Confirmation of Achintya Bheda abheda tatwa

[Stormcry]

I do not think it contradicts the philosophy either. The pot cannot cover the entire sky, only a fragmental part of it. That is the difference between individual being and God. In quality they are the same, but not in quantity. The individual being is not the creator or dominator of all that there is.

Where lord krishna says that atma is part of bramhan. Instead lord krishna says that atma is infinite. From him, everything arises and that atma is me.

Again read this:

When a pot is broken, the portion of sky within the pot remains as the entire sky, just as before.But because of disappearance of portion of sky within pot one thinks that it has been connected to entire sky -but in reality, it was already connected to entire sky, In the same way, when the gross and subtle bodies die, it is just like jiva has become bramhan.(In reality jiva was already bramhan .His abramhata is just a false appearance.) ( BP 12.5.5)

It is not saying pot can not cover entire nor it is saying atma is a part.

The verse opposes the view of people who says that jiva was not bramhan in the influence of maya. It states that jiva was already complete bramhan though the sky in the pot appears to be different due to maya . It says that foolish people say the sky in the pot is different from entire sky . When pot is broken, it appears that pot sky is connected to entire sky. But it was already connected to entire sky as a whole undivided bramhan. So jiva is complete bramhan irrespective of maya.

Knowers of the truth, realized-saints have very scholarly commented on the Brahma Sutra, Gita and Upanishads---after realizing the truth themselves. They have assimilated the conclusions in a consistent manner. In the last few thousand years, these individual have been: Nimbarkacharya, Shankaracharya, Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya, Kripaluji. It behoves to understand their message completely, before attempting your own interpretation. Your dubious translations, and even more dubious interpretations, without studying all of the vedic literature, and without actual self-realization (as far as I can tell), gives you very little credibility to assert your personal views as the truths of what Bhagavata Purana says.

I too have studied the philosophy of bhagavata from realised vaishnawas like dnyaneshwar and eknath ,who were topmost devotee of krishna. So there is no question of presenting my personal views. Instead you are presenting the personal view of achintya philosophy which has no any support in entire hindu shastras. This achintya philosophy is only found in " chaitanya charitamrita " . Most people know this.



Hari hari

 

[Stormcry]

Do any followers of Acintya think this verse contradicts the philosophy?

To whom you are asking this ?

Though verse contradicts, followers of achintya will never accept that. Beacause they would defend it by giving biased translations and interpretations. So what is the use of this question?

Hari Hari

 

[Madhuri]

To whom you are asking this ?

Though verse contradicts, followers of achintya will never accept that. Beacause they would defend it by giving biased translations and interpretations. So what is the use of this question?

Hari Hari

I would say the same about you being biased.
Whether it is you or me, every person has an interpretation. You seem to think that Acintya philosophy is wildly different from Advaita, but it is very similar to Advaita philosophy. I personally do not think that you have a proper understanding of Acintya philosophy and are not qualified to make conclusions about it.

Please stop insulting people you disagree with.

 

[Stormcry]

I would say the same about you being biased.
Whether it is you or me, every person has an interpretation. You seem to think that Acintya philosophy is wildly different from Advaita, but it is very similar to Advaita philosophy. I personally do not think that you have a proper understanding of Acintya philosophy and are not qualified to make conclusions about it.

Please stop insulting people you disagree with.

So giving accurate translation is biasing ? The translation is quite different from interpretation . Interpretation is done by translating the verse as it is , while biasing is done by adding and subtracting original words from the verse .

Take an example :

अहं ब्रह्म परं धाम ब्रह्माहं परमं पदम् ।
एवं समीक्ष्य चात्मानं आत्मन्याधाय निष्कले


अहं - I , ब्रह्म - bramhan , परं - absolute , ब्रह्माहं - I am bramhan , परमं पदम् -absolute abode , एवं - in this way , समीक्ष्य - with caution ( meditating ) , चात्मानं - self , आत्मन्याधाय - FIX IN ATMA , निष्कले - undivided .

" I am absolute bramhan , I am that absolute abode , by meditating like this , you should fix your self in undivided infinite atma .

This verse clearly shows that one should meditate self as UNDIVIDEABLE infinite BRAMHAN , not as a PART of bramhan .

Now see how you have taken this verse. According to achintya philosophy You are saying that atma should be considered as a part , while this verse says that atma should be considered infinite and as a bramhan . In this way , you have added " part " word in your interpretation .This is very unfair and that's called as the biasing .

BTW , there is much difference between advaita and achintya philosophies and this is proved on many levels .

I think you haven't understood achintya properly . It is the simultaneous qualitative and quantitative aspects of bramhan . It is not the adding of advaita and dvaita . Because advaita can not be added in anywhere . It is the complete negation of all dualities and accepts the presence of bramhan everywhere equally.

Hari hari

 

[Stormcry]

मैत्रावरुणिः

Pranam मैत्रावरुणिः .

Here are some confusions and misinterpretations done by iskconians . I think you have read translation of shwetashwataro upanishad of iskcon and you know how much it is authentic ?

So I need your help . According to your posts , you are well versed in veda and it's aim . Besides it seems that you are a non-sectarian person . ( Originally I am too non-sectarian . After reading entire bhagavat purana , I realised that unity of atma and bramhan is the truth AND i have accepted this bhagavata as my life .)

So I ask you about these two verses from bhagavata purana .

अहं ब्रह्म परं धाम ब्रह्माहं परमं पदम् ।
एवं समीक्ष्य चात्मानं आत्मन्याधाय निष्कले


अहं - I , ब्रह्म - bramhan , परं - absolute , ब्रह्माहं - I am bramhan , परमं पदम् -absolute abode , एवं - in this way , समीक्ष्य - with caution ( meditating ) , चात्मानं - self , आत्मन्याधाय - FIX IN ATMA , निष्कले - undivided .

" I am absolute bramhan , I am that absolute abode , by meditating like this , you should fix your self in undivided infinite atma .

and another :
“ jivo jivavinirmukto…..purno na bahirnantaratchharet “ ( BP 11.25.35)

Meaning: Such a person is complete Brahman as I am and he does not move either within himself or outside.

In this way , according to you , what can be interpreted from these two verse ?

Thank you .Hari Hari

 

[Madhuri]

So giving accurate translation is biasing ? The translation is quite different from interpretation . Interpretation is done by translating the verse as it is , while biasing is done by adding and subtracting original words from the verse .

The bias is having a very specific interpretation and not being able to see beyond it. i'm not saying that your translation is incorrect, I'm saying that it can support both and Advaita perspective and also the Behdabheda perspective. But while some can see how it supports both, you can only see it one way. Hence, bias.

" I am absolute bramhan , I am that absolute abode , by meditating like this , you should fix your self in undivided infinite atma .

This verse clearly shows that one should meditate self as UNDIVIDEABLE infinite BRAMHAN , not as a PART of bramhan .

Of course the atma cannot be divided. Can you please tell me the verse number so i can find this and see the whole context? Sometimes Atma is referring to the individual and sometimes it refers to Paramatma.

I think you haven't understood achintya properly . It is the simultaneous qualitative and quantitative aspects of bramhan . It is not the adding of advaita and dvaita . Because advaita can not be added in anywhere . It is the complete negation of all dualities and accepts the presence of bramhan everywhere equally.

I was brought up with Acintya philosophy. It is not new to me.

 

[Stormcry]

The bias is having a very specific interpretation and not being able to see beyond it. i'm not saying that your translation is incorrect, I'm saying that it can support both and Advaita perspective and also the Behdabheda perspective. But while some can see how it supports both, you can only see it one way. Hence, bias.

I have given plenty of bhagavata purana verse . None of them supports achintya philosophy . Both qualitative and quantitative aspects are refuted by bhagavata purana . Bhagavata puranas considers atma as a complete bramhan , not a part .

Of course the atma cannot be divided. Can you please tell me the verse number so i can find this and see the whole context? Sometimes Atma is referring to the individual and sometimes it refers to Paramatma.

I have given that .

Yes , translating atma as paramatma is the one of the nice tactics used by gaudiyas and dvaitians to bias and support their own chaitanya charitamrita's view . Instead of using gaudiya created dictionaries , refere any authentic sanskrit dictionary . Such type of translaion is not considered as authentic. Translating atma as paramatma is very illogical as far as one considers the difference between atma and paramatma . However the person who sees no any diffference between atma and paramatma , has the logical right to translate atma as paramatma or vice-versa.
Besides ,even if you traslate atma as paramatma , you are indirectly saying that atma is paramatma .

I was brought up with Acintya philosophy. It is not new to me.

Still you are confused about it .

 

[Stormcry]

Pranam , achintya followers .

Now see these verses and yes , understand too .


सत्त्वं चाभिजयेद् युक्तो नैरपेक्ष्येण शान्तधीः ।
सम्पद्यते गुणैर्मुक्तो जीवो जीवं विहाय माम् ॥ ३५ ॥ ( BP 11.25.35)

सत्त्वं- satwa , चाभिजयेद्- conquering completely , युक्तो-joined , नैरपेक्ष्येण-dropping , शान्तधीः-with calm mind , गुणैर्मुक्तो-being free from guna , जीवो-jeeva जीवं-jeevahood(seperateness) ,विहाय-freeding from , माम्- to me सम्पद्यते-unites

" The Jeeva by keeping mind calm and having been free from Gunas, and having dropped the idea that it is Jeeva, attains Me and thus Jeeva freed from its jivahood and liberated from Gunas unites with Me "


जीवो जीवविनिर्मुक्तो गुणैश्चाशयसम्भवैः ।
मयैव ब्रह्मणा पूर्णो न बहिर्नान्तरश्चरेत् ॥ ३६ ॥

, जीवविनिर्मुक्तो गुणैश्चाशयसम्भवैः-freeding from jiva caused by trigunas ,
मयैव-exactly like me ,जीवो - jiva , पूर्णो ब्रह्मणा - complete bramhan , न बहिर्नान्तरश्चरेत्- does not move either within himself or outside.

" Thus freeding from it's jivahood , the jiva is complete bramhan exactly like me . He does not move either within himself or outside. "


I know , still you would say it is not contradicting with achintya . I am really fed up of such attitude . But I know readers would definitely understand whether achintya philosophy gets refuted by BP or not .

hari govinda

 

[Madhuri]

I have given plenty of bhagavata purana verse . None of them supports achintya philosophy .

All of them do. If you say that atma is infinite, this is supported in Acintya philosophy. If you say that atma is indivisible, this is also supported by Acintya philosophy. I have not only been supported in this understanding by other followers of Acintya philosophy on this forum, but also by devotees who I have now asked in person.

 

[Madhuri]

I know , still you would say it is not contradicting with achintya . I am really fed up of such attitude .

Yes I do still say that it is not a contradiction. You're going to have to do much better than that.

And yeh, I know the feeling. Thank you for your consistent attacks and insults. Very mature.

 

[ameyAtmA]

I like what you have to say, hinduism-luv-krishna, like the 2 upanishadic birds. Also, Thanks for sharing Eknāthī Bhāgvat here. A rare piece. However, why not let other groups just be? It is not so easy to lose the bodily conception of life in KaliYug. Then what do you do? Keep lamenting that it is hard to put into practice? Nope. Then you just resort to Harinām sankīrtan, Hari bhakti and bhāgvat dharma.

Just a quick question :

Krishna is situated in bramhan , means that krishna is embodiment of bramhan . It doesn't mean that krishna is the base of bramhan. Even the person who is realised , is described as the person situated in bramhan or he is united with his real self ,paramatma .

So acc. to you, there is practically no difference between Lord Kṛṣṇa and a Self-realized person such as say... Ramaṇ Mahaṛshī. Fine. I don't want to compare something that IS ONE. Ramaṇ and Kṛṣṇa are ONE not TWO.

However, would you say that the Self-realized 'being' can do everything that Kṛṣṇa can, have 18 siddhis, all perfection, lift the Govardhan (laghimā siddhi), send the sudarshan chakra, make a zillion entities fall in Love with them, etc. etc.?

About the Love part, I do not want to ask this becs right now I am feeling this unending love of Onenesṣ. That is what is important. The ātmīyatā - "You and Me are ONE". This is what advaita teacheṣ. However, I would like to know your views on

purṇāvatār (Kṛṣṇastu bhagavān svayam)
aṁshāvatār (fractional avatār of nārāyaṇ - see bhāgvat purā&#7751
kalā (1/16th of full nārāya&#7751

vibhinnāṁsha
āvesha
shaktyāvesha (entity empowered by nārāyaṇ - partially of course)
?

The answer is sort of there, but let us see what you have to say.

Thanks!

______________
ameyAtmA
http : // WalkWithMukunda . blogspot . in

 

[Stormcry]

All of them do. If you say that atma is infinite, this is supported in Acintya philosophy.

You have shown your immaturity about achintya philosophy by saying this .


जीवो जीवविनिर्मुक्तो गुणैश्चाशयसम्भवैः ।
मयैव ब्रह्मणा पूर्णो न बहिर्नान्तरश्चरेत् ॥ ३६ ॥

, जीवविनिर्मुक्तो गुणैश्चाशयसम्भवैः-freeding from jiva caused by trigunas ,
मयैव-exactly like me ,जीवो - jiva , पूर्णो ब्रह्मणा - complete bramhan , न बहिर्नान्तरश्चरेत्- does not move either within himself or outside.

" Thus freeding from it's jivahood , the jiva is complete bramhan exactly like me . He does not move either within himself or outside. "

Just ask to achintya follower whether atma is complete bramhan or a part of bramhan ? He will laugh at you and will say " atma is not complete bramhan . It is a part . Those who say jiva as complete bramhan are fools and demons."

So indirectly they are calling our dearest krishna as a fool and insulting him who said jiva is complete bramhan like me . There is no such great sin in this entire world .

Hari govinda hari

 

[Madhuri]

" Thus freeding from it's jivahood , the jiva is complete bramhan exactly like me . He does not move either within himself or outside. "

Please provide the volume and verse number so I can look it up for myself.

 

[Madhuri]

So indirectly they are calling our dearest krishna as a fool and insulting him who said jiva is complete bramhan like me . There is no such great sin in this entire world .

Woa, calm down man! Don't cry over this. I'm sure Krishna isn't crying over it. But it's good to know that murder and rape are better options than claiming that Krishna is greater than ones self. Thank you for this enlightenment.

 

[Stormcry]

However, would you say that the Self-realized 'being' can do everything that Kṛṣṇa can, have 18 siddhis, all perfection, lift the Govardhan (laghimā siddhi), send the sudarshan chakra, make a zillion entities fall in Love with them, etc. etc.?

So you believe that krishna is doer ? These are the krishna's divine lilas which are not seperated from him . The real problem with you is that you have limited shri krishna in the cage of form . The person who knowns his real omnipresent nature , is very rare . Only that person comprehends the lilas of krishna and he knows what is the real nature of krishna . Shri krishna's divine lilas are like acts done by a actor . They are not at all real . In reality , krishna is non-doer . Any act can not bind the complete bramhan krishna or a realised person.

Shukadeva has revealed the secret of lila of krishna. See this.

O king, know the advent, lilas and disappearance of the Supreme Lord among embodied human beings, to be a mere Maya , which is potency to delude people as that of a dramatic performer by performing acting. Having created this Universe by Himself from His own existence, and having entered it as its inner controller sported in it and having withdrawn from it into Himself at the end, (at final dissolution) and retired, He always remains in His supreme nature. ( BP 11.31.11)

A self realised person realises his true self as bramhan . He realises that the bondage and liberation are just appearances superimposed on bramhan . Then why should realised person lift the govardhana hill ? If a realised person have been nondualy united with bramhan , how can you say jiva is separate while krishna does lila ? This is the maya of krishna and the person who is under the effect of maya , see like this . The realised person doesn't see such dualities which are caused by maya . Shri krishna is omnipresent and he is the atma of all living beings .

However , In reality jiva under maya is also bramhan . But this is the higher aspect of advaita , very confidential knowledge of supreme truth .You remembered that bhagavata verse " jiva was already bramhan " ( bp 12.5.5 ). That verse is in regard with this.

Harihi om


Thanks!

 

[Stormcry]

Please provide the volume and verse number so I can look it up for myself.

I have already mentioned that . BP 11.25.35

 

[ameyAtmA]

Thanks

So you believe that krishna is doer ? These are the krishna's divine lilas which are not seperated from him .

Kṛṣṇa is most certainly not the doer, I agree with you. So His Yogmāyā is the doer . Let me reframe the question then:

Why is the same infinite amount of Yogshakti and perfection not present alongside manifestations of Bramhan that are 'partial'-aṃsha-avatār-in-a-human-body, considering that there is no ignorance associated with these manifestations?

The real problem with you is that you have limited shri krishna in the cage of form .

No I am not .

Please don't avoid the point of Yogshaktī associated with a vigraha of Bramhan' .

Shri krishna's divine lilas are like acts done by a actor . They are not at all real .

Agreed . Then why can the same acts not be performed by Yogmāyā the actor/actress, when She is associated with other vigrahas of Bramhan' ? i.e. jñānīs .

Why is Yogmāyā not as much at the instant command of any jñānī vigraha of Bramhan'? Why is Yogmāyā not as much a dāsī of Bramhan in other forms than She is with Shri Kṛṣṇa ?

Please don't say "becs Bramhan chooses to hide ITs shakti"

Why is a difference seen between the Yogshakti associated with a Jivan Mukta and the Yogshakti associated with Shri Kṛṣṇaś vigraha?
If required, that jivan mukta who was earlier bound in saṃsār, should potentially be associated with the same amount of that actress (Yogshakti) as Shri Kṛṣṇa is .

Then why should realised person lift the govardhana hill ?

The question is not "why should" but whether they potentially can, and further, "why not" ?

If you tell me that indeed, every Jivan Mukta is associated with the entire infinite 100% Yogshakti that ādi nārāyaṇ possesses, then I have no further questions . But to be honest, take the numerous siddha babas and supposed datta avatārs of today. Will you say this about ALL of them?

thank you

praṇām

 

[Stormcry]

Dear ameyatma .

There is no any difference between bramhan and maya (SHAKTI). Maya is a word given when world appears to be something different . But In reality world ie maya is complete bramhan .

The matter of 'swayam bhagavan' is complex. This " swayam bhagavan verse" is in relation with previous verse , not with the avataras of vishnu. It doesn't mean that other avataras of vishnu are not bramhan . Other avataras like Shri rama , parashuram are also referred as bhagavan .In vishnu purana , mahavishnu says " I will incarnate as krishna and balarama . Bhagavata purana also says that origination of all avataras is from first purusha ie mahavishnu .

The matter of amsha , it is certainly imagined by sages . Because upanishada says amsha of infinite is also infinite . Thus indirectly proves that we can not divide bramhan in any way and the world is complete bramhan. . Amsha of infinite is not possible ever . ReallY I believe only in whole bramhan. Because it is the ultimate truth . Truths considered through maya are on inferior level.
The bramhan is undivideable . There is no any diversity in bramhan like bramhan and its yogashakti . Maya or yogashakti is intentionally added with bramhan by sages to distinguish between maya and bramhan so that person could know the real nature of world/maya. Here maya means the world we percieve from our mind AND WHAT MIND PERCIEVES THAT IS MAYA

So shri krishna says that such a realised soul is complete bramhan like him. Whatever there is , say world ,say maya , say lilas , say krishna ,say govardhina hill , it is that realised soul. So your questions are not ultimatelly valid .

Edited:

Then you just resort to Harinām sankīrtan, Hari bhakti and bhāgvat dharma.
hari ahri

YES, i too do that hari sankirtana with conviction of tat twamasi. Bhakti and knowledge are equally imp to me. The aim is to find the self. By constantly chanting hari hari, the devotee realises that his self is nondifferent from that absolute paramatma. My guru ,dnyaneshwara teaches that there is nothing higher than worship of krishna , in this kaliyuga who doesn't chant hari nama should be considered as fool.

Besides meditating on formless nirguna bramhan is also the bhakti of shri krishna. This nirakara bramhan appears as a krishna with help of maya.This has support from from gita. Without maya ,bramhan can not come into form. Because form is the offspring of maya and the bramhan beyond maya is avyakta, nirguna, nirakara. However one should always remember that krishna is always aloof from maya though he is with maya.

 

[ameyAtmA]

Thanks agaiṇ

Dear ameyatma .

There is no any difference between bramhan and maya (SHAKTI). Maya is a word given when world appears to be something different . But In reality world ie maya is complete bramhan .

Yes, true.

The matter of 'swayam bhagavan' is complex. This " swayam bhagavan verse" is in relation with previous verse , not with the avataras of vishnu.

You have a point there. It is in relation to the ṛshī, deva, manū, manū-putra, prajāpatī s et al . These are simply called aṃsha and kalā, the word avatār is not really used in their case, since they may or may not have karma... although we "say" that the ṛshī were aṃshāvatārs by convention.

It doesn't mean that other avataras of vishnu are not bramhan . Other avataras like Shri rama , parashuram are also referred as bhagavan .

Oh absolutely. Even matsya, kūrma, yajña-varāha are as much nārāyaṇ as Shri Rām and Shri Kṛṣṇa. JKP (Jagadguru Kṛpāḷū ji mahārāj) says the rom-rom (pores on skin of) yajña-varāha swāmī exibit as much ānanda as shri kṛṣṇa does.

The matter of amsha , it is certainly imagined by sages . Because upanishada says amsha of infinite is also infinite . Thus indirectly proves that we can not divide bramhan in any way and the world is complete bramhan. . Amsha of infinite is not possible ever . ReallY I believe only in whole bramhan. Because it is the ultimate truth . Truths considered through maya are on inferior level.
The bramhan is undivideable . There is no any diversity in bramhan like bramhan and its yogashakti . Maya or yogashakti is intentionally added with bramhan by sages to distinguish between maya and bramhan so that person could know the real nature of world/maya. Here maya means the world we percieve from our mind AND WHAT MIND PERCIEVES THAT IS MAYA

hmmm agree. This is why I had problems with the 'aṃsha'. Even if the aṃsha is there it is in the world - like the ṛshī or prajāpatī manū. Also, consider vibhūtī that Kṛṣṇa lists in Gitā chapter 10 -- vibhūti yog. These may be embodied entities with karma (shukrāchārya?, arjun - dhananjay), elements within bramhan' (guhya, ocean, lion, himālay, mer&#363 or avatārs (rām, vāsudev). So, vibhūtī of Bramhan' are flashes and glimpses of His glories.

So shri krishna says that such a realised soul is complete bramhan like him. Whatever there is , say world ,say maya , say lilas , say krishna ,say govardhina hill , it is that realised soul.

This is what I had accepted or "settled upon" after years of pondering / manan, nidhidhyāsan.

Besides meditating on formless nirguna bramhan is also the bhakti of shri krishna. This nirakara bramhan appears as a krishna with help of maya.This has support from from gita. Without maya ,bramhan can not come into form. Because form is the offspring of maya and the bramhan beyond maya is avyakta, nirguna, nirakara. However one should always remember that krishna is always aloof from maya though he is with maya.

Sure. True. However, we have to be careful while saying this. When Bramhan' manifests a form, He does so knowingly, via the vishiddha sattva -- 100% pure goodness with no rājas or tāmas . Therefore, this māyā adopted by Bramhan for His own purpose is vidyā-māyā, whereas the māyā into which the bhūta (living things) of this world are entangled is the avidyā-māyā. In other words, the act of Bramhan' appearing in form is done in knowledge (vidyā), whereas the actions of embodied living beings undergoing kārmic reactions / karma are generally based on avidyā (ignorance).

So your questions are not ultimatelly valid .

Well, I am glad I asked them, because I wanted to hear your view, although I had actually come to terms with something very similar to what you have said. It is just that assigning kalā, aṃsha and āvesha to expansions of Bhagvān (which is typically Gaudīya Vaishṇav, mostly from CC - Chaitanya Charitrāmṛta) really has no basis in the Bhāgvat. So thank you very much for your answers. Truly, what would be guru-dakshiṇā for hinduism-luv-krishṇa (apart from frubals)?

praṇām
____________
ameyAtmA

 

[Stormcry]

Sure. True. However, we have to be careful while saying this. When Bramhan' manifests a form, He does so knowingly, via the vishiddha sattva -- 100% pure goodness with no rājas or tāmas . Therefore, this māyā adopted by Bramhan for His own purpose is vidyā-māyā, whereas the māyā into which the bhūta (living things) of this world are entangled is the avidyā-māyā. In other words, the act of Bramhan' appearing in form is done in knowledge (vidyā), whereas the actions of embodied living beings undergoing kārmic reactions / karma are generally based on avidyā (ignorance).
____________
ameyAtmA

Pranam , this may be right . But do you think it has support of scriptures ?
As per my knowledge , two maya concepts is found in " chaitanya charitamrita " . I didn't find such concept at least in bhagavata purana .

Maya is maya . Maya means when something appears different from bramhan . So accepting 'vidya-maya' and 'avidya-maya is illogical .

Yes , vidya and avidya have relations with maya . But it doesn't mean in the way you think .

According to scriptures , both vidya and avidya are considered as maya . The seeker by the help of vidya , he crosses avidya and finally this avidya too merges in paramatman . Then there remains only totality of bramhan , No any veda , no any dharma , no any worship , no any meditation .

The maya through which krishna appears in human form , is the same maya which is pervaded all over this world . It is the same maya which has been supported by duality .

Shri krishna is paramatma , beyond maya . In reality , In krishna ,there is not even a feeling of existence of maya . The realised soul is with such higher levels like krishna . Upanishadas say " the knower of bramhan becomes bramhan himself " The realised person ,who is beyond maya ,sees this world as if it is not in existence . The reality is only paramatma and the absolute true existence in this world is of paramatman only .

About amsha avatara : In rammayana , shri ram is described as supreme personality of godhead , complete bramhan and formless . I personally believe that there is not a single difference between vishnu avataras . All are equally worshippable for me like krishna.
Even shiva too is nondifferent from krishna .There is no any distinction between shiva and vishnu . Because it has many scriptural proofs . In bhagavata purana also , shiva is described as supreme god , origination of universe , supreme abode , bramhan .

What gaudiyas preaches about shiva is stupidity . Calling shiva as demi-god , is the greatest sin in worship of krishna . They have deluded many people of this india and have destoted the orginal vedic dharma. Shri krishna can not forgive them who insults his other self shiva .

Shri rama himself says in ramayana " Those who worship me but don't worship shiva , can not attain me ever . " The same applies for shiva bhaktas .

I really don't know why people follow non-vedic sects like gaudiya vaishnawism ? Don't they have enough wisdom to search the reality from shastras ?

Hari govinda hari