eka Ä«Å›vara — bhaktera dhyÄna-anurÅ«pa
eka-i vigrahe kare nÄnÄkÄra rÅ«pa
eka Ä«Å›vara - the Lord is one; bhaktera - of the devotees; dhyÄna - meditation; anurÅ«pa - according to; eka-i - one; vigrahe - in form; kare - exhibits; nÄnÄ-ÄkÄra - different; rÅ«pa - forms.
In the Brahma-saá¹hitÄ (5.33) it is stated:
advaitam acyutam anÄdim ananta-rÅ«pam
Ädyaá¹ purÄṇa-puruá¹£aá¹ nava-yauvanaá¹ ca
The Lord is advaita, without differentiation. There is no difference between the forms of Kṛṣṇa, RÄma, NÄrÄyaṇa and Viṣṇu. All of Them are one. Sometimes foolish people ask whether when we chant “RÄma†in the Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra we refer to Lord RÄmacandra or Lord BalarÄma. If a devotee says that the name RÄma in the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahÄ-mantra refers to BalarÄma, a foolish person may become angry because to him the name RÄma refers to Lord RÄmacandra. Actually there is no difference between BalarÄma and Lord RÄma. It does not matter whether one refers to BalarÄma or to Lord RÄmacandra when chanting Hare RÄma, for there is no difference between Them. However, it is offensive to think that BalarÄma is superior to Lord RÄmacandra or vice versa. Neophyte devotees do not understand this Å›Ästric conclusion, and consequently they unnecessarily create an offensive situation. In text 154 ÅšrÄ« Caitanya MahÄprabhu clarified this in a very lucid way: Ä«Å›varatve bheda mÄnile haya aparÄdha. “It is offensive for one to differentiate between the forms of the Lord.†On the other hand, one should not think that the forms of the Lord are the same as the forms of the demigods. This is certainly offensive, as confirmed by the Vaiṣṇava-tantra:
yas tu nÄrÄyaṇaá¹ devaá¹ brahma-rudrÄdi-daivataiḥ
samatvenaiva vÄ«ká¹£eta sa pÄá¹£aṇá¸Ä« bhaved dhruvam
“A pÄá¹£aṇá¸Ä« is one who considers the great demigods such as Lord BrahmÄ and Lord Åšiva equal to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, NÄrÄyaṇa.†(Hari-bhakti-vilÄsa 7.117)
The conclusion is that we should neither differentiate between the forms of the Lord nor equate the forms of the Lord with the forms of demigods or human beings. For instance, sometimes foolish sannyÄsÄ«s, thinking the body of the Lord to be material, equate daridra-nÄrÄyaṇa with NÄrÄyaṇa, and this is certainly offensive. Unless one is instructed by a bona fide spiritual master, he cannot perfectly understand these different forms. The Brahma-saá¹hitÄ confirms, vedeá¹£u durlabham adurlabham Ätma-bhaktau. One cannot understand the differences between the forms of the Lord simply by academic study or by reading Vedic literature. One must learn from a realized devotee. Only then can one learn how to distinguish between one form of the Lord and another. The conclusion is that there is no difference between the forms of the Lord, but there is a difference between His forms and those of the demigods.