that he was an advaitin, but it is known that he belonged to one Vaishnava sampradaya, yes he wrote a commentary on the Bhagavatam, --- Some people think that they can not say exactly whether he was an advaitin or Vaishnava, like, it is a contentious issue

Good evening everyone! I have a doubt regarding a question link-(hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/2447/…) . It is said that Goddess Sridevi incarnated and took birth as the daughter of Chenchu tribes head/chief and hence named as Chenchulakshmi to pacify or calm down Lord Narasimha.

after killing Hiranyakasipu, still raging with fury, Narasimha wanders in the forest and it is only after seeing Chenchulakshmi that his anger subsides and he sheds the avatar and turns into the handsome Narahari who falls in love with her down and turned into. so how come there are two versions i,e. Lord Shiva and Goddess Lakshmi calmed down Lord Narasimha

@Krishna I'm not quite sure about that, but it seems to me that there is only one Sridhara Swami, I do not know what he wrote in the comments

after killing Hiranyakasipu, still raging with fury, Narasimha wanders in the forest and it is only after seeing Chenchulakshmi that his anger subsides and he sheds the avatar and turns into the handsome Narahari who falls in love with her. so how come there are two versions i,e. Lord Shiva and Goddess Lakshmi calmed down Lord Narasimha

@Vishu I'm not quite sure which story is correct, but the Vaishnavas do not accept descriptions of those Puranas that belong to the group of Shaiva Puranas because these Puranas are influenced by the lower quality of nature called Tamas (darkness, ignorance). They do not accept if these descriptions contradict the descriptions in the Vaishnava Puranas.

@Vishu You should know that there are Puranas which are under the influence of the lower quality of nature called Tamas (darkness, ignorance) -- they are called Shaiva Puranas, -- but there are also Puranas influenced by the highest quality of nature called Sattva (goodness, purit) -- they are called Vaishnava Puranas -- they are of the highest quality, their teachings are pure knowledge!

correction: "the highest quality of nature called Sattva (goodness, purity)"

@Krishna OK, I found the relevant part of the Rahasya Traya Sara: gdurl.com/GjrR

@Krishna Vedanta Desikan states unequivocally that all incarnations of Vishnu, including Vibhava, Archavataram, Vyuha, and Antaryami are all made of Shuddha Sattva. So wouldn't that mean that Ramanujacharya's body was made of Shuddha Sattva?

@Krishna If Vishnu can choose to make a Shuddha Sattva form non-eternal in the case of Ramanujacharya, then he can choose to do it in the case of Krishna.

@Krishna Sridhara Swami, the commentator on the Srimad Bhagavatam was part of the Rudra Sampradayam of Vaishnavism. Rudra Sampradayam doesn't follow the Kevala Advaita philosophy of Adi Shankaracharya, they follow the Shuddhadvaita philosophy of Vallabhacharya (although Sridhara Swami was an earlier Acharya in the Sampradayam compared to Vallabhacharya).

@Krishna Do you know if Chenchu Lakshmi has any basis in Hindu scripture?

@brahmajijnasa Does Prabhupada explicitly state in any of his commentaries that a material body was created at the moment of departure and was left behind on Earth?