Churning the Bhagavatam – Dashavatara 08 – Balarama – The Monk’s Podcast 110 with Krishna Kshetra M

Podcast:

Summary podcast:

Hare Krishna, Maharaj. Thank you very much for joining once again for this Dashavatar series.
Hare Krishna, Chaitanya Charan Prabhu. Nice to be back. Yes, Maharaj.
This is our, this is how many avatars now? We are on the eighth now, Maharaj. Eighth. Okay.
So we have Buddha and Kalki remaining after this. And there are different, there’s some amount of diversity about which is the eighth avatar. Some places it is Krishna, some places it is Balarama.
Yes. I think we will focus on Balarama. That’s what we had thought of.
That’s what we thought of, yes. Yes, Maharaj. Of course, you can’t really separate Balarama from Krishna, can you? Yes.
But we can focus on Balarama. Let’s see what happens. I think we should start with the Dashavatar verse.
Yes, Maharaj, certainly. Vahasi Vapushi Vishade Vasanam Jaladabham Alahati Vitti Milita Jamunabham Kesava Drita Aladara Rupa Jaya Jagadisha Hare Jaya Jagadisha Hare Jaya Jagadisha Hare And a translation that I have here goes like this. On your blemish-less person you wear dark robes of the colour of the clouds that match frightened Yamuna, which was dragged near by the furrow made by your plough.
O Kesava, who took the form of Balarama, jaya, glories to you who are Hari, the Lord of the universe. So we can talk about this pastime maybe a little later. I have one reflection about the dragging of the Yamuna.
That may be interesting. But you mentioned that there are different versions of the 10 avatars, and I found one source which mentions this. So to be a little more specific, in the Linga Purana, 10 avatars are listed, including as eighth avatar Krishna.
Whereas in the Garuda Purana, it also lists 10 avatars, and Krishna is included, and Vamana is replaced by Balarama or Baladeva. Okay. And then, of course, the Bhagavatam lists in the first canto several more than 10.
It’s, what, 20-some. And then there are other lists with more avatars. The Mahabharata, let’s see, critical edition, appears to know only Krishna, Baladeva, Rama, Dasarathi, Vamana, Varaha, and Narasimha.
One, two, three, four, five, six. That’s the, that’s Mahabharata. That’s interesting.
So does the Mahabharata listing actually mention, call them as Dashavatars, or you just give the listing? Is the term Dashavatar? It’s only listing, Mahabharata is listing only six, and it’s referring to them as avatars, apparently, but not as a collection of, certainly not of 10, because only six are mentioned. Yeah, okay. So last time, I think we had discussed that the, at least the concept of Dashavatar was popularised by Jayadeva Goswami’s Gita Govinda introduction in our earlier session.
Yes. So, and it is mentioned in the Puranas, but as we discussed that there are, there is not necessarily always a list of 10. The Bhagavatam has a much bigger list, and here Mahabharata is six.
So, quite often it seems that in the Bhagavatam, there are places where, when lists are given, the lists are not necessarily, they are, they can say they are more indicative than comprehensive. In the sense that, recently one devotee is asking me that, we talk about the 12 Mahajanas, why are the Gopis not mentioned in the Mahajanas? Or why are so many other characters, why is Yudhishthira not mentioned among the Mahajanas, or Arjuna not mentioned? So, you know, it’s, there is this anecdote of Prabhupada, where Prabhupada was asked, one devotee in the morning walk says to Prabhupada, Prabhupada, you are the 13th Mahajan. And Prabhupada laughs and says that you are the, you become the 14th, something like that.
There’s also a purport, Prabhupada discusses in Chaitanya Charita Mita, that there are, for each class of persons, there are different sorts of Mahajanas. He says the demons also have their Mahajanas. Oh, okay, that’s fascinating.
So, that means, whoever are exemplary, who are considered influential or exemplary in a particular field will be the Mahajanas. Like that. That area, okay.
So, there were the Dashavataras, Krishna has, what is it, ete chamsha kalapamsa, krishnas tu bhagwan the, indrari vakulam rukhayanti yuge yuge. So, that’s the verse in the first, second chapter, and it says that there are as many avatars as there are waves in the ocean. Yes, or waves in a river, but in any case, countless.
Yeah, countless. Which is interesting because I’ve always, I’ve always wondered, on the one side we say that avatars have to be a bona fide avatar. The avatar has to be mentioned in Shastra.
And this is our defence against so many claims, or one of the defences, against so many claims that this or that person is an avatar. Yeah. And on the other side, we understand there are many different sorts of avatars, and one of them is shakti-yavesha avatar, one who is invested with special shakti.
And in the broadest sense, one might be tempted to say that any prominent person in any area, whether it’s a sports person, or a movie star, or a politician, or anything, if they’re especially prominent, that must mean that they’re, so to say, empowered. And then at what point can you say, all right, so we can say this person is shakti-yavesha. And if we do that, then it seems easier to go along with the idea of the number of avatars being countless.
Yeah, that’s a, you know, with respect to avatars, there is, even theologically, it seems that, say, in the Abrahamic religions, there is a rigid boundary between, say, humanity and divinity. But in our tradition, with respect to the fact that we are all essentially spiritual, sarvam khalvam idam brahma, so that rigid differentiation between humanity and divinity, it is there, but it is also, it is not that rigid in a sense. Because the whole concept of avatars, and not just one avatar, like not one Jesus, but so many avatars makes that boundary a little more porous.
So, going back to your point about scriptural, scripture as a basis for determining the avatars, what I have found is that in general, with respect to, with respect to people, it’s not that actually when Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is there, nobody is looking at a scripture to see that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is God. And we don’t see that with respect to in Ram Leela or Krishna Leela also, that the characters are in those epics, quoting scripture to indicate the divinity of a particular avatar at that particular manifestation of the divine at that time. So, it’s, let me say, Prakashananda Saraswati sees Krishna’s special form, so does Ramanandaraya and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.
So, it seems that scripture may be, whether it is used at that time to determine the avatar, is, we don’t really have the narratives which indicate that. Of course, with Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and, say, Chaitanya Charitamrita, you have the issue of where is a particular text recognised as Shastra. So, amongst the Gaudiya Vaishnavas, we accept Chaitanya Charitamrita as Shastra, as authoritative.
But followers of other Vaishnava sampradayas, they may respect, but they’re not going to take it as authoritative. So, when we say that an avatar is identified in Shastra, and then we point to Chaitanya Charitamrita, that’s fine for the Gaudiya Vaishnavas, but outside of our circle, we may not get very far. Yes, that’s also an issue to consider.
Which may be the reason that, how to say, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur manifested the Chaitanya Upanishad. Upanishads are, there’s this genre, there’s this sense that if it’s an Upanishad, it must be universally recognised. And so, we may not want to say that, actually, Bhaktivinoda Thakur just wrote the Chaitanya Upanishad.
Maybe he revealed it, which is also the tradition that the rishis are seeing the Veda, and then they are speaking it, or in his case, writing it. And we can say, he felt the need for that revelation to come and Krishna fulfilled it. I guess this would be the devotional way to see that.
Yes, I think in general, even when there is a revelation, there has to be some human channel through which the revelation has to come. So, even with respect to Shrutis, not just the Shrutis, but even the Shrutis have to be channelled through some human agent. Yes.
Well, human or kind of superhuman rishis. Yeah, superhuman. So, shall we talk about Lord Balaram? Yes.
Yes, certainly, Maharaj. So, I was just, when we read the 10th canto, and then we read some of our Goswami’s literatures on the 10th canto, or their elaborations of it, I found that in Gopal, through Gopal Champu and through Anandandam Champu, we get to know Krishna and Krishna Leela much more, and the characters in Krishna Leela much more. So, I find even Krishna’s relationship with Balaram, it is explained much more vividly in Gopal Champu than directly what we get from the 10th canto.
So, in some ways, I felt that the characters of the 10th canto came alive for me after I read Gopal Champu. Yes, of course, the Bhagavatam in many respects is a summary study, if you like, of Krishna’s unlimited pastimes, and then the acharyas like Srila Jiva Goswami are expanding. And again, we like to understand that they are responding to their vision that pastimes are revealed.
Yes, but maybe before we go to that relationship, there’s this explanation of why Balaram appears as the older brother in contrast to Lakshman in relation to Rama. Now, I won’t be able to identify the source of this, but at least tradition has it that Lakshman was very unhappy several times in Ram Leela because he was in the position of being the younger brother. And as the younger brother, it was necessary for him to be obedient to Lord Rama.
And sometimes being obedient to Lord Rama was extremely uncomfortable situation. Yeah, especially having two, three incidents. One was when especially the most agonising was when Ram told Lakshman to be the person to take Sita to the forest and to break that news to her.
And even before that, when Ram wanted to go to the forest and Lakshman was very strongly opposed to it, but he agreed to it. And then later when Sita and Ram, both of them almost chided him during the whole incident involving Sita’s abduction. So, Sita for not going to aid Ram and Ram chided him for leaving Sita.
And there’s, I think, one more incident that the Agni Pariksha, Ram ordered Lakshman to prepare the fire. Yes, that’s true. That’s so true.
And Lakshman was, he was agonised by this. How could he possibly do this? But he was the younger brother. So, all of these activities as the younger brother brought Lakshman to the conclusion, next time, next time I appear, I’m going to be the older brother.
And so, Lord Balaram appears. Now, another point though with Balaram’s appearing as the older brother, and we understand this from the 10th Canto, and I believe it’s explained by Srila Visvanatha Chakravarti Thakur, is that, as we know, Balaram, in a sense, had two mothers. His initial development in the womb of Mother Devaki was then, we may say, interrupted, and he was, as it said, transferred to the womb of Rohini.
Rohini. And why was this? Visvanatha Chakravarti says he was in the womb of Devaki in order to prepare the place for the appearance of Lord Krishna. He prepared the womb of Devaki for the appearance of Krishna.
Yeah, and that’s how, say, the Guru prepares the disciple’s heart. There’s also the metaphorical reading of the whole pastime, where the first six children represent the six anarthas that are removed from the heart, and then the spiritual master comes and prepares the heart for that, for the Lord to eventually appear. Yes.
Now, we could step back further and consider Balaram in terms of Tattva as the first expansion of Lord Krishna. As the first expansion, okay. And here, my first reflection is, how do we understand this notion of expansion, the idea of God expanding, considering in particular the understanding that Om Purnam Mata Purnamidam, the Lord is complete in himself.
And of course, we know he expands as the living entities in order to have pastimes, in order to enjoy. But that he is expanding also as himself, as equivalent to himself, because Balaram is understood to be exactly the same as Krishna, except for his colour. Yeah, there is that sweet pastime of Prabhupada in Bhakti Charuja Maharashtra is that, that once it seems two devotees in Vrindavan were having a dispute, the only difference between Krishna and Balaram is that is the complexion.
And then the one of the devotees said that, no, but only Krishna is the Lord of Radharani. And then it seems they went to Prabhupada and one side presented, the only difference is the complexion. He said, that’s right.
And then they said, but only Krishna is the Lord of Radharani. That’s right. Prabhupada, but both of these can’t be true.
That’s right. So, how do you reconcile? That you decide, something like that. That you decide.
Well, since you mentioned Vrindavan, I can’t resist to say, I think a nice meditation for us. Maybe you have a picture to show of Krishna Balaram in Krishna Balaram Mandir. Oh, sure.
The deities. It’s so nice. That is an important topic we could discuss also, about how Prabhupada chose those deities.
Yes, you can go ahead, please. Well, keeping with this more abstract reflection, how is it that the Lord, who is complete in himself, decides to expand himself into a form which is exactly the same as him, except for his complexion. Then again, exactly the same, and then again, not exactly the same, as you just said.
What is going on with this general notion of expansion? I think the understanding from Pancharatha, there they are, Krishna, Krishna Balaram, that’s an interesting picture because they are without garlands. It’s Shayan Darshan, I think. Must be Shayan Darshan, yes.
Balaram looks slightly taller than Krishna. Yeah, slightly. This is somewhat among the various pictures.
When I found it, I didn’t find it, notice it, that’s unusual. Normally we have them very ornamented, elaborately ornamented. Yeah, we could have it.
Yes, Maharaj. So, of course, the general principle we understand is that the Lord reciprocates with his devotees, and his devotees, according to their desire, the Lord appears in specific forms. There’s a verse in the third canto, I think it’s chapter nine, that the Lord appears precisely in that form which the devotee wants to reciprocate with.
So, that’s emphasising the principle of reciprocation. And so, that’s the devotional side, but the Pancharatra side of the understanding is, you mentioned before in the Abrahamic traditions, there’s this sense of a huge gap. There’s God and there’s living beings, or there’s human beings, and there’s nothing in between.
Pancharatra, on the other hand, is closing that gap in very elaborate ways, specifically through expansions, and then expansions of expansions, and portions of the Lord. And then, eventually, yeah, there’s para, there’s vyuha, there’s vibhava. Vibhava means avatara.
Then it comes to antaryami, the Lord in the heart. So, that’s, in a sense, the closest connection. But that connection of the Lord in the heart is so close that we don’t see him.
And so, he appears as avatar for us to see, and he appears as arca, arca-vigraha. And arca-vigraha is the most accessible because the Lord is always accessible in that form. Any day you can go and see the Lord in the temple.
But the other reflection I had was, if we take Balarama as the counterpart of Krishna, one is tempted to say that we are not monotheistic. We are duotheistic. I don’t know how to put it.
Keeping aside Srimati Radharani for the moment, just Krishna and Balarama, it seems we have two gods. And this is in, well, in comparison but also marked contrast to one religious movement that developed in the West. I think it originated in ancient Iran, in Persia.
It was called Manichaeism. And the Manichaeists, it was founded by someone named Mani, had the idea that there is a kind of absolute good and an absolute evil, and they are somehow equal in power, and they are forever competing with each other. Obviously, this is not at all what Krishna and Balarama are about.
In fact, Krishna and Balarama are quite the opposite. Krishna and Balarama are complementing each other, and the complement is the, we can say, paradigmatic friendship. Yeah.
So, what that would mean is, sometimes I feel that the whole categories of polytheism and monotheism, they might not be sophisticated enough to describe the bhakti conception of divinity also. Because we can’t really say Krishna and Balarama are two different gods. It’s almost like they are one person, two personalities.
I don’t know if that’s the most accurate way of saying it, but that’s one way, in the sense that then even the Christian tradition, when they say they have the trinity, at least the Catholic tradition, they argue that the trinity doesn’t make them polytheistic. Right. Well, you go ahead, and then I have a point about trinity.
Yeah. So, just to elaborate that, even if you don’t talk about the various levels of the devatas, even if you just talk about the idea of Vishnu having many expansions, Advaitam, Achyutam, so Nadi Manantarupam. So, my understanding overall is that it’s maybe trying to fit whether to call it like, whether to somehow in the western world, the word polytheistic seems to indicate a primitive conception of God, that you have so many gods and they are fighting among each other.
And there are many, there are at least some level of Hindus who say that monotheism breeds intolerance, because they say my God is the only God. My father is bigger than your father. Yeah, it’s a projection of that mentality also, Sigmund Freud talks about that.
So, but the idea that the Vedic conception is actually much more, so it’s so often there are some Hindus who say that our polytheism is the basis of our broad mindedness. And monotheism is, some others argue that, the Abrahamic, they argue that monotheism is actually far more rational and they often dismiss polytheism as a primitive belief system that is some kind of anthropomorphic projection of nature deities or something like that. The Vedic understanding, I don’t know whether we could actually fit it into these two categories also.
That was just my thought. You can go ahead, Maharaj. I agree.
I think that’s a very, very well put. And it’s these limitations. Yeah, it’s interesting how the limitations of the terminology limits the thinking.
And therefore, the limitation on the understanding of the possibility that God is one who is forever, in all respects, unlimited and not confined to our limited understanding. But aside from that, you mentioned the Trinity. And I was just going to say a few days ago, yeah, it was this last Sunday was Srivasa Thakur’s appearance day.
So, we got a little bit into discussion of Panchatatha. And I dared to make a comparison to the Trinity of the Christian tradition. And I pointed out that in Christian theology, they came up with the term because they wanted to avoid this idea of three being indicating polytheism, which is the accusation of Islam against the Christian.
They wanted to avoid this. So, they’re saying, you know, there are three persona, three persons of the same God. But then how are they related? So, then they came up with the term perichoresis, which is a Greek term, which literally means dancing around.
Oh, okay. And dancing around. What do the Panchatatha do? That’s amazing.
So, I thought perichoresis applies, in a sense, more, I don’t want to say more, but in a very nice way to the Panchatatha. So, when in the Christian tradition, the perichoresis, is it peri? How do we spell it? Perichoresis. P-E-R-I-C-H-O-R-E-S-I-S.
Perichoresis. Okay. So, perichoresis, is it perichoresis? Is it in the sense of they have fun, the three personas have, they are eternally joyful with each other? Or in what sense is it used in the Christian context? Because it’s amazing.
Yeah, I don’t know about that. That’s going a further step than I studied. Okay.
Because it struck me that Frederick Nietzsche was quite a trenchant critic of Christianity, that I would believe in a God if he knew how to dance. Yeah. They’re basically seeing the Trinity, they speak about, they use the word economy, the economy of salvation, that the three together are sort of working together to save what we would call conditioned souls.
That’s my very minimal understanding. I mean, they write, the subject of Trinity in Christianity is such that they’ve been writing volumes and volumes and volumes on this subject over centuries to try to figure it out. Anyway, I just thought that’s interesting to point out in relation to the idea of divine expansion.
But this brings me to another thought, and this ties in with thinking about the Panchatattva. And that is, and it takes me back to the Lila of Lord Balaram calling Yamuna. And we know this story, and that’s mentioned in this verse.
So Balaram is a little bit, shall we say, intoxicated, and he decides he wants to enjoy the company of Yamuna. And Yamuna initially refuses to come because she doesn’t want to have anything to do with Balaram because he’s in this condition of intoxication. So then Balaram becomes a little angry, and he takes his plough, and he creates a channel.
And in this way, he forces Yamuna to come to him. And I was thinking, you know, this is a story, this is a Lila, which I would not want to tell in the presence of present day feminists. True.
There are a lot of pastimes in the Bhagavatam, which can be problematic. In fact, I remember at one time in the drama festival, Radha Gopinath temple has quite a big drama festival, and they did the pastime of Sati. And it was very beautifully enacted, but the end of it was Sati undergoing self-immolation.
And there were some Western guests who had come, and they were quite appalled by the whole thing. Oh, yeah. They weren’t going to get the philosophical explanation of why she did what, it was more a narration in the drama.
So it can be quite problematic. I agree with you. So, but here is my point is, okay, I have to give a little background before I make this point.
I am, I don’t know if I should mention this, but I am in this DBT committee, where we have been asked to review editing of Prabhupada’s books. It’s quite controversial for many people. But in our meetings, something that I came to notice, I mean, we have many discussions, sometimes we spend half an hour or an hour discussing one single verse.
And it can be quite enlivening, but it can also be quite agonising. And sometimes the issue comes up that a translation within the word-for-word will be different from the translated sentence. And then sometimes something will be explained by Shila Prabhupada in the purport, which we may have thought should be in the word-for-word or in the translation, but it’s not there.
So here my point is, what we came to appreciate is that in Prabhupada’s books, you need the whole thing. There’s the word, there’s the verse, there’s the word-for-word, there’s the translation, the Sanskrit verse, the word-for-word, the translation, and the purport. All of that is one package, and you need to look at the whole thing.
And you can extend that out and say, we need the whole package of all of Shila Prabhupada’s books. You need the Gita, you need the Bhagavatam, you need Chaitanya Charitamrita, and Nectar of Devotion. All of these together give the full picture.
Now, back to Balaram and this pastime. The fuller picture of Balaram dragging Yamuna is hinted in the song by Lochandas Thakur, Nitai Gunamani. He’s glorifying Nityananda, who is, of course, Balaram.
So Balaram is, we can say, filling out or completing the avatar. Sorry, Nityananda is filling, he’s completing the avatar of Balaram in the same way Chaitanya is completing the appearance of Lord Krishna. And it’s explained that whenever Krishna appears in Dvapara-yuga, in the many cycles, he appears only once in the 28th cycle of days, in one day of Brahma.
When he appears, Lord Chaitanya appears after him. They’re a set, they go together. So similarly, when Balaram appears, Nityananda appears.
And when Nityananda appears, and this is Lochandas Thakur’s song, Nitai Gunamani Amar, Nitai Gunamani, Aniya Premer Banya Basailo Avani, Premer Banya Loya Nitai Ailagoradej, Dubilo Bakatagana, Dhin Khin Vase. He, as Prabhupada explains in his translation of this verse, Nityananda Prabhu creates a canal to each and every door. Gare Gare Bule, Prema Ami Arman.
He creates a canal to each and every door. So he’s dragging, so to say, he’s continuing that pastime or he’s realising the real purport if you like, of the Yamuna dragging pastime. So in this way, I felt I can understand the pastime of Krishna dragging the Yamuna.
Sorry, of Balaram dragging the Yamuna. So we need the whole picture, otherwise we don’t get it. This is an amazing way of looking at it.
So what we could say is that the sometimes this, whereas the straightforward way of looking at it is can be quite provocative. And maybe straightforward is not the literal or the literal way of looking at it can seem provocative. But the deeper and more holistic understanding can be actually very devotionally enriching.
It’s going to be sweet and enriching. Yeah. It’s amazing.
So then we need, I think, to try to apply this to all of Krishna’s pastimes to get the full understanding of them. We want to get the full picture. And we do that with the help, especially in particular as followers of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.
We get the full picture through the appearance of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and his teachings given to us in Chaitanya Chaitanya and his pastimes. And again, the Pancha Tattva are giving the full picture of what it means that the Lord is expanding into so many different forms. That’s beautiful.
As you say, it’s the holistic picture. So now Balram, in some ways, like earlier you said that you’re talking about the Manichaean and how they had the idea of God and the opposing force is almost equal to God. So Balram plays multiple roles.
Not almost. For the Manichaeans, they’re totally equal. Oh, okay.
Yeah. And they’re fighting. Good and evil are always fighting.
So now in our tradition, I think that’s where the radical in Christianity and Manichaean tradition. Christians say that even the devil is powerful, but there’ll be a final confrontation when the devil will be overpowered. Well, the Christianity is not, yes, the Christians condemned Manichaeism as a heresy.
Yes, I have heard about that. So now in our, I was making this point that in our tradition, it seems that there is at one level, Lord Balram is the assistant of Krishna. But while being the assistant of Krishna, no, he’s the expansion of Krishna.
He’s the closest friend of Krishna. And at the same time, he also enjoys opposing Krishna at times. And that creates some kind of suspense or tension or anxiety.
It increases the, it enriches the pastime sometimes. That opposing is simply out of this mood of service. Yeah.
Balram only wants to serve. He only wants to serve Krishna and so he will take an opposing position to give Krishna pleasure. Yes, that’s true.
That’s entirely true. So that means there’s a categorical difference between the two in terms of the way things are perceived in the Vedic tradition and in this, in any of the other traditions. So, so I don’t know if actually we could place the Krishna-Balram relationship in any context as such.
I mean, we could place it any, any of the… Any inter-religious context? Yeah, any standard, any standard theological categories which have come from the Western tradition. I’d have to think about that. I don’t know.
Yeah, some devotees have compared, say, the Gopi Gita with the song of the songs in the Bible. Right. Some amount of the idea of romance with God is there.
But the idea of somebody being literally the brother of God, I think that’s quite a bit, it’s going into theological territory that is not charted in most traditions. At least we’re not aware. There may be mystical traditions that we’re not aware of.
Yeah, that’s a better way of putting it, I think. I agree with you. Yes.
So, now, just to elaborate on this point of friendship and and opposing, it seems in Vrindavan, Balram doesn’t oppose Krishna so much. Although there are times when, say, Balram goes along with the cowherd boys when they, when they say Krishna has eaten dirt. And I read one commentary where they say, did Krishna actually eat dirt or not? So, the Acharya says, it depends on whom you believe.
Do you believe Krishna or do you believe Balram? Depends on who you believe. Krishna, of course, will say that he didn’t eat dirt, right? Yeah. But then when he opens his mouth, he’s showing so much dirt.
Okay, that’s a beautiful way of putting it. Everything is reducible to, we could say, dirt. But then it depends how you define dirt, isn’t it? Yeah, that’s also true.
So, overall, the point I’m making is maybe that is one past time where Balram seems to be on a side different from Krishna’s. But there are later on cases where especially Balram’s favouring Duryodhana. Yes, I was going to say.
Yeah. So, in Vrindavan, the opposition, I think maybe the whole mood of Vrindavan is playful. So, even the opposition is also very playful.
So, Anandanandavan Champu mentions that every evening when Krishna and Balram come back home, the gopis are on the terraces of their houses waiting to see Krishna. And at that time, Krishna wants to exchange his affection with the gopis by glancing at them. But he feels embarrassed to do so in the presence of Balram.
So, he acts as if he is, he says, I’m very tired. And he starts walking very slowly. And Balram says, come on, let’s go home and let’s bathe and we’ll have food.
He says, I’m tired. You go ahead. And then Balram goes ahead.
And then it’s as if Krishna feels liberated. Krishna has sweet loving exchanges with, just by glancing, he accepts the gopis’ love and he offers them his love through his glances. Is that in Gopal Champu? That is in Anandanandavan Champu, Maharaj.
Oh, Anandanandavan Champu. Yeah. So, there is that restraining influence to some extent because of he being the younger brother.
But the serious opposition I don’t see anywhere in Vrindavan, in Vrindavan Leela at all. In Vrindavan, Krishna is praising Balram. Oh, yes.
And that’s a famous verse that they’re walking in the forest and Krishna is admiring the forest. And he points out the trees, how they’re bending down, offering respects to Balram. And I just read, I think it’s in the commentary, that Krishna wanted to praise all the trees and the birds and everything of Vrindavan.
But he realised if he’s only praising them as such, then Balram will think that he’s actually praising himself because they’re doing this for him or they are the way they are for him. I don’t know where I saw this. And so, Krishna praises Balram by saying they’re doing all of this for you.
They’re bending their branches and they’re offering their flowers and fruits in worship of you. But in any case, as you said, it’s sweetness and it’s lightness. What was the word you used? It’s all kind of playfulness.
Yeah, it’s playful. And I think his praise is also playful. But it’s friendship.
And the, it’s the primordial friendship. I love that word, primordial friendship. Okay.
That’s beautiful. Because it’s Balram who is the first expansion of Krishna. And it’s Balram who is creating, who is manifesting the dhamma so that all these pastimes can take place, the playful pastimes, the fighting pastimes, everything.
So, Balram is facilitating everything Krishna does by creating the dhamma, manifesting the dhamma. And then Balram himself is there to aid, to support Krishna’s pastimes. And to manifest from him is also expanding all of the gopas.
So, the friendship, the playful friendship with the gopas, that’s all happening through Balram. So, he’s the primordial friend. And at the same time, he’s the older brother.
Yeah. Balram plays multiple roles. In fact, the whole spiritual world is also said to be like an expansion of him.
So, he is, so among the various roles he plays, so especially in Vrindavan, he is, I like what you said, primordial friend who facilitates all friendships. In fact, he’s there in all rasas also. I think he’s Anandmanjari.
He’s her expansion, he’s expansion. He’s serving in Vats, in Madhuri Ras also from that perspective. That’s what I’ve read.
So, now there are, if we go from Vrindavan, so it seems that there are some incidents, like as I said, we can talk about Duryodhana, but even before that also, I’d say little Duryodhana itself. With respect to Duryodhana, there are two, three incidents where there is in the beginning when I think he wants Subhadra to marry Duryodhana and Krishna wants, even Arjuna and Subhadra, both of them want to marry each other and Krishna supports him. So, that is probably the first incident where the difference comes out directly.
So, in that, it does seem as if, now I’ve read contemporary renditions of the Mahabharata and they do it in different ways. So, for them, they say that it is not just, they don’t see it from transcendental perspective, they say that Krishna is trying to strengthen the Pandavas by forming alliances and one such alliance for the Pandavas is with the Dwarka kingdom. So, whether that alliance will be with the Pandava side or the Kaurava side.
But the Bhagavatam does clearly say that Subhadra favours Arjuna and she is not very pleased with the idea of marrying Duryodhana and that’s why when Krishna, Arjuna takes her away, that’s the Gandharva Vivaha in that tradition. So, when he takes her away, it is the way Krishna pacifies Arjuna by saying that actually Subhadra was at the helm of the chariot where Arjuna was fighting. So, in that sense, Subhadra had a full consent.
So, just picture that scene. That’s beautifully put, picture that scene. Subhadra driving the chariot.
So, that is one place and it seems that although Valram opposes, he doesn’t insist. There is some kind of argument, counter-argument, but it doesn’t go for too long. Yeah, that was one point I had in mind.
So, how it is your understanding Maharaj of, is it just to increase the flavour or is there anything else? Why goes on the side of Duryodhana? You know, Krishna is always accomplishing many things simultaneously. But certainly, somewhere in the forefront of the story is the increase of enjoyment. There’s some relish there.
There’s some kshatriya, you know, there’s this, the whole kshatriya spirit in the Mahabharata is, I’m a tough guy. I’m, you know, he-man. I’m strong.
So, it’s all these kshatriyas who are proving themselves to other kshatriyas in so many ways, especially Duryodhana and his side. Yudhishthira is very different. He’s, you know, he’s dharma personified.
He is dharma himself. And Arjuna is, they’re all noble warriors on the side of the Pandavas. They each show different aspects of nobility.
But how it is that Balaram is on the side of Duryodhana is, I don’t know, to me a bit of a mystery. Except, of course, the fact that they just, they get, when you get to know someone through some common service, naturally you become friends. So, somehow or other, Balaram, which way was it? Who was teaching whom to fight with a club? Balaram was the guru of Duryodhana.
Okay. So, Balaram is teaching Duryodhana to fight with a club. Naturally, they’re interacting so much.
Duryodhana was probably a very good student. And when they’re not having their lessons, they’re sitting down and resting and chatting. And Duryodhana is certainly telling his side of the story of why he feels the way he does about the Pandavas.
And we can guess that sometime he confessed to Balaram how crushed he felt when he was embarrassed in the palace of the Pandavas by the interior design tricks that embarrassed him when Draupadi and the other women laughed at him. All of that he may have confessed to Balaram and Balaram may have sympathised with him and said, yeah, actually, you know, it’s not fair. It’s not fair.
That’s quite a very reasonable inference. I remember reading in the Mahabharata that initially when the Pandavas are exiled to the forest, Krishna and Balaram come to meet them and Krishna is furious and so is Balaram at the way Draupadi has been treated. But then after their exile gets over and then there is some negotiations about how to move, discussions among the Pandavas and their supporters about how to go ahead.
So, at that time, Balaram seems to strike a very cautionary note and he says that nobody forced Yudhishthira to gamble. Nobody forced him to lose everything. He voluntarily participated in the gambling match.
It was he who put Draupadi at the stake. So, he said you have to acknowledge your faults and you have to strike a consolatory tone. And the Pandavas are a little surprised at that time because they realise that they don’t have the full throttled support of Balaram.
It seemed that so, between the 13 year exile initially and in between, like what you said, probably after meeting the Pandavas, Balaram and Duryodhana probably must have met and Duryodhana told his side of the story and from his perspective, he was the wronged person and what he did was just to get even rather than he was insulted and that’s why he insulted her back, whatever it was. This is all Kshatriya mentality. There is some offence and then there is revenge and then it’s back and forth.
And it’s the end of Dvapara Yuga. So, dharma becomes more and more obscure and so they can’t work it out except by fighting. But speaking of Balaram taking sides, I think here we need to remember that during the war, what does he do? He leaves, then he goes on pilgrimage and in this way, he actually takes a neutral position.
Yeah, and in fact, it seems that because, I don’t know whether it is because, but it is even Krishna at least nominally takes a neutral position by saying, I will not fight. Although he does a lot without fighting. He does a lot without fighting.
He fights with his words. But Balaram is completely absent. He’s Abhava.
He’s completely absent, which is interesting. And I have sometimes thought that Balaram is therefore a very nice model for devotees whenever we encounter conflicts amongst devotees or any kind of conflict opposing parties. That’s when we do well to remember and take shelter of Balaram who goes on pilgrimage when the fight comes.
That’s amazing. That’s similar to what Chaitanya Bhagwat says that when there are two Vaishnavas having any kind of fight, don’t take sides. That’s quite a remarkable thing to think about.
I never thought of Balaram in that sense. And the Bhagavatam narrative also is such that the Mahabharata war is going on and the Bhagavatam doesn’t talk about the Mahabharata war much. It focusses more on the incident between how Balaram goes on pilgrimage and he kills the demons and what all he does during that, it is described over there.
Yeah, because the Bhagavatam essentially functions as a kind of sequel to the Mahabharata in many ways, a sequel and a kind of commentary in some respects. But it’s also positioned after the Mahabharata war, of course, because Maharaj Pariksit and so on. And then it’s answering the question, what to do now that Krishna has gone? What to do now that Kali Yuga has begun? Sit down and listen to the Bhagavatam.
Yes, Maharaj. And in one sense, if we take that same thread of thought, like we discussed last time in the Ramlila, there also the Bhagavatam says that you already heard these pastimes, so there is no need, so I will describe it briefly. That could also be a reason.
I heard at one place, now this is not the devotee who spoke this, is not from the Gaudiya tradition, but is a traditional Bhagavatam. It was an interesting explanation that it says that Shukadeva Goswami didn’t want to cause any distraction for Pariksit from remembering the Lord. And the Kurukshetra war was the war in which Pariksit Maharaj’s father was killed and he never got to see his father.
So that’s why he avoids reference. Yeah, it’s a nice explanation. I like it.
Yeah, and it seems that after I heard that, I look at the 10th canto of the Bhagavatam. Of course, it’s very difficult to search only the Sanskrit, but it does seem in the Sanskrit, I couldn’t find the word Abhimanyu in the 10th canto. And there’s not much, definitely there’s no pastime describing Abhimanyu in detail.
Yeah. What I would say is, even if our Acharyas don’t give this explanation within our tradition, it’s not opposed to our tradition and therefore it can be respected. Oh, okay.
This would be something, going back to, we discussed earlier about your book on the Bhagavatam. You talked about how you stayed with the Sri Vaishnava scholars when you were doing research for your book and then there is so much they learn, so much of the Bhagavatam, they have so much taste for the Bhagavatam and there’s so much that we can learn from them. So we could say that even we could learn from other sources, as long as they’re not disagreeing.
They may have a different perspective, but if it’s not opposed, then I think it can be appreciated. We can appreciate. It can expand our appreciation of the Lord and his pastimes.
That’s all. Yes, that’s true. One thing I thought is, well, if you want to say more on that point, otherwise at some point maybe we can say a bit about iconography of Balaram.
Yes, Maharaj. Just one more point about Balaram and his relationship with Krishna before we move on. So it seems that Balaram is most upset when Bhima hits Duryodhana below the thigh and he goes forward to attack Bhima and there’s a time when Krishna intervenes and Krishna stops him from doing that.
So overall what happens is that it seems Krishna gives an explanation and he talks about all the atrocious things that the Kauravas have done to the Pandavas. And Balaram says that you can convince anyone with your words, but he walks away half over there and then the Pandavas breathe this eye of relief. So I was just thinking that the way you said that the devotees can take a neutral stand when there is opposition like Balaram did.
But this is also another example that there can be strong differences of opinion which are not resolved. But still that doesn’t adversely affect the relationship itself. So there is no lasting animosity between Krishna and Balaram despite their quite strong differences of opinion about particular issues.
Yes, I think and also this makes me think of the past time of Jagai and Madai with Nityananda who is Balaram stopping Chaitanya who is Krishna from killing Madai. So it’s kind of inverse. I mean I don’t know how far you can take the parallels but some interesting interaction is going on there which has a certain parallel to what you just described.
That’s definitely true. In fact the song about Nityananda is Akaroda Paramananda Nityananda Ram. So Akaroda means he never gets angry.
Akaroda, yes, he never gets angry. That’s quite different from both Lakshman and Balaram. Yes, Lakshman gets angry quickly although he subordinates anger to Ram’s wishes, will and Balaram also is in one sense known for his getting angry quite quickly.
Yes. Yes, Maharaj. So you wanted to talk about iconography, Maharaj? Well, just very briefly.
Nothing so specific except thinking back again to deities. We see Balaram with Krishna in Krishna Balaram Mandir and Balaram with his hand on Krishna’s shoulder and in the other hand in that photo that you showed he’s holding a flute which is interesting. Normally he’s holding a plough.
Yes. But we generally see him either with a plough or with a club and these two items seem to also distinguish Balaram’s pastimes in Vrindavan and outside of Vrindavan. In Vrindavan he has a plough which indicates that he is sort of the primordial farmer.
He is the primordial agriculturalist whereas Krishna is the primordial cowherd and what Krishna holds is simply a flute but also a cowherding stick and a rope and so on and Balaram has the plough because what do farmers do? They plough the field. Oh, okay. That’s true.
So you’re talking in terms of iconography of what all Balaram carries and how it is depicted. Yeah, that’s one thing and also I wanted to ask you most probably I’ve never had opportunity or I never got around to it. Maybe I have no excuse to visit Dalji in Braj, the deity in Gokula of Dalji.
You have certainly had darshan of Dalji. Maybe there’s a photo on the internet we can see. Yeah, just looking for it.
So, generally with my spiritual master when he takes pilgrimage, yatra we usually, that’s definitely a place we visit. And there is one temple I have visited very near Udupi. There’s Udupi Krishna and then maybe five kilometres away very next to the ocean is a very small Balaram temple and there’s some story, some pastime how the two deities are related.
Oh, okay. And that Balaram deity looks very old, similar to Udupi Krishna. Oh, that’s amazing.
And it does seem, just to take this point of Balaramji, I had iconography. It seems that Prabhupada did give a significant amount of importance to the divine brothers both in terms of say specifically having Krishna Balaram temple in Vrindavan as contrasted with, of course, we have Radha Krishna deity but Krishna Balaram on the centre altar and also Prabhupada, it seems many traditional Gaudiya temples had Gaurang Mahaprabhu or Gauragadadhar but Prabhupada had Gauranatai. Yes, and he wanted to show specifically as I understand with Krishna Balaram Mandir, he wanted to demonstrate that Gauranatai are Krishna Balaram.
He wanted to show that equivalence. Yes. So, now, from what I know, what I have read or heard, maybe you can add to this that the reasons why Prabhupada chose Krishna Balaram as the deities is, one is because we got the land in Ramanreti where Krishna Balaram have performed their pastimes.
Second, Prabhupada also, at least that’s what I gathered from Leelamrit, that Prabhupada wanted our temple to have something distinctive as compared to the other temples. Let’s have a Krishna Balaram temple and there are some songs and this is of course, in one sense, we could say speculative but there are some songs when Krishna talks about, when Prabhupada is saying that I want to know what is in Krishna’s lunchbox. So, and Prabhupada sings that in one of his songs which he writes on his way to America.
I think his vision of preaching in that, not Markini Bhagavad Dharma, the other song. So, that could also be a reason. But what are your thoughts about this? All right.
Why not both or all reasons? So many reasons. I always understood it was specifically connected with it being Ramanreti. There can be multiple reasons and I think it’s interesting that it’s Krishna Balaram but Srila Prabhupada by no means excluded Radha Krishna.
So, we have Sri Sri Radha Shyama Sundar in the temple as well. And I don’t know, my very limited observation when I’m in Krishna Balaram Mandir, it seems like the largest crowd having darshan is with Radha Shyama Sundar. They seem to be the most popular.
That’s an interesting observation. I never, I mean how do you compare because normally all the three altars are in a straight line. So, people will, everybody will see all the three altars.
I think it was people spending time for taking darshan. But they will spend more time. Oh.
With Radha Shyama Sundar and you see bigger, I don’t know, seems like bigger crowd there. That’s a beautiful observation. Yeah.
It may be also simply that that’s the right side of the temple. And so, the ladies tend to stay on the right side. And they are especially attracted to Radha Shyama Sundar.
I don’t know. That’s just my observation. Yes, Maharaj.
So, now in terms of our Krishna Balaram temples that way also either a part of the broader Gaudiya tradition or Krishna Bhakti tradition. To have worship of Krishna Balaram? Yeah. You mentioned in Udupi, is it Krishna Balaram or specifically Balaram? It’s just Balaram.
Balaram, okay. But he is associated with Udupi Krishna. Oh, okay.
But he is maybe five kilometres or so distant. But there’s some story, some connection there. Five kilometres, that’s significant.
I think the name of that place is Malpa, if I remember right. It was so many years ago I was there. And we just visited very briefly.
Very small temple and nobody there. Practically, as I remember, there was one priest, nice gentleman, and that was it. But no, Krishna Balaram in the Gaudiya tradition, worship of Krishna Balaram, that’s an interesting question.
And I wouldn’t be able to say definitely. Maybe in Bangladesh, there’s worship of Krishna Balaram. I just wouldn’t know.
Otherwise, we can say Shilu Prabhupada has made a transcendental innovation. Yeah, it’s transcendental innovation. But are there Balaram deities at all? Not in none of the Goswami’s temples.
I believe when you’re writing your book, there are not. You studied the deity worship in Radharaman temple, I believe, and other temples there quite extensively. So are there Balaram deities there in Vrindavan, in the Goswami’s temples? Not to my knowledge.
There’s one Balaram Revati temple in Jaipur that I know of. It’s not an old temple. It’s within one of those shopping complexes upstairs.
It’s up on the second floor. Something like Radha Vinodilal in Jaipur, yeah. That sort of situation.
I remember there’s a Revati Balaram temple. Oh, okay. That’s fascinating.
I don’t even remember seeing the deity of Revati anywhere. That Revati Balaram temple. Okay.
Yeah, this is unusual. But that would be something to research. You know, there are art historians who, there’s probably some literature, some book maybe there about, that would give us more information about Balaram deities.
Yes. So now there are, we have prayers to Krishna quite a bit. We have prayers to the, there are some prayers to Radharani.
Generally when we have Lord Balaram’s appearance day, so we don’t have so many prayers to Lord Balaram specifically. I think in the, in him pulling the Yamuna in the river, at that time Yamuna offers some prayers, that’s in Vrindavan. But apart from that, there are not many prayers to Balaram directly.
Are there? Of course, we go to the Dasatar Sutra, because I think, was it for Narasimhadev, we had quite a good series of prayers that we discussed at various places when we had the discussion about Narasimhadev. More research is required. Yes.
Speaking of prayers and speaking of Gaudiya tradition, when I was researching in Vrindavan, I was interested in songs written by previous members of the Radharaman community. I wanted to know if they have songs specifically for, you know, praising Radharaman. And it took quite some time, but I finally was able to, I was given access to one of the Goswami’s private libraries, and I was able to find two or three small printed texts with several songs dedicated to Radharaman.
And, but I also found out, and this was, I can’t remember how, it was quite indirectly and that I found out that one lady had done a doctoral research project on Gaudiya Vaishnava songs in Brajabhasa language, Gaudiya Vaishnava Brajabhasa songs. And then I was able to contact this lady. She lived in Jaipur, and I went to Jaipur and I met her, and we had a nice conversation on many topics.
And she, I was eager to get a copy of her doctoral dissertation. And she said, well, it’s been printed, published as a book, and you may be able to find, she said, I’m sorry, I don’t have any copies, extra copies to give you, but you may be able to find a copy in such and such bookstore in downtown Jaipur. So I went to this bookstore and I showed the shopkeeper the title and I asked him, do you have this book? And he just kind of shrugged his shoulders and said, you know, like, maybe.
And he sort of motioned to the books. And this was a, for India, an unusually large bookstore, not a modern style, but still quite large. It was a, you know, quite large wall of books.
And he just sort of gestured like, you can go and look, you know, good luck. They didn’t have any inventory? That’s amazing. No, this was a small, you know, it was, no, I don’t think, and he didn’t seem to care whether he had it or not, whether he could sell the book or not.
So he just gestured. But then the funny thing was that I thought, okay, well, let me look, maybe I’ll find it. And within, like, as I remember, it was like within two or three minutes, I spotted the book, it jumped out at me.
I mean, I’m not a native Devanagari reader, but still, I saw this book, there it was. And I was so happy to get this book. So I just wanted to point out that there’s so much in our tradition yet to be researched.
And that’s what we’re doing with the Bhagavata Purana research project. That’s one thing we’re doing is, you know, sort of digging up all sorts of resources connected to the Bhagavatam. Oh, okay.
And that’s just one aspect. And of course, now comes my little plug for Bhaktivedanta Research Centre. That’s also what is going on in the BRC, in both now Kolkata, and we have also in Mumbai.
And as I understand, it’s also opening a branch in Pune. Oh, okay. I didn’t know that.
Yes, this is the latest news. And it looks like we may be having some research developing in Puri. Oh, with Madhavanand Prabhu over there or separately? It’ll be connected.
Yes, Madhavananda will certainly be involved, Madhavananda Prabhu. But there’s some new potential connections. I don’t have any specifics, but connections with the temple management proper, the Jagannath temple.
Oh. So I can’t say anything beyond that. But some interesting possibilities seem to be opening up.
Oh, I think that’s a big thing. Because till now, the Jagannath temple, we have had a somewhat difficult relationship with them. Yeah.
That’s wonderful to hear, Maharaj. So I’m going to have to kind of come to an end. Yes, Maharaj.
I’ve run out of time. For today. I’ll try to sum it up quickly.
Should I try that? Please. Yes, please do. So today we discussed about Balaram.
But before that, we talked about how there are different listings of the avatars and Mahabharata lists six. And we discussed how these listings may be more indicative rather than exhaustive, like the listing of the acharyas. And you mentioned how Prabhupada also said there can be acharyas in various fields.
Then with respect to Balaram, we overall discussed, you mentioned the concept of expansions and how that doesn’t really fit into the idea of is it monotheistic? Is it polytheistic? We may need a new category to actually explain this. And in some ways, the idea of the Christian trinity, where it talks about dancing. So that can become that is actually manifested in a beautiful way in the panchatattva also.
So both the intimacy and the multiplicity of relationships that God has as revealed in the bhakti tradition, that does seem to be remarkable. So the idea of God having a brother who is as powerful as him, almost non-different from except for his complexion, that is remarkable. So in the Manichaean tradition, the idea is that there is an evil which is equal to God and that is considered heresy in Christian tradition.
But that if there is, Balaram sometimes plays a contrary role so that there can be more reciprocation of relationships. That contrary role is more playful in Vrindavan, where, for example, Krishna stealing, has Krishna eaten dirt or not? But he seems to have a more sympathetic attitude toward Duryodhana. And you explained that could be because of he having taught Duryodhana and Duryodhana being a good student and he hearing Duryodhana’s side of the story more.
And that can also be for Krishna. It spices Krishna’s pastimes a little bit more through the opposition. And then you made this beautiful point about how the pastime of Krishna dragging the river could be could… Balaram.
Sorry, Balaram. Sorry, Balaram dragging the river could seem very provocative to the feminists. But when we go deeper and we look at it from a more devotional or esoteric perspective, then what can seem disturbing can actually be devotionally enriching.
And that’s how you, with respect to even looking at Prabhupada’s translations or editing of Prabhupada’s translations, you mentioned your part role in that service, that rather than looking at one specific incident, it’s needed a more holistic perspective. So then discuss also about how you talked about. So we discussed incidents where Krishna, why Balaram chose to become the, refused to be the younger brother as he was in the case of Lakshman because he had to do things which are unpleasant or uncomfortable or unpalatable for him.
And here he could do his own things. And there was this inference of Balaram leaving when the Kurukshetra war was going to take place. That is to indicate that sometimes as devotees, we may take the role of, what are the words? Being absent during the time of differences between devotees.
And then we discuss about iconography. Absent or just neutral. Absent or neutral, yeah.
And then about say, the Bhagavatam not describing the Mahabharata war because it might disturb, disturb, hearing about Vimini might disturb Parishad Maharaj. That may not be in our Acharya’s, our tradition, but it’s a, it’s not, not opposed. So we can, it can be accepted.
And then we discuss about the iconography toward the end. And the Dowji temple and then there is a temple in Udupi. So it seems, it could be Prabhupada’s devotional innovation to have Krishna-Balaram temple as in, so there could be various reasons.
One is that it is Raman Reti and it is also that it could be distinctive. It could be, Prabhupada also sings about the Sakhi Rasa in his songs. And it could be all reasons also, we can say that.
And then we discuss the contrast between say Nithyananda Prabhu and Balaram. That whereas, whereas Balaram is short-tempered, Balaram is known to be short-tempered, Nithyananda Prabhu is not short-tempered. And whereas when Balaram was attacking you, you made that beautiful contrast that Balaram was attacking Bheema, Krishna intervened.
And when Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was attacking Jagai and Madai, it is Nithyananda Prabhu intervened. So there is that devotional contrast between the two of them. Then their moods and we mentioned about the, how there is a lot of scope for research and there are specific prayers about Balaram, more temples of Balaram.
You mentioned the temple Nudupi also and then the Dowji temple. And then the remarkable way in which you found this book about Gaudiya songs in Rajya Bhasha and how the BRC is trying to preserve and share the various ways in which the Bhagavatam’s legacy is available for us. Thank you, Maharaj.
Anything you would like to add in conclusion? I think we should not end without mentioning the very important statement in the Upanishads, which I won’t be able to quote completely, but it’s Nayam Bala Himena Labya. Oh, beautiful. Yes.
That we understand Bala, not just as material power, but spiritual power. That without the mercy of Balaram, there is no spiritual power. We will not have spiritual power and therefore our prayer to Balaram, I think this is always nice to remember in remembering Lord Jagannath, Jagannath Subhadra Balaram.
And of course, in the Maha Mantra, there was that debate some devotees had, does Rama refer to Ramachandra or to Balarama? And Srila Prabhupada resolved that also in a nice way of saying it refers to both. So chanting Hari Rama, Hari Rama, we are praying also for that strength, spiritual strength by which we can go on serving the Lord. Yes, that’s true.
That reminded me of just one more thing about the Balaram, the meaning, I’ve heard different places, different meanings, but one meaning of Balaram, which is quite devotional, so the Bala is to resist temptation and the Ram is to find satisfaction, find satisfaction in spiritual things and Bala is to resist the temptation of material things. So, okay. Very good.
Thank you very much, Maharaj. Thank you. Thank you.