Is Vishnu the source of Krishna or Krishna the source of Vishnu?

So, the general Hindu understanding is that Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu. This is also the understanding of the Madhva Sampradaya, with which we are connected. However, in our Gaudiya tradition, the understanding is that Krishna is the source of Vishnu. How, then, should this apparent contradiction be seen?

In the Vedic tradition, it is accepted that the ultimate reality reveals itself in many ways. Arjuna also acknowledges this in the Bhagavad-gita. After Krishna has spoken, Arjuna says: sarvam etad ṛtaṁ manye—“I accept everything You say as true.” Yet at the same time Arjuna admits that even the devas cannot understand Krishna: na me viduḥ sura-gaṇāḥ—“the demigods do not know Me” (BG 10.2). And further: na hi te bhagavan vyaktiṁ vidur devā na dānavāḥ—“neither the gods nor the demons can understand Your personality” (BG 10.14). Ultimately, in 10.15 he declares: svayam evātmanātmānaṁ vettha tvaṁ puruṣottama—“You alone know Yourself, O Supreme Lord.”

Thus, the principle is that God is always greater than our conceptions of God. This is why it is important not to become arrogant or fanatical about our particular understanding. The reality of God will always be greater than our realization of Him.

Sometimes we may not even have realization—only conception. Our conceptions come from God, through revelation, but we try to grasp them with finite capacity. Now, the scriptures themselves are vast, and different traditions give prominence to different texts. This prioritization is called tāratamya—a hierarchy of authority. For example, in the Śrī Sampradaya the Vishnu Purāṇa is regarded as most important, whereas in our Gaudiya tradition the Bhāgavata Purāṇa is considered supreme.

Accordingly, depending on which revelation is considered central, the vision of the Absolute upheld in that scripture becomes ultimate within that tradition. The Bhāgavata Purāṇa itself states that Krishna is the source of all incarnations, and Gaudiya literature such as the Chaitanya-charitamrita explains this in detail.

Broadly, in the Vedic—and especially the Bhakti—tradition, devotees are encouraged to see the particular form of God they worship as the highest. Thus, Vishnu-bhaktas see Vishnu as supreme, while Rama-bhaktas see Rama as the source of all incarnations.

Sanatana Goswami’s Bṛhad-Bhāgavatāmṛta beautifully illustrates this. There, the devotee Gopa-kumāra journeys through the spiritual realms—Vaikuntha, Ayodhya, Dwaraka. In each he is ecstatic, but still feels an inner discontent: “I don’t fully belong here; there must be something more.” Finally, he realizes that Goloka Vrindavan and Krishna are the ultimate destination. Yet significantly, Sanatana Goswami describes that Vaikunthavāsīs consider Vishnu the source of all, Ayodhyāvāsīs consider Rama the source—all without dismissing them as “in illusion.” Rather, their devotion reflects the subjectivity of relationship with the Absolute.

This is why humility is essential in spiritual discussions. Achintya-bhedābheda—the philosophy of inconceivable simultaneous oneness and difference—helps us reconcile these perspectives. Sometimes we emphasize bheda (difference), affirming our tradition’s distinct understanding—Krishna as supreme. Other times we emphasize abheda (oneness), respecting the devotion of those who worship Vishnu or Rama as supreme.

Lord Chaitanya Himself demonstrated this. On His South India tour, He met two great Rama-bhaktas. One became attracted to Krishna-bhakti. The other remained deeply devoted to Rama but troubled by the idea that Ravana had touched Sita. Out of compassion, Lord Chaitanya searched the scriptures and showed him a Matsya Purāṇa verse proving that Ravana had only touched a Maya-Sita. That devotee remained a Rama-bhakta, and Mahaprabhu fully honored his devotion.

Similarly, Rupa Goswami highlights Krishna’s unique four mādhurīs—qualities not found in other forms of God. This is our Gaudiya emphasis. But other traditions, based on their scriptures and analytical frames, may highlight other qualities and arrive at other conclusions.

Therefore, there need not be conflict.

To summarize:

1. The absolute reality cannot be known with absolute definitiveness—God is always greater than our understanding.
2. Different scriptures emphasize different revelations, shaping different traditions’ views of the ultimate.
3. Because relationship with God is personal, subjective attraction determines which manifestation a devotee sees as supreme. Such subjectivity should be respected through the lens of achintya-bhedābheda.