Is the idea of manifesting an external reality by inner contemplation a New Age notion or is it grounded in philosophical truth?

Answer Podcast

Why Is Krishna’s Two-Handed Form Considered Rare?

Question:
How is the vision of Krishna’s two-handed form considered rare, when everyone present during His descent could see it? On the battlefield of Kurukshetra, Krishna’s two-handed form was visible to all. So why is this form said to be rarer than the universal form or even the Vishnu form?

Answer:
At first glance, it may seem that Krishna’s two-handed humanlike form is not rare because it was visible to many during His time on Earth. However, the true rarity lies not in the external visibility but in the internal realization and appreciation of that form.

The universal form (Virat Rupa) is a grand, awe-inspiring cosmic manifestation described especially in the Second Canto of the Srimad Bhagavatam and in the Eleventh Chapter of the Bhagavad-gita. It is used as a meditative aid by yogis and devotees to contemplate the Lord’s omnipresence. Many may meditate on this form, and some may even perceive it through deep spiritual practice.

The Vishnu form, often depicted with four arms, is the majestic form of the Supreme Lord engaged in universal management. While not commonly seen, it is relatively more accessible—similar to how an ordinary person can occasionally meet a prime minister through the right channels and circumstances. Vishnu is revered and worshipped by devatas (demigods), who see Him as powerful, yet benevolent and approachable.

Krishna’s two-handed form, however, represents the Lord in His most intimate and original aspect—God at home. This is the form in which the Supreme Lord engages in loving pastimes with His devotees. Even devatas like Brahma and Indra, despite their exalted positions, initially fail to recognize this form as divine. The Brahma-vimohana-lila and Govardhana-lila both highlight how even the most powerful beings in the universe can misunderstand Krishna’s true nature.

Thus, seeing Krishna doesn’t just mean seeing Him with one’s eyes. In Vedic literature, “seeing” often implies comprehension, realization, and appreciation. Many on the battlefield saw Krishna, but few understood that He was the Supreme Personality of Godhead. For instance, Duryodhana saw Krishna’s universal form but dismissed it as a clever display of mystic power—not as a revelation of divinity.

Therefore, when Krishna says in Bhagavad-gita 11.52:

“sudurdarśam idaṁ rūpaṁ” – This form of Mine you are seeing is very difficult to behold…

—He refers to the realization of His original, two-handed form as the source of all other manifestations, including the Vishnu and universal forms. Arjuna’s vision was rare not because it was physically hidden, but because it was spiritually recognized.

2. Is the Idea of Manifesting External Reality Through Inner Contemplation a New Age Concept or a Spiritual Truth?

Question:
Does the idea of manifesting reality through mental focus and visualization come from New Age thought, or is it grounded in Vedic or spiritual philosophy?

Answer:
The concept of manifestation through mental focus can be understood from a balanced spiritual perspective, particularly in the Vedic tradition.

At one extreme, some believe only in physical causes and effects—like an athlete winning solely due to physical training. However, it is now well accepted that mental state significantly influences performance. A disturbed or negative mind can sabotage physical effort, while a positive and focused mind can enhance it.

From this perspective, mental visualization and inner contemplation are real and impactful, not mere imagination. This is not just modern psychology; it’s also reflected in ancient wisdom. In the Bhagavad-gita (18.14), Krishna mentions five factors of action, and “endeavor” (prayatna)—which includes the mental drive and clarity of purpose—is one of them.

That said, the mind is not God. The other extreme—where people believe that simply thinking something will guarantee its manifestation—turns the mind into a deity, which is a New Age exaggeration.

In reality, the mind is a powerful tool, but still one among several factors that contribute to outcomes. Visualization plays a part in forming intentions and driving efforts, but it must be accompanied by action and divine will.

Examples from Vedic tradition:

• Manas Puja (mental worship): When physical offerings are not possible, mental offerings done with sincerity are accepted by Krishna.
• Bhakti songs: Devotees like Bhaktivinoda Thakur visualize themselves in pastimes of the Lord as a way to deepen devotion.
• Srila Prabhupada envisioned temples and devotees worldwide long before they manifested externally—his vision guided his actions.

Even Arjuna had a negative mental vision at the start of the Bhagavad-gita, imagining a future of destruction if he fought. Krishna corrected this mental picture by giving him a divine perspective, helping him align his vision with truth.

Thus, the imagination is a faculty given by Krishna, and using it in His service—whether to overcome negative tendencies or to inspire positive change—is both valid and powerful.

In conclusion:

• Overemphasis on manifestation as a magic formula is New Age.
• Recognition of the mind’s role in shaping our reality and efforts is deeply Vedic.

The key is to use the mind as a servant of the soul and Krishna, not as a master of reality. When used wisely, mental focus and visualization can indeed support our spiritual and material growth.