So, so if you want to fulfill all the pleasures of life, sat-cit-ānanda, then you have to take shelter of Kṛṣṇa. The śāstra says, āruhya kṛcchreṇa paraṁ padaṁ tataḥ patanty adhaḥ anādṛtaḥ-yuṣmad-aṅghrayaḥ (SB 10.2.32). One who has no information of Kṛṣṇa, one who does not take shelter of the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa, he may take the sāyujya-mukti after severe penances and austerities, but again he'll fall down, because he wants ānanda. Simply impersonal, without any varieties, he cannot have ānanda. That spiritual variety is available in the Kṛṣṇaloka, in the Vaikuṇṭha. So for want of spiritual variety, you'll again like to come into the material variety. Āruhya kṛcchreṇa paraṁ padaṁ tataḥ patanty adhaḥ anādṛta-yuṣmad-aṅghrayaḥ. Ye 'nye ravindākṣa vimukta-māninas (SB 10.2.32). So this kind of mukti is not first-class mukti. Therefore Vaiṣṇavas, they do not want it. Vaiṣṇava does not want any kind of mukti. This Vaiṣṇava wants simply to remain in the service of the Lord. They don't aspire for any kind of mukti. Mama janmani janmanīśvare bhavatād bhaktir ahaitukī tvayi (Cc. Antya 20.29, Śikṣāṣṭaka 4). So this mukti the sāyujya-mukti, means to become one with the Supreme, it not very safe, because there is, there is want of ānanda and knowledge. Simply to become one, that will not help.
Impersonal (Lectures, Other)
Expressions researched:
"imperson"
|"impersonal"
|"impersonally"
Lectures
Nectar of Devotion Lectures
So this bodily enjoyment is false, real enjoyment (is) of the spirit. Therefore it is said, ramante yoginaḥ anante. They want to enjoy life with Ananta, Kṛṣṇa. They want to become friend of Kṛṣṇa. They want to become lover of Kṛṣṇa. They want to become servant of Kṛṣṇa. They want to become father of Kṛṣṇa. They want to become māyā of Kṛṣṇa. The same thing, as we are pervertedly enjoying in this material, the same thing is there (in) spiritual life. That is Kṛṣṇa exhibiting. When He appears on this earth, He practically shows how you can enjoy also with Him. That is Vṛndāvana līlā. Practical manifestation. But we are not taking to that. We are taking this Vṛndāvana līlā of Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa is māyā, Vṛndāvana is laya. Now simply place your nose and thinks of something impersonal, that is perfection. No? That is not. This is fact, ramante, unless you are many varieties, there cannot be enjoyment. Ramante yoginaḥ anante. Ramante, this very word, one who is engaged, he is called iti rāma-padenāsau paraṁ brahmābhidhīyate (CC Madhya 9.29). This is the meaning of Rāma. Rāma, Kṛṣṇa, Rādhā-Rāmaṇa, Rādhā-Mādhava.
Ānanda sad-ujjvala-vigraha. It is not ordinary vigraha like this. They have got bitter experience of this vigraha, of this form, therefore they want to make God impersonal. Must be opposite. They have got this bitter knowledge that getting this body, we are suffering so much. Therefore, the God must be without body. Just opposite. This is also material thinking. Thinking in a negative way. But they have no knowledge, that if God has body, but that is completely spiritual. It has nothing to do with the material body. They cannot think of spiritual body. So the Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu is teaching people how you can enjoy in the ocean of blissfulness. That is bhaktir avatāra. So Rūpa Gosvāmī is dividing. Just like the sea has got east, west, north, south, similarly, he is dividing the ocean of nectarine in four divisions, and as there are waves in the ocean, so there are different chapters. That means he's dividing the Bhakti-rasāmṛta book in four parts, and in each part there are different chapters. That is the conclusion.
So Kṛṣṇa does not mean alone. Kṛṣṇa is not imperson. He's person, and He expands in so many persons. Eko bahu śyām. He is one, but He expands Himself to innumerable forms. The Viṣṇu forms, They are known as svāṁśa. And the servitor forms, the living entities, they are also expansion of Viṣṇu, part and parcel, differentiated, vibhinnāṁśa. So everything—expansion of Kṛṣṇa. Parasya brahmaṇaḥ śaktiḥ. Parasya brahmaṇaḥ śaktiḥ sarvedam akhilaṁ jagat. Whatever we see, experience within this world, within this universe, they're simply expansion of the energy of Kṛṣṇa. Just like fire has got two energies, heat and light, similarly Kṛṣṇa is expanding by His two energies, the material energy and the spiritual energy. So this material world is expansion of His material energy, and we are marginal We are also energy. We are not energetic. We are not puruṣa. We are prakṛti.
So Kṛṣṇa is not alone. Kṛṣṇa is not nirākāra. Kṛṣṇa is not impersonal, because He has got so many personal associates. Nityo nityānām. All these personal associates, they're individual persons. We are all person. You are person, I am person. We are all individual. I have got my individual opinion; you have got your individual opinion. Oneness means when these individual opinions are coincided in the matter of surrendering to Kṛṣṇa; that is oneness. Oneness does not mean that all these individuals become one, homogeneous. No. They keep their individuality, but they become one in the service of Kṛṣṇa. That is oneness. Now everyone is working for his sense gratification, personal. When everyone becomes agreed that "We shall satisfy Kṛṣṇa," that is oneness. That is oneness. One nation.
radyumna: "It has been seen that great Māyāvādī or impersonalist sannyāsīs—very highly educated and almost realized souls—may sometimes take to political activities or to social welfare activities. The reason is that they actually do not derive any ultimate transcendental happiness in the impersonal understanding and therefore must come down to the material platform and take to such mundane affairs."
Prabhupāda: The material variety is the perverted reflection of the spiritual variety. As it is described in the Bhagavad-gītā, Fifteenth Chapter: ūrdhva-mūlam adhah-śākha. This tree, this material world (is) compared with a aśvattha vṛkṣa. The root is up, upstairs, upwards, and the branches and leaves are down, downwards. Why? Because it is reflection, chaya, or māyā. The real tree is in the Vaikuṇṭha planet or in the spiritual world. It is only simply reflection. Just like a tree standing on the bank of reservoir of water, on the bank of a lake or a river, you'll see the tree is reflected downwards. So this description in the Fifteenth Chapter of this material world, downwards... Ūrdhva-mūlam adhah-śākha means this is only a perverted reflection of the spiritual world. The real tree is in the spiritual world. The other day, who was asking about this question? Some of our...? Ūrdhva-mūlam adhah-śākha? Who was asking me? Eh? Oh. Gopāla. He's not here. All right.
Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures
So when the Paraṁbrahman wants to enjoy... The Māyāvādī philosophers, they cannot conceive that Paraṁbrahman also enjoys; therefore they think of Paraṁbrahman as imperson. So that is not the fact. Brahman, Paramātmā, then Bhagavān. Therefore Bhagavān is Paraṁbrahman. That is accepted by Arjuna, paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān (BG 10.12). So Brahman is spiritual, undoubtedly, but more than Brahman is Paramātmā, and more than Paramātmā is Paraṁbrahman, Kṛṣṇa. Yad advaitaṁ brahma upaniṣadi. If you study the Upaniṣads, then you can realize Brahman. And if you practice yoga, then you can realize Paramātmā. And if you practice bhakti-yoga, then you can realize the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is the process. The more you advance... Just like the sunshine. Sunshine and the sun globe or the sun-god—they are of the same quality, heat and light. But the sunshine is not the sun globe, neither the sun globe is the sun-god. It is this; therefore Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu's philosophy, acintya-bhedābheda, inconceivable one and different simultaneously.
So this description of Vṛndāvana is spiritually described; therefore in the beginning the word is used, dīvyad. Dīvyad means divine. Kṛṣṇa says, janma karma ca me divyam (BG 4.9). This is not ordinary material thing. So desire tree also described in the Brahma-saṁhitā: Cintāmaṇi-prakara-sadmasu kalpa-vṛkṣa (Bs. 5.29)—the same kalpa-vṛkṣa-lakṣāvṛteṣu surabhīr abhipālayantam, lakṣmī-sahasra-śata-sambhrama-sevyamānam. This lakṣmī-sahasra-śata-sevyamānam is described here as preṣṭhālībhiḥ sevyamānau. Preṣṭha-ālībhiḥ. Preṣṭha means very dear, and ālī means gopīs, associates of Rādhārāṇī, friends. So they are all Lakṣmīs, goddess of fortune. Lakṣmī... You have heard the name Lakṣmī, Lakṣmī-Nārāyaṇa, associates of Nārāyaṇa. Kṛṣṇa is Nārāyaṇa. So all these gopīs, they are expansion of Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī, the original Lakṣmī. This is spiritual world. It is not impersonal, neither nirākāra, formless. Everything form, but that form is different from this form. That form is sat-cid-ānanda form—eternal, full of bliss, full of knowledge. This is not this material form. When we speak of formless, that means without any material form. Formless does not mean Kṛṣṇa and His expansion, they are formless. They are not of material form. Aprakṛta, not material. Here everything is prakṛta. It is not, neither, eternal nor blissful nor full of knowledge. It is temporary, full of ignorance and always miserable, this form. We can understand it.
Svayam bhagavān kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam (SB 1.3.28). Whatever Kavirāja Gosvāmī is speaking, not out of his own whimsical way, whatever he's speaking, he's following the paramparā system. That is Vaiṣṇavism, or ācārya. Ācāryavan puruṣo veda. (noise, talking) (aside:) Stop this. Unless we accept the ācārya in the paramparā system, we cannot understand things as they are. It is not possible. So Kavirāja Gosvāmī, he's describing this Caitanya-caritāmṛta strictly according to the verdict of the śāstras. His statement is that Kṛṣṇa is the original Personality of Godhead. Svayam bhagavān kṛṣṇa. Bhagavān is person; Bhagavān is not imperson. Brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate (SB 1.2.11). First realization of the Absolute Truth by speculative knowledge is impersonal effulgence of the Lord, which is called brahma-jyotir. Then next realization is Paramātmā, the localized aspect of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. But realization of Kṛṣṇa, that is the ultimate realization. Svayam bhagavān kṛṣṇa.
Now, what is the nature of that Brahman? Is it impersonal or personal? Now, Vyāsadeva says, abhijñaḥ svarāṭ. No. "That Supreme Truth is cognizant. He knows." And Bhagavad-gītā also confirms that, vedāhaṁ samatītāni (BG 7.26). The Lord says, "I know everything. I know..." Unless He's cognizant, unless behind this mani..., cosmic manifestation, if there is no brain, if there is no cognizance, how nicely it can be made so regulation, I mean to say, timely, everything is working? The planets are working. Do you think there is no brain behind this? There must be. Therefore Bhāgavata says yes, abhijñaḥ... Abhijñaḥ means He's cognizant; He's not a fool. Therefore He's a person. Cognizant is a person. And it is said, svarāṭ. He also educated Brahmā. He also... Because Brahmā is considered to be the first created being in this universe. So Bhāgavata says, tene brahma hṛdā ādi-kavaye. Ādi-kavaye means the first created being, and brahma means this Vedic knowledge.
Now, if Brahman is background of this manifestation, so we are all living entities and we are intelligent. We know how to do things very nicely. We have got intelligence. And do you think from whom we have emanated, He has no intelligence? He has no sense? He is impersonal? What is this nonsense? I am born of my father. Suppose I have not seen. Just after my birth, my father died. So, in my childhood or even when my mother was pregnant, my father died. So I did not see my father. There are so many cases. Just like Mahārāja Parīkṣit. His father died while he was in the womb of his mother. Now he has not seen his father. Does this mean that his father is impersonal? Any common man (can) understand, "I have got this body from my father, and I am so intelligent. I can do things nicely. So naturally my father is a person. How he can become imperson?" although I have not seen it. So these require, janmādy asya yataḥ... Vedānta-sūtra says that "from whom everything is emanated." So He's not imperson. Therefore Bhāgavata explains this verse, this sūtra, very nicely. Janmādy asya yataḥ anvayād itarataś ca artheṣu abhijñaḥ svarāṭ (SB 1.1.1). That Supreme Person, God, is cognizant. He's sentient, not imperson, because He knows everything. Because everything is... Just like your father knows almost everything of you because he has created you. This is crude example.
Brahman means "the greatest." So what is the idea of the greatest? The greatest means... That is described by Parāśara-sūtra, that He is the greatest in wealth, greatest in fame, greatest in knowledge, greatest in renunciation, greatest in beauty, everything, whatever attractive. How, how you can understand "greatest"? "Greatest" does not mean that sky is the greatest. That is impersonal theory. But our "greatest" idea is that one who can swallow millions of skies within Himself, He is greatest. The material conception, they cannot go further. They can simply think of the greatest: the sky. That's all. "As great as the sky." But we Vaiṣṇava, we see that Kṛṣṇa has within His mouth millions of skies. So who is greatest? Kṛṣṇa is greatest or the sky is greatest? This is the difference between the Māyāvādī philosophers. Just like Kṛṣṇa, when He was boy, He was eating clay. His mother asked, "Oh, just open Your mouth. I want to see what You are eating." And Kṛṣṇa showed him (her) that millions of planets and millions of skies are within the mouth. So He is greatest, who can show that "Millions of skies are within Me." He is greatest. That means greatest in opulence of strength, greatest in strength, greatest in wealth, great..., everything greatest. He is greatest. That is Caitanya Mahāprabhu's... He says Brahman means the greatest, and greatest means one who is greatest in six opulences.
Accept it as it is." But tūrṇaṁ yateta na mṛtyuṁ pateta yāvat niḥśreyasāya: "Your endeavor should be how to elevate yourself spiritually. Don't bother about viṣaya. Viṣaya is already arranged by nature's way." So patiṁ patīnāṁ paramaṁ parastāt. No. He's also, God is also, as we are given the chance of becoming husband, similarly, He's the supreme husband. Supreme husband. Now, if He's the supreme husband and if He marries sixteen thousand wives, it is very difficult for Him? It is not at all difficult. So people do not understand, do not consult this Vedic literature, how it is stated the Supreme. How one can become Supreme? The Supreme... We judge the Supreme in the same philosophy, frog philosophy. "Atlantic Ocean? Oh, it may be a little bigger than this well. That's all." So our calculation of God is always like that. "Kṛṣṇa, He looks like us, just like a man. So what is there? He may be a little powerful than me. All right, He has spoken Bhagavad-gītā. All right. He's little more wiser than us." So we always compare with us. But it is not. He's supreme. We have no idea of the Supreme. Therefore we forget personality. Patiṁ patī... It is clearly stated, pati. Can pati, the husband or proprietor, can become imperson? No. When the conception of pati, husband and proprietor, is there, then He is personal. Patiṁ patīnāṁ paramaṁ parastāt mahān prabhavaiḥ puruṣaḥ.
So Śaṅkarācārya was a covered devotee. He was devotee. Somebody accuses Śaṅkarācārya that he was covered Buddhist. But so far I am concerned, I say that Śaṅkarācārya was covered devotee. He was devotee at heart, but because he was ordered to preach in that way... Otherwise, there was no alternative. That is stated in the Padma Purāṇa. When there is conversation between Lord Śiva and his wife Pārvatī, he disclosed that "In the age of Kali, as a Brāhmaṇa, I preach this Māyāvāda philosophy, which is covered Buddha philosophy." Buddha philosophy says that "This material life is all. After this material life, there is nothing, all void." And Śaṅkarācārya said that "It is impersonal. There is no variety." So in both the philosophies there is no acceptance of Lord, the Supreme Lord, Personality of Godhead. Therefore they are called nāstika-vāda. Nāstika-vāda means atheism, atheism. Caitanya Mahāprabhu has described Buddha religion as atheism. "And Māyāvāda philosophy," He has said, "dangerous atheism." He has given little preference to Buddhism, but to Māyāvāda philosophy He has stated, "It is dangerous atheism." His exact version is like that, bheda namiya bauddha haila nāstika. Vedāśraye nāstika-vāda bauddha ke adika. He says that "We call the Buddhists as atheists because the simple reason is that they do not accept Vedas." Lord Buddha, he denied, that "I don't care for the Vedas. I have got my this own proposition, that ahiṁsā. Nonviolence is the religion. That's all." So he did not accept Vedas. Therefore, those who are Vedantists, those who are followers of Vedas, they called Buddhist religion atheism. Atheism means anyone who does not believe in scriptures, standard scriptures. That is called atheism.
So these are stated in the Bhagavad-gītā. Therefore natural conclusion, as Caitanya Mahāprabhu says, that His potencies, His body and His activities—everything spiritual. There is nothing material. Cid-vibhūti ācchādi' tāṅre kahe 'nirākāra.' And when there is some indication of impersonalism in the Vedas, it should be understood that His body is not of this material nature. If somebody says that "God does not belong to this matter," that is all right. That does not mean He's impersonal. He has got a spiritual body. Matter is denied. The whole Upaniṣad... First of all they describe the Supreme... Just like apāṇi-pādo javano grahītā. There are Vedic statements that "The Supreme has no hands, but He can accept whatever you offer." Now, this is contradictory. If He has no hands, how He can accept? What for He's accepting. Therefore it is to be understood that He has His hand, but not this hand. My hand is, er, can stretch, say, one yard only, but because He's unlimited, His hand can be stretched... Just like we are offering foodstuff, so how He is eating? That is His... He's eating by His transcendental body. We cannot see at the present moment, but He is eating. How He's eating? Because we have got the information, "Yes, I eat." Tad ahaṁ bhakty-upahṛtam aśnāmi prayatātmanaḥ: "Anyone who is My devotee and offers in love, I take them." So that cannot be... There is no mistake. But how He is taking, how He is eating, because we are in this material body, we do not see it, but He is taking. Therefore cid-vibhūti ācchādi' tāṅre kahe 'nirākāra'.
Prabhupāda: Where you lose your personality? Either in dream or in awakened, you are person. When do you lose your personality? When you become imperson?
Guest (1): When do you lose it? When you wake up from the dream of this material world.
Prabhupāda: You are not imperson at that time. You are person. You are thinking, "I was dreaming." So your ego is there.
Guest (1): Yeah...
Prabhupāda: Then how...?
Guest (1): Well, they say...
Prabhupāda: Where do you lose your ego? Where your ego is dissolved?
Guest (1): Where is it dissolved?
Prabhupāda: Yes? It is never dissolved.
So His vision, His presence, His activities, they are all spiritual. In the Bhagavad-gītā it is said, janma karma me divyaṁ yo jānāti tattvataḥ: "Anyone who understands the absolute nature of My birth, of My appearance, disappearance and activities," tyaktvā dehaṁ punar janma naiti (BG 4.9), "he becomes immediately liberated." Sa aikṣata. Sa imāḻ lokān asṛjata. This is Aitareya Upaniṣad. What is that? Sa aikṣata. The same thing: "He saw. He put His glance." Sa aikṣata. Sa imāḻ lokān asṛjata: "He has created all this material manifestation, cosmic manifestation." So tad vā īśan vijato tebhya ha prabhur babhūva. In this way, there are so many instances, so many quotations. Apāṇi-pādaḥ. In the Śvetāśvatara, apāṇi-pādaḥ. He has no, I mean to say, hands and legs. If He has no hands and legs, then how can He see? Is there any instance in your experience that something which has no hands and legs, he can see? No. He has no... Whenever... This is impersonal... The impersonalists quotes these authorities, that "He has no hands and... Therefore He's impersonal." No, it is not... If He sees, sa aikṣata, if He sees, if He hears, if He creates, then there is hand, there is eyes. But another place, if it is said, apāṇi-pādaḥ: "He has no hands and legs." That means He has no hands and legs like us. Because we have got material hands and legs, but the... "He saw; therefore there was creation." Therefore His seeing power existed before this material creation. So it is natural that He has no material hands and legs. So when it is denied that "He has no hands and legs," it is to be understood that He has no material limited hands and legs, but He has spiritual.
So Caitanya Mahāprabhu concludes, therefore, that cid-ānanda-teṅho, tāṅra sthāna, parivāra. Therefore anything of Kṛṣṇa, or anything of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is spiritual. Spiritual. Deha. Deha means body. His body is spiritual, His abode is spiritual, and His paraphernalia, parivāra, His friends, His mother, His father, His beloved—everything spiritual. Ānanda-cinmaya-rasa-pratibhāvitābhis tābhir ya eva nija-rūpatayā kalābhiḥ (Bs. 5.37). He's expansion of all spiritual. Tāṅre kahe-prākṛta-sattvera vikāra. And Śaṅkarācārya says that "The Absolute is imperson, but when He comes, appears, He assumes a form which is in the modes of goodness." He does not say, of course, in the modes of ignorance. Modes of goodness. No. When Kṛṣṇa comes, He has nothing to do with modes of goodness even. What is this goodness here in this material world? This is also matter. So there is no value, even goodness. One has to transcend the modes of goodness. That is transcendental, or aprakṛta.
So again He supports Śaṅkarācārya, that "It is not his fault. He had to do it under the superior order to explain the Vedic literature in an impersonalist way. But those who are not expert, if they hear the commentary of Śaṅkarācārya, Śārīraka-bhāṣya, then he is doomed." In other words, those who are actually aspiring for being elevated in spiritual science, they should avoid to hear any commentary which is impersonal. Any commentary. Then he is doomed. If we follow Caitanya Mahāprabhu's instruction, then any impersonal commentary means, if we hear... Because we are not expert. We are not expert. Kaniṣṭha-adhikārī. Kaniṣṭha-adhikārī means neophytes, neophytes who are not conversant with the conclusion of the Vedas. They have got some, I mean to say, faith. That's all. But faith can be changed. Any... If a person, strong in arguments and strong in presenting things in jugglery of words, oh, the neophyte, his idea can be changed. But Caitanya Mahāprabhu warns, therefore, in the Vaiṣṇava philosophy that "You should not worship any other demigods." It does not mean that you should show disrespect to demigods.
Lord Caitanya, from different quotations of Vedas, He establishes that the Supreme Absolute Truth is person. He's not imperson. And so far Śaṅkarācārya is concerned, he was ordered to preach Māyāvāda philosophy by the Supreme Personality of Godhead for the time being. It is not that this is the only process for realizing the Absolute Truth.
So there is no quarrel between the impersonalists or personalists or the Paramātmā-ists. There is no question of quarreling. The example is present daily in our daily experience. Just like the sunlight, sun, sun globe, and the sun-god. Within the sun globe, there is sun-god. So which one is the chief? That we have to consider. The sun-god or the sun globe or the sunshine? Everything is light. Sunshine is also light, sun globe also light, and the original source of this light, the sun-god, is also light. So sunshine is impersonal, sun globe is localized, and the sun-god is personal. If you be satisfied that "I am in the sunshine," be satisfied. That is called sāyujya-mukti. The sunshine means combination of different molecular shining parts. Any scientist knows it that what is the sunshine. The sunshine appears to be a homogeneous thing, but actually, in minute analysis it will be found that there are innumerable shining sparks, molecular sparks only—their combination. (baby making noise) (aside:) They're disturbing.
They are called Māyāvādī. So chiefly the impersonalists and the void philosophers, they are called Māyāvādī, because they have no other information. They want to simply negate, nullify, but they have no positive information, so they are called Māyāvādī. So the Śaṅkarites... Śaṅkarites, of course, they give positive information. Brahma satya jagan mithyā. They say that this world is false and Brahman is reality. But because we want reality in variety, therefore impersonal philosophy, although we take it as a matter of sectarian philosophy, it does not appeal to the heart because by nature we want enjoyment. And whenever there is question of enjoyment, there must be variety. Variety is the mother of enjoyment. So philosophically or theoretically, we may accept voidness, negation, out of frustration. When we are frustrated in these material varieties we adopt the suicidal policy, "Let me commit suicide, finish." This is called Māyāvāda. Actual spiritual variegatedness, unless one is informed about it and one is situated in spiritual varieties, there is no satisfaction.
Therefore Brahmā says, aho bhāgyam aho bhāgyam: "How fortunate these residents of Vṛndāvana are that Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, has become their friend." And Kṛṣṇa is pūrṇa-brahma sanātanam, not that He has assumed a body like a human being and He is imperson. No. Just like Māyāvādī philosophers, they take it, they concoct like that, that "Ultimately the Absolute Truth is impersonal, but when He descends..." I do not know how the impersonal can be "He." So that theory is refuted hereby because it is the statement of Brahmā, and he says that Kṛṣṇa is pūrṇa-brahma sanātanam.
Then Caitanya Mahāprabhu says,
- apāṇi-pāda-śruti varje prākṛta pāṇi-caraṇa
- punaḥ kahe śīghra cale kare sarva grahaṇa
This is the process is describing a spiritual understanding, with reference to the Vedic injunction. Now, Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya Mahāprabhu is giving Vedic reference. He says, apāṇi-pāda. This is a reference from the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad. In the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad there is statement, impersonally, but referring to the person, transcendental person.
"Person, but has no leg and no hand." There are two kinds of statements: that He is person, puruṣa, mahānta, the greatest person, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, He is a person; but apāṇi-pāda, but He has no legs and no hands. So how is that? A person has no legs and no hands, and still, He accepts whatever we offer? Just like Kṛṣṇa says, tad aham aśnāmi, bhaktyā upahṛtam aśnāmi: "Anyone who offers Me anything," patraṁ puṣpaṁ phalaṁ toyam (BG 9.26), "with devotion," bhaktyā... The very word is bhaktyā. That means Kṛṣṇa is transcendental person, and the Vedic mantra confirms. When the Vedic mantra says, apāṇi-pāda, "no hands, no legs," that is not imperson. "Person, but His hands and legs are not like us," that is apāṇi-pāda. Caitanya Mahāprabhu explains that. Apāṇi-pāda śruti varje prākṛta pāṇi-caraṇa: "When the Vedic mantra says that 'The Absolute Truth has no legs and no hands,' that means that the Personality of Godhead's hands and legs are not material." That is Caitanya Mahāprabhu's explanation.
Unfortunately the Māyāvādīs, they, either due to their poor fund of knowledge of the śāstras or by their whims, they say that "Kṛṣṇa or Viṣṇu, when comes, or the Absolute Truth when He descends, He assumes, He accepts, a material body." That is not the fact. Kṛṣṇa says, sambhavāmy ātma-māyayā (BG 4.6). It is not that Kṛṣṇa accepts a material body. No. Kṛṣṇa has no such distinction, material world. Therefore Kṛṣṇa says, avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritam: (BG 9.11) "Because I present myself, descend Myself as a human being, the mūḍhas, or the rascals, they think of Me or deride at Me." The Māyāvādīs, they will never worship the transcendental form of the Lord. They'll not worship. They will worship the imperson. And Kṛṣṇa has said, kleśo adhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām. Of course, impersonal, personal, is the same Absolute Truth. But if you try to reach the Absolute Truth through His impersonal attachment, then it will be more troublesome. The jñānīs, those who want to understand the Absolute Truth by their material, imperfect knowledge, how... Ataḥ śrī-kṛṣṇa-nāmādi na bhaved grāhyam indriyaiḥ (CC Madhya 17.136). Our manipulation of the senses is not possible to understand what is Kṛṣṇa.
So it is very unfortunate that the Supreme Personality of Godhead, accepted by all the ācāryas, not only at the present age, previously also... Vyāsadeva, Nārada, Asita, Devala, they are all great ācāryas. And in the recent years, Śaṅkarācārya, he also admitted. Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, Viṣṇu Svāmī, Lord Caitanya—all these authorities, they are accepting Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Then how is that—a less intelligent class of men, they are commenting differently? That is not good. They may comment, they go on talking all nonsense, but no sane man will accept them. That is a different thing. But those who are sane, they should judge over this, that "Why we should deny, that 'God is impersonal'? God is person. Kṛṣṇa came." Kṛṣṇa exhibited His godly potencies, energies, when He was present. There is no... In the history you won't find another second person like Kṛṣṇa in the whole history of the world. Apart from other points of view, Bhagavad-gītā, that is admitted, spoken by Kṛṣṇa, such deep, profound knowledge—there is no second imitation or second copy like Bhagavad-gītā in the whole world. That is admitted by all scholars, all religionists. Therefore He is pūrṇa-jñāna, pūrṇa-brahma. Bhagavad-gītā is pūrṇa-jñāna. The Bhagavān's one qualification—He is fully wise. Nobody is wiser than Him. That is one of the qualifications. Nobody is richer than Him, nobody is powerful than Him, nobody is influential than Him, nobody is beautiful than Him, and nobody is renouncer than Him. Ṣaḍ-aiśvarya. That will be explained.
Ataeva śruti kahe brahma-saviśeṣa: God, Brahma, the great. Brahma means the great. Bṛhatvād bṛhannatvāt. The Absolute Truth is the great and can expand also unlimitedly. Advaitam acyutam anādim ananta-rūpam (Bs. 5.33). Rūpam: He has got His transcendental forms, ananta, unlimited. But they are all one. Advaitam acyutam anādim ananta-rūpam. Ādyam, the original; Purāṇa, the oldest; puruṣam, person. Advaitam acyutam anādim ananta-rūpam. Although He has got innumerable forms, they are advaita, they are one. Advaitam acyutam anādim ananta-rūpam (Bs. 5.33). Ādyam, original; Purāṇa, the oldest; and puruṣam, the person. Nava-yauvanam. The oldest, but nava-yauvana, just beginning of youthful life. That is the description in the Brahma-saṁhitā. And Caitanya Mahāprabhu confirms that brahma saviśeṣa. Saviśeṣa means person with varieties of energy. Not imperson. Ataeva śruti kahe. According to Vedic evidence from the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad, apāṇi pāda, He has proved that when the Upaniṣad says that "The Absolute Truth has no hands and legs, this means that He has no material hands and legs. But He has His hands and legs." (shouting in background) (aside:) Who is shouting? Why they do not come? Why they are shouting there? All right.
The discussion was going with Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya, a follower of the Śaṅkarite philosophy. So Caitanya Mahāprabhu has given Vedic evidences that the Supreme Personality of Godhead has His form, transcendental form, sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha, but His form is not material. That is the opinion of Śaṅkarācārya. Nārāyaṇa para avyaktāt: "Nārāyaṇa, He is transcendental to this creation." So in... With reference to this material creation, He is impersonal. But when we speak of the spiritual world, He is a person, sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ (Bs. 5.1). Ṣaḍ-aiśvarya pūrṇa, pūrṇānanda vigraha yāṅhāra.
Now, Caitanya Mahāprabhu says that brahma is full of six kinds of opulences. Pūrṇa. Ṣaḍ-aiśvarya-pūrṇa. And ānanda, and full of bliss. There is an English word, I think: "Variety is the mother of enjoyment." Enjoyment, ānanda means enjoyment. Enjoyment cannot be impersonal; there must be varieties. That is enjoyment. You have got experience that when there is a bunch of flower of different colors it is very enjoyable. And if there is only rose only, although rose is very nice flower, it is not so pleasing. With rose, some green foliage, some grass, inferior quality, it looks very beautiful.
This prātyaya, from Sanskrit verbal root, is affixed in two cases—when there is excess and when there is transformation. So either cases, the ānanda, or the blissful nature of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is extensive, unlimited. Prācurya. Prācurya means extensive. So ṣaḍ-aiśvarya pūrṇānanda vigrahaḥ yāṅhāra. Caitanya Mahāprabhu says that one who has got transcendental form, full of ānanda... Hena bhagavāne tumi kaha nirākāra. And you think of such Personality of Godhead as impersonal, how it is possible? Without being person, there cannot be ānanda anubhava. Just like we are persons. We can feel pains and pleasure. Unless one is person, there is no question of enjoying ānanda. So that is His challenge, that if the Supreme Personality of Godhead is full of ānanda, as it is stated in all the Vedic scriptures, especially in Vedānta-sūtra, ānandamayo 'bhyāsāt, then how He can be imperson? There is no possibility. And He gives other Vedic evidences also. Apāṇi-pādo javano grahītā, that He has no hand; still, He accepts whatever is given to Him. So there is no possibility of the Absolute Truth's being imperson. He is person. Hena bhagavāne tumi kaha nirākāra.
Then who is talking? Now, the Māyāvāda philosophers, their point of view is the Absolute Truth is imperson and there is no different energy. So Caitanya Mahāprabhu's challenge is that Absolute Truth has got multi-energies. That is also stated in the Upaniṣads: parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate (Cc. Madhya 13.65, purport). The Absolute Truth has multi-energies, innumerable energies. And such energies have been divided into three divisions. Parāsya śaktir vividhaiva..., na tasya kāryaṁ kāraṇaṁ ca vidyate. He has nothing to do. Why He has to do? Because His energies are working. Therefore, He has energy. Just like Kṛṣṇa says, mayā tatam idaṁ sarvaṁ jagad avyakta-mūrtinā: (BG 9.4) "The whole universe in its avyakta-mūrti, nonmanifested form, I am." Ahaṁ tatam idaṁ sarvam. Aham. "But at the same time, aham is there." Aham means "I." And the word avyakta is there, "nonmanifest." So Kṛṣṇa is manifest. Then what is this nonmanifest? The nonmanifest is the energy of Kṛṣṇa. Mayā tatam idam. "By Me." If I say... I have got a big business, big factory. If the proprietor says, "I am all-pervading over this factory," that is right. Suppose one man has got a factory, say Birla. They say "Birla Factory," "Birla Jute Mill," "Birla..." Birla's name is there, although Birla is a person, he's not there. It is very easy to understand. Birla is a person.
Caitanya Mahāprabhu is therefore quoting from different Vedic literatures to prove that the Absolute Truth is person, ṣaḍ-aiśvarya-pūrṇa, full with six opulences. As in the Parāśara-sūtra there is aiśvaryasya samāgrasya. When Kṛṣṇa was present He exhibited full strength of six kinds of opulences. So the... Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. That is the fact. That is the Vedic version. It is not that some of the Kṛṣṇa's devotees have taken Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme, or He is originally imperson and He takes a form, accepting a material body. These are not right conclusions. In the Kūrma Purāṇa it is said that there is no distinction between the body of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and soul. The Māyāvādī philosophers, they distinguish that "Kṛṣṇa's soul is different from His body." That is Māyāvāda philosophy. But that is not the fact. There is no such difference. (aside:) What is that sound? Who is making that?
Indian man: Prabhupāda, the basic confusion is that the Māyāvādīs take Bhagavad-gītā, they can recite the same Sanskrit words and interpret it in their way and convince someone that the ultimate Brahman is impersonal and the (indistinct) Brahman, Kṛṣṇa is only a technique.
Prabhupāda: That means they misinterpret and they misguide. So people should be intelligent enough that they are impersonalists but Bhagavad-gītā means Kṛṣṇa, the person, He is teaching. Where is the impersonalist? But nobody has any common sense even that Kṛṣṇa says aham ādir hi bhūtānām. Ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavo (BG 10.8). This aham is person, so how He can be imperson? And He's talking personally with Arjuna. So how He is imperson? Can the air talk with you? Air is imperson. Sky is imperson. Can he talk with you? What do you think? No, sometimes talks. (laughter) So we should have common sense, that where is the question of... And Kṛṣṇa says in the Second Chapter that "My dear Arjuna, both you, Me and all these soldiers and kings who are assembled here, we existed in the past, we are now existing, and we shall continue to exist in the future." So three things: first person, second person and third person. I am first person, you are second person and all others third person. So they existed individually in the past, they are existing now, and they will continue to exist like that. Then where is imperson? There are three things, three different phases, past, present and future. In all the times, if they are individual, where is imperson? Rather, Kṛṣṇa has condemned, avyaktaṁ vyaktim āpannam manyante mām abuddhayaḥ (BG 7.24). Those who are rascals, they think avyaktam, impersonal. Now He has become person. Avyaktaṁ vyaktim āpannaṁ manyante mām. Mām means individual person. Abuddhayaḥ: he has no intelligence. So how He can be imperson? So we have to take the words of Bhagavad-gītā and then we understand. Why we should be misled by these so-called interpreters?
Prabhupāda: But anyway, but Kṛṣṇa, if you think of Kṛṣṇa, the Kṛṣṇa person, He's not imperson.
Indian man: No, but they..., they say that has happened.
Prabhupāda: They say that if you think of Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa is a person. So you have to begin with person.
Indian man: But they also say one can go directly to Brahman.
Prabhupāda: Never says, Kṛṣṇa never says in the Bhagavad-gītā.
Indian man: This is my basic confusion.
Prabhupāda: Confusion... How you should be confused? Where is Kṛṣṇa says? The basic (indistinct) is in person? Kṛṣṇa's teaching personally. Where is the imperson? Why you should be misled unless you are also one of them. Kṛṣṇa is always person. He's always speaking aham. Sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja (BG 18.66). Person. Aham ādir hi devānām (Bg 10.2). Mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat kiñcid asti dhanañjaya (BG 7.7). Mattaḥ. This, ahaṁ-śabdaḥ, is used. So they misinterpret just to mislead people; therefore whole India has become godless. This is the misfortune of India. On account of these impersonalists, Māyāvādīs, India is now godless. Very difficult position. So don't be misled by these rascals. Take real Bhagavad-gītā as it is. Then you'll be benefited. That's all. (end)
So the karmīs are too much attached with the asad-dharma, total, cent percent. And the jñānīs, they are little intelligent, that... Jñānī means "I have tried so much to be happy with the bodily comforts, but it has not become possible." Then he tries to understand "Whether I am this body or something else?" That is Vedic injunction, ahaṁ brahmāsmi. When he is actually liberated he understands that "I am not this body." So he tries to get rid of this bodily conception of life, but because he has no information of the ultimate goal of life, he thinks that "If I merge with the Supreme, then my life is successful." But that is also asad-dharma, because this impersonal understanding will not help him because he is person. Every one of us, we are person. We cannot stay on the impersonal platform. That is not possible. Artificially if we try to stay on the impersonal platform, it will not stay. Then we shall fall down again. Just like this moon excursion or the Mars. They do not get actually shelter there; therefore they fall down again, come here. With some stone and sand, they are satisfied. Because they did not get any shelter, they fall down.
So even if I, I am within this material energy, when I am forgetful of Kṛṣṇa, this material energy is fearful for me, and when I am in Kṛṣṇa consciousness fully, there is no question of fearfulness from material nature." Therefore tan-māyayā ābhajet tam. Ābhajet tam. And therefore it is our duty to regain our lost consciousness, Kṛṣṇa consciousness. That is the duty of this human form of life. Ābhajet tam bhaktyaika īśam. Simply by devotional... If you want to worship the Supreme Lord, then you have to worship Him simply by service. There is no other process. You cannot worship Kṛṣṇa by this controlling breathing or by mental speculation or by some pious activities or by charities. You have simply to worship Him simply by your devotional love. That is the only way. Bhaktyai, bhaktyaika, only one, bhakti. There is no other means. There is no second means to understand God without this devotional service. Rest assured. Foolish creatures, they take this, that. They do not understand. They come to the, that impersonal, void, all the nonsensical conclusions and... Because they do not take shelter of this, devotion, therefore they cannot have any conclusion. It is not possible. Therefore, more or less, they become atheists or after the voidness or impersonalism, and so many things there are. They create.
Impersonal conception of Godhead, localized conception of Godhead or universal form of God, pantheism, monism—they are not perfect. If you want to know perfectly, then bhakti... It is stated in everywhere, in all Vedic literatures, evidentially in Bhagavad-gītā, which is present before us, in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Caitanya-caritāmṛta. Everywhere you will find this only way, that devotional service. Bhaktyā mām abhijānāti yāvān yaś cāsmi tattvataḥ (BG 18.55). Tattvataḥ means "in fact." Partially you can know, but in complete... Of course, God cannot be known in complete, but the highest point a human being or a living entity can reach... That, the only process, through bhakti... Bhaktyāham ekayā grāhyaḥ śraddhayātmā priyaḥ satām. Śraddhā ātmā priyaḥ satām. That bhakti, that process of devotional service, is very dear to the actual transcendentalist, very dear. Bhaktiḥ punāti man-niṣṭhā. Man-niṣṭhā. To know simply "I believe in God," that is not sufficient. The ultimate goal is to attain very intimate relationship or love of Godhead. That is required. Of course, to know, to believe in God, to accept God, that is all right. It is better than the atheist. But that is not end. You must develop yourself.
Now Caitanya Mahāprabhu is explaining what is the identification of Kṛṣṇa. In the beginning He says, kṛṣṇera svarūpa ananta. Kṛṣṇa has form, svarūpa. Kṛṣṇa is not formless, but He has got many millions of forms. Not one form, many millions of forms. But He has form. He is not impersonal. Kṛṣṇera svarūpa ananta. Ananta means unlimited. That is also confirmed in the Brahma-saṁhitā:
- advaitam acyutam anādim ananta-rūpam
- ādyaṁ purāṇa-puruṣaṁ nava-yauvanaṁ ca
- vedeṣu durlabham adurlabham ātma-bhaktau
- govindam ādi-puruṣaṁ tam ahaṁ bhajāmi
- (Bs. 5.33)
The Brahma-saṁhitā says that advaita acyuta. Advaita means although Kṛṣṇa has many forms, many expansions, still, they are one. There is no duality. Just like Kṛṣṇa and Rāma, They are one. They are not different. Similarly, rāmādi-mūrtiṣu kalā-niyamena tiṣṭhan (Bs. 5.39). Beginning from Rāma, Nṛsiṁha, Varāha, He has got innumerable forms.
So this impersonal idea of God is for the less intelligent person, not for the intelligent persons. Those who are, I mean to say, favored with poor fund of knowledge, they cannot conceive about the Personality of Godhead. Therefore we have to approach authorities just like Lord Caitanya. He is putting something before us. Even in Bhagavad-gītā Lord Kṛṣṇa also says that "I am person. I am person." Mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat kiñcid asti dhanañjaya (BG 7.7). And it is confirmed by Arjuna. What is that? Paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān (BG 10.12). Pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān. So the Bhagavad-gītā, the speaker of the Bhagavad-gītā, establishing Himself that "I am person," and the student of the Bhagavad-gītā, I mean to say, Arjuna, he is accepting, "Yes. You are person. I accept it." I do not know why these fools explain, from Bhagavad-gītā, impersonalism. Where is the chance of explaining impersonal about conception of God from Bhagavad-gītā? Now, how they can surpass the speaker and the student? The student is Arjuna. He is accepting that "You are the Supreme Personality of Godhead." And the speaker, Kṛṣṇa, He is also establishing Himself that "I am the Supreme Personality of Godhead." Now, wherefrom these fools take impersonal idea, I do not know. How they can? There is no chance. But still, they will poke their nose in that way. It is very sorry plight. You see? They are simply misleading persons.
So God is person. God, so far Vedic literature is concerned, God is person and accepted by the ācāryas. We have to follow the ācāryas; otherwise we cannot... Our own interpretation, our own tiny brain, cannot conceive. We have to follow. Evaṁ paramparā-prāptam (BG 4.2). Śrī Kṛṣṇa said to Arjuna, and from Arjuna there are paramparā. There are disciplic succession. We have to follow that way. Now, here Lord Caitanya, although He is Kṛṣṇa Himself, still, He is in that paramparā, in that disciplic succession. He says that "In order to understand Kṛṣṇa, you have to study His energies. He is person. His energies are impersonal." In Śrīmad-Bhāgavata also it is said,
- vadanti tat tattva-vidas
- tattvaṁ yaj jñānam advayam
- brahmeti paramātmeti
- bhagavān iti śabdyate
- (SB 1.2.11)
"The Absolute Truth, those who know about Absolute Truth, they say..." Śrīmad-Bhāgavata describes about the Absolute, vadanti tat tattva-vidaḥ. Tattva-vidaḥ means "those who are in the knowledge about the Absolute Truth." Vadanti tat: "They describe that thing as Absolute Truth." What is that? Advaya-jñāna: "There is no duality of knowledge." That is Absolute Truth.
Go means senses. We are seeking sense pleasure. Sense pleasure means reciprocation between the two. I want to see a beautiful girl. That means two. Or I want to see a beautiful boy. So that means two. So without two, there cannot be sense pleasure. I want to eat something palatable. There must be two. At least, the dish must be full of varieties. So impersonal, there is no pleasure, actual pleasure. So Kṛṣṇa, our relationship with Kṛṣṇa, our service with Kṛṣṇa, that is pleasure. Govinda. That is real sense pleasure. By seeing Kṛṣṇa, by tasting Kṛṣṇa, by smelling Kṛṣṇa, by touching Kṛṣṇa—everything, that is sense pleasure. That is our real sense pleasure. So He is Govinda and sarva-kāraṇa-kāraṇam (Bs. 5.1), the cause of all causes. Beyond Him, there is no other cause. This is the description Lord Caitanya gives, and we shall gradually discuss other points.
Any questions? (end)
So one who is dazzled by this glaring effulgence of the rays of Kṛṣṇa, they can realize the Supreme Lord or the Supreme Absolute Truth as impersonal. Sūrya yena carma-cakṣe jyotirmaya bhāse. Carma-cakṣe, with our present eyes, defective... All our senses are defective. We are very much proud of our eyes. I want to see personally. But we do not know that with these eyes or any sense, they are all defective. They are not perfect. Just like in the glare of the sunshine, oh, we see nothing. We see sometimes darkness. So we cannot believe these eyes or senses. We have to take information of perfect knowledge from the authorities. That is the Vedic way. So those who want to see God or the Supreme Absolute Truth by the agency of their imperfect senses, they say that God is impersonal. They're imperfect. That is a realization of the imperfect senses. Perfectly, the perfectly vision, perfect vision of the Supreme Lord is a person. Just like nobody can enter into the sun disc. They can say from distant place, "Oh, there is nothing. It is simply fire." But from scripture we understand, "No, that is a planet." And as in this planet we have got so many variegatedness, similarly, in that planet also, there are... In every planet. There is no reason to disbelieve that in, in the, in other planets there is no life, there is no variegatedness. No. According to Vedic literature, it is not acceptable. Each and every planet, there is variegatedness as we find in this planet. The difference is that in some of the planets earthly matter is prominent, some of the planets fiery elements are prominent. So in the sun, sun planet, fiery elements is very prominent. There the living entities and everything, they are made of fire.
So practically the whole of Far East, including India, all over, the Buddhism was broadcast and everyone become Buddhist. Whole of India, practically, became Buddhist during his time. But later on, after Śaṅkarācārya's drive against Buddhism, Buddha-ism... Śaṅkarācārya wanted to establish the difference of Buddhism and Hinduism is that Buddhism, Lord Buddha did not accept Vedic authority. He did not accept Vedic authority. But according to Hindu culture, if somebody does not accept the Vedic authority, then he's not a authority. Vedānta philosophy, there are different parties in India. The Māyā... Generally, two parties: the Māyāvāda philosophers and the Vaiṣṇava philosophers, or the impersonalists and the personalists. Otherwise, there is no difference. Ultimately, the Māyāvādī philosophers they say that God, the Supreme Absolute Truth, is impersonal, and the Vaiṣṇava philosophers, they say in the ultimate end, the Absolute Truth is Person and He is, He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam (SB 1.3.28). This is little difference, and they stick to their position and they fight. Fight means by philosophical arguments. That is going on since a very long time. But both of them belong to the sanātana Hindu dharma because both of them will talk on the Vedānta philosophy. They'll simply, they can give different interpretation, but they cannot say that "We don't accept Vedānta." Oh, that will..., then it is at once rejected. So one must give an interpretation on the Vedānta philosophy; then he'll be accepted as ācārya. Three things: Vedānta philosophy, Bhagavad-gītā and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. One must be able to explain these three books. Then he'll be accepted ācārya. These are the principles.
So the basic principle is yad icchantaṁ brahmacaryaṁ caranti. One should be very regular. Vīta-rāgāḥ. Viśanti yad, viśanti yad yatayo vīta-rāgāḥ. Vīta-rāgāḥ. Vīta-rāgāḥ means completely separated from materialistic life. Vīta-rāgāḥ. Rāgāḥ means attachment, and vīta means completely freed. Yad akṣaram, yad akṣaraṁ brahma vido vadanti. Brahma-vida. Brahma..., those who are conversant in Vedic literature. Akṣaram. Akṣaram. Yad akṣaram. The God has His representation in three letters, a, u, m, which is sounded vibrated om. There is no difference between oṁkāra and Kṛṣṇa. It is admitted in the Bhagavad-gītā that oṁkāra 'smi. Akṣaram oṁkāro 'smi: "Of all the letters I am the oṁkāra." So Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare/ Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare and oṁkāra, there is no difference, so far the transcendental sound vibration is concerned. But the objective is different. By oṁkāra one attains impersonal existence in the brahma-jyotir, and by chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare, one attains the spiritual body and he's situated in the spiritual planets. We have many times discussed that there are spiritual planets. That is the difference. So far quality is concerned, both of them are spiritual, oṁkāra or Hare Kṛṣṇa.
Kṛṣṇa, you know, in His abode, He is just like a sixteen-years-old boy, and His main pastime is to take the cows in the pasturing ground with His friends, boyfriends, and play with them. This is Kṛṣṇa's day's business. So Śukadeva Gosvāmī has written a very nice verse, that these boys who are playing with Kṛṣṇa, in their past lives they had accumulated heaps of pious activities. Kṛta-puṇya-puñjāḥ (SB 10.12.11). Sākaṁ vijahruḥ. Itthaṁ satāṁ brahma-sukhānubhūtyā. Now, Śukadeva Gosvāmī is writing. These boys who are playing with Kṛṣṇa, they are playing with whom? They are playing with the Supreme Absolute Truth, who is considered as impersonal by the great sages. Itthaṁ satāṁ brahma... Brahma-sukha. Brahma, transcendental Brahman realization. The reservoir of Brahman realization is here, Kṛṣṇa. So these boys who are playing with this Kṛṣṇa, He is the reservoir of that Brahman realization. Itthaṁ satāṁ brahma-sukhānubhūtyā dāsyaṁ gatānāṁ para-daivatena. Dāsyaṁ gatānām, those who have accepted the Supreme Lord as master, that means devotees, for them this Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Lord. For the impersonalists He is Supreme Brahman, and for the personalists He is Supreme Lord. And māyāśritānāṁ nara-dārakeṇa. And those who are under the spell of materialism, for them He is ordinary boy. Māyāśritānāṁ nara-dārakeṇa sākaṁ vijahruḥ kṛta-puṇya-puñjāḥ (SB 10.12.11). With Him these boys, who had accumulated millions and millions births of pious activities, now they have got the opportunity of playing with Kṛṣṇa face to face just like ordinary boys play. So similarly, Kṛṣṇa is very much fond of playing with His young boyfriends. That is mentioned in the Brahma-saṁhitā. Surabhīr abhipālayantam, lakṣmī-sahasra-śata-sambhrama-sevyamānam (Bs. 5.29). So these things are explained here also.
So this learned sage, by his experience he is saying that after studying all Vedic literature, and all Upaniṣads, Vedānta, Purāṇam, four Vedas, Rāmāyaṇa, Mahābhārata, volumes of literature, so the conclusion is that, "O my dear Lord," bhavān eva śaraṇam, "You are the only ultimate shelter." This is the last stage of knowledge, as it is confirmed in the Bhagavad-gītā. Bahūnāṁ janmanām ante (BG 7.19). "After struggling for many, many births to acquire knowledge..." So when one comes to this point—bhavān eva śaraṇam, "You are the ultimate shelter"—that is the perfection of knowledge. Our editor has written very nice article, "Kṛṣṇa, the End of Knowledge." Yes. When you come to Kṛṣṇa point, then everything is knowledge, knowable. Of course, so far our knowledge is concerned... But so far Kṛṣṇa is concerned, He is unlimited. Nobody can know Him. But at least to that point, if we can reach... That is also very difficult. Simply to reach to that point, there are the struggle. So many scholars, so many still, coming to the nearest point, still, they say, "Oh, not Kṛṣṇa, not Kṛṣṇa. It is impersonal. It is impersonal." So this knowledge is acquired by the grace of the Supreme Lord, by the association of pure devotees. Satāṁ prasaṅgāt mama vīrya-saṁvidaḥ, one can attain this qualification. And if some way or other, either by faith or by knowledge or by association or by accident, if one comes to this point, that "Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme, is the ultimate goal," then his life is perfect.
Now, Lord Caitanya says that Kṛṣṇa, the Absolute Truth, advaya-jñāna-tattva, who is Absolute Truth, Kṛṣṇa, svayaṁ bhagavān, the Supreme Personality... The Absolute Truth in the ultimate is a person. In the Bhagavad-gītā you will see in the Eleventh Chapter that Kṛṣṇa was requested by Arjuna to show His universal form, because for ordinary persons, that universal form is..., the gigantic universal form is supposed to be... That is God. But they do not know. Paraṁ bhāvam ajānanto (BG 9.11). They do not know that this universal form is only an offshoot of Kṛṣṇa. They do not know. Less intelligent class of men, they think impersonal form or the universal form or even the four-handed Viṣṇu form... They consider that they are greater. But in the Eleventh Chapter of Bhagavad-gītā you will find that Kṛṣṇa, by the request of Arjuna, assumed His universal form, viśvarūpa. Now, after seeing the viśvarūpa Arjuna was afraid. He was in friendly relationship with Kṛṣṇa, and when he saw His viśvarūpa, he became too much perturbed in his mind: "Oh, what mistake I have done. I took Kṛṣṇa as my friend, and I do not know how much offenses I have committed. Friendly relation, there are sometimes very slackened languages and used sometimes calling, 'You, Kṛṣṇa,' sometimes..., so many things. Friendly relations are very relaxation relation." So he thought that "I have committed so much offenses to Kṛṣṇa," and he begged pardon. "Out of my impudence, out of my ignorance, I have done so many things. Please excuse just like a father excuses his son, just like a friend excuses his friend, just like husband excuses wife or the wife excuses." These things are there.
Now, this energy manifested as the living entities, they are also two kinds. What are they? Eka-nitya-mukta. One class of living entities, they are eternally liberated. Just like the fishes in the ocean. Take the ocean as the place of liberation. Sometimes the example is given that as the rivers glide down to the ocean and the water is become one... That's all right. That oneness... This is impersonal conception. Everyone goes and mixes as every river goes down to the ocean, and there is no more distinction which is the river water and which is the ocean water. They become one. That is the monistic philosophy. But Vaiṣṇava philosophy goes farther, that "Why you are satisfied with the water? Why don't you see within the water?" Within the water you will find there are big, big fishes and aquatic animals. They keep their separate identity, and they enjoy in the ocean. The foolish persons, they are satisfied that "I am in the ocean now." That is the less intelligence. Go deep into the ocean and see what is going there.
The impersonalists think that simply by cultivating knowledge that "I am not matter; I am spirit," or "I am one with the Supreme Spirit; I am now... Out of ignorance, I am thinking different, but when I am fully elevated to the platform of knowledge, then I become liberated." But the..., there is no answer that "Why you have become conditioned?" The impersonalists think that "I am one with the Supreme. Now, due to my ignorance, I have forgotten that I am the Supreme." Because they do not recognize the Supreme Personality of Godhead, so they think that impersonal conception of the spirit soul: "I am now... Out of ignorance, I am thinking matter, but as soon as my ignorance is over, I shall become one with the Supreme." So this is the theory of the impersonalists. But they... They cannot give any answer that "Why you have become under the influence of ignorance? If you are the Supreme, then what is the cause that you have become conditioned? Then the Supreme will become conditioned under the material nature. Then how one can become the Supreme? Supreme cannot be conditioned." So there is no answer for this question from the impersonalists' school. But real fact is that the Supreme never falls down. The part and parcel of the Supreme, they fall down—some of them; not all. So therefore the living entities, they are different from the Supreme. They are one in quality with the Supreme, but not in quantity.
So Lord Caitanya says that "Simply by thinking that 'I am not this matter; I am spirit soul, ahaṁ brahmāsmi. I am Brahman,' that will not help you to get liberation." The real fact is that the individual living entities, they are part and parcel of the Supreme, but somehow or other, they wanted separation from the Supreme and wanted to lord it over the material nature. Therefore they are entangled. That is the real fact. And as such, we find from the Bhagavad-gītā, the Lord asked that sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja: (BG 18.66) "Just surrender." So therefore, unless there is surrender of the individual soul to the Supreme, there is no question of liberation. There is no question of liberation. You can cultivate knowledge that "I am not this body; I am spirit soul," but that will not help for your liberation. Because real thing is that you have or we have rebelled against the supremacy of the Supreme Lord. That is the attitude, everywhere we can see actually. Everyone is: "Oh, what is God? What is God?" especially in this age. So this impersonalism is another type of atheism, and this impersonal theory of the Absolute Truth has converted practically the major portion of the world into atheism. So therefore Lord Caitanya says that simply by cultivation of knowledge that "I am not this matter. I am not this matter. I am spirit soul," that will not help.
Supreme position means to come to the point of realization of Brahman. Impersonal realization of Brahman, that is not also a joke. It may be impersonal, but that position is very high. That is accepted. That Vaiṣṇavas, or the personalists, they also accept, "Oh, their position is very high." But the difficulty is that Bhāgavata says, āruhya kṛcchreṇa paraṁ padaṁ tataḥ (SB 10.2.32). Although they come to the almost nearer, but, anādṛtaḥ patanty adhaḥ. Anādṛta, because they have no shelter. Just like... It is not joke. If you go up by a sputnik some few hundreds and thousands of miles, that is not joke. That is not to be ridiculed. But the danger is that if you do not have shelter, then you come down. If you have no shelter, then what is the use of going up? That shelter is Kṛṣṇa, that supreme abode or Vaikuṇṭhaloka, kingdom of God. So because they have no idea that there is kingdom of God or God is person, you can reach there, you can talk with Him, therefore they have no shelter and their intelligence is not purified, because they have not still completed what is actual knowledge. Actual knowledge, it is stated in the Śrīmad Bhagavad-gītā: bahūnāṁ janmanām ante jñānavān māṁ prapadyate (BG 7.19). That is actual knowledge. When he comes to the point of understanding the Supreme Personality of Godhead and surrenders: "My Lord, I have simply wasted my time in this way. Now I understand vāsudevaḥ sarvam iti (BG 7.19), You are Vasudeva, Kṛṣṇa. You are everything." That is the ultimate end of knowledge. And so long one does not come to this point, it is to be understood that he has no shelter.
So God means the greatest. Caitanya Mahāprabhu explains on that line. Brahman means the greatest, the Supreme. And how we can estimate one's greatness? These are the symptoms of greatness. So how He can be impersonal? If the Brahman is the richest, if the Brahman is the most beautiful, if Brahman is the most learned, then where is the question of impersonality? Can any impersonal thing become learned? Can any impersonal thing can become richest? That is... Who can challenge this explanation? If you say "God is great," then how we estimate God is great? These are the symptoms. He must be great in richness. He must be great in strength. He must be great in beauty. He must be great in knowledge. He must be great in renunciation. These are the symptoms of greatness. How you can deny it? Where is the... Now, if you say, "Our idea of great means the sky," oh, then God creates the sky; therefore sky is not great. God is great. Just like you see the sunlight distributed all over the universe. If you say, "This is greatest," oh, the sun planet is creating the sunlight; therefore sun planet is greatest, not the sunshine. So we are captivated, tribhir guṇamayī, as it is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā. We are captivated by the greatness of the three qualities of nature or the energies of God.
And Caitanya Mahāprabhu said that... Not Caitanya Mahāprabhu, I'm sorry. That disciple, the chief disciple of Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī, he's repeating what Caitanya Mahāprabhu explained about the Vedānta-sūtra. He also accepts. Yes. Brahman, the great, means He is great in all respect. He is great in richness, He is great in strength, He is great in power, He is great in knowledge, He is great in renouncement. Then He is great. So if a man is the greatest man in richness, greatest man in power, greatest man in fame, greatest man in knowledge, greatest man in beauty, then where is the impersonality? These are all personal qualifications. So Brahman, or the Supreme, or the Absolute Truth, cannot be imperson. Imperson may be a feature, but ultimately He is person.
So śruti, śruti means the Vedas. The Vedas clearly say that all these manifestation, they are out of the energy. Janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1). From this fountainhead, from the Supreme Source, the energies. Just like the electric light, it is very brilliant, illuminating. But this is energy emanating from the powerhouse. The powerhouse is person. It is managed by a person, executive engineer or resident engineer. So when you go, the government, United States, externally, ephemerally, it appears imperson, but if you go deep into the matter, you see that there is president, a person. So ultimately, a person, Bhagavān, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, ultimately. That is the evidence from all Vedic scriptures. Tāhā nāhi māni, paṇḍita kare upahāsa. And these impersonalists, they do not accept this personal aspect of the Absolute Truth, and they laugh at the devotees, "Oh, what they are doing? They are less..." They are thinking that the devotees are less intelligent. And the devotees, they are also thinking that less intelligent. But you have to decide who is less intelligent. If you, from the Vedic literature, if you do not accept the decision... And the essence of Vedic literature is Bhagavad, Bhagavad-gītā, and it is clearly stated there. When understood..., Arjuna understood Bhagavad-gītā, he clearly accepted Him that paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān (BG 10.12), "You are the Supreme Lord, and nobody knows Your personality." So personality is accepted. Caitanya Mahāprabhu also says that the verdict of all Vedic literatures is to accept the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
This is also confirmed in the Bhagavad-gītā: bahūnāṁ janmanām ante jñānavān māṁ prapadyate (BG 7.19). Simply by knowledge is not liberation. Otherwise, why it is stated bahūnāṁ janma? Janma means that is not liberation. If you have again to take birth in material body, that means you are not liberated. In the Bhagavad-gītā it is specifically stated, bahūnāṁ janmanām ante. That means after many, many births. So their acceptance of material body will continue. But when he understands that vāsudevaḥ sarvam iti (BG 7.19), when he comes to that point, that "God is everything. Kṛṣṇa is everything," then his perfection is there. Cid-ānanda kṛṣṇa-vigraha māyika kari māni ei baḍa pāpa. This is a great offense, sinful conclusion, that God is imperson.
- nātaḥ paraṁ parama yad bhavataḥ svarūpam
- ānanda-mātram avikalpam aviddha-varcaḥ
- paśyāmi viśva-sṛjam ekam aviśvam ātman
- bhūtendriyātmakam adas ta upāśrito 'smi
This is a verse from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Third Canto, Ninth Chapter, in which the Lord is prayed by Brahmā, that nātaḥ paraṁ parama yad bhavataḥ svarūpam ānanda-mātram. "The personality which I am now seeing, that is the highest goal, or the topmost understanding of the Absolute Truth." Nātaḥ param. There is no beyond. Even if you are in the consciousness of impersonal Brahman, there is far advanced stage. What is that? Or Paramātmā, the Supersoul understanding.
Now, Brahmā says that "This form is bhuvana-maṅgalam maṅgalāya. This form, Kṛṣṇa, is meant for all auspicity for everyone." Bhuvana-maṅgalāya dhyāne sma daraśitaṁ ta upāsakānām. "Those who are observing You in meditation..." Meditation means to concentrate the mind only on Kṛṣṇa or Viṣṇu. This is meditation. I do not know Nowadays so many meditators are there, they have no objective. Something they try to think of impersonal, nonmanifested. And that is condemned in Bhagavad-gītā, that kleśādhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām. Those who are trying to meditate upon that impersonal void, they are simply, I mean to say, taking unnecessary trouble. If you want to meditate, just meditate on Kṛṣṇa or the$ Paramātmā, the catur-bhuja Viṣṇu, four-handed Viṣṇu. That is the process of meditation everywhere recommended. So why should we go to the impersonal or voidness of meditation and waste our time? Yes.
He can perform any nonsense. Nobody is going to punish him. It is very nice theory, that "I have become God. Because I have no more..." Suppose you yourself become the government of United States. Then you can do anything. It is very nice. "I am everything: I am president, I am secretary, I am everything. Therefore who is going to check me? I can do any nonsense." This is the basic principle of godlessness—to avoid the higher authority. Just like already in your country, that class of youngsters who are defying any authority. Not only in your country—in other countries also—that has become a fashion, to defy authorities. So this godlessness is also like that, to defy the Supreme Personality of Godhead. There is no practically difference between Buddha philosophy and Śaṅkara's philosophy. Buddha philosophy says that the matter is everything. Beyond matter there is nothing, everything void, and the combination of matter is the source of our miseries. So you make a dismantlement of the matter, nirvāṇa—there will be no more miseries. And Śaṅkara's philosophy says that brahma satyaṁ jagan mithyā. It is little, little farther advanced, admitting the spirit, but he says that spirit is impersonal. "There is no God. It is impersonal." So practically the same thing: ultimately, it is void or there is no God.
Sri Brahma-samhita Lectures
Then again, it is said, vedeṣu durlabha. (aside:) What is that sound? Vedeṣu durlabham. Vede means in the Vedic literature, if you make research work how Kṛṣṇa is, then it will be very difficult. Then you come to the impersonal only. Vedeṣu durlabham. You have to go beyond the Vedas. What is that? Vedeṣu durlabham adurlabham ātma-bhaktau (Bs. 5.33). Kṛṣṇa is available through His confidential devotee. Not that if anyone has studied very nicely all Vedic literatures he'll understand Kṛṣṇa. No. Maybe, but it is very difficult. Kṛṣṇa can be delivered by His devotee, ātma-bhaktau. Therefore you have to take shelter of Kṛṣṇa's devotee. That is paramparā system. If you want to understand Kṛṣṇa, if you want to have Kṛṣṇa... Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura has sung a very nice song. He's praying to a Vaiṣṇava, vaiṣṇava ṭhākura tomāra kukkura bhuliyā jānaha more: "Sir, Vaiṣṇava, you are Ṭhākura. You are as good as Kṛṣṇa, or God. Kindly accept me as your dog." Vaiṣṇava ṭhākura tomāra kukkura bhuliyā jāna... Kukkura means dog. Just like dog follows the master very faithfully. We have to learn something from the dog. The dog also is a teacher: how to become faithful to the master. That teaching we can have even from the dog. He is very satisfied.
Govindam ādi-puruṣam tam ahaṁ bhajāmi **. We are worshiping the original person, ādi-puruṣam. Original person... As we are all persons, our origin is also a person. We should always understand this. Ādi-puruṣam. The same example. Unless my forefather was a person, how his son, his son, his son—I am the last—we are persons? So the original father, the supreme father, or God, or Kṛṣṇa, must be a person, not imperson. We should always remember. Govindam ādi-puruṣam tam ahaṁ bhajāmi **.
God's reference is there in the Vedic literatures, and God Himself appeared, and He explained Himself in the Bhagavad-gītā. And God is accepted, not (only) now, even when Kṛṣṇa was present, five thousand years ago, all great sages, saintly persons, great ṛṣis, they also accepted. Nārada, Devala, Vyāsa. When Arjuna, in the Bhagavad-gītā... It is explained in the Tenth Chapter. You know, all, Kṛṣṇa as paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān (BG 10.12). He, he is addressing Kṛṣṇa as person, bhavān. This bhavān śabda, this word is used, "person," not imperson. Bhavān. Paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān, puruṣam (BG 10.12). He's not imperson. Puruṣam. Puruṣam means person. Not female also. Puruṣam means male. Puruṣaṁ śāśvatam. Śāśvatam, original; ādyam, the first. So in this way. And Arjuna has also given reference that all the great sages... At that time, Vyāsadeva... Vyāsadeva is still present. So "Vyāsadeva accepts You, Nārada accepts You, and Asita, Devala, big, big, great sages accepts You. You are personally speaking, and I have realized that You are the Supreme Personality of Godhead."
Festival Lectures
This body is combination of matter: earth, water, fire, air, either, and, according to Bhagavad-gītā, further, mind, intelligence, ego. This is combination. They are very finely analyzed by the sāṅkhya philosophy system, by Vedic system, into twenty-four elements. And according to some, twenty-five, and according to some, twenty-six. According to our Vaiṣṇava philosophy, twenty-six. According to Māyāvāda philosophy, this is twenty-five. And according to impersonal philosophy or void philosophy, it is twenty-four. So originally, it is eight. So in this way... Buddha philosophy means that this whole existence of our body or our self is the combination of matter. That is the way of thinking of modern scientists also, that this body is a combination of matter. Under Darwin's theory also, like that, "organic matter, inorganic matter." They are studying evolution of this matter, organic matter. But actually that is not the fact. The fact is that use, individual soul, that is the real fact. And that individual soul is the seed, and upon that seed, this body has developed.
The Supreme Absolute, He is also a living entity like us, just like your father, this material father from whom you have got this body, he is also a person, and you are also a person. You are son of your father. Similarly, although you cannot see God, we can understand from the version of the Vedas and authoritative scriptures if God is father, then He must be a person. He must be a person because I am person. We have to study by analogy, by our reason, our intelligence. Just like you have got experience in this life that "My father is a person. I am also a person." Although the relation is "I am his son; he is my father," but both of us are persons. None of us is imperson. That is nonsense. How my father can become imperson if I am person? This is nonsense.
So if we actually meditate upon our own constitution, then why we should conclude that God is impersonal? I am person. I am individual. I have got my individual opinion. I do not agree with others. Why? Because I am individual. You do not agree with me, I do not agree with you. Why? Because we are all individuals. So why God should be not individual? He is also individual. That is the statement in the Vedas.
- nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām
- eko bahūnāṁ (yo) vidadhāti kāmān
- (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.13)
Nitya, nitya means eternal. We are eternal form. We change our body. We don't die. As we are changing daily, every moment changing body, so the final change means accept another body. This is also accepting another body, but imperceptibly. The change is so quick. Just like in the cinema spool there are so many pictures changing, but it is changing so quickly that we are seeing one picture moving. So that is our ignorance. But actually there are thousands of pictures changing in a moment, and you see that one picture is moving. Why do you not study in this way? Similarly, every second, our body is changing, just like spool, one after another, one after another, one after another. But I am... The spirit soul is there, just like the cinema spool is changing, but the seer is there. That is one, although the pictures are changing. Similarly, we are nitya. Nitya means eternal. And we are nitya. Then why God should be dead? They say, "God is dead." And what is foolishness? You are part and parcel of God, you are living, you are existing, and why the original soul should be dead?
So these are our foolishness. Meditation means to think over all this subject matter very intelligently, not like a rascal, that "If I am person, why God should be imperson? If I am eternal, why God should be dead?" This is meditation, to study diligently. If I have got an instinct to love others, so why God shall not, God will not have this instinct to love others? If I have got attraction for the opposite sex, why God should not have? Why He should not be attracted by Rādhārāṇī? Very simple truth. And why Rādhārāṇī should not be attracted by Kṛṣṇa? But the difference is: here everything is false. False means the attraction is not real attraction. But there the attraction is real. Here I am attracted with a boy, with a girl—after six months, finished. Because there are so many defects, therefore the attraction does not exist. It is all defective. This body is false, false in the sense it is an imitation. Just like you see one idol in the dress shop, very nice girl standing, but it is a false; similarly, this body made of material elements is not our real body. False. Similarly, the girl's body is false. Therefore, because false, the so-called love and attraction is also false. Therefore our so-called love breaks. There is no love here. It cannot be. There cannot be any love. This is... That tendency is there, but due to this material contamination, lust is going on in the name of love. Actually it is lust.
In the Manu-saṁhitā it is said that prakṛti, or strī, never deserve to be independent. Na strī svātantryam arhati. So as soon as the living entity is accepted as prakṛti, then it is to be understood that she is under the control of the supreme puruṣa, Puruṣottama. Kṛṣṇa is Puruṣottama. And Kṛṣṇa has been accepted as the puruṣa by Arjuna. Paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān, puruṣaṁ śāśvatam (BG 10.12). It is not that Kṛṣṇa has become puruṣa now, and before that He was impersonal. No. Kṛṣṇa is puruṣaṁ śāśvatam, eternally He is puruṣa, eternally He is enjoyer. He's never enjoyed. You cannot enjoy Kṛṣṇa, or God, for your sense gratification. That is not possible. He can use you for His sense gratification. That is bhakti-mārga. The bhaktas, they never claim to be puruṣa. They are always subordinate. Mama janmani janmanīśvare bhavatād bhaktir ahaitukī tvayi (Cc. Antya 20.29, Śikṣāṣṭaka 4). This is bhakti-yoga.
So similarly, this body is not śāśvatam. It is not my original body. This body is changing. I may have this body this time, I may have another body, another species of life; therefore it is not śāśvatam. But the Lord's body is śāśvatam. As it is confirmed in the Bhagavad-gītā, śāśvataṁ puruṣam, and He is enjoyer. So the same word is used here. Śāntaṁ śāśvatam aprameyam. Aprameyam means that cannot be measured. The Māyāvādīs, they cannot conceive how immeasurable, unlimited. Therefore as soon as they take it that God is unlimited, immeasurable, they take it for impersonal. They cannot conceive that God can assume any extensive form without any difficulty. Just like He appeared as Hiraṇya..., I mean to say, Varāhadeva. The Varāhadeva, He appeared in such a gigantic body that He could lift this whole planet by His tusk. So just imagine how much great body He assumed. So aprameyam. Another, He can assume so small body. Just like Parīkṣit Mahārāja, when he was within the womb of his mother, attacked by the atomic energy, so Kṛṣṇa entered the womb of his mother and saved him. Just imagine how small He became.
Our Nārāyaṇa—that is real Nārāyaṇa, exalted—we cannot even compare with that supreme Nārāyaṇa with such demigods like Lord Brahmā, Lord Śiva, what to speak of these rascals. Yas tu nārāyaṇaṁ devaṁ brahma-rudrādi-daivataiḥ, samatvena vīkṣeta. Any person, rascal, if he thinks that Nārāyaṇa is equal to Lord Brahmā or Lord Śiva... There are Māyāvādīs. They say "Any demigod is as good as Viṣṇu. You can worship any demigod. It doesn't matter. You..." Because their ultimate understanding is that the Absolute Truth is impersonal, and you can imagine any form. It doesn't matter. You ultimately reach that impersonal, merge into the impersonal.
The beginning of real human civilization is observance of the institute of four varṇas and four āśramas. That is the beginning of civilized life. Otherwise, it is not civilized life; it is crude, uncivilized life, where there is no varṇāśrama, where there (is) no division of society according to work and quality and āśrama, spiritual life division. So Rāmānanda Rāya recommended this verse, that this is the process to satisfy the Supreme Lord Viṣṇu. But Caitanya Mahāprabhu said that eho bāhya āge kaha āra, "This is external. If you know something more, better than this, you say." Why He said? There is the version, viṣṇur ārādhyate. Does it mean that He is rejecting Viṣṇu worship? No, He's not rejecting. Because generally, they, these impersonalists, Māyāvādīs, they also worship sometimes Viṣṇu, these five demigods and God. But their idea is that ultimately impersonal. The impersonal takes the form by the help of this material world. The formation takes place simply in the material. That is their opinion. Therefore they say, call, saguṇa. Saguṇa-upāsanā.
So sometimes I am very much criticized that I am making foreigners a brāhmaṇa. The caste brāhmaṇas in India, they are very much against me. But this is not fact. When Caitanya Mahāprabhu said that all over the world His message will be broadcast, does it mean that it will be simply a cinema show? No. He wanted that everyone should become perfect Vaiṣṇava. That is His purpose. It is not to make a farce, some lecturing and..., or some mutual praising society. No. It is Krishna Society. Everyone who will join this Krishna Society movement, he is more than a brāhmaṇa. Brāhmaṇa, what is brāhmaṇa? Brāhmaṇa is also material. A devotee is more than brāhmaṇa. The brahminical culture is included already. Brahma jānātīti brāhmaṇaḥ: "Brāhmaṇa means one who knows the Absolute Truth, Brahman." He is brāhmaṇa. But that is not very fixed up. Brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate (SB 1.2.11). Brahman is impersonal effulgence, and then further progress, realization of the localized aspect, Paramātmā, Antaryāmī, and finally, understanding the Supreme Person, Kṛṣṇa, Supreme Person, that is the final understanding.
Arrival Addresses and Talks
That is God. Some of you are saying there is no God, some of you are saying God is dead, and some of you are saying God is impersonal or void. These are all nonsense. I want to teach all these nonsense that there is God. That is my mission. Any nonsense can come to me, I shall prove that there is God. That is my Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. It is a challenge to the atheistic people. There is God. As we are sitting here face to face, you can see God face to face. If you are sincere and if you are serious, that is possible. Unfortunately, we are trying to forget God; therefore we are embracing so many miseries of life. So I am simply preaching that you have Kṛṣṇa consciousness and be happy. Don't be swayed away by these nonsense waves of māyā, or illusion. That is my request.
Initiation Lectures
So this is, in one way, cheating. But this cheating is not cheating. Just like father or guardian sometimes cheats the young boy. That is not cheating; that is for his good. But actually, if you take the, I mean to say, behavior, it is something like cheating. So the Māyāvāda philosophy... This Buddha philosophy is also another Māyāvāda philosophy. Both of them are, on the face value, atheistic, denying the existence of God. One is saying, "There is no God"; another is saying, "It is impersonal," in this way. But our philosophy is neither atheistic nor impersonal. It is directly person. Īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ (Bs. 5.1). Directly we say, "There is no..." Kṛṣṇa, in the Bhagavad-gītā, says, mattaḥ parataraṁ nāsti: "There is nobody greater than Me." If God is great, how anybody can be greater than Him? It is right. Eh? Nānyat parataraṁ nāsti: "There is nothing more greater than Me." Ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavaḥ: (BG 10.8) "I am the origin of everything." Vedānta-sūtra says, "Brahman, or the Supreme Absolute Truth, is the source of everything." And here is the direct answer by Kṛṣṇa, ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavaḥ: "I am the source of everything." So we follow this philosophy. Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement means we directly take Bhagavad-gītā as the evidence of existence of God. And if you want to know God, you cannot know God by speculation. He is so great, He is so unlimited, and we have got limited senses, limited capacity. It is not possible. Simply we can understand God by the mercy of God.
They have no idea. They say that we can imagine an idea. According to impersonalists, they say sādhakānām hitārthaya brahmaṇo rūpa kalpanaḥ. Because we cannot concentrate our mind in impersonal therefore they say, "Imagine some form." They think that Kṛṣṇa is imagination. Yes. (laughter) That is their Māyāvāda. Kṛṣṇa was personally present and He killed all the demons. Still, these demons says imagination. That is demonic. Therefore we do not agree with them.
When you engage your senses in Kṛṣṇa's service, then it becomes purified. Hṛṣīkeṇa. That purified, your senses is not to be abolished like the impersonalists: "No more sense, finished." No. We... Our senses are... Because we are eternal, our senses are eternal. But at the present moment our senses are being used, contaminated; therefore you are not satisfied. The senses are not to be cut off. No. Liberation does not mean I become impersonal, all my senses are gone. No. Liberation means purification of the senses. And the symptom how the senses are purified, that will be manifested that when one's senses are simply engaged in the service of the Lord. Hands, legs, eyes, ears, mouth—we have got so many senses—everything. Hṛṣīkeṇa-hṛṣīkeśa-sevanam (CC Madhya 19.170). Actually the proprietor of the senses is Kṛṣṇa. We have got this hand, but it is given to us. Actually it is the hand of Kṛṣṇa. He is all-pervading. Sarvato 'pāṇi pādas tat: "Everywhere, His hands and legs are there." You will find in the Bhagavad-gītā. So therefore these hands and legs which we have got, this is Kṛṣṇa's hands and legs. So when these Kṛṣṇa's hands and legs will be engaged in the service of Kṛṣṇa, that is the perfection.
Yes. Those who are impersonalists, they think that "After all, the Absolute Truth is void or impersonal. So we can imagine any form." The Māyāvādī philosopher says, sādhakānām hitarthaya brahmaṇo rūpaḥ kalpanaḥ. "Brahman, the Supreme Absolute Truth, He is formless, but because we cannot concentrate our mind in the formless, therefore let us imagine any form we like, and that will make me advance." This is not the philosophy. The Absolute Truth, Supreme Personality of Godhead, He has His form and He is not equal, nobody is equal to Him. So according to Vedic literature, you cannot put Viṣṇu-tattva even on the equal footing with Brahmā and Śiva. His position, Viṣṇu-tattva, is mahato mahīyān. He's the greatest of the greatest. So this is offense. There are many Māyāvādī philosophers, they say "You can chant any name, either Kṛṣṇa or Kali or Durgā or..." And another mission says, "Any nonsense name you can chant. That doesn't matter." But our Vedic śāstra, scripture, does not say that. It is said, harer nāma. Not any other name. Harer nāma. only the name of Hari. Śravaṇaṁ kīrtanaṁ viṣṇoḥ (SB 7.5.23). To hear and chant about whom? Viṣṇu. It is clearly stated there. So we have to chant Viṣṇu name, we have to chant Harer name, Hari and Viṣṇu, Kṛṣṇa. They're the same. So this is my... You should not misguide yourself by thinking that "Any name will do."
Yes. Scriptural injunction we should not minimize. We should not think contradictory. We should accept as it is. Then it will be good for us. Or interpretation. Scriptural interpretation is not required. Therefore, we are presenting Bhagavad-gītā as it is, without any false interpretation. As it is. Kṛṣṇa-Kṛṣṇa. Kurukṣetra-Kurukṣetra. Pāṇḍava-Pāṇḍava. Dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre samavetā (BG 1.1). Kṛṣṇa uvāca. Kṛṣṇa, Bhagavān uvāca: "The Supreme Personality of Godhead said." And we should not add here that... What is called? Paramātmā uvāca. No. Kṛṣṇa uvāca. Paramātmā is feature. In the Gītā Press edition you will see "Paramātmā." They never say Kṛṣṇa. They're so much afraid that "If I say 'Kṛṣṇa,' He will at once capture me." You see? (chuckles) So in a different way. "Paraṁ Brahman," "Caitanya," like this, so many impersonal ways they will say. But that is not required. Bhagavān uvāca means Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa. Sometimes they say, "Blessed Lord said." No. Why you say? The Supreme Personality of Godhead Kṛṣṇa said. Then, what is that next? No interpretation of the scripture. Next? What is the next item?
So you have to please Rāmacandra in that way, to kill all these cheaters, Rāvaṇas—those in the form of sannyāsī, in the form of priest, or religionist, (who) are trying to cheat the Lord. Their only business is, "There is no God. God is impersonal. God is void"—some way or other to say there is no God. All these propositions, "God is void," "God is impersonal," means indirectly to say there is no God. So this is Rāvaṇa's policy. And in order to please Rāmacandra, oh, we have to kill this atheist class of men who try to cheat Rāmacandra and take away His Lakṣmī, Sītā, the goddess of fortune... The materialistic persons, they are trying simply to accumulate wealth, and so they come to Rāmacandra. They want money. That is Sītā. Money is goddess of fortune. So the materialistic persons, their policy is to take, earn money like anything, and employ it in sense gratification. That is their policy. But our policy is to take away the money from the atheist and employ it to the service of Rāmacandra. Just like Hanumān.
So if every living entity is a person, how the original of, origin of everything can be imperson? The origin must be person. Therefore ādi-puruṣam. The origin, original, or origin of everything, janmādy asya yataḥ, Absolute Truth, is that from whom or from which everything is emanating. So everything is a person, individual. So origin must be person. Ādi-puruṣam. Therefore Brahmā..., this Brahma-saṁhitā is made by Brahmā. He's the original creature within this universe. He's recommending that "My origin is also a person." Ādi-puruṣaṁ tam ahaṁ bhajāmi: "I worship that original person." Therefore the origin of everything, the Absolute, the summum bonum, cannot be impersonal. What is the reason? Where is the experience that from imperson a person comes? There is no such instance within our experience. From person, a person comes. My father is a person, so I am a person. His father is a person; therefore my father is a person. Go on searching, you'll find the original person. Try to understand this philosophy. The whole world is impersonal. They do not know anything, of course, but they have got an impersonal philosophy. How the impersonal philosophy can stand? Every individual entity is a person; therefore origin must be a person, ādi-puruṣam. And it is recommended by the authority, Brahmā.
His limited knowledge, speculator, poor fund of knowledge, he thinks that "God must be like me." Therefore in some of the scriptures He's denied personality, because this rascal thinks that "God is a person like me." Therefore it is said: not person. When it is said God is not person, that means He's not a person like you. He's not a rascal like you. That is description. When it is negatively described that He's not a person, that means He's not a person like you. But He's a person, a different person. Sac-cid-ānanda vigraha. Īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ (Bs. 5.1). His person is eternal. He does not die. We die. He's full of bliss. Our, this body, is not full of bliss; full of miseries. So how God can be a person like you? Therefore sometimes He is described as impersonal. Otherwise God is a person. He's a person like us, and He's the original person. Govindam ādi-puruṣam tam ahaṁ bhajāmi **. So those who are in poor fund of knowledge, they can understand that the Absolute Truth is a person. Therefore we have to take lessons from Brahmā, the supreme poet, or learned person, who is the original person. And he says: govindam, govindam ādi-puruṣam. And he says, tam ahaṁ bhajāmi: "I worship."
Avacintya means beyond our conception. Even though you are able to go in high speed, and for so many years, still Kṛṣṇa remains avacintya-tattva. Nobody can find out where is Kṛṣṇa's abode, Goloka Vṛndāvana. Therefore, the Māyāvādīs, in desperate frustration, they say that Kṛṣṇa is impersonal, because they want to approach Kṛṣṇa by mundane activities, by mental exercise, mental gymnastic. Kṛṣṇa is not available in that way. Kṛṣṇa is available only to His devotees. Kṛṣṇa is the property of His devotee.
- panthās tu koṭi-śata-vatsara-sampragamyo
- vāyor athāpi manaso muni-puṅgavānām
- so 'py asti yat-prapada-sīmny avicintya-tattve
- govindam ādi-puruṣaṁ tam ahaṁ bhajāmi
- (Bs. 5.34)
- That's all right.
So, but this foolish civilization, they do not know it. It is our duty on behalf of Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa wants it. Lord Caitanya wants it. Therefore, success or no success, that doesn't matter, Kṛṣṇa will help us, but it is our duty to enlighten the whole human society with Kṛṣṇa consciousness. They are forgetful of Kṛṣṇa. They do not know what is God, therefore they say that God is dead, there is no God, God is impersonal. So many theories they have got. Actually, they have no idea what is God. On the other hand, against this propaganda of godlessness, we are giving directly God. Here is God, Kṛṣṇa. We give His name, His father's name, His address, His activities (laughter), everything. So these rascals may be informed at least. This is our duty. Try your best, and be blessed by Kṛṣṇa and Lord Caitanya.
Instead of accepting 108 names, those in the Śiva Swami sampradāya follow the path of Śaṅkarācārya and accept the ten names of sannyāsa. Although Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu accepted the then existing order of sannyāsa, namely ekadaṇḍa, He still recited from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam about the tridaṇḍa-sannyāsa accepted by the brāhmaṇa of Avantīpura. Indirectly He declared that within the ekadaṇḍa, one daṇḍa, four daṇḍas existed as one. Accepting ekadaṇḍa sannyāsa without parātma-niṣṭhā, devotional service to Lord Kṛṣṇa, is not acceptable to Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. In addition, according to the exact regulative principles, one should add the jīva-daṇḍa to the tridaṇḍa. These four daṇḍas bound together as one are symbolic of unalloyed devotional service to the Lord. Because the ekadaṇḍī-sannyāsīs of the Māyāvāda school are not devoted to the service of Kṛṣṇa, they try to merge into the Brahman effulgence, which is a marginal position between material and spiritual existence. They accept this impersonal position as liberation. Māyāvādī sannyāsīs, not knowing that Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu was a tridaṇḍī, think of Caitanya Mahāprabhu as an ekadaṇḍī sannyāsī. This is due to their vivarta, bewilderment. In Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam there is no such thing as ekadaṇḍī sannyāsī. Indeed, the tridaṇḍī-sannyāsī is accepted as the symbolic representation of the sannyāsa order.
Wedding Ceremonies
This last verse... It is not last. It is the third of Brahma-sūtra, Brahma-saṁhitā. Ālola-candraka-lasad-vanamālya-vaṁśī-ratnaṅgadaṁ praṇaya-keli-kalā-vilāsam (Bs. 5.31). This verse... There are about one hundred verses in the Brahma-saṁhitā, and this verse, I think, about thirty-eighth verse... So description of Govinda, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The picture is here. So Govinda is not impersonal. And it is distinctly stated here that ālola-candraka-lasad-vanamālya-vaṁśī: (Bs. 5.31) "The Lord is decorated with flower garland, and He has got a flute in His hands." And praṇaya-keli-kalā-vilāsam: "And He is engaged in transcendental, conjugal love, Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa." So this love which is in our experience within this material world, man and woman, it is not unnatural. It is in God also there. And the Brahma-sūtra, Vedānta-sūtra, in the beginning says that "Who is Brahman, the Supreme Person or the Absolute Truth?" Athāto brahma jijñāsā, questioning "What is that Absolute Truth?" The answer is janmādy asya yataḥ: (SB 1.1.1) "The Absolute Truth is that from whom everything emanates." Very simple definition. That means the fountainhead of everything, the source of everything. Therefore here in this material world we see that the attraction for man and woman, woman's attraction for man, man's attraction for woman, is so prominent. Not only in human society, but in other than: animal society, cat society, dog society, bird society, there is always the attraction, man and woman, or male and female. Why? The answer is in the Vedānta-sūtra: janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1). Because it is there in the Absolute Truth. Without being present in the Absolute Truth, how it can be manifested in the relative truth?
This world is called relative world. It is not Absolute. Relative. Difference, two, duality. We cannot understand a man without knowing a woman. We cannot understand father without understanding a son or a mother. Relativity. But in Absolute world, everything is one. So this love between male and female, conjugal love, we Vaiṣṇava philosophers... Because everyone, according to Vedic system, everyone has to follow the Vedānta-sūtra. There are two section of philosophers in India, approved; not, I mean to say, manufactured philosopher, mental speculators, but actually those who are counted valuable. There are two classes of philosophers, namely the impersonalist and personalist. The Vaiṣṇava, they accept that the Absolute Truth is person, and the Māyāvādī philosophers, they say that Absolute Truth is impersonal. That is the difference. Otherwise their process of other paraphernalia, execution of understanding, is almost the same. Now our Vaiṣṇava philosopher's argument is that how the Absolute Truth can be impersonal? Because here, in this world, in our experience, we see everything personal. So unless the personality, the individuality, or the individual attraction is there in the Absolute Truth, how they can be represented here in the relative truth?
General Lectures
So this is individual consciousness: "I am present all over my body." Similarly, the supreme consciousness, he is present all over the universe, all over. This is only a small manifestation of God's energy, very minute. In the Bhagavad-gītā you will find, ekāṁśena sthito jagat (BG 10.42). This jagat... Jagat means this material manifestation. This material manifestation is a one-fourth part demonstration of this whole energy of the Supreme Lord, one-fourth part. So nothing is different from God. But there are certain philosophers, they say, pantheist or monotheist... There are so many theists. They are also be... They believe in the Supreme, but impersonal. But we followers of this Kṛṣṇa philosophy, Bhagavad-gītā, Śrīmad-Bhāgavata, we do not follow that philosophy. What is that philosophy? The other sections, they say that "Because God is distributed all over everywhere, therefore there is no separate existence of God." But we do not say that. We say that, the example, that because the sun is distributing his heat and energy, therefore you cannot say that there is no existence of sun. Sun is separately existing. In spite of distributing for millions of years heat, the reservation of heat in the sun is intact. It is not diminished.
So there may be some difference of opinion. Śrutayor vibhinnā. Vibhinnā means different. Now, you cannot realize the Absolute Truth simply by your mundane arguments and by your logical strength, neither you can catch up the right thing by reading different scriptures. Śrutayor vibhinnā. Nāsau munir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. And if you follow great philosophers, great thinkers, then also you will find one thinker is different from another thinker, one philosopher is differing from another philosopher. So whom to follow? This philosopher says that God is a person; another philosopher says God is imperson; another philosopher says that God is everywhere and there is no separate existence of God. So many philosophies there are in the world. And one person is not actually philosopher if he does not differ from other philosophers. That is the philosophical basic principle. You are a philosopher. If I cannot make your philosophical conclusion null and void and make my philosophy established, then I am not a philosopher. You see? That is the way, going on. Nāsau munir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam: "He is not a philosopher if he cannot present a separate theory." He is not a philosopher.
The same example can be given. Suppose you are taking a jet plane to go to the sun planet or moon planet, but you are in the sunshine. You are more higher above the cloud region. Cloud is after, say, a few miles up, if you go, there is no more cloud. Finished. If you go above seven miles up, there is no more clouds. There is no question of māyā. That's all right. But if you go continually, if you do not get shelter in any other planet, then the next stage will be you have to come back. You cannot remain in that impersonal sunshine. You have to take shelter. If you don't get shelter, then you come back. Similarly, the impersonalist, for the time being they may think that they have Brahman realization, but because by nature he wants association, without getting association of the Supreme Lord he has to come back to make association with this nonsense. And this is practically we have seen. Many sannyāsīs, brahma satyaṁ jagan mithyā, "Brahman is truth and the world is false." They take sannyāsa, and after some time they come to the hospital opening business. They come down again to politics, hospitals, philanthropy, welfare work.
It is simply troublesome, kleśa. Kleśa means troublesome. Because they cannot concentrate. Avyaktā hi gatir duḥkhaṁ dehavadbhir avāpyate. Those who have accepted this body, for them, to think of something impersonal is simply artificial, is simply artificial. Therefore the impersonalists or the void philosophers, their process of so-called yoga is simply troublesome, and maybe some profit there, but the ultimate profit, they cannot have. It is not possible. Therefore in the Bhagavad-gītā it is clearly said that yoginām api sarveṣāṁ: (BG 6.47) "Of all the yogis, the one who is thinking of Kṛṣṇa or Viṣṇu..." Because that is the ultimate goal. One has to come to the point. That point, of course, one has to come ultimately, as it is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā, bahūnāṁ janmanām ante (BG 7.19), after many, many births. It is simply obstinacy. One who does not take to the meditation of God, or they want to meditate in something other, void or impersonal—that is not possible; that is simply troublesome—so simply they are wasting time because ultimately they have come to this point of personal conception of the Supreme Lord. Bahūnāṁ janmanām, after many, many births, if they are fortunate enough to meet some real devotee, then he becomes enlightened. And vāsudevaḥ sarvam iti (BG 7.19). He then accepts Vasudeva, Kṛṣṇa, as everything. Sa mahātmā su-durlabhaḥ: "Such kind of great soul is very rare."
This example I have given you several times. Just like you try to understand the sun. This is daily affair. Now when you try to understand what is this sun, you first of all come to the sunshine light. If you are covered with cloud and if you have not known what is sun, that is a different thing. Or even if it is covered, you can go up to the over the cloud and see the sunshine and sun. So the cloud is compared with māyā. So sun is compared with the kingdom of God, and the president of the sun planet is God. This is example. God is far away and He's the greatest. He has created so many millions of suns. But I am giving that example. Now to study the sun, first of all you come to the sunshine. The sunshine is distributed all over the universe, and the sun planet is situated in a localized place. And within the sun planet, there is the predominating deity who is called sun-god. But if you want to study all these things, first of all you come to the sunshine. The sunshine is impersonal. Similarly, there is a transcendental rays from the planet where Kṛṣṇa, or God, is there. Just a few minutes before I recited one verse from Bhagavad-gītā that na tad bhāsayate sūryo (BG 15.6). That means it is illuminating. There is no need of sunshine. Just like this planet is not illuminating; therefore we want light from the sun, from the moon, from electricity. But Bhagavad-gītā says that the planet of the Lord, there is no... Why planet? The sky. There is no need of sunshine. Every planet in the spiritual world is illuminating. So because every planet is illuminating, the whole spiritual sky is dazzling illumination. So one who approaches that dazzling illumination called brahma-jyotir, they are called impersonalists. Is it clear?
Just like sun planet, there is sunshine. The sunshine is impersonal, but if you have got power to enter into the sun globe, then you will find there, there are so many persons, they have got fiery body. It is not a fact in other planets there is no life. That is a nonsense. Every planet there is life, but they have got different situation, different atmosphere. The moon planet is very cold. Even the modern scientists, they agree that the temperature in the moon planet is below two hundred degree zero. So it is very cold. Similarly, sun planet is very hot. Similarly, there are other planets which is made of air, some planets made of water. These five elements, earth, water, air, ether, this is the, these are the ingredients of material world. So some planet is made of something, some planet is made of something. But this earth is made of earth only, and water. So in the sunshine you see, you go by airplane, go in the "friendly sky" above the... You see everything impersonal. Simply glaring sunshine, that's all. But that does not mean it is impersonal. There are many planets within the sunshine, millions of planets, but you cannot see. Similarly, persons who cannot see beyond the brahma-jyotir, the transcendental rays of the spiritual sky, they are impersonalists. They are impersonalists. But one who goes to the transcendental planets, Vaikuṇṭhas, Goloka Vṛndāvana, they see God is there person. As you are person, I am person, you'll find person.
So in that Vedic literature this is, this verse is there, nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.13). A leader, the supreme leader of all living entities—God, or whatever you say, the Absolute Truth, the Absolute Person. Generally, we say God. God is also a person like you and me. Just like whenever you find out some leader, he must be a person. Impersonal cannot be leader. Is there any instance... In the modern history they have abolished monarchy, personal government. They have got democratic government or republican government. But still, they have to find out a president. Why? Why not without president? No. That cannot be done. There must be one leader. Any movement, any organization, there must be. And he must be a person. So you can judge from this how God can be imperson? He's person. And Vedic literature informs that He's a person like you and me. And your Bible also says that man is made after God. Not that God is made after man. Your feature, your two hands, two legs, one head, nice eyes, nice face, everything, this is imitation of God's feature. Therefore man is made after God. Not that because we have got two hands, two legs, or one head, therefore artists have imagined a God like us. No. Actually, this version of Bible is truth. Any scripture, there is truth. So the Vedic literatures also say that He is the supreme living entity above all other living entities, every individual living entity. The Bhagavad-gītā, most of you might have seen Bhagavad-gītā.
Five thousand years ago in the Bhagavad-gītā dialogue Lord Kṛṣṇa recommended the yoga practice to his disciple Arjuna. But Arjuna flatly expressed his inability to follow the stringent rules and regulations of yoga. One should be practical in every field of activity. One should not waste his valuable time simply in practicing some gymnastic feats in the name of yoga. Real yoga is to search out the four-handed Supersoul within one's heart and to see Him perpetually in meditation. Such continued meditation is called samādhi. If however, one wants to meditate upon something void or impersonal it will require a very long time to achieve anything by yoga practice. We cannot concentrate our mind on something void or impersonal. Real yoga practice is to fix up the mind on the person of the four-handed Nārāyaṇa, who dwells in everyone's heart. Sometimes it is said that by meditation one will understand that God is seated within one's heart always, even when one does not know it. God is seated within the heart of everyone. He is not only seated within the heart of the human being but he is also there within the hearts of the cats and dogs. The Bhagavad-gītā certifies this with this declaration of the Lord. "Īśvara, the Supreme Controller of the world, is seated within the heart of everyone. He is not only in everyone's heart but He is also present within the atoms." No place is vacant. No place is without the presence of the Lord.
The symptom is, because it is there in my body, because it is there in your body, therefore you are moving, you are talking, you are planning, so many things you are doing—simply for that spiritual spark. So we are very minute spark of the supreme spirit. Just like there are in the sunshine minute particles, shining particles. With shining, these shining particles, when they are mixed together, that is sunshine. But they are molecules. They are separate, atomic molecules. Similarly, in relationship with God and ourselves, we are also minute particles of God, shining. Shining means we have got the same propensities, thinking, feeling, willing, creating, everything. Whatever you see in yourself, that is there in God. So God cannot be impersonal, because we are all persons. I have got so many propensities—that is very minute quantity. The same propensities are there in Kṛṣṇa, or God, but that is very great, unlimited. This is the study of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Simply greatness, my position is very small. And we are so small, infinitesimal; still, we have got so many propensities, so many desires, so many activities, so many brain work. Just imagine how much greater brain work and desire and propensities are there in God, because He's great. His greatness means all these things, what you have got, that is existing in Him in greatness. That's all.
So you have to continue that first-class yoga system, and that is explained here, mayy āsakta-manāḥ: being attached. Mind is the vehicle for being attached. If you are attached to somebody, some boy, some girl, some person... Generally, we become attached to a person. Impersonal attachment is bogus thing. If you want to be attached, that attachment must be personal. Is it not a fact? Impersonal attachment... You cannot love the sky, but you can love the sun, you can love the moon, you can love the stars, because they are localized person. And if you want to love the sky, it is very difficult for you. You have to come again to this sun. So yoga system, culminating in perfection, in love... So you have to love somebody, person. That is Kṛṣṇa. Just like here is a picture. Rādhārāṇī is loving Kṛṣṇa and offering His (Her) flowers to Kṛṣṇa, and Kṛṣṇa is playing with His flute. So you can think of this picture nicely, always. Then you (will) become constantly in yoga, samādhi. Why impersonal? Why you something, something void? Void cannot be. If you think something void, there will be something light, something color, colorful, so many things we will find. But that is also form. How you can avoid form? That is not possible.
Then impersonal understanding of God, just Brahman... Sarvaṁ khalv idaṁ brahma: "Everything is standing on Brahman." Just like materially you understand: everything in the material manifestation, that is depending on the sunshine. The trees, as soon as there is sunshine, there is green foliage. As soon as there is no sunshine, there is no leaves, no greenness. So everything is depending on sunshine. The sunshine is also depending on Kṛṣṇa; therefore Kṛṣṇa is the original cause of all causes. That is Kṛṣṇa realization. You can realize Him personally, you can realize Him impersonally, and you can realize Him localized. Īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānāṁ hṛd-deśe arjuna tiṣṭhati: (BG 18.61) "Arjuna, that Supreme Personality of Godhead is situated, localized, in everyone's heart." Just like the sun globe is there, and the sun globe's effulgence is the impersonal representation of the sun-god. And suppose there are five millions of people standing in the sunshine, and everyone will see the sun is above his head. That is localized. You go five thousand miles away and ask your friend here, "Where is the sun?" Your friend will say that "It is on my head." And you will also see it is on your head. As it is materially possible, why not spiritually? So spiritually, Kṛṣṇa is within your heart. Simply you have to realize it.
Because by the intrigue of his stepmother, he was rejected by his father. He wanted... That material desire we, every one of us in conditioned state, we want. Sometimes we compete. We become very much obstinate, that "I must have this," and we work very hard. Just like in Europe, that Hitler, he wanted supremacy over Europe, and he fought very valiantly. But at the end he became vanquished. Similarly, in the material world we have got so many desires and we want to fulfill it—and for which we work very hard. But at the end it becomes frustrated. That is the nature of the material world. You cannot have anything here permanent, however hard you work... You may achieve that. Not only in this material world. Even you achieve the liberation, perfectional stage, as the impersonal philosophers want. They want nirvāṇa. Just like Buddhists, they want nirvāṇa, extinction of this material conditional life. That is called nirvāṇa. And the Māyāvādī philosophers, impersonalists, they want not only extinction of these material pangs but they want to be situated in spiritual consciousness only. But our Vaiṣṇava philosophy is that you cannot keep yourself in spiritual consciousness unless you are fully engaged in spiritual activities. That is the perfect philosophy.
So in the higher status of life, when this distinction is not recognized or cannot be understood, that is called impersonal status, Brahman. Nirviśeṣa-brahman—Brahman realization without any distinction. This realization of Brahman, impersonal realization, is the beginning of self-realization. That is not final or ultimate. In the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam there is a statement about the Absolute Truth. What is the Absolute Truth? That it is stated, Absolute... Vadanti tat tattva-vidas tattvam (SB 1.2.11). "Those who are actually in knowledge of the Absolute Truth, they speak of the Absolute Truth in this way." What is that? Advaya-jñānam: nondual. There is no duality. Although there is variety, but there is no duality. Here in the material world, as soon as there is variety, there is duality. But in the spiritual world, there is variety, but there is no duality. How is that? There is crude example. Many, you can try to understand. Just like this sun. You are seeing every day, sun. Now the sun means there are three divisions: the sunlight, sunshine; the sun globe; and the sun deity. Don't think in the sun planet there is no living entities. That is a wrong conception.
Sarvaṁ khalv idaṁ brahma. Similarly, Paramātmā, the Supersoul, is also all-pervading. Meditation means to realize the Supersoul, and to realize that Supersoul is everywhere. How everywhere? Aṇḍāntara-stha-paramāṇu-cayāntara-stham (Bs. 5.35). The Supersoul is within the aṇḍa. Aṇḍa means brahmāṇḍa, universe, and everybody up to the atom. He's within the atom also. Paramāṇu. Paramāṇu means atom. The Supersoul is within the atom. That is the power of God. He can become bigger than the universe. He can put many millions of universes within His belly. At the same time, He can enter within the atom. Aṇor aṇīyān mahato mahīyān. Mahato mahīyān means greater than the greatest and the smaller than the smallest. So in this way, first realization, Brahman, impersonal. Then next higher realization is Paramātmā, Supersoul. Brahman realization more or less realized by philosophical speculation, and Paramātmā realization is achieved more or less by meditation. But Bhagavān realization is transcendental devotion. That is beyond the philosophical speculation and mental meditation, beyond.
So everything is there. Kṛṣṇa says that "I am spread all over the world, all over the universe," avyakta-mūrtinā, "in My impersonal form. But everything is resting upon Me, but I am not there." These contradictory terms, how it is satisfied, how it is mitigated, we have to learn from a person who knows Kṛṣṇa. Not from others. Therefore Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu recommended one brāhmaṇa who went to see Him by writing some books and they were not in order. His secretary, Svarūpa Dāmodara Gosvāmī, disqualified, that "These books are not written the right order." He was surprised. He was supposed to be a great scholar of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, but Svarūpa Gosvāmī nullified him that "You do not know anything." Then he advised him, because that person was very submissive, he advised him that bhāgavata paro diya bhāgavata sthāne: "Just try to understand Bhāgavata from the person bhāgavata." Person bhāgavata. There are two kinds of bhāgavatas. One is book bhāgavata, and there is another bhāgavata, who is person bhāgavata. Bhāgavata means in relationship with Bhagavān. To those who have dedicated their life... One who has dedicated his life only for the service of the Lord, Bhagavān, he is called bhāgavata.
So without being spirit soul, how we can become servant of the supreme spirit? Just like without being fire, you cannot remain in the fire, similarly, without becoming Brahman, how we can serve the Supreme Brahman? So this is Brahman realization. Sarvopādhi-vinirmuktaṁ tat-paratvena nirmalam (CC Madhya 19.170). Now, after being purified, what is your position? Not that you become imperson. There are philosophers, that when one becomes identified with Brahman, he becomes immediately imperson. No. We keep our personality. We are never imperson. All of us are individuals. Kṛṣṇa is individual. We are sitting here. We are all individual. So we keep our individuality, but our senses become purified. That is called mukti. Bhāgavata gives the definition of mukti: mukti hitvā anyathā rūpaṁ svarūpeṇa vyavasthitiḥ (SB 2.10.6). What is mukti? Mukti means when one gives up his engagement, activities, hitvā anyathā rūpam, identifying himself with something material, and he is engaged in his own original, constitutional position, and that is called mukti. The original constitutional position is every living entity is a part and parcel of the Supreme Person. I have given you several times example. This is stated in the śāstras also.
Now, there are Vedas, four Vedas—Sāma Veda, Atharva Veda, Yajus Veda, Ṛk Veda. And there are Upaniṣads, the Vedānta-sūtra, the Purāṇas, Rāmāyaṇa, Mahābhārata—there are so many things. That is in India. And outside India or outside Vedic culture, there are many scriptures. Therefore it is said, śrutayo vibhinnā. There are innumerable Vedic scriptures. So we cannot come to the conclusion what is right or wrong, because sometimes you will find contradiction from one... Of course, there is no contradiction, but because we are not advanced in knowledge, sometimes we will find contradiction. Just like in India there are two classes of transcendentalists: the impersonalist and the personalist. That is not contradiction. The Absolute Truth is both impersonal and personal, but somebody is stressing on the impersonal point of view and somebody is stressing on the personal point of view. But we Vaiṣṇava, we know what is the meaning of impersonalism and what is the meaning of personalism. We take it for understanding, as it is stated in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate (SB 1.2.11). The Absolute Truth is simultaneously Brahman, Paramātmā and Bhagavān. It is simply different stages of understanding. In the first stage, it is Brahman realization. In the second stage, it is Paramātmā realization. And at the last stage, it is Bhagavān realization.
Just like the other day when I was coming from Calcutta to Delhi, the Himalayan Mountains were seen from the plane, and it appeared just like a great city. But that is my shortage of vision. I cannot see what is Himalaya. Similarly, as we see imperfectly the Himalayan Mountain from a distant place, similarly, when the Absolute Truth is realized by the speculative process, he can simply understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead by His effulgence as impersonal. And if you make further progress, then we can see... The same example. We are seeing the Himalayan Mountain from a distant place but if we make further advance, further, nearer, we see different thing. And when actually in the Himalayan Mountain, the thing is altogether different. Similarly, when you understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead from distance... Just like you cannot understand the sun globe from here. Although sunshine is light, sun globe is light, still we cannot understand what is sun globe from distant place.
Yes. God is unapproachable by your mental concoction. But there is another process: if you understand God by this the paramparā system. Just like on this roof there is some sound, and every one of us making some suggestion what is the sound: "This may be like this. This may be like that. This may be like that." This is one process of knowledge, to understand the unseen by speculation. This is one. It may be successful or may not be successful. There is no certainty. But if somebody from the roof says, "The sound is due to this," then our knowledge is perfect. Similarly, if we speculate about God, who is Adhokṣaja, who is beyond the range of our mind and speculation, then it is very... Then we can come to the conclusion of Brahman realization, impersonal God, no more than. But if we hear from God or His representative, then we get perfect knowledge of God.
Another paramparā system is coming from Lord Śiva. Another paramparā system is coming from the Kumāras—they were unmarried, brahmacārīs, sons of Brahmā. So those paramparā system, line of disciplic succession, are still existing in India. Practically, India's spiritual life is still being controlling by these lines of disciplic succession. So all these ācāryas, according to the Vaiṣṇava ācārya... Vaiṣṇava ācāryas, there are four ācāryas. Śrī Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, Nimbārka, and Viṣṇu Svāmī. And those who are not Vaiṣṇavas, impersonalists, they are represented by Śaṅkarācārya. Even Śaṅkarācārya, from whom we differ in philosophical discussion... Not very much different—so far the procedure is concerned, the regulative principles are concerned, they are all the same. The only difference is that Śaṅkarācārya's sampradāya, they take the ultimate Absolute Truth as impersonal, and we Vaiṣṇavas, we take the Absolute Truth as person. But Śaṅkarācārya, in his later stage, he also admitted in a different way.
If one cannot understand what is God after so much education, then Bhāgavata says, śrama eva hi kevalam: (SB 1.2.8) "It is simply labor, labor, waste of time." Simply waste of time. There is no education. Education, knowledge, means ultimately to understand, to know what is God. Actually; not fictitiously, vaguely. So there are many classes of men who have no understanding of God. Some of them are saying, "God is dead," or "God is impersonal," "There is no God," "Zero," "I am God," "You are God," so many things. All these people do not know what is God; therefore there are different theories. Therefore, somehow or other, if you can understand God, then your life is successful. Somehow or other. Because this human life is especially meant for understanding God. Athāto brahma jijñāsā. The Vedānta-sūtra... You have heard the name of Vedānta. Vedānta means... Veda means knowledge, and anta means ultimate. The ultimate knowledge. Therefore, Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā, vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyam: (BG 15.15) "The ultimate purpose of reading Vedas is to know Me."
So this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is giving knowledge about the Absolute Truth, Paraṁ Brahman. The Sanskrit word is Paraṁ Brahman. And Kṛṣṇa is Paraṁ Brahman. If you have read Bhagavad-gītā on the Tenth Chapter, when Arjuna summarizes his understanding after hearing Bhagavad-gītā, he says, paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān: (BG 10.12) "Kṛṣṇa, I understand that You are the Supreme Personality, Absolute Truth." Paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma: "You are the reservoir of everything." Pavitram: "You are the Supreme Pure." Pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān. Puruṣaṁ śāśvatam ādyam: "You are the Supreme Person." Kṛṣṇa, or the Absolute Truth, is not imperson. He's the Supreme Person. He's Supreme Person. He is the Absolute Truth. And we are presenting Kṛṣṇa before you, and you take it. Most of the Western country, they are Christian. So the Christians believe in Lord Jesus Christ as son of God. But we are presenting the father, God Himself. So there is no contradiction. If there is son, there must be a father also. Without father, there cannot be son. So if you believe in the son, then you must believe in the father also. The father is Kṛṣṇa.
So there is the pleasure, this sex attraction. But that sex attraction is not material, Kṛṣṇa, rādhā kṛṣṇa-praṇaya-vikṛtir hlādinī śaktir asmāt, ekātmānāv api deha bhedaṁ gatau. Try to understand. For Brahman perception, Brahman pleasure, a great saintly person, he gives up everything material. He takes sannyāsa, he goes, undergoes severe penances, just to realize brahmānanda. So when Brahman... A person, ordinary person, to realize brahmānanda, he gives up everything material, do you think Kṛṣṇa, the Para-brahman, is enjoying something material? Just try to understand. Kṛṣṇa does not enjoy anything. He's Para-brahman. For understanding Brahman pleasure, a person is recommended to give up everything material. And when the Para-brahman wants to enjoy, does it means that He's enjoying something material? This is our nescience(?). This is our misunderstanding. When Para-brahman enjoys, He... But the difficulty is that this Māyāvādī philosopher, they cannot understand that in the spiritual world there is also pleasure. Their foolish brain cannot accommodate. Because here in this material world they have got very bad experience of this material... They want to make the spiritual world as zero or imperson due to less intelligence. But actually, real life, real pleasure, eternal pleasure is there in the spiritual world, not in this material world.
And He has got form; He's a person. He's not imperson. Because as soon as you speak of controller, it cannot be impersonal. Controller must be a person. He must have brain, He must have desire, He must have capacity to give orders. So many things. So therefore the Vedic information is the Supreme Absolute Truth is a person. He's not impersonal. The impersonal realization of God is realization of His different potencies. Just like this material world, this is the manifestation of one of the potencies of God. He has got many potencies. So all the many potencies have been grouped into three: the material potency, the spiritual potency, then the marginal potency, between the material and spiritual. The spiritual potency we can understand. Just like I am speaking. I am speaking means I am spiritual being. I am speaking. This material body is my covering, just like shirt and coat. So the... Now I'm existing. Somehow or other, I've been encaged in this material body, but I am spirit soul. That is spiritual potency. And as this material world is made of material ingredients, similarly, there is another world. That information you can get from Bhagavad-gītā. Paras tasmāt tu bhāvo 'nyo 'vyakto 'vyaktāt sanātanaḥ (BG 8.20). There is another nature, another manifestation of nature. That is spiritual. What is the distinction? The distinction is when this material world will be annihilated, that will remain. Just like I am spirit soul. When this body is annihilated, I am not annihilated. Na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre (BG 2.20). After the destruction of this body, the soul is not destroyed.
He is person. That is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā. In the Second Chapter He says, "My dear Arjuna, I, you, and all these persons who assembled, it is not that we were not existing in the past, it is not that that we shall not exist in the future." When He says "I, you and all these persons," they are all persons. God is also person, Arjuna is also person, and the all other who assembled in the battlefield, they are also persons. So Kṛṣṇa says, "All these persons, they were existing in the past, now they are existing, and in future they will exist." So there is past, present, future. In no time, God is impersonal, neither we are impersonal. We are also personal. And that is also confirmed, nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām eko yo bahūnāṁ vidadhāti kāmān, Kaṭha Upaniṣad (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.13), that He is the chief person amongst other persons. We living entities, we are many persons, and God is the chief person. And what is the difference between this person and that person, the singular number person, one, and the plural number person, many? That is explained: eko yo bahūnāṁ vidadhāti kāmān. That one singular number person is supplying all the necessities of these different plural persons. That is the distinction. These things are expressed in Upaniṣad, Vedānta-sūtra. So ultimately, God is person.
Prabhupāda: Impersonal description.
Guest: The unity is unexpressible. It is,
Prabhupāda: Unexpressible...
Guest: Nothing can be said about...
Prabhupāda: No. Why not?
Guest: ...the Supreme.
Prabhupāda: Why not? Just like this is also Upaniṣad, nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.13). So He's a person. Īśāvāsyam idaṁ sarvam (ISO 1). There are so many. Apāṇi-pādo javano grahītā. Sa aikṣata, sa asṛjata. So when they say... In Christian Bible also, they believe God created. So if He's a creator, He must be a person. But His body is different from our body. That I have explained. Sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ (Bs. 5.1).
So Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura has sung, kīṭa janma hao yathā tuyā dāsa, bahir nā brahma janme nāhi mora āsa. Kītā janma hao yathā tuyā dāsa. Tuyā dāsa means your servant. Actually we are all servants of Kṛṣṇa. Jīvera svarūpa hoy nitya kṛṣṇa dāsa. But forgetting our position, we are now acting as dāsa of māyā, māyāra-dāsa. Hoiya māyāra dāsa kori nānā abhilāṣ. The advantage of Kṛṣṇa dāsa is that he has got only one desire. Ānukūlyena kṛṣṇānu-śīlanam (CC Madhya 19.167)—to serve Kṛṣṇa purely. That's all. Kṛṣṇa is not impersonal. Kṛṣṇa is person, and whatever He orders, whatever He says, if you carry out faithfully, then our original constitutional position is regained. It can be done very quickly. Kṛṣṇa says, sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja (BG 18.66). And if you do that immediately, then you revive your original position immediately, within a second. Hoiya māyāra dāsa kori nānā abhilās. We are making plans in so many ways to be happy. But if we accept this one plan, that immediately surrender to Kṛṣṇa, then our life is successful. And if we do not accept this proposal of Kṛṣṇa, and if we make our own plans to be happy, it will be never be possible. Hoiya māyāra dāsa kori nānā abhilāṣ. Anādi bahirmukha jīva kṛṣṇa bhuli gelā, ataeva māyāra tare goliyā badila. We are not independent. If we do not agree to serve Kṛṣṇa, then we have to serve māyā. Our position as servant is never changed. We remain servant. So if we don't agree to accept Kṛṣṇa's proposal sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja (BG 18.66), then we have to take shelter of māyā and you have to perpetually serve. Bhūtvā bhūtvā pralīyate (BG 8.19).
Kṛṣṇa says that is the way of life. Ultimately one has to surrender to Kṛṣṇa. That is the success, ultimate success. Bahūnāṁ janmanām ante (BG 7.19). One is accepting immediately and one is experimenting with truth, and it will take many, many births. Kleśa adhikataras teṣām avyakta āsakta cetasām. Kṛṣṇa is presently instructing in person, and foolish people are thinking that He's imperson. Why imperson? Kṛṣṇa is always speaking: mām eva ye prapadyante māyām etāṁ taranti te. Aham ādir hi devānām (Bg 10.2). The first person is used everywhere. Ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavaḥ mattaḥ sarvaṁ pravartate (BG 10.8). Aham. Kṛṣṇa says aham, person. So why we should think of Kṛṣṇa being imperson? This is our misfortune. Therefore it takes many, many births. Even one is jñānavān it takes many, many births to surrender to Kṛṣṇa. Bahūnāṁ janmanām ante jñānavān (BG 7.19). Although he's jñānavān, superficially, still his jñāna has been taken away. Māyayā apahṛta-jñānā. Although he's proud of his knowledge, the māyā says, "No, no, no. Why you are accepting Kṛṣṇa as person? He's imperson." So māyā is dictating and taking away his knowledge. māyayā apahṛta-jñānā. Kṛṣṇa says aham, "I, Me." These are first person, person, first person. And still these people are thinking of Kṛṣṇa as imperson. Why? This is called māyayāpahṛta-jñānā. They have studied the Vedic literature but could not understand what is Kṛṣṇa.
One who has actually seen or actually realized the truth, you have to take knowledge from there. So we have to approach such person. Otherwise, if we approach some speculator, we cannot get real knowledge. So those who are speculators, they cannot understand what is God. Therefore they commit mistake that "God is like this," "God like that," "There is no God," "There is no form." All these nonsense things are proposed, because they are imperfect. Bhagavān therefore said, avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritāḥ (BG 9.11). Because He comes for our benefit in the human form, the fools and rascals consider Him as ordinary person. If Bhagavān says, ahaṁ bīja-pradaḥ pitā (BG 14.4), "I am the seed-giving father," so we, every one of us, we know that my father is person, his father is person, his father is person, and why the Supreme Person or the supreme father should become imperson? Why? And therefore we have to learn from Bhagavān, the Supreme Person, full knowledge. This Bhagavad-gītā is therefore full knowledge from the full Personality of Godhead. We cannot change even one word in this Bhagavad-gītā. That is folly.
So if you simply come to the Brahman stage, param pada, that will not endure. There is every chance of falling down. Just like you go in the sky in eighteen thousand miles per hour, and so on, so on. Just like these people are trying to go to the moon planet. If you get shelter in moon planet or any other planet, then you will be able to stay. Otherwise, come back again. They are coming back. They are going... It is well advertised they are going to the moon planet. Then why they are coming back? Why you should come back? So the idea is that simply in the Brahman, impersonal stage... Just like sky, nirviśeṣa. You can go eighteen miles, eighteen thousand miles speed, but if you don't get a shelter, then you'll have to come back again. This is the risk. So you must get shelter. So the Bhāgavata therefore advises that āruhya kṛcchreṇa paraṁ padaṁ tataḥ patanty adho anādṛta-yuṣmad-aṅghrayaḥ (SB 10.2.32). You can go very high in the sky, but if you don't get any shelter in any other planet... So similarly, you can make your spiritual progress understanding of Brahman, but if you do not get any shelter at the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa, then you'll fall down. That is a fact.
So we have a choice now whether to follow a representative of God, Kṛṣṇa, who can bring us to the internal potency of the Lord. This internal potency is not dry. It is the origin of bliss, sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha (Bs. 5.1). It is not impersonal, void, lifeless, without any happiness. It is what everyone is actually looking for, simply pervertedly within this material world. So this opportunity is here. Before Prabhupāda came to the Western countries, actually there was no hope. There was no hope at all. There was no such knowledge, there was no such opportunity to choose between material life and something else. There was no reality other than this body, and for everyone it was simply a very hopeless, distressful situation. But Prabhupāda personally, even at advanced age, he's coming simply to give this opportunity to the Westerners and to everyone throughout the world, that besides this material life, there is another, eternal life, and if you utilize your independence very carefully to transfer your attachment to this internal potency of devotional service and service to the Vaiṣṇavas and to Kṛṣṇa, then you can become free forever from the encumbrance of repeated birth and death and go back to home, back to Godhead.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the President, I am very much thankful to you that you are eager to hear about what Kṛṣṇa wants to speak. Kṛṣṇa is accepted as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. All ācāryas-Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, Viṣṇu, Nimbārka, and latest, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, and before that, other ācāryas like Vyāsadeva, Nārada, Asita, Devala, and before that, the original ācārya, Lord Brahmā, Lord Śiva—everyone accepted Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. We are searching after whether there is God or there is no God. If there is God, what is the nature? What is the form? Whether He is person or imperson? There are so many questions. And to solve all these questions, the God Himself descends and speaks about Himself, and that speaking is this Bhagavad-gītā. God is speaking about Himself personally, personally present. So you can know Him, you can see Him, what He is, what is His function. Just to mitigate all our doubts, God is present here. And Kṛṣṇa says in the beginning of the Seventh Chapter of the Bhagavad-gītā how you can understand God without any doubt and in complete. That is spoken by God Himself.
Philosophy Discussions
Śyāmasundara: Otherwise where does the impersonal idea come from?
Prabhupāda: Yes. That is out of frustration. We see so many things, personal, varieties, but they are not giving us satisfaction; therefore we are thinking in a negative way, impersonal. But the person is first.
Śyāmasundara: He says that men, because they are...
Prabhupāda: The atheist demons are like that. If he exists to accept God, then he cannot work irresponsibly. To facilitate his sinful activities he is denying that there is a God.
Śyāmasundara: He says that God is an absolute necessity because we cannot conceive not-God. But man, individual men, are relative truths because they are not absolutely necessary. Because I can conceive that I am not here, that I may die. So he says that we are conditioned, that men are conditioned. They are governed by the principle of sufficient (indistinct).
Prabhupāda: That we can see. There are so many politicians, they are very busy. They think that "If I do not remain in the state, everything will collapse." But when he dies, everything goes on nicely without him. That is māyā. So many politicians work so hard, up to the last point of his death he is thinking that "Without me, everything will be topsy turvy." But he dies in spite of his not willing to die. He dies, but things go on without depending on him. Therefore God's will is working, the Supreme Will. You may think so many ways—that is a different thing. Actually God's will is working.
Śyāmasundara: He maintains that God is an absolute idea, that he is pure conception.
Kīrtanānanda: Impersonal.
Prabhupāda: That means he has no clear idea of God. If God has got a son, then the father must be a person. Where is a son who is born out of imperson father? Where is the evidence?
Śyāmasundara: An idea, born out of an idea.
Prabhupāda: Idea. This is nonsense. If son is a person, his father must be a person.
Śyāmasundara: He says that in philosophy we approach closest to the absolute or God, whereas art is the form of the absolute.
Prabhupāda: Then his statement that Christianity is perfect, that is refuted.
Śyāmasundara: And these three things may also be called...
Prabhupāda: That means he is creating God. Is it not? God is an idea. So his philosophy is that you create by imagination something as God. Actually there is no God. Just like Māyāvādīs, they say, "God is imperson. God is dead." Like that. And you can create a God. Just like Vivekananda, that is their theory. Therefore they create Ramakrishna as God.
Śyāmasundara: He said that God is the idea behind all concrete objects. Whatever is concrete there is a superior idea.
Prabhupāda: (indistinct) Idea can be changed so God becomes a thing which is subjected to the whimsical change of rascals. That is his idea.
Śyāmasundara: He says the subjective mind manifests itself again in three ways. First...
Prabhupāda: So that three ways, impersonal, localized and personal.
Śyāmasundara: In a way. First I understand that I relate to this body, somehow, then I get some understanding of outside objects, and then I get intelligence, real and moral choice.
Prabhupāda: Yes, these things are there. These things are there. Supposing the animal, he is thinking that he's body but when he comes to the human form of body he thinks, "Am I really body?" Then he thinks, "No, I am not this body. It is my body." Advanced thinking. "Then what I am?" This is progression.
Devānanda: That's true. The only experience...
Prabhupāda: No, no. The atheists, simply artificially they cover. Naturally he has belief. Naturally he has belief. Even in this primitive stage, as soon as there is something wonderful, natural phenomenon, they offer respects, the primitive man. The man in the jungle, as soon as he sees a big ocean, he offers his respects. As soon as he sees a big mountain, he offers his respects. As soon as there is a thunderbolt... This is called realization of the śakti. Parasya brahmaṇaḥ śakti. So this is śakta stage, realization of God by seeing something wonderful. That is śakta stage. Then after this state, śakta, saurīyam. Śakta stage, worshiping the energy of God—everything is energy; then śaktyopāsanam, then śaktasaurīyam, then suryopāsanam, worshiping the sun, because it is the reservoir of all energies according to the material world. Śakta, saurīya then gāṇapatya. The gāṇapatya means that is humanitarian. That energy is distributed-pantheism, humanitarian. Śakta, sauriyam, gāṇapatya, then śaiva, you go on. Then Vaiṣṇava. Impersonal then personalist.
Prabhupāda: Yes. God is person. If He is the supreme father, the father is a person. We have got no experience of father being imperson. My father is person, his father is person, his father is person. In this way go on, father's father's..., searching. So the ultimate father is also person. There is no doubt about it. Either human father or animal father, every living being is a person. Therefore the right conclusion is God the father of all living being is person. Personal conception of God is there in every religion-Christian religion, Muhammadan religion, or Vedic religion. In the Vedic religion, oṁ tad viṣṇoḥ paramaṁ padaṁ sadā paśyanti sūrayoḥ. Those who are sura, means advanced in spiritual knowledge, or the brāhmaṇas, one who knows the Supreme, they find the supreme father is Lord Viṣṇu. Lord Viṣṇu and Kṛṣṇa is the same category, or same substance. So God is person and the ultimate end. The impersonal realization is imperfect realization of God. The Supersoul realization is still advancement, but the final advancement is Bhagavān, or person God. So we must know our relationship with, and first of all our first business is to know God and our relationship with Him, then act accordingly. Then our life becomes perfect. This is the process of God realization.
Prabhupāda: So philosophy means advancement of knowledge. So we are making progress in knowledge when our knowledge is actually come to the point of perfection of knowledge, that is understanding of God. God is there, but on account of our foolishness, sometimes we deny the existence of God. That is the most foolish platform of living condition. But sometimes we have vague idea, some imagination, and sometimes impersonal, sometimes pantheistic. In this way different philosophies means they are searching after God, but on account of not being perfect, there are differences of opinion or different conception of God. But actually God is person, and when one comes to that platform—to know God, to talk with Him, to see Him, to feel His presence, even to play with Him—that is the highest platform of God realization. And the relationship is God is the great and we are small. So our position is always subordinate. (break)
Hayagrīva: This is the continuation of William James.
Prabhupāda: So to carry the orders of God is religion. So the more this fact is realized, that is perfection of religion, and dharma, religion, is perfect when he understands who is God and how to learn to love Him.
Hayagrīva: James writes about religion and total surrender and involvement. He says, "In the religious life surrender and sacrifice are positively espoused. Even unnecessary givings-up are added in order that the happiness may increase. Religion thus makes easy and felicitous what in any case is necessary. It becomes an essential organ of our life, performing a function which no other portion of our life can so successfully fulfill."
Prabhupāda: Yes. Without religion the human society is animal society. So religion must be there, and religion means to understand God, to learn how to love God, how to obey His orders, and actually real religion means to accept the order of the Supreme Lord, God. Therefore in the Bhagavad-gītā this fact is taught. God is personally teaching that "You become My devotee, always think of Me," man-manā bhava mad-bhakto, "worship Me," mad-yājī, "and if you cannot do anything more, you simply offer your obeisances unto Me." Man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru (BG 18.65). Without any big, I mean to say, attempt for religious system, if one has got the idea that there is God, and even without seeing Him if he follows His instruction, always think of Him... Either you think of Him as personal God or as localized or all-pervading, but God has got form. One has to think of the form of the God. That is easier. And if God is accepted as impersonal, that is very troublesome. That is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā, kleśaḥ adhikataras teṣām avyakta āsakta cetasām. Those who are impersonalist, for them to think of God becomes very difficult job. Who is God and what to think of, so the so-called meditation is very difficult. But if you have got really conception of a God, just like we have got Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead... Although He has got different incarnations, forms, He is the Supreme, so we think of Him. That is our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. We can think, because we have got the form, we have got the Deity in the temple, we have got the picture in our room, and so we have got definite conception of God and definite instruction of God. So this system, following the Bhagavad-gītā, is definitive understanding of God, so people may take this system, and by practical example they can see how those who are Kṛṣṇa conscious, how they are advancing in the religious system, in every system, because God has instructed everything—religious, political, social, cultural, philosophical, science, physics—everything perfectly. God, God means He gives perfect instruction. So this perfect instruction in the Bhagavad-gītā, we, we have accepted. Not accepted; we have known. God is there; you accept or not accept, it doesn't matter. So those who are fortunate, they will see the actual form of God, follow His instruction, and be perfect in the life. That is wanted.
Śyāmasundara: He says that faith in the order of God, that is piety.
Prabhupāda: Then you must have order of God. Unless you have no conception of God, where is the question of order? If God is impersonal, He cannot speak, He has no mouth, He has no tongue, He has no eyes, He has..., where is the question of order?
Śyāmasundara: His idea is that Jesus is the standard.
Prabhupāda: But that's all right. Then there is no Christian. Jesus Christ's first order is "Thou shall not kill," and they're killing, simply killing. Then where is Christians? There is no Christian.
Śyāmasundara: So he calls the modern Christianity the "sickness unto death," because he says...
Prabhupāda: In the other words, we say there is no Christian.
Śyāmasundara: You said (indistinct) just the opposite. You said, "Keep me talking. That is my life."
Prabhupāda: Yes. It is a fact. Sa vai puṁsām... Sa vai manaḥ kṛṣṇa-padāravindayoḥ vacāṁsi vaikuṇṭha-guṇānuvarṇane (SB 9.4.18). That is Ambarīṣa Mahārāja, the great saintly king. About him it is described, sa vai manaḥ kṛṣṇa-padāravindayoḥ. He engaged completely, twenty-four hours, his mind unto the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa. And vacāṁsi vaikuṇṭha-guṇānuvarṇane, and he engaged his talking simply on Vaikuṇṭha, on the subject matter of Vaikuṇṭha, Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Prahlāda Mahārāja also speaks like that: tad vijñā, tad vijñā sa (indistinct). Glorifying, he is very (indistinct). So they have no conception of God, and whatever you believe, (indistinct). So God is imperson, He is not a person, so where is the (indistinct)? So they come to the (indistinct), scientist, another politician, another this, (indistinct) and they want to become a hero eventually, "I am a great philanthropist," "I am a great nationalist," "I am greatest philosopher." That... And when they finish their talks, then become (indistinct). No more talks—finished. (Hindi) Prahlāda Mahārāja says that (indistinct). He says that śoce tato muni vimukha-cetasa(?): "I am simply thinking of these rascals who are without God consciousness." Tato muni (indistinct): "They are averse to God. I am thinking of them." Śoce tato vimukha-cetasa, māyā-sukhāya bharam udvahato vimūḍhān (SB 7.9.43). These rascals, simply for māyā-sukha, temporary happiness, they are busy, always running here and there for constructing hundred and fifty-stories' house, and bring your money for that. Very busy, very busy. Just like Mr. Birla, he's always busy, (he) cannot see (you). They do not know that "What happiness I am creating?" (indistinct) Just at the end of my life (indistinct). As soon as I close my eyes and I go away from this body, all these things that I have created will be finished. I cannot remember, you cannot remember what was in your past life.
Hayagrīva: He writes, "God is certainly personal, but whether He wishes to be so in relation to the individual depends on whether it pleases God."
Prabhupāda: Yes.
Hayagrīva: "It is the grace of God that He wishes to be personal in relation to you. If you throw away His grace, He punishes you by behaving objectively, or impersonally, towards you."
Prabhupāda: (laughing) That's right. That is very good. Impersonal conception of God is a troublesome business. That is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā: kleśaḥ adhikataras teṣām avyakta āsakta cetasām.
Prabhupāda: Purport.
Hari-śauri: The group of transcendentalists who follow the path of the inconceivable, unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme Lord are called jñāna-yogīs, and persons who are in full Kṛṣṇa consciousness, engaged in devotional service to the Lord, are called bhakti-yogīs. Now, here the difference between jñāna-yoga and bhakti-yoga is definitely expressed. The process of jñāna-yoga, although ultimately bringing one to the same goal, is very troublesome, whereas the path of bhakti-yoga, the process of being in direct service to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is easier and is natural for the embodied soul. The individual soul is embodied since time immemorial. It is very difficult for him to simply theoretically understand that he is not the body. Therefore, the bhakti-yogī accepts the Deity of Kṛṣṇa as worshipable because there is some bodily conception fixed in the mind, which can thus be applied. Of course, worship of the Supreme Personality of Godhead in His form within the temple is not idol worship. There is evidence in the Vedic literature that worship may be saguṇa and nirguṇa—of the Supreme possessing or not possessing attributes. Worship of the Deity in the temple is saguṇa worship, for the Lord is represented by material qualities. But the form of the Lord, though represented by material qualities such as stone, wood, or oil paint, is not actually material. That is the absolute nature of the Supreme Lord.
A crude example may be given here. We may find some mailboxes on the street, and if we post our letters in those boxes, they will naturally go to their destination without difficulty. But any old box, or an imitation, which we may find somewhere, which is not authorized by the post office, will not do the work. Similarly, God has an authorized representation in the Deity form, which is called arca-vigraha. This arca-vigraha is an incarnation of the Supreme Lord. God will accept service through that form. The Lord is omnipotent and all-powerful; therefore, by His incarnation as arca-vigraha, He can accept the services of the devotee, just to make it convenient for the man in conditioned life.
So, for a devotee, there is no difficulty in approaching the Supreme immediately and directly, but for those who are following the impersonal way to spiritual realization, the path is difficult. They have to understand the unmanifested representation of the Supreme through such Vedic literatures as the Upaniṣads, and they have to learn the language, understand the nonperceptual feelings, and they have to realize all these processes. This is not very easy for a common man. A person in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, engaged in devotional service, simply by the guidance of the bona fide spiritual master, simply by offering regulative obeisances unto the Deity, simply by hearing the glories of the Lord, and simply by eating the remnants of foodstuffs offered to the Lord, realizes the Supreme Personality of Godhead very easily. There is no doubt that the impersonalists are unnecessarily taking a troublesome path with the risk of not realizing the Absolute Truth at the ultimate end. But the personalist, without any risk, trouble, or difficulty, approaches the Supreme Personality directly. A similar passage appears in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. It is stated there that if one has to ultimately surrender unto the Supreme Personality of Godhead (This surrendering process is called bhakti.), but instead takes the trouble to understand what is Brahman and what is not Brahman and spends his whole life in that way, the result is simply troublesome. Therefore it is advised here that one should not take up this troublesome path of self-realization because there is uncertainty in the ultimate result.
A living entity is eternally an individual soul, and if he wants to merge into the spiritual whole, he may accomplish the realization of the eternal and knowledgeable aspects of his original nature, but the blissful portion is not realized. By the grace of some devotee, such a transcendentalist, highly learned in the process of jñāna-yoga, may come to the point of bhakti-yoga, or devotional service. At that time, long practice in impersonalism also becomes a source of trouble, because he cannot give up the idea. Therefore an embodied soul is always in difficulty with the unmanifest, both at the time of practice and at the time of realization. Every living soul is partially independant, and one should know for certain that this unmanifested realization is against the nature of his spiritual blissful self. One should not take up this process. For every individual living entity the process of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, which entails full engagement in devotional service, is the best way. If one wants to ignore this devotional service, there is the danger of turning to atheism. Thus this process of centering attention on the unmanifested, the inconceivable, which is beyond the approach of the senses, as already expressed in this verse, should never be encouraged at any time, especially in this age. It is not advised by Lord Kṛṣṇa.
Hayagrīva: He says, "If you throw away His grace, He punishes you by behaving objectively toward you, and in that sense one may say that the world has not got a personal God in spite of all the proofs. But while dons and parsons," that is priests, "drivel on," talk on, "about the millions of truths about God's personality, the truth is that there are no longer the men living who could bear the pressure and weight of having a personal God." Because he feels that a personal God would make demands on man, and so therefore men reject the idea of a personal God.
Prabhupāda: Yes. Personal God means He is demanding, as Kṛṣṇa is demanding, man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru: (BG 18.65) "Always think of Me, or offer Me worship, offer Me obeisances, and become My devotee. And give up all other engagement. Simply be engaged in My service." This is the demand of God, and if we carry out His demand, then we are perfect. Tyaktvā dehaṁ punar janma naiti (BG 4.9). If you simply carry out the orders of God then you become qualified, fit for going back to home, back to Godhead. This is clearly stated. Tyaktvā deham. We have to give up this body, but a devotee, a pure devotee, after giving up this body, he doesn't accept another material body, but in his original, spiritual body he goes back to home, back to Godhead.
Prabhupāda: Yes, it is a force.
Śyāmasundara: ...an impersonal force.
Prabhupāda: Impersonal or personal, that will be discussed later on. First of all there is force, and he is being forced. Prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni guṇaiḥ karmāṇi sarvaśaḥ (BG 3.27). He had associated with one of the modes of material nature, and as such he is being forced to act according to the nature. Just like you met your friend, she is forced. Nobody likes that, a wretched life, but she is forced, because she has associated with a certain material modes of nature. Just like these hippies, they are forced. They are coming from respectable family, there is no scarcity of money, and still they are lying on the street in wretched dress, wretched habits. So that this nature is forcing, "You do this." Prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni. Because he has associated with a certain type of quality of the nature, he will be forced. Kāraṇaṁ guṇa-saṅgasya sad-asad-yoni janmasu. The different types of species of life, the cause is kāraṇam, cause, is guṇa-saṅgasya. As he is associating with the material qualities.
Śyāmasundara: He says that this is..., because of this spiritual personality that he can know and love God.
Prabhupāda: Yes. Without person how there can be love? There is no question of love. You cannot love air or sky; you must find out a man or woman in the, under the sky. So therefore if you want to love God then you must accept God is a person; otherwise there is no question of love. Therefore for the Māyāvādī philosopher there is no question of love. They merge. They want sāyujya-mukti, to become one. They have no other conception, because they cannot conceive personal God. So there is no love. Therefore they manufacture an idea that in the material condition of life, you just imagine any form of God and love Him, and ultimately you become one. That is their philosophy. Ultimately you throw away this... The example is given that you want to rise on some top floor you take a ladder and go to the top and throw away the ladder: there is no need of this ladder, now you have come to the position. So their theory is that because you cannot love or worship something impersonal, because it is difficult, it is troublesome... It is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā, kleśa adhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām: those who are attached to impersonal deities, their progress in spiritual life is very troublesome because they never fix up. So in order to give them some facility, they say that "You imagine some form of the Absolute Truth, and when you are perfect, then throw away that form. You become one." This is their philosophy. But if God is God, then how I can throw Him? That means while they are thinking of God, that is not God. And they say it is imagination. Then what is the value of imagination if it is not reality? So how by imagination, by kalpana, by taking something false, you can reach the reality? That is the defect of their philosophy. If you take it something wrong, how you can reach the reality? Your process is wrong, because you are accepting something wrong: imagination, imagination.
Hayagrīva: Concerning the question whether karma is personal...
Prabhupāda: Yes.
Hayagrīva: ...he writes, "The crucial question is whether a man's karma is personal or not. If it is, then the pre-ordained destiny with which a man enters life represents an achievement of previous lives, and a personal continuity therefore exists. If, however, this is not so, and an impersonal karma is seized upon in the act of birth, then that karma is incarnated again without there being any personal continuity."
Prabhupāda: What is that impersonal karma? Karma is always personal.
Hayagrīva: Karma is always personal.
Prabhupāda: Personal.
Hayagrīva: He points out that Buddha was twice asked by His disciples whether man's karma is personal or not. Each time he fended off the question and did not go into the matter. To know this, he said, would not contribute to liberating oneself.
Prabhupāda: Because he did not, he did not teach about the soul. Therefore, how he could touch that personal?
Hayagrīva: He refused to respond to those questions.
Prabhupāda: Yes, because he did not accept the soul. That as soon as he denied the personal aspect of the soul, how there can be personal karma? So he wanted to avoid this; otherwise his whole philosophy becomes different.
Hayagrīva: He says, "On a higher level the process of resurrection is no longer understood in a gross material sense. It is assumed that the resurrection of the dead is the raising up of the corpus glorificaciones, that is the glorified body, the subtle body, in the state of incorruptibility."
Prabhupāda: That I said, the spiritual body. The spiritual body never changes. When one comes with the spiritual body there is no change. Material body changes, but God has no material body. The conception of..., Māyāvādī conception that Absolute Truth is impersonal, when He comes as a person He accepts a material body, that is not understood by those who are advanced in spiritual knowledge or take information from Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa says, avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritāḥ (BG 9.11). Because He appears as a human being, rascals think that He is a human being, but He is not. Paraṁ bhāvam ajānanto. He has no knowledge of the spiritual body.
Śyāmasundara: So Kṛṣṇa uses the same terminology that one should fulfill his duty and if this is the what ought to be.
Prabhupāda: Duty means superior order. That is duty. You cannot manufacture your duty.
Śyāmasundara: His idea is a little impersonal because he says that we discern what ought to be from the forces of nature around you, reality unfolding.
Prabhupāda: Then he abides by the forces of nature. That is nature is superior. He does not know beyond nature there is another superior being, that is God. That is his lack of knowledge. That is the difficulty. If you are not perfect, where is that philosopher?
Śyāmasundara: He sees an intelligence acting in nature.
Prabhupāda: Anyway he accepts the superiority of nature, superior position of nature. He accepts it. So but beyond the nature there is a... the Supreme Personality Godhead. Mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ sūyate sa-carācaram (BG 9.10). Under My direction nature works. So he has no vision to see the background of nature.
Hayagrīva: He was also ambiguous when it came to a personal Deity, but he seemed to lean toward impersonalism.
Prabhupāda: We shall see impersonalism. First of all impersonalism, if you stick to impersonal, then there is no specific understanding of the master who is giving you duty.
Hayagrīva: He looks on the attribution of personality to God as simply a multiplication of one's self in his thoughts.
Prabhupāda: That's all right, but where is the leadership of impersonal understanding? Is there any leadership, impersonal understanding?
Hayagrīva: Well he feels that if you attribute personality to God, you're simply...
Prabhupāda: I am not attributing. God cannot be attributed! That is a false concept. I cannot manufacture God by giving my imaginary attributes. That is not God.
Prabhupāda: That universal ego, so just like I have got some ego, "I am the husband of my wife," "I am the chief man in my family," "I am the president of the state"—these are egos. But you cannot say that "I am the master of this whole universe." That is false ego.
Hayagrīva: So he feels that one can go through the universe assimilating everything, until one finally unifies with the impersonal Absolute.
Prabhupāda: Impersonal Absolute means the Absolute, as soon as you say Absolute, there is no distinction between impersonal and personal. Then it is no Absolute. If you have got distinction that "This is personal; this is impersonal," then that is not Absolute. Do you think it is Absolute? It is contradictory.
Hayagrīva: Well for, for him, God is simply the universal ego, nothing more, and that...
Prabhupāda: No. You say Absolute. As soon as say Absolute there is relative also. Otherwise what is the meaning Absolute?
Hayagrīva: Yes. He would say that. He would say that...
Prabhupāda: Yes.
Hayagrīva: According to Socrates, the pursuit of man is the seeking of this absolute good. Basically Socrates is an impersonalist because he does not ultimately define this absolute good as a person, nor does he give the absolute good a personal name. He just calls it "the good."
Prabhupāda: That is preliminary stage of understanding the Absolute. Because the..., the beginning, Brahman realization, impersonal, and then further advanced Paramātmā realization, localized, God is everywhere. And God is everywhere, that's a fact. That is God. But He has got His place, abode. That is God, that goloka eva nivasaty akhilātma-bhuto (Bs. 5.37), that God is Person, He has His own abode, He has his own associates and everything. Difference is that although He is in His abode, He is present everywhere, even within the atom. Aṇḍāntara-stha-paramāṇu-cayāntara-stham (Bs. 5.35). So Socrates or any other philosopher, they cannot understand the potency of God, how He can remain in His own place, simultaneously in every atom. That is the conception of God. So everywhere He is staying. Everything is His expansion, His energy, the bhūmir āpo 'nalo vāyuḥ khaṁ mano buddhir eva ca (BG 7.4). The material world is bhūmir āpo 'nalo vāyuḥ-land, water, earth, air. So these are different expansion of God's energy. So He can be present everywhere because His energy is expanded everywhere. So energy and the energetic, they are not different, but at the same time energy is not the energetic. This simultaneously one and different, acintya-bhedābheda-tattva, this is perfect philosophy.
Prabhupāda: That is from Vedic same. As soon as there is instruction there is form. As Kṛṣṇa is giving instruction, He is always saying "I," "you," like that, it is personal. He says Arjuna, "You," and He says Himself, "I." So Arjuna is also form and Kṛṣṇa is also form, and Kṛṣṇa also says that "Both you, Me, and all these living entities, kings and soldiers who are assembled here, they existed in the past, they are existing now, and they will continue to exist." So you can understand that "In the present I am in form, so I existed in the past in form and I shall continue to exist in the future as form. So where is formless?" From my present position I can understand my past and future. So Kṛṣṇa says that we existed in the past. So we existing now, now I mean to say, continuing. He never said that "In the past we were formless; now we have got form." This is not stated there. Rather, He condemns, that avyaktaṁ vyaktim āpannam manyante mām abuddhayaḥ (BG 7.24): "In the past I was formless, impersonal, and now I am a person," that is Māyāvādī thought, that when God takes the form, He takes the form of māyā. So they have been condemned as abuddhayaḥ, no intelligence. Avyaktaṁ vyaktiṁ āpannaṁ manyante mām abuddhayaḥ (BG 7.24). Those who have less intelligence, they think like that, that "God was formerly formless, now He is talking in form, that means He has accepted the body of māyā." This is called Māyāvāda philosophy.
Prabhupāda: If he is...
Hayagrīva: That the One, the One is transcendental, but there's no multiplicity in Him. That means im..., impersonal. Although He is the cause of all multiplicities, He is the cause of all living entities, He Himself...
Prabhupāda: Yes, He is the cause of all living entities. That is Vedic conception. Nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.13). He is the chief amongst the eternals, chief amongst the sentients, but unless He has got unlimited transcendental qualities, how He can be omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, all-powerful? That is not perfection. A perfect conception of the Supreme One: He is unlimited, we are limited. That is sense. How the Supreme One, who is the cause of everything, He can be limited? I do not know what do they mean by "limit." He cannot be limited by anything. Even the impersonal Brahman, that Brahman, sarvaṁ khalv idaṁ brahma: everything is Brahman, unlimited. Why He should be limited? Mat-sthāni sarva-bhūtāni: (BG 9.4) everything is emanation from Him and resting in Him. That is His impersonal conception. Everywhere He is there. And personal is localized, and..., but from the person, the impersonal effulgence come out. That we understand from the Bhagavad-gītā: brahmaṇaḥ ahaṁ pratiṣṭhā. As the big sunshine comes from the localized sun globe—the sun globe is situated in one place, but this, the rays of the sun is distributed all over the universe—similarly, impersonal conception of the Absolute Truth is that by His transcendental rays, prabhā, yasya prabhā prabhavata (Bs. 5.40), illumination. Just like the fire has got heat and light. It expands. So the impersonal feature of the Lord expands unlimitedly, and the Personality, it appears that He is limited, but He is unlimited by His energy. That is the perfect conception. Brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate (SB 1.2.11). By His impersonal feature He is all-pervading. By His localized aspect He is living everywhere, omnipresent, within the heart of all living entities, within the atom even. And by His personal feature He is worshiped by the devotee. Wherever the devotee is there, He is present personally. Tatra dṛṣṭami dhanataḥ yatra nayanti mad-bhaktaḥ (?). That is His omnipresent, although He is in Goloka Vṛndāvana. So nobody can calculate how many miles away that planet is, still, when a devotee like Prahlāda is in danger, He is immediately present there. That is the meaning of omnipresence. Not that because He is millions and trillions of miles away He cannot give protection to His devotee millions and trillions of miles away from His abode. That is the meaning of omnipresent.
Hayagrīva: Yes. He also believed that God is present in all objects yet remains distinct and transcendental to all created things.
Prabhupāda: That is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā, mat-sthāni sarva-bhūtāni nāhaṁ teṣu avasthitaḥ: (BG 9.4) "Everything is resting in Me, but I am not present there."
Hayagrīva: As for the individual souls, some are unembodied and some are embodied. He believes that some are celestial—they are heavenly—and these souls do not suffer, and some, the ones on earth, suffer. In either case, they are all individuals.
Prabhupāda: That's right. There are souls, innumerable souls. Anantāya kalpate. Nobody can count how many souls are there. So all the souls are as described above. They have got the same qualities of the One, in minute quantity, but some of them are fallen. Just like in the fire there are so many sparks, but one or two may fall down from the fire. Others remains in the fire. Those who are not falling down, they are called nitya-mukta, everlastingly liberated. They are never conditioned. And those who have fallen within this material world for sense gratification, they are baddha.
Hayagrīva: Although most of his philosophy is impersonal—his conception of God is mainly impersonal—he writes, "Let us flee then to the beloved fatherland. Here is sound council. But what is this flight? How are we to gain the open sea? The fatherland for us is there whence we have come. There is the father." So he does some..., have some conception, it seems, of God as father.
Prabhupāda: He, he is confused because he is also speculating. So these things will remain confused, whether the Absolute Truth is person, imperson. Generally, without spiritual advancement nobody can understand about the Absolute Truth, and so he, that doubt continues. But when there is question of love between the Absolute and the relative, there must be the personal conception, and actually He is person, Kṛṣṇa. So by the mercy of Kṛṣṇa, when he gets in touch with the devotee, his impersonal conception of the Absolute is removed, and then he worships the personal aspect of the Absolute Truth, Kṛṣṇa, and devotee. Then his life is successful.
Prabhupāda: Kingdom. Yes. That is his falldown. When he decides to give up the spiritual life, he falls down in the material life, and that is the beginning of his material tribulations. And so long he will maintain a tinge of material happiness, the nature's life, that he has to accept, a type of material body, and there are varieties. So in all condition the spirit soul remains the part and parcel of the Supreme Lord, but according to the different body he gets different circumstances. A dog is thinking, on account of the dog's body, that he is a dog. A man is thinking that he is a man on account of the human body. The same thing—an American is thinking, because the body has been gotten from America, he is thinking "American." That similarly an Indian, a Hindu, Muslim, Christian, all these designations, due to the body. So when he understands that "I am not this body," this is spiritual education. That "I am different, I am part and parcel of God," then he becomes liberated, impersonally. And when he makes further advancement, and he comes to the platform of understanding the Supreme Truth as the Supreme Person, Kṛṣṇa, and he engages himself in Kṛṣṇa's service, that is his actual life. Kṛṣṇa, in the spiritual world, in the Vaikuṇṭha planets, in the Goloka Vṛndāvana planets, so they can be promoted to any one of them—in the Vaikuṇṭha planets or Goloka Vṛndāvana planet. Then he is happy as associate of Kṛṣṇa. He can enjoy life eternally.
Hayagrīva: You want to discuss tomorrow? (break) I'm just touching the main points in these, but since we're not interested in comparative theology, I'm just touching the main philosophical differences in these early Christian theologian philosophers. Origen believed that the ultimate reality, which is spiritual, consists of the Supreme Infinite Person, God, as well as individual personalities. Ultimate reality is the interrelationships of persons with each other and with the Infinite Person, God. So here he differs from the Greeks, who were basically impersonal.
Prabhupāda: Our Vedic conception is almost the same, that the individual souls, or living entities, innumerable, and each one of them has an intimate relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In the material condition of life the living entity has forgotten his relationship, and when, by the process of devotional service, he comes to his liberated position, at that time he revives his old relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
Hayagrīva: That means...
Prabhupāda: God created, that's all accepted. God created. What the second meaning?
Hayagrīva: Well, he would give the example of the creation of God walking through... In the Bible it's stated that God walks through Paradise in the afternoon. He would cite this...
Prabhupāda: No, no, God...
Hayagrīva: ...as having an interior meaning.
Prabhupāda: If God can create, He can walk also, He can speak also, He can touch also, He can see also. God is a person. So where is the second meaning? What is the possible second meaning?
Hayagrīva: The second meaning, as far as I could see, would be based on an impersonal interpretation.
Prabhupāda: So God cannot be impersonal. If He is creator, how He can be impersonal? He must be person; otherwise there is no meaning. (break) (end)
Hayagrīva: Yes. Spinoza is impersonal. He asserts that God cannot be a remote cause of the creation. He says that the creation flows from God in the same way that conclusions flow from principles in mathematics. God is free to create, but He is the eminent cause. That is to say, the creation is an extension of Himself.
Prabhupāda: Yes. That is, He creates by His energy. Just like in the Bhagavad-gītā it is stated,
- bhūmir āpo 'nalo vāyuḥ
- khaṁ mano buddhir eva ca
- bhinnā me prakṛtiḥ aṣṭadhā
- (BG 7.4)
These eight kinds of material elements—earth, water, air, fire, sky, mind, intelligence and ego—they are material energies, and this material world is made of these material elements. So because it is made of God's energy, therefore it is called created by God. But this is creation of His energy. Prakṛtiḥ pradhāna, upadhāna, pradhāna. The ingredients are coming from Him, and prakṛtiḥ, nature, creates. This is the idea of creation. So God is a remote cause and a eminent cause also, because these elements, they are God's energy. So the eminent cause is the energy. Therefore it is confirmed in the Bhagavad-gītā, mayā tatam idaṁ sarvam: "By Me, everything is expanding." So when He says "By Me," then He is the eminent cause. There are two causes: remote and eminent.
Hayagrīva: Because he is pantheistic.
Prabhupāda: This is..., expansion also we accept. What is called, there is technical name, pracāra (?). Expansion, that is stated in Bhāgavatam, mayā tatam idaṁ sarvam: "By Me everything is expanded." This very word is used. Mayā tatam idaṁ sarvam (BG 9.4). So expansion is also God, but at the same time in expansion there is no God. "No God" means not in person. The expansion is imperson, but expansion is from the person. Just as a government, this is impersonal, but the governor is person. So government means under the control of the governor. So impersonal expansion of God is controlled by the personal God. This is like pantheism. And pantheism, so I think that because everything is God, that God has no personal existence. Is it not?
Hayagrīva: Yes. Pantheists would say that God is eminent in everything.
Prabhupāda: Everything.
Hayagrīva: And, uh, we can go on to Hegel?
Prabhupāda: Yes.
Hayagrīva: He did quite a bit of reading in Indian philosophy, but it seems to be confined to impersonal...,
Prabhupāda: Yes.
Hayagrīva: ...the Upaniṣads...
Prabhupāda: It is simply, Upaniṣads is just the opposite-spirit is not matter. That is the instruction of Upaniṣads.
Hayagrīva: He writes, "Spirit, in so far as it is the spirit of God, is not a spirit beyond the stars, beyond the world. On the contrary, God is present, omnipresent, and exists as spirit in all spirits. God is a living God who is acting and working. Religion is a product of the divine spirit. It is not a discovery of man but a work of divine operation."
Prabhupāda: This is very important thing, that a man cannot manufacture religion. That is very important point. Therefore we say religion means the words, the order given by God. Just like Kṛṣṇa says, sarva-dharmān parityajya: (BG 18.66) "You have manufactured so many religious systems. You give up, kick it out. It has no value. Here is religion." And in the beginning He said, dharma-saṁsthāpanārthāya: "I have appeared to re-establish the principle of religion." And He says at last that "Give up. Kick out all this so-called religion. Here is religion." What is that? Mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ...: "You just surrender to Me." This is religion. And Bhāgavata says, dharmaṁ tu sākṣād bhagavat-praṇītam: (SB 6.3.19) "The order given by God, that is religion." Otherwise, everything is bogus. It has no meaning. The same example: law means which is given by the government. You cannot say, "I have prepared the law." Who will care for you? Even the small law, "Keep to the right," that is religion. If you say, "What is the law? If they keep to the left..." No. That will not be accepted. "Keep to the right" is religion, and "Keep to the left" is criminal. So religion is pious and impious—everything on the order of Kṛṣṇa, or God. If you follow strictly the instruction of Kṛṣṇa, then you are religious, pious, transcendental, devotee, everything. And if you defy Kṛṣṇa, you manufacture your own way, then you are rascal, asura. Na māṁ duṣkṛtino mūḍhāḥ prapadyante narādhamāḥ (BG 7.15). He is narādhamāḥ. This is the way. Less than the mankind, narādhamāḥ, who do not follow the instruction of Kṛṣṇa, or God.
Prabhupāda: So anyway, we...
Hayagrīva: That's his grandson was, uh...
Prabhupāda: So this Thomas Huxley, how he says that the nature has rational, has knowledge? We don't find. A dead stone, maybe big mountain, but has it got rationality? How does he say that the nature has rationality? What is the basis?
Hayagrīva: Well, it's the pantheistic, it's the same pantheistic contention that God is..., God is impersonal and made the tree grow.
Prabhupāda: Maybe. "Impersonal," "personal," that we shall consider, but God is sentient. He is all-pervasive. That is accepted. Mayā tatam idaṁ sarvam (BG 9.4). That's all right. But God is not like the dead matter, who has no sense. We don't find the dead matter has got rationality. The rationality behind the dead matter is God.
Hayagrīva: That's it on Huxley. (end)
Hayagrīva: So God can be seen in nature.
Prabhupāda: Yes. Not only nature. This is the beginning of realizing. This is impersonal. But there is person at the background. Just like we do not see..., we know that there is one governor, proprietor of the Hawaii Island. We have not seen. But when we see him, he is person. This is the conclusion. Similarly, so long we are not competent to see God, we can understand, "This is God's hand, this is God's heart, this is His..., God's mind, this is God's eyes." But when we are competent we can see regularly, "Here, here is God, face to face." That requires qualification. Because I did not see the governor of Hawaii is that he is not a person, he is imperson—that is foolishness. When I become competent to see, qualified to see the governor, you see he is a person.
Hayagrīva: Alexander distinguishes between what he calls deity and God Himself. For him deity is how it feels to be divine. Now deity for him is a relative term. It is the next highest level of existence. For instance, for an ant, a dog may be a deity; for a dog, a man may be a deity; for a man, a demigod may be a deity. He says, "For any level of existence, deity is the next higher empirical quality."
Prabhupāda: Hmm.
Hayagrīva: "It is therefore a variable quality, and as the world grows in time, deity changes with it. On each level a new quality looms ahead, which plays to it the part of deity. However, God is the being which possesses Deity in full." That is to say God is always one step ahead of every creature.
Prabhupāda: They do not know the science of God, but as philosopher they are suggesting the method. That is nice. Just like for ant, a bird is deity; for a bird, a cat is deity; for a cat, a dog is deity. So in this way, according to the position one selects the deity. But if you go on searching out, when you find out somebody that he has no any, anyone to worship... The ant has to worship the bird, bird has to worship the cat, cat has to worship the so on, so on. In this way, when you come to a person who hasn't got to worship anybody, He is God.
Hayagrīva: He speaks of theism and pantheism. Now we might equate theism with personalism and pantheism with impersonal, the impersonal aspect.
Prabhupāda: There is nothing... Impersonal means when we cannot see that the background is person. We can of course take the lesson from nature that the sunshine is impersonal but the background is sun-god. But because we are in a very lower stage of life we can simply experience the sunshine but we cannot go and talk with the sun-god. That is not possible. So similarly, the background is person and the expansion of God's energy is imperson. So because we are in the energy, we are not directly in touch with God; therefore we say that God is an imperson. We have no such capacity now, but they, if we become devotee, we can attain that position when he can talk with God in person as the gopīs and the cowherds boy, Mother Yaśodā and other in Vṛndāvana inhabitants they are doing.
Hayagrīva: He says, "For theism, God is an individual being distinct from the finite being which make up the world. For panth..."
Prabhupāda: Hm? Finite? He is not finite.
Hayagrīva: Now he analyzes theism, which is the personal aspect, and pantheism, the impersonal aspect, and he finds both defective in themselves, and so what is his position? This is his position: "If the question is asked whether the speculative conception of God or Deity which has been advanced here as part of the empirical treatment of space/time, and has appeared to be verified by religious experience belongs to theism or pantheism, the answer must be that it is not strictly referable to either of them. Taken by itself..."
Prabhupāda: That is his mistake. As you have explained that the sky is also with reference to God... The sky is explained as the heart of God, and the water is explained as the semina of God, the moon is explained as the mind of God, the sun is explained as the eyes of God, the land is explained as the foot of God. So everything is with reference to God. So for a person who understands God, there is nothing existing without God. So how God can be separate? That is the fact. So pantheism or any "ism" you take, it has reference with God. What he says?
Purports to Songs
This is a song which a devotee is praying and asking his mind, bhajahū re mana. Mana means mind. Because, at the present moment, our mind is the driver, and this body is just like a car... In the Bhagavad-gītā also it is stated, bhrāmayan sarva-bhūtāni yantrārūḍhāni māyayā (BG 18.61). This body is a car made of this material nature. The living entity, what is said, "I," I am now seated on this car prepared by the nature, material nature. And the driver is the mind. And the driver is not in my control. The driver is taking me anywhere he likes. You see? I am... Personally, I am not able to drive. I have engaged one driver, which is called the mind, and this body is the car, and the mind is carrying me like driver anywhere it likes. So therefore the proprietor, I, I am, I am requesting the driver... When I am helpless, so I am requesting, "My dear mind," bhajahū re mana, "my dear mind..." Mana means mind. "You kindly worship Lord Kṛṣṇa." Śrī-nanda-nandana. Śrī-nanda-nandana means Lord Kṛṣṇa. Lord Kṛṣṇa appeared as the son of Vasudeva, and He was accepted by Nanda Mahārāja as his, what is called? Son who is accepted from others? So he, he was His foster father. So he's reques... "I am requesting that you worship Lord Kṛṣṇa who is abhaya-caraṇa." Abhaya-caraṇa means He's the fearless shelter. If we take shelter of Kṛṣṇa, then we become free from all anxieties. Just like a helpless child, when he's taken care of by his parents, he becomes careless, carefree, not careless, carefree. "Similarly, I am requesting, my dear mind, you do not drive in this way, dangerously. Please worship Lord Kṛṣṇa who is fearless shelter." Bhajahū re mana śrī-nanda-nandana-abhaya-caraṇāravinda re: "His lotus feet is fearless shelter." One who takes shelter... As the Lord says in Bhagavad-gītā, sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja (BG 18.66). Now, either you say Kṛṣṇa or you say Superconsciousness... Superconsciousness is impersonal conception of Kṛṣṇa, and Kṛṣṇa is personal conception of Superconsciousness. Because Kṛṣṇa means He's not only superconscious, but He's supreme bliss and supreme knowledge—supreme knowledge means superconsciousness—and eternal, supreme consciousness, supreme bliss.
We worship Kṛṣṇa, the symbol of Supreme Consciousness. Because in the Bhagavad-gītā it is said that kleśa adhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām. If you take up impersonal, simply consciousness, then you have to pass through difficult process, but if you accept the symbol, Kṛṣṇa, the symbol of Supreme Consciousness, that will be easier for you. Yes. It is said. So Kṛṣṇa... I can concentrate my mind. I can focus my mental activities in the service of the Lord, Kṛṣṇa. Because He is Supreme Consciousness, therefore automatically I concentrate on the Supreme Consciousness.
The Lord's body is sac-cid-ānanda. His body is not like ours. Our body is acit and..., asat, acit and nirānanda, just the opposite. Asat means it will not exist, and acit means it is full of ignorance and nirānanda... Nirānanda means full of miseries. These three qualification of our body, whereas the Lord's body is sac-cid-ānanda, it is eternal and full of knowledge and full of bliss. Our body and our self... My body and my self are different. But Lord and Lord's body is Absolute. What is Lord, Lord's body is also the same. So that description is given here. Aṅgāni yasya sakalendriya-vṛtti-manti (Bs. 5.32). The Lord is not impersonal. He has got his form. And what sort of form? We should not consider that whenever there is a question of form, the form must be just like one of us. This is foolishness. Now, His form is completely different, just like we have explained. His form is sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha (Bs. 5.1), and our, this present material body is asat, acit and nirānanda. Just completely different. So His form, His different parts of the body, described in the Vedas, apāṇi-pādo javano grahītā paśyati... "He has no hands and legs; still, He accepts all that you offer to Him."
| Page Title: | Impersonal (Lectures, Other) |
| Compiler: | Visnu Murti, Mayapur |
| Created: | 25 of Mar, 2012 |
| Totals by Section: | BG=0, SB=0, CC=0, OB=0, Lec=153, Con=0, Let=0 |
| No. of Quotes: | 153 |