“Kālī is Krishna.”
I keep hearing this. On Instagram reels. In WhatsApp forwards. In casual conversations about Hinduism.
Before you share the next viral post claiming this equivalence—let’s actually open the śāstra.
Because this statement, made carelessly without context, reveals something deeper than theological confusion. It reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how Sanātana Dharma actually works—how it holds multiple valid theological frameworks simultaneously without collapsing them into simplistic uniformity.
My name is Jayanth Dev, Author of Dhantasura. And today we’re examining what the texts actually say.
Sanātana Dharma allows theological depth. It accommodates diverse approaches to the Divine. There are rich traditions that speak eloquently of the unity of Ultimate Reality—the non-dual Brahman beyond all names and forms.
But there are also distinct tattvas (principles) described in Purāṇa and Itihāsa. Specific deity forms with specific functions, specific līlās (divine play), and specific relationships to cosmic order.
If we are going to make a statement like “Kālī is Krishna,” we must ask:
What do the texts actually say?
Which sampradāya (theological tradition) are we speaking from?
Are we discussing ultimate non-dual reality (where all distinctions dissolve)?
Or are we discussing relative manifestations (where deity forms have specific identities and functions)?
Conflating these levels creates confusion, not clarity.
Let’s examine what the primary scriptures say about Krishna, what they say about Kālī, and where—if anywhere—they establish direct equivalence.
The Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, composed by Sage Vyāsa, is considered the mahā-purāṇa (great Purāṇa) by Vaiṣṇava traditions. It’s often called the “ripened fruit of the Vedic tree” (nigama-kalpa-taror galitaṁ phalam).
In Canto 1, Chapter 3, Sage Śuka is describing the various avatāras (incarnations) of Viṣṇu: Matsya, Kūrma, Varāha, Narasiṁha, Vāmana, Paraśurāma, Rāma, Buddha, Kalki, and others.
Then comes verse 28—one of the most significant theological statements in Purāṇic literature:
Sanskrit (Devanāgarī):
एते चांशकलाः पुंसः कृष्णस्तु भगवान् स्वयम् ।
इन्द्रारिव्याकुलं लोकं मृडयन्ति युगे युगे ॥
Sanskrit (IAST Transliteration):
ete cāṁśa-kalāḥ puṁsaḥ kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam
indrāri-vyākulaṁ lokaṁ mṛḍayanti yuge yuge
Word-by-Word Breakdown:
Translation:
“All of the above-mentioned incarnations are either direct portions (aṁśa) or portions of portions (kalā) of the Supreme Person, but Krishna is Bhagavān Himself (svayam). All of them appear in different ages to protect the world when it is disturbed by demons.”
This verse is doctrinally foundational for Gauḍīya, Vallabha, and other Krishna-centered Vaiṣṇava sampradāyas.
Key theological claims:
1. Krishna is Svayam Bhagavān
The term svayam means “Himself”—the original, complete form of the Supreme Lord, not a derivative or partial manifestation.
All other avatāras—including Viṣṇu, Nārāyaṇa, Rāma—are described as aṁśa (direct expansions) or kalā (portions of expansions) emanating from Krishna.
2. Krishna is the Source, Not Derived
Commentators like Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī, Śrīdhara Svāmī, and Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura extensively analyzed this verse. They emphasize:
3. This is a Specific Sampradāya Position
This theological position is specific to Krishna-centered Vaiṣṇava theology.
Other Vaiṣṇava sampradāyas (like Śrī Vaiṣṇava, founded by Rāmānuja) may interpret this differently—some seeing Nārāyaṇa as supreme and Krishna as an avatāra of Nārāyaṇa.
The point: Even within Vaiṣṇava traditions, there are variations in how this verse is understood.
Now let’s examine what śāstra says about the Goddess and specifically Kālī.
The primary text is the Devī Māhātmyam (देवी माहात्म्यम्), also called Durgā Saptaśatī (700 verses) or Caṇḍī Pāṭha.
This text, found in the Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa (chapters 81-93), is the foundational scripture of Śākta (Goddess-centered) theology.
Historical Context:
One of the most famous verses from Devī Māhātmyam (Chapter 5, verses 12-27) is the Yā Devī Sarva-Bhūteṣu hymn:
Sanskrit (Devanāgarī):
या देवी सर्वभूतेषु शक्तिरूपेण संस्थिता ।
नमस्तस्यै नमस्तस्यै नमस्तस्यै नमो नमः ॥
Sanskrit (IAST Transliteration):
yā devī sarva-bhūteṣu śakti-rūpeṇa saṁsthitā
namas tasyai namas tasyai namas tasyai namo namaḥ
Translation:
“To that Goddess who abides in all beings in the form of power (śakti)—salutations to Her, salutations to Her, salutations to Her, salutations again and again.”
This hymn continues with 32 verses, each describing the Goddess as residing in all beings as:
1. The Goddess is Supreme Śakti
In Śākta traditions, the Goddess (Devī/Śakti) is ultimate reality.
She is:
2. Kālī as Supreme Form
Within Śākta theology, Kālī is often considered the supreme, most powerful form of the Goddess.
Kālī Upaniṣad and Mahākāla Saṁhitā describe Kālī as:
3. This is a Specific Sampradāya Position
Just as Krishna-centered theology is specific to certain Vaiṣṇava sampradāyas, Kālī/Devī as supreme is specific to Śākta sampradāyas.
Now we arrive at the central question:
Can we say “Kālī is Krishna” based on śāstra?
In the narrative framework of the Purāṇas:
Krishna and Kālī appear as distinct deities with:
Krishna:
Kālī:
Scriptural texts do NOT casually merge them as identical personalities.
However, there IS a framework where all distinctions dissolve:
Advaita Vedānta (non-dualistic philosophy) teaches:
“Brahma satyaṁ jagan mithyā jīvo brahmaiva nāparaḥ” “Brahman alone is real, the world is illusory, the individual soul is not different from Brahman.”
From this ultimate non-dual perspective:
✓ Krishna is Brahman ✓ Kālī is Brahman ✓ Śiva is Brahman ✓ You are Brahman ✓ I am Brahman
All names, forms, and distinctions are māyā (illusory projections) on the one formless, attributeless nirguṇa Brahman.
In this framework:
Why? Because in Advaita, everything is ultimately the same non-dual reality.
Tantric traditions, particularly Kashmir Śaivism and Śrīvidyā, speak of:
“Śivaḥ śaktyā yukto yadi bhavati śaktaḥ prabhavituṁ” “Shiva united with Shakti becomes capable of creation.”
In this framework:
Śiva = Pure consciousness (cit) Śakti = Dynamic power (śakti)
They are inseparable aspects of one reality—like fire and its heat, sun and its light.
Some Tantric texts describe a unity beyond duality where:
Each tradition centers its chosen deity as supreme and incorporates others as manifestations.
Here’s the key:
Unity at the level of Brahman (Advaita) is ONE discussion.
Identity of specific deity forms (Purāṇic theology) is ANOTHER discussion.
When people casually say “Kālī is Krishna,” they often mean:
“The same Supreme Reality manifests in different forms.”
That is acceptable within certain Vedāntic frameworks.
But saying it without context:
One of the unique features of Sanātana Dharma is that it accommodates multiple valid theological perspectives simultaneously.
It’s not that one is “right” and others are “wrong.”
It’s that different sampradāyas articulate the Divine differently, based on:
1. Vaiṣṇava Sampradāyas
Position: Viṣṇu/Nārāyaṇa/Krishna is supreme
Sub-divisions:
Primary Texts: Bhāgavatam, Viṣṇu Purāṇa, Pāñcarātra Āgamas
2. Śaiva Sampradāyas
Position: Śiva is supreme
Sub-divisions:
Primary Texts: Śiva Purāṇa, Liṅga Purāṇa, Śaiva Āgamas
3. Śākta Sampradāyas
Position: Devī/Śakti/Kālī is supreme
Sub-divisions:
Primary Texts: Devī Māhātmyam, Devī Bhāgavatam, Śākta Āgamas
4. Smārta Tradition
Position: All deity forms are equal manifestations of one Brahman
Approach: Pañcāyatana Pūjā (worship of five deities):
Philosophy: Advaita Vedānta—all forms ultimately dissolve into formless Brahman
Primary Texts: Upaniṣads, Śaṅkara’s commentaries
Each tradition has internal consistency.
Within Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism: Krishna is supreme; other deities are his energies/expansions.
Within Śākta traditions: Devī is supreme; male deities are her energies/consorts.
Within Kashmir Śaivism: Śiva is supreme consciousness; all else is his manifestation.
Within Advaita: All are equally Brahman; all distinctions are provisional.
These are not contradictions—they’re different lenses on the infinite.
The problem arises when we:
1. Make sweeping equivalences WITHOUT specifying the framework
“Kālī is Krishna” → Without context, this confuses more than it clarifies.
Better: “From an Advaita perspective, both Kālī and Krishna are manifestations of the same Brahman.”
2. Erase specific sampradāya positions
Each tradition has spent centuries developing sophisticated theology.
Collapsing them into simplistic “all the same” statements disrespects that intellectual work.
3. Present syncretism as orthodoxy
Modern Hinduism often presents a syncretic blend (“all gods are one”) as if it’s the only or original Hindu position.
But historically: Distinct sampradāyas had distinct theological positions.
The Śrīvaiṣṇavas and Śaivas had vigorous debates.
The Gauḍīyas and Advaita Vedāntins disagreed on fundamental points.
This diversity is a strength, not a weakness—IF we acknowledge it.
4. Make claims without śāstric basis
If you’re going to say “X deity is Y deity,” show me the śāstra.
Which text? Which verse? Which commentary?
Otherwise it’s just opinion, not dharmic knowledge.
1. Specify Your Framework
Don’t just say “Kālī is Krishna.”
Say:
✓ “From a non-dual Advaita perspective, all deity forms—including Kālī and Krishna—are ultimately the same Brahman.”
✓ “In some Tantric traditions, the Goddess is seen as encompassing all forms, including male deities.”
✓ “According to Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava theology, Krishna is Svayam Bhagavān, and other forms emanate from him.”
Context matters.
2. Acknowledge Multiple Valid Perspectives
Don’t claim your sampradāya’s position is the only true one (unless you’re specifically representing that tradition and making it clear).
Say:
✓ “Different traditions have different views on who/what is supreme.”
✓ “Śākta texts present Devī as supreme; Vaiṣṇava texts present Viṣṇu/Krishna as supreme; Śaiva texts present Śiva as supreme.”
3. Distinguish Between Levels of Truth
Vyāvahārika satya (relative/empirical truth):
Pāramārthika satya (absolute/ultimate truth):
Both levels are valid—just different scales of analysis.
4. Read the Actual Texts
Don’t rely on:
Open the śāstra:
Study before declaring.
Sanātana Dharma is not theologically confused.
It is theologically sophisticated.
It holds multiple frameworks in creative tension:
Different sampradāyas articulate the Divine differently based on:
This is not a weakness. This is depth.
When you say “Kālī is Krishna”:
Ask yourself:
✓ Which framework am I speaking from? (Advaita? Tantra? Vaiṣṇava? Śākta?)
✓ Am I talking about ultimate reality or relative manifestation?
✓ Can I cite śāstra to support this claim?
✓ Am I being clear enough that someone new to Hinduism won’t be confused?
If we speak boldly, we must speak accurately.
Śāstra is layered.
It requires precision.
Open the text.
Study the sampradāyas.
Understand the frameworks.
Declare AFTER understanding—not before.
Jayanth Dev is an author writing on Hindu scriptures, Sanatana Dharma, and mythological narratives through books, long-form articles, and explanatory talks.
His work focuses on examining scriptural ideas in context—drawing from the Vedas, Upanishads, and Puranas to clarify commonly misunderstood concepts and traditions. Across both fiction and non-fiction, he approaches Sanatana thought as a living framework rather than a static belief system.
Jayanth is the author of I Met Parashurama, Escaping the Unknown, and the Dhantasura series.
Copyright © 2026 Jayanth Dev. Built with 💡 by Popupster.in — The Creative Marketing Company