​Abrahamic and impersonalist misconceptions about Krishna’s position

Bhagavatam class at Gauranga Center, Singapore

Disclaimer: This transcript was generated using AI and may contain occasional errors or inaccuracies.

Hare Krishna. Today morning we are discussing from the prelude to one of the most devotionally intense sections of the Bhagavatam connected with Krishna which comes before the 10th Canto. The whole Bhagavatam develops towards the 10th Canto.

The Bhagavatam has 335 chapters out of which 90 chapters are in the 10th Canto. So, almost one third of the Bhagavatam is the 10th Canto and the second longest Canto is the 11th Canto. The 3rd Canto and 11th Canto are almost equally long.

But in the 11th Canto and the 10th Canto both are Krishna's pastimes. Krishna's pastimes are primarily in the 10th Canto and Krishna's instructions, the Uddhav comprises almost 24 chapters of the 11th Canto. So, that means out of the 330 chapters a total of 120 chapters are directly connected with Krishna.

So, the Bhagavatam develops its thought flow to culminate in Krishna and this thought flow which it develops it also offers a prelude in the 1st Canto. The Bhagavatam starts off where the Mahabharata more or less ends. And the 7th Chapter of the 1st Canto of the Srimad Bhagavatam is where the Bhagavatam picks up, where the son of Drona punished, that is the chapter.

And from there onwards, Kunt prayers of Queen Kunti, Bhishma Pitamaha, it goes on. From Chapter 7 onwards to Chapter 15, which is the disappearance of Lord Krishna, there is a very endearing description of Krishna. Just like in the Bhagavad Gita, the entry of Krishna is very dramatic, very deceptively dramatic.

Deceptively dramatic means sometimes there is a movie and the hero is going to enter. So, maybe the hero comes in his car and then the hero, maybe there is some damsel in distress and the hero comes charging in, he comes in his car, breaks the car and then you see the car in action and then the car moves up and then you move to the door and then the hero jumps out. You see his feet and then there is a darshan which moves up towards his face.

So, like that, we see both in the Bhagavad Gita and in the Bhagavatam, Krishna's entry is in the Bhagavad Gita also, first a description of both the forces and then the description starts with a chariot, magnificent chariot, beautiful horses. On that, Arjuna is there and Krishna is there. But significantly, Krishna is not the warrior, he is the charioteer.

Normally speaking, if a person is very big, then that person is driven by someone else. So, they have a chauffeur and then that person is great or otherwise somebody is an action hero, then they drive their own car. But an action hero driving a car for someone else, that is quite unusual.

Now, you would think that someone else is the real hero. But that image which is there in the first canto, the entry of Krishna is also exactly similar. In the Bhagavatam, Krishna enters as the charioteer of Arjuna.

Arjuna is chasing Ashwathama and Krishna is leading him on the chariot, the same image. And this image conveys the speciality of this manifestation of the divine. There are many manifestations of the Lord, but this manifestation, Krishna is bhakta vatsala to such an extent that he is actually acting as a servant of his devotees, as a charioteer for his devotees.

So, from the 7th canto, 7th chapter onwards till the 15th chapter, the Bhagavatam describes Krishna's activities. Actually, from the point of view of the flow of the Bhagavatam itself, the first canto is setting the scene. In the first canto, in about 5 verses in the 7th chapter, it described how Shukadeva Goswami became enlightened.

And after that, from the 7th chapter till the 19th chapter, it is described how Parikshit Maharaj came to a position of seeking answers. He took the vrata of fasting till death and he came and sat on the banks of the Ganga seeking answers. And in that way, so the purpose of the Bhagavatam in talking about Krishna's past and the first canto is to describe the background.

This is to say how Parikshit appeared and how Parikshit was cursed to die. The first canto is basically setting the scene and Shukadeva Goswami starts speaking in the second canto. So, the Bhagavatam is developing its own storyline.

It's setting the scene for the main conversation between Parikshit Maharaj and Shukadeva Goswami. But in that process, the Bhagavatam also gives us the description of the pastimes of Krishna as a prelude to what is going to come again in the 10th canto. So, before the 10th canto, the chapters 7 to 15 are the main place where we see Krishna directly in focus.

After that, as we move onwards, the mention of Krishna comes occasionally, but Krishna is not in focus. There are different avatars, there is Pruthu, there is Narsimha, there is Varaha, there is Vamana, all the other avatars are there. Krishna is not in focus.

So, in the first canto, he comes as a prelude and then directly comes the 10th canto. But before that, in between there is one chapter where there is very direct devotional recollection of Krishna. And that is the of the 3rd canto, which will just start after this verse.

So, that chapter itself actually called as the remembrance of Lord Krishna. And this setting is, the Bhagavatam is actually a book of nested conversations. Like in computers, we may have nested loops, one loop inside another inside another.

So, like that, actually at one particular point in the 7th canto, there are 7 levels of nesting. There is outer conversation between Suta Goswami and Parikshit Maharaj. Then there is a conversation between Shukde Goswami and Parikshit Maharaj.

Then there is a conversation between say, here what is happening is a conversation between Maitreya and between Vidura and Uddhava right now. There is a conversation going on. So, like that in 7th canto, it goes on further.

There is a conversation between Yudhishthir and Narada Muni. And in that, he describes a conversation between a king and his subordinates. And within that, they describe another conversation.

So, it just goes on and on and on. And this multiple level of nested conversations, sometimes they may make us just lose track, who is speaking to whom. So, it may disorient us in time, but actually the purpose is not disorientation.

The purpose is not disorientation in time, but the purpose is transcendence beyond time. That means, different people may be speaking this thing at different times, but we see the overall message is consistent, overall message is coherent. And that's how through different conversations done by different people at different times, the Bhagavatam drives home again and again, its message of bhakti.

So, here specifically, at the end of the 2nd canto, Parikshit Maharaj has asked certain questions to Shukadev Goswami. And as a part of answering those questions, Parikshit Maharaj says that there was similar questions asked to the sage Maitreya by Vidura. And I will tell that conversation.

So, first level is Shruta Goswami, sages of Navishar. And second level is Parikshit Maharaj and Shukadev Goswami. The third level is going to be the main samvada, which will actually expand over the third canto and will actually go on in the fourth canto also, practically speaking, to some extent.

So, then that is the Vidura-Maitreya samvada. But before the Vidura-Maitreya samvada starts, there is another samvada that is between Vidura and Uddhava. So, actually, the Vidura-Uddhava samvada is that this is a time, this is happening when Krishna has disappeared from the world.

See, the whole Bhagavatam's mood, every scripture has its own mood. The Bhagavatam's mood is of devotion in recollection. It's devotion in remembrance.

So, the Bhagavatam is spoken after Krishna has disappeared from the world. So, Krishna's descent to this world is a momentous event in the history of the universe. And when such a momentous event has happened, for example, in a country, if the country has just fought a long independent struggle and has become independent, then at least for a few decades, people keep remembering the independent struggle again and again.

Because in the country's history, that is a very momentous event. So, like that, the Lord's descent is a very momentous event. And the Bhagavatam keeps, Bhagavatam is spoken with the recollection of the Lord who has just departed from the world.

In fact, although he has departed a few years ago, even a few decades ago, but still there are times when the Bhagavatam speaks in the present tense. Because it was just recent departure, the Bhagavatam uses the present tense to describe that. So, now, here, let's try to understand the setting, first of all.

So, Parikshit Maharaj and Shukadeva Goswami, they are discussing with each other. It's almost two generations after Krishna's departure. Isn't it? Krishna departed.

Then along with that, the Pandavas departed. Before the Pandavas departed, they enthroned Parikshit as the king. Then Parikshit ruled as a king.

And after ruling for a fair amount of time. He was still young, but he had ruled a good amount of time. Then he was cursed and he was about to die.

So, this conversation is happening about two generations after Krishna. The main conversation of the Bhagavatam. The outer conversation is happening further after that.

The Shukadeva Goswami, the Suta Goswami, the Nirmishananda sages, that is happening about one generation after that. So, Suta Goswami was one of the audience present when Shukadeva Goswami spoke to Parikshit Maharaj. The Goswami heard that and he spoke to the sages of Naimisharanya.

But now the conversation that is happening is just after Krishna's departure. That is a conversation between Vidura and Uddhava. And later on, it will be between Vidura and Maitreya.

So, here Vidura is asking about, in the previous chapter, the chapter that is about to end, we have seen that Vidura asks various questions about how the Dwarkavasis are, how everyone is. So, when he is asking this, he is asking with great curiosity. And he appreciates Lord Uddhava for his exaltedness.

How intimately associated he is with the Lord. He is a direct associate of the Lord. And in Uddhava, at this point, Vidura, it seems he does not know that Krishna has departed from the world.

And that is why he asks in the present tense, how is Krishna? How is everyone? And Uddhava has just seen the traumatic event of all of Krishna and associates departing from the world. So, he is overwhelmed by the thoughts of the Lord. And the next chapter will describe how Uddhava goes into ecstasy, goes into ecstasy thinking that, alas, I was so unfortunate that I did not value the Lord's association when I had that association.

And in that way, he laments his own misfortune. Of course, he was very fortunate because he was always there with the Lord. But the important point is that here, the setting is again consistently with the mode of the Bhagavatam, it is recollection in separation.

Recollection in separation. You know, actually speaking, affection is seen through two things. Affection is seen through attention when someone is present before us.

And affection is seen through recollection when that person is not present before us. So, both ways, for example, when we come to the temple, when we are attentive, when we are taking darshan of Krishna, when we are hearing Krishna, because that's how we show Krishna our affection or at least our intention for affection. And then when we are not there in the presence of Krishna, at that time there is recollection.

So, for example, say in a family, a husband is working at some outstation and the husband comes back home and the husband tells his wife that, you know, when I am away, I often think of you, I remember you. And then the wife starts talking with him and then the husband starts checking his messages. The wife will say that, you know, when I am there in front of you, don't pay any attention to me.

How can I believe that when I am not there, you are remembering me? Something similar applies in our relationship with Krishna. You know, when Krishna is right in front of us, if we are while chanting, we are looking here, we are looking there, we are taking darshan, we are taking darshan of everyone else except Krishna, then when Krishna is present at that time, if you are not offering attention, then the recollection cannot be very strong. So, the recollection and devotion, recollection in a relationship is possible when there is affection and that affection develops primarily by attention when there is presence.

So, in the 12th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna gives multiple levels at which you can practice bhakti. And 12.8, he says, just fix your mind on me, in this way you will live in me. In 12.9, he says, if you can't do that, you strive to think of me, by thinking about me, your attraction to me will develop.

You will get the desire for me. Now, here, when Uddhava is being asked these questions, Uddhava does not answer the questions because he feels that Vidura is elder to me. And therefore, he says, let us go to someone else who is more senior to you.

And they go to Maitreya Rishi. So, Krishna has spoken the Uddhava Gita to Uddhava primarily. But at that time, Maitreya Rishi was also present because Maitreya Rishi was slightly more of a jnani than a bhakta.

So, Krishna spoke primarily to Uddhava. Although Maitreya was present and Maitreya also heard, but Krishna focuses attention primarily on Uddhava. So, there was a very special affectionate bond between the two.

Now, although Krishna had spoken the Uddhava Gita to Uddhava, because of respect and etiquette, because of respect for the age of Vidura, Uddhava says, I cannot speak to you, I cannot instruct you. So, Uddhava takes Vidura to Maitreya. And then Maitreya speaks instructions.

Now, what Maitreya speaks is not the Uddhava Gita, but Maitreya answers the questions of Vidura based on various sources. And within that, the conversation of the Kapila and Devahuti will come. That will be a major part of the third canto.

But in this particular section, prior to this, Uddhava has been asked about the well-being of the various people over there. He asks about the Kurus also and he asks about the Yadus also. Now, interestingly, we see Vidura is a very distinctive character.

His position is similar to that of Vibhishana. Now, in the battle between good and evil, circumstance had it in such a way that he was trapped on the side of evil. But his response and Vibhishana's response are different.

Vibhishana goes over to the side of Ram, whereas Vidura does not go over to the side of Krishna. Why is that? Multiple reasons. One is Vidura out of his humility feels that actually I have associated people who have blasphemed the Lord so much.

Therefore, I need to purify myself before I can go in the proximity of the Lord. Another reason is that Vidura still has a affectionate desire to reform Dhritarashtra. The difference between the Mahabharata and the Ramayana is that in the Ramayana, the villain is the king of the demons.

The Ravana is the king and he is incorrigible. Whereas in the Mahabharata, Dhritarashtra is the king, but he is attached. He is not incorrigible.

The really evil person is Dhritarashtra's son Duryodhana. Dhritarashtra is attached. So, Dhritarashtra and Duryodhana, their condition is like Duryodhana, Dhritarashtra was on the throne, but Duryodhana had the power.

So, it is like in India for the past 10 years, it was like that. There was one person who was in the position of the Prime Minister and other person who was pulling all the ropes. So, Duryodhana knew which buttons to press to make Dhritarashtra dance according to his tunes and that's what he did.

So, then still Vidura had hope that Dhritarashtra could be redeemed and he knew that Dhritarashtra was very attached to Duryodhana. So, Vidura felt that if I go directly over to the side of the Pandavas and if I become a part of the people who killed Dhritarashtra's sons, then Dhritarashtra will become antagonistic to me. He will not remain open to hearing from me.

So, therefore, he did not go to their side. He just left on a pilgrimage and then when he came back at that time, Dhritarashtra had lost everything. Now, Dhritarashtra had to lose everything before he could lose his blindness.

Before he could lose his blindness, not the physical blindness, but the blindness of attachment. So, he had to because he was just holding on to his attachment, Dhritarashtra. Rashtra is country, Dhritarashtra is to hold on.

So, Dhritarashtra actually originally was a positive name. Dhritarashtra also means to maintain. Dhritarashtra means a king who will maintain the kingdom.

But that name also had a negative connotation where instead of maintaining the kingdom, he held on to the kingdom no matter what happened. So, Vidura will go back to Dhritarashtra and will deliver to him. Vidura will go back and speak strong words, strong words which are filled with affection, but they are strong words still.

And Dhritarashtra at that time because now the hope in material life is lost. That is why he becomes ready for renunciation. This is not very high level renunciation.

It is renunciation that comes from frustration, which is ok. So, frustration can be an impetus for renunciation, but it is not a sufficient impetus. There has to be like one time one person asked me on my website, on my website different people ask different questions.

So, he asked, I want to become a monk in your tradition. How can I become a monk? And he says, I want to know the process because next month I will be taking the decision. So, I asked him what is going to happen next month? He said, you know, I have proposed to a girl and if she says no, then I am going to become a monk.

So, actually in material life we may experience frustration, but frustration when it leads to some renunciation, that renunciation is simply because of one's inability to get what one still wants. Whereas, real renunciation is when one wants something higher in life and that's why one gives up the lower. So, if one gives up the lower just because it is very difficult to get, then in future many things can happen.

One thing that can happen is that when the things seem easier to get and again one may start going for those things. Another is if in one's spiritual life one starts experiencing difficulties, then one may feel, okay, I thought there was difficulty there, so I came here, but now here also there are difficulties. So, maybe I should go back there.

So, frustration can be a starter for the spiritual journey. For most people, it is the starter. In Kali Yuga, four kinds of people come to Krishna.

The distressed, the distressed, the distressed and the distressed. Very, very few people are actually inquisitive. Very few people are gyanis.

Most people who come are distressed and they want some relief. And yes, bhakti does provide some relief, but initially they may come out of distress. Krishna describes these four categories of people in 7.16. But then by the association of devotees, they get spiritual knowledge and they become jnanavan.

And then they can continue in the practice of bhakti. If we come because of distress to Krishna, that is good, but that is not a sustainable platform for a relationship with Krishna. Because once the distress goes away, or sometimes the distress doesn't go away and we think Krishna doesn't help, we will go away from Krishna at that time.

When we understand that Krishna doesn't just remove the distress, Krishna raises us above the distress. Krishna doesn't necessarily remove the problem that we are facing, but rather he raises our consciousness about the problem, by which we don't feel so disturbed by the problems. The material ups and downs are definitely, they trouble us.

But say suppose there is a beggar and that beggar has say $5 and then somebody, the beggar has $5 in the pocket and somebody comes and is trying to steal that $5. Oh, the beggar will get very agitated. No, it's $5.

I want it. And the other hand, if somebody offers $5, the beggar will become very eager. Yes, give me $5.

So in both cases, for the beggar who has nothing, a loss or a gain of $5 is a big thing. But if the beggar is on a path to meet a person who is going to give him $5 million, then the $5 loss or the $5 gain will not matter much. If he understands, if I just go here, if I go and meet this person, he's going to give me $5 million.

So like that, in bhakti, when we connect with Krishna, there is enormous fulfillment available. And when we focus on that, when we focus on our connection with Krishna, on the remembrance of Krishna, on our relationship with Krishna, that is like a $5 million gain. And as compared to that, material gains or material losses, they are like $5 loss or $5 gain.

So if we don't have the connection with Krishna, then whatever material up and down will be there, that will seem very disturbing to us. But when we have the connection with Krishna, then the material up and down is tolerable. Yes, it is still there, we do notice it, but we don't get worked up by it.

We don't get excessively agitated by it. So bhakti is, bhakti can calm us, bhakti can provide us composure, bhakti can provide us satisfaction, but it all is based on how much we are focused on Krishna. If we are not focused on Krishna, then it's like a beggar who is going to meet a person who is going to give $5 million.

But the beggar is not looking at that person, not thinking about that person, the beggar is thinking, oh, I'm losing this $5. Oh, maybe I'll get and gain this $5. And in this way, the beggar loses the chance for gaining something higher.

Krishna says that the self-realized sage is not elated when there is pleasure and is not dejected when there is pain. How is that? Because brahmavit brahmanistitah, the person is situated in the brahman platform, is situated in a firm relationship with Krishna. And it is that relationship that enables that person to stay composed amidst the ups and downs of life.

So what happens to the devotee is, as I said, Krishna may not remove the problems, but Krishna raises us above the problems. The $5 gain, $5 loss will still be there. But because we know that we want to gain something so much greater, so then this doesn't matter so much for us.

So the point I was making in this connection is that when we approach Krishna out of frustration, out of distress, then initially anyway we approach Krishna that is good. But if you get philosophical understanding that Krishna is going to offer me something much, much bigger than a materially comfortable situation or provide relief from material uncomfortable situation, then we can stay steadily focused on Krishna. And it is not that Krishna wants us to be materially miserable, but it is that as long as we stay focused on getting on material things, our consciousness is not open to get to take what Krishna is giving us.

And that's how we deprive ourselves of Krishna bhakti. Now, in the Vedic tradition, it is described how God himself descends to this world. And that is the focus of Srila Prabhupada's purport here.

So what Prabhupada focuses on is that when Krishna descends to this world, he does not descend in a material body. His activities are not like our activities. Now, why is this significant? The word avatar itself means one who descends.

So, the Supreme Lord exists at a higher spiritual level of reality in the spiritual world and from there he descends to this world. Now, the translation for avatar which the Prabhupada uses is incarnation. Now, actually the word incarnation is used primarily, it has been used primarily in the western religious context to refer to Jesus coming to this world.

Jesus is called incarnation and their idea is that God became human in the form of Jesus. So now, the conception of incarnation which is there in Christianity and as is imbued in the word's etymology, that is very different from the Vedic conception of avatar. The word incarnation has the root karna.

Karna means flesh, like we have carnivorous animals, those who eat flesh or carnal desires, desires of the body, desires of the flesh, sensual desires. So, incarnation means to come in flesh. That's why we also have the word reincarnation.

Reincarnation is to come back again in flesh, come back again in the material body. So, Krishna, when he descends to this world, he does not come in a material body. So, in that sense, more philosophically precise word for our translation for avatar is descent.

It is not translation. It is not incarnation. When Krishna descends to world, it is his divine descent.

It is not his incarnation. Now, Srila Prabhupada, he adopted a particular strategy when he did his translations. Prabhupada did not get too much into technicalities of things.

Prabhupada's focus was on keeping things as simple as possible. So, actually, translation of scripture is a very complex art and it requires a masterly understanding of the subject and not just a masterly understanding of the subject, it also requires a competent understanding of the audience. So, in any kind of knowledge transfer, there are three things.

There is a subject, there is a speaker and there is the audience. So, the subject itself has to be subject itself is one thing, which it should be or is supposed to be the connecting link between the speaker and the audience. But the speaker needs to have internalized subject and the speaker needs to communicate the subject to the audience.

So, for example, Prabhupada uses the word incarnation for avatar. Why is that? Because Prabhupada does not want to bombard his audience with double unfamiliarity. There are terms and there are concepts.

Concepts are inside our head. Terms are like verbal handles for reaching out to concepts. Just like if I have a big suitcase and the handle is broken, then it becomes very difficult to carry the suitcase.

So, if I just hold on to the handle and the handle comes off the suitcase, that is also a problem. But the handle, when it is connected with the suitcase and the handle makes it easy for us to move around the suitcase. So, the handle is like the term and the suitcase is like the concept.

So, the handle is the term, the suitcase is the concept. So, terms are verbal handles for concepts. Now, if the term and the concept both are unfamiliar, then it becomes a double unfamiliarity for people.

So, Prabhupada, in general, in his English purports, he does not quote Sanskrit verses, but he does not use Sanskrit terms in his purpose. He directly uses usually, for example, he translates gunas as modes. He translates sattva as goodness.

So, he does not use the Sanskrit words much because he wants to keep things simple. So, Prabhupada, there is a term and there is a concept. The concept of avatar is unfamiliar to his audience.

So, what he does, he uses a familiar term and then clarifies its meaning. That is the strategy that Prabhupada uses. So, he uses the word incarnation, then immediately he says, Krishna does not come in a material body.

In that way, he makes the concept, first of all, accessible by using a familiar term and then he makes it intelligible by giving the necessary clarification. Now, why is it so important to understand that Krishna, say, does not have a material body or Krishna's activities are not like our activities? The reason is that in this material world, everyone is bound and Krishna exists in a different category itself. Sometimes, we may have the idea that, okay, there is a hierarchy of beings and God is at the top of the hierarchy.

There is a hierarchy of beings and God is at the top. But it is not like that. Now, that is what Hiranyakashipu's mentality was when he asked Prahlad that, by whose strength are you fighting against? Are you able to resist? By whose strength are you able to resist? So, he was thinking maybe there is some other powerful being, I will beat him up, I will kill him and Prahlad will bow down to me.

Now, Prahlad did not just give a simple answer. He did not say, my strength is from Vishnu. What did he say? He says, my strength is the same as the source of your strength and also the source of the strength of Brahma, who was actually the source of Hiranyakashipu's boons.

So, the point he is making is that actually the Supreme Lord exists in an entirely different category. If we think that there is simply a hierarchy of beings and God is at the top, then like in any hierarchy, things can change. Say, there is a tennis tournament in which one player is number one.

That player is number one, but some other player performs better and number one will push down, somebody else will become number one. So, if we think that the simple hierarchy of beings and God is the best of all beings, then we may think that in future somebody else may take up the position of being the best of all beings. But God is not just the best of all beings.

He is the best of all beings. But He is not just the best of all beings. He is the basis of all being.

He is the basis of all of existence. Without Him, nothing can exist. That nothing can exist without me, Krishna said in 10.39 Bhagavad Gita.

He says, I am the seed of all of existence. I am the sustainer of all of existence. So, God exists in an entirely different category.

God exists in His own distinct category. He is not like us. Sometimes for the purpose of analysis, it may be said that, okay, that Shiva has 48 qualities, Vishnu has 60 qualities, Krishna has 64 qualities.

This sort of numerical analysis is simply given as an indicator because the scripture also says, the Bhagavatam also says that the Lord has so many qualities that one may be able to count all the stars, dust particles, one may be able to count all the atoms in the universe, but one may not be able to count the qualities of the Lord. So, if His qualities are uncountable, then how can they be 64? How can they be limited to 64? Prabhupada quotes in this parabola, and Krishna has six opulences. Why only six opulences? Krishna has unlimited opulences.

To drive home this point, Ramacharya in his Sri Bhashya, in his commentary on the Vedanta Sutra, he says, Narayana is Anantagunasampanna Narayana. He is Anantagunasampanna. He is filled with unlimited qualities.

So, within a particular frame of analysis, for our understanding, we may talk about how, yes, within this frame of analysis, they have this many qualities, they have this many qualities and Krishna has 64 qualities. That is simply for our understanding. A name that Ramacharya uses in his Vishnu Tattva Vinayana to describe Vishnu is Sarva Namavan.

He is the possessor of all names. All names ultimately refer to Vishnu. Why? Because different names describe different qualities and all qualities are present in their originality and in their fullness in Vishnu.

So, God exists in a different category of being. He is not just another human being. Not that he is just a very powerful human being.

No. Not even the most powerful human being. He exists in a different category.

So, sometimes people ask that, you know, can atheists like to try to catch theists with questions like this? Can God create a stone which he can't lift? So, these sort of questions are actually meant to trap. Because the idea is that if you say that God can't create a stone, then there is something which God can't do. And if you say that God can create a stone, again, there is something which he can't do.

First, in first case, he can't create a stone. In second case, he can't lift a stone. Neither way, there is something that God can't do.

So, such questions, actually, when they are meant to trap, they cannot be answered. First of all, they have a certain assumption under those questions. Those assumptions need to be challenged.

Prabhupada gave a simple answer to this question. He said that he can create such a stone and then he will lift it because his energy is infinite. Now, this answer for those who already understand God's omnipotence, this is a very simple and sweet answer.

Krishna can create a stone which he can't lift, then his energy will expand and then he will lift it. This is one answer. But another answer is we deconstruct the philosophical assumption over there.

The assumption is that God is just another category of being. It's like somebody might create a car, somebody might create a device, somebody might create a weighing machine and then they create something so big they can't lift it. God is not just another being like a stone or like a creator.

God is in his own category. So, without God, neither the stone can exist nor the activity of lifting by anyone is possible. So, God is just a being because of whom everything is possible.

Without him, nothing would be possible. So, to understand this, how such questions can be deconstructed, the standard question that is given in logic is a trap question. You ask someone, have you stopped beating your wife? Now, if you say yes, what does that mean? That means you are admitting that I was beating my wife in the past, but I have stopped beating her.

And if I say no, that means shameless guy is still beating your wife. So, such a question has no answer. There is a false duality created over there.

And the answer requires first asking the question in the assumption over there. Who told you that I beat my wife? I have to counter this question by countering the assumption that is implicit in the question. So, like that, these questions which are meant to trap, can God create a stone which he can't lift? God is not like a thing in this world which is another thing and who can create one thing.

Without him, neither the stone would exist nor the activity of lifting would be possible. Nothing would exist without him. He is foundational to all of existence.

And to the extent we understand God's transcendence, basically, in philosophy, there are two terms, there is transcendence and there is immanence. Transcendence means God exists beyond nature. And immanence means God exists within nature.

So, transcendence is, within our philosophy, it is, let's say, Krishna exists in the spiritual world, beyond this world. That is the transcendental aspect of God. And then when Krishna descends in this world, that is the avatar.

So, that is, for example, the deities, this is an immanent manifestation of God. It's God who is transcendent, has manifested in this world to give us access to him, to give us access to him. In the Srivastava tradition, Pillai Lokacharya is a famous acharya.

And he gives an example of how God who is transcendent can manifest as the deity. This concept of deity is actually very, very difficult for people of the Abrahamic traditions to understand. The Abrahamic traditions are the traditions which have come from the prophet Abraham.

So, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, all three are called as Abrahamic traditions. Now, within these traditions, the idea of God's transcendence is very strongly emphasized. That God is the other, God is so lofty, so remote, that actually he cannot be depicted by anything material.

And their idea is that any depiction of God through matter is a false depiction. And there was a Jewish philosopher, Moses Maimonides, he explains why the Abrahamic tradition is so strongly against deity worship, against any form of image worship. He says that, what is, he asks this question, and I'll first explain his argument, which is actually within their philosophical context, a reasonable argument.

And then we'll explain how outside the philosophical context, that argument doesn't apply. So, he says that yes, God is beyond this world and people may say we need some representation of God. And that's why, what is the harm in having some representation of God which we can worship? He says, people are not very intelligent.

And when you provide them a representation, they will start worshiping the representation and they will forget the one who is being represented by that representation. And in due course of time, the representation of God, instead of becoming a path to God, will become a substitute to God. That instead of using the representation to worship the represented, people will think the representation itself is God and then the representation will become a competitor to God.

And therefore, he says there should be no representation of God. Because there should not be any competitor of God. And that's why they hold that anywhere where there is a representation of God in this world, it is a false representation.

And because it is a false representation, they say, to establish the glory of the true God, all false gods must be destroyed. And that's why it is not just if we hear in the Indian history of how many say the Muslim rulers came and they would desecrate the temples, they would desecrate the deities. This is not just the activity of some fringe fanatical extremists in those religions.

No, the destruction of idols is a central ideology within these traditions. In fact, in the Quran, it is said that Allah can forgive any and every sin except the sin of idol worship. Idol worship is unforgivable.

Because they say that when you are worshipping an idol, you are worshipping someone who is a competitor of Allah. And that is an unforgivable sin for Allah. So actually, this depicts God as a jealous God.

A God who doesn't want any competitors for himself. And because he doesn't want any competitors, you know, he not only destroys those competitors, but he also destroys and condemns those who are worshipping such competitors. So now, within their frame of reference, there is no description of God given.

There is no description of the form of God that is given. And it's interesting, there is personalism and there is impersonalism. In personalism, we understand that God is a person and he has a form.

And in personalism, the idea is God is beyond personality and form. Now, Islam and to a large extent Christianity also, it falls in a category in between. Muslims accept that God is a person, but they say he doesn't have a form.

Now, how we can have personality without form that for 1500 years, their philosophers have been struggling to explain. Personality and form go together. So how can there be personality without form? But that is their argument because there are clear incidents whether it is the Quran or the Old Testament or God speaks and God is a person, God has consciousness, God has emotions.

But then there is also the very clear statements within the scripture that you cannot depict God in any form. So they try to reconcile it by saying God is a person, but he does not have a form. Now, the problem with this argument often is that it is incoherent.

As I said, logically, how can there be personality without a form? More importantly, there are also attributes of God described in terms of his form. We describe Allah's eyes or Allah's hands or God spoke this, God heard this, God came here. So they talk about his form also, but they try to explain it away as metaphorical.

So now, in one context, when the transcendence of God is emphasized very much, that any representation of God in this world is considered to be a misrepresentation. It is considered to be misrepresentation. So now, when the Europeans came to India, before that when the conquerors from Arabia came to India, they thought that whatever is depicted in the temples in India, that is idol worship.

And that is considered to be, from their perspective, terribly wrong. It's an abomination against God. That's why they condemned it strongly.

So, the Muslims were physically aggressive. When the Europeans came, Britishers, they were not physically aggressive, they were intellectually aggressive. The Muslims destroyed temples, the Europeans, they destroyed the faith that made people go to the temples.

They made people skeptics. Now, of course, we can't blame them, because it was we ourselves who did not defend the tradition. Actually speaking, we see that when the Europeans, when the Europeans came to India, first there was East India Company, and the East India Company was not at all interested in interfering with the religious life of people, because they thought we are here for business.

And for almost 100 years, the East India Company banned Christian missionaries from coming into India. They said, we don't want to interfere with our business interests. And when Jagannath Ambedkar would be there, the East India Company had arranged that there would be guards, just like nowadays we have the guard of honour, when some venerable person comes, bullets are shot maybe 16 times or 21 times, whatever.

So, like that, whenever Jagannath would go on yatra, the East India Company's guard would shoot a guard of honour. Why? Because they wanted to maintain the harmonious relationship so that their business could go on. But later on, when the Queen Victoria came to rule in Britain, and then 1857, there was the rebellion, which the East India Company couldn't quell.

So, at that time, in Britain itself, there were two parties, one was very religious, the other was more secular. So, when the religious party came to power, at that time, their agenda started becoming more and more directly condemning of the native religious traditions. But all along, it was the Indians who never really tried to defend their own tradition.

So, I am talking about all this background, because the purport here is talking about Prabhupada repeatedly emphasizing that God is not material, that God's form is not material, that God's position is not like our position. So, when God's position is equated with our position, what happens? That is, for those who know, have some understanding of God, they think this is simply a misrepresentation. And this misrepresentation needs to be destroyed.

So, in their religious traditions, there is no direct positive description of God, because there is no positive description of God. So, they feel any description must be a misrepresentation. Now, outside their tradition, is it possible that I have written a full book on this topic called Idol Worship or Ideal Worship.

So, in their tradition, there is no description of God. But what if some other tradition had positive description of God? So, Prabhupada, he would be very objective at times and he would say that, we are worshipping Krishna as God, you give us a better conception of God. If your conception is truly better, we will worship that concept, we are interested in God.

And then they would ask that, if Krishna is the God that Jesus talked about, then why did Jesus not say it is Krishna? So, Prabhupada would answer differently at different time. Prabhupada one time he said, he just basically reiterated what Moses taught, thou shall not kill. And he himself was killed for that.

So, he could not give much knowledge of that. More importantly, the different religions are like universities. They are universities to provide us knowledge of God and to provide us experience of God.

Now, suppose somebody was studying in say, in some college in India, somebody was studying in ITC. And then you come to Singapore to study in Singapore University. Why? Because there is higher knowledge available.

If somebody says, no, I will study only in IIT. If there is some knowledge not available in IIT, I will not study that knowledge. Then, you know, I will study only in this college, someone says, then we have to ask them.

Say, are you interested in knowledge or are you interested in college? Similarly, if people say something is not revealed in our tradition, that is not true, that is not possible. We have to ask, are you interested in religion or are you interested in God? The two are not the same thing. Religion is a means to God.

And God is much greater than whatever religions we may devote to him. We should not reduce God down to fit into our religious tradition. Rather, we need to know our religious tradition is a means to God who is bigger than our religious tradition.

And Krishna talks about this. See, religion is meant for God. God is not meant for religion.

When we say that my religious tradition is the only way to God, then what we are doing? We are reducing God to our religious tradition. So, religion is meant for God. God is not meant for religion.

Religion is the means by which we can achieve God. And we cannot reduce God down to any particular religion. And Krishna demonstrates this in Sarva Dharman Parityajya Maam Ekam Sharanam Vajra.

So, there is one Hindu scholar, he says that, you know, Krishna has said that he has come to establish Dharma Samsthap Naradaya. Then how can he say Sarva Dharman Parityajya? So, he says, actually, over the centuries, there was some Pathantara Veda. Pathantara Veda means when the scripture will be written down again, sometimes some spelling mistake might happen.

So, it is called Pathantara Veda. That's why traditionally, whenever say, if Ramanuja writes a commentary on the Gita, then usually the introduction would be a description of Pathantara Veda. He says, okay, I read this version, this version, this version, this version.

And in this version, this letter is like this, this letter is like this. And I have taken this version as authoritative. And then he describes that.

So, this is that Sarva Dharman Parityajya. Actually, there is one O missing in that. So, actually, the verse is Sarva Adharman Parityajya Mamekam Sharanam Vracham.

Krishna is saying, give up all Adharma and surrender to me. So, now, this is because, sort of argument comes because one doesn't understand the loftiness of the message of Gita. So, he is thinking that if we give up Dharma, then we will become Adharmic.

And Krishna has obviously not come to tell us to become Adharmic. The point is Krishna is not telling us to become Adharmic. Rather, Krishna is telling us to go beyond Dharma to Paradharma.

Sarva Dharman Parityajya Mamekam Sharanam Vracham. That Mamekam. So, give up religion, give up all religion so that you can surrender to me.

That means that don't get caught in religion and forget the purpose of religion that is to love God. You get so caught in religion that we forget that the purpose of my religion is to love God. So, Bhaktivinoda Thakur gives another example.

He says that the same absolute truth has been seen in Krishna's, in Chaitanya Shikshamurthy describes, that same absolute truth has been seen from the East by Patanjali. The same absolute truth has been seen from the West by Thai thinkers. The same absolute truth has been seen by different sages, different thinkers from different directions.

But the same one absolute truth. So, the different paths, different religious paths are like, you could say paths to climb up a mountain. Paths to climb up a mountain.

Now, there are different paths which can all meant to take one to the top of the mountain. Some paths may be more difficult, some paths may be easier, but all paths are meant for the same purpose. Now, somebody who just keeps going round and round at the bottom of the mountain telling other people, your path is wrong, your path is wrong, your path is wrong, your path is wrong.

They may keep going round and round, but they are not climbing up the mountain themselves. So, our purpose is not, our purpose or other religious purpose should not be just to tell other people that they are wrong. It is to inspire people to rise.

So, Srila Prabhupada would say, I have not come here to convert people from one religion to another. If there is any conversion, it is from materialism to spirituality, raise people's consciousness. Unfortunately, with a material understanding of God, so there is a material conception of God, which can come from the background of the Abrahamic traditions, where people think this is simply a representation of God.

And we should not have any representations. Now, in the impersonalist idea, so this is, so when Indians were responding to the attack of the Abrahamic religion, intellectual attacks, so the impersonalist came up with the idea that actually there is the absolute truth and that absolute truth is originally formless. And he temporarily assumed the form so that he can, so that he can connect with us and so that we can connect with him and then ultimately we have to go beyond form.

So, basically the Upanishads talk about Tattvatraya. I will conclude with this concept. This is a significant concept.

There is Tattvatraya in the Upanishads. Tattvatraya is three truths. It is referred to in the terms of the alliterative jiva.

There is Jagat, Jiva and Jagdish. There is the Jiva, there is the Prakriti, the Jiva and the Ishwara. So, Jagat, Jiva and Jagdish.

Now, these three are the fundamental things in existence, nature, the enjoyer and consciousness. Prabhupada translates 13th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita. The 13th chapter of the Gita is the closest in its content and its style to the Upanishads.

So, there, now Jagat, Jiva and Jagdish. Now, actually speaking, the impersonalists say that all three are maya, that the absolute truth is Brahman and Brahman is transcendental and when Brahman comes in touch with Tamoguna, we have the Jagat. When Brahman comes in touch with Rajoguna, we have the Jiva.

And when Brahman comes in touch with Satoguna, there is the Jagdish. So, they consider that the form of the absolute is also a result of the contact with the modes of material nature. So, their philosophical conception is very different from the Abrahamic religion's conception.

The Abrahamic religion is, this is false itself. Whereas, the impersonalist conception is, this is transitional. This is transitory, you use this form to go beyond.

To give an example for how this works, say, their idea is, yes, you can worship the deity, but deity is a symbolic representation of something which is actually formless. So, for example, this can be called, if you want to use western language, it is called as ascending symbolism. Ascending symbolism means, say, there is a flag of a country and there is the country itself.

Now, India has a tricolour flag. Now, when people see the flag, when you say, oh, we should offer respect to India, what do I do? And I say, offer respect to India. But when you see a flag, we salute the flag.

That is the way we offer respect to the representation of India through its flag. Now, the connection between the flag and the concept, that is the nation, that connection is only in our mind. There is no intricate connection between the flag and the country.

Say, now there is a, India has a tricolour flag. Say, if in future India decides, actually agriculture is not very important for us now. So, we will remove the green colour from it.

So, can India have a bi-colour flag instead of a tricolour flag? Yeah, if the parliament passes a resolution, the flag can be changed, isn't it? Because the flag itself has no intrinsic connection with the country. The flag is simply meant to evoke emotions through a tangible form for something which is amorphous concept. So, there is no intrinsic connection, the connection is only in our conception and that conception is adjustable.

So, the impersonalists have the conception that the deity is like that. The deity, whichever form can evoke bhakti in your heart, you can worship that form. So, you can worship Vishnu, you can worship Shiva, you can worship Durga, you can worship me also.

The impersonal spiritual master, you can worship me also. Why? So, ultimately their idea is everything is formless. The absolute truth is formless and form is just a temporary tool to evoke devotion.

So, to understand this example another way, suppose the husband comes home and the wife sees in his wallet, normally her photo is there, but now some other woman's photo is there. You say, what is this going on? He says, no, actually I am thinking of you only, but I just kept someone else's photo. But now, actually in this case, the photo and the person are intrinsically connected.

You cannot say that you can have another person's photo and you can say I am remembering this person because the photo and the person are directly connected. So, like that the deity and Krishna, they are in a rough sense like the photo and the person. We cannot interchange someone else's photo and say I am thinking of the same person because they are different persons.

Like that Krishna and his deity, they are intrinsically connected. So, the connection is not simply in our imagination. The connection is actually in reality.

It is Krishna who has a particular form and it is Krishna who manifests in that form. So, to the extent we understand that Krishna is transcendental, to that extent two things happen. First is that our devotion to him becomes elevated to a transcendental platform.

Siddhanta Baliya chitte na kare alas, Iha hainte Krishna lage sudhrudha manas. So, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu says that Krishnadas Kaviraj Goswami wrote the Chaitanya Charita Amrut at a particular time in Gaudiya Vaishnava history. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's movement soon after he departed was almost hijacked by Sahajiyas.

Sahajiyas, they started imitating the esoteric pastimes of Radha and Krishna. What they would do is that there was a Shakta tradition of worship and that came actually from a Buddhist tradition. So, basically they started imagining that when we hear the confidential pastimes of Radha and Krishna and if we get absorbed in those pastimes, then Radha and Krishna will actually enter into us.

And then people would say they would engage in sensual activities and they would claim that Radha and Krishna are enjoying through us. This was complete distortion. But this is what started happening.

When they were thinking like this, at this way, so at this particular point, they would say that actually the Leela is what matters. The philosophy that doesn't matter. Philosophically try to explain that.

No, Krishna is transcendental. Krishna's pastimes are transcendental. They are not material.

No, no, no, we are at the transcendental level. Actually, they were not at the level of transcendental, they were at the level of ignorance. But they are claiming that they are at the level of transcendental.

So, addressing such people, Krishna Sankaracharya Swami says, don't say all this is philosophy, this is not important for me. Don't be lazy about understanding philosophy. Why? Because once we understand the philosophy, by this, our consciousness will become fixed on Krishna.

Because we will understand that Krishna is a transcendental person. He is the supreme reality. He is not an ordinary person.

And by becoming devoted to him, we too will attain transcendence. So, the Bhagavatam also talks about this in a very dramatic way. Bhagavatam talks about the Rasa Leela of Krishna from chapters 29 to 33 and the 10th canto.

And then in the conclusion, normally in the Puranas, there is a phalashruti that comes. Oh, if you hear this pastime, you will become liberated from all sinful reactions. If you hear this pastime, you will attain opulence like Vishnu.

If you hear these pastimes, you will become free from all misery, whatever, all sorts of huge promises come. But at the end of the Rasa Leela, Rasa Leela narration, what does Shukadeva Goswami say? He gives a very amazing phalashruti. So, he says, one who hears about these pastimes properly, with faithfully and in parampara, properly, what will happen? For such a person, bhakti will arise in the heart and when bhakti arises, this is quite the opposite of what would happen if Radha Krishna's activities were ordinary activities.

People go and watch romantic movies or they may read romantic novels. Now, what is the result of those novels? Now, that kind of desires come in their heart. Basically, when people watch movies, romantic or erotic movies, basically what is that? That is second hand mating.

Second hand mating. Somebody else is mating and they are imagining, if I was there, it would be so nice. So, basically, it is basically sense gratification.

And normally, when we see, when people see something romantic, similar desires awaken in their heart. People see something sensual, sensual desires awaken in their heart. But the Bhagavatam is saying that by hearing the pastimes of Radha Krishna, our sensual desires will go away.

How would this be possible if their desire, if their activities are ordinary, their activities are not ordinary, they are transcendental? So, the Bhagavad Gita, 15th chapter, first verse talks about how this world is like an upside down banyan tree. The upside down banyan tree means that if there is a tree on the banks of a river, then we will see it reflected down in the river as an upside down tree. So, like that, this world is a reflection of the spiritual world.

And the Bhagavatam describes, suppose there is a mango, which somebody sees in the reflection, they go and chase the mango again and again and again. And they just can't get the mango, no matter how much they try. But if somebody tells, actually the mango is not here, this is a reflection, that is the mango.

And once they get it, oh, that is the mango. Then the more they hear about the mango, their desire to go towards the reflection will decrease. And they will start trying to see, okay, how can I climb up this tree? How can I get this mango? So, to the extent they understand that this is the reality and this is a reflection, then they will start becoming more attracted towards the reality and they will give up their attraction towards the reflection.

This is what happens when we understand Krishna's position. Krishna's position, Krishna's relationship with his devotees, they are the real mango, that is the real love, eternal everlasting love that is there, that is actually between the soul and Krishna. That is actually the longing for everlasting love is something which is a very innate longing for all of us.

In all the movies, novels, they all talk about H E A, happily ever after. Now, Krishna, he tells the nature of the world is exactly opposite, Dukkhalayam Ashashvatam. Dukkhalayam Ashashvatam is the exact opposite of happily ever after.

Happily Dukkhalayam Ashashvatam ever after. So, what is the reality? The reality of this world is that there is no happily ever after. But still, it is a deep longing of the heart.

Where does this longing come from? This longing comes from our soul and it is meant to be fulfilled at the spiritual level in relationship with Krishna. So, when we understand philosophically, that actually the relationship with Krishna is the real mango, then we can become detached from the reflection, that is the promise of pleasure in this world. And that's why understanding the position of Krishna is extremely important.

And without understanding the position of Krishna, there are two possibilities. One is that one thing that mango itself is false, or one thinks that the reflected mango is the real mango. So, if we don't study the philosophy and directly jump into Krishna's confidential pastimes, then what may happen? See, for the great devotees, when they look at the reflection also, they remember the reality.

There is a famous verse of Rupa Goswami where he says, Yuvati naam yatha, yuvnav yuvnav chhi yuvati myatha, mano bhi ramate tatra, mano me ramatam tohi. He says, just as a boy is attracted to a girl and a girl is attracted to boy, my dear lord, let my heart be attracted towards you. So, he is seeing the reflection and in the male-female attraction in this world, it's extremely powerful.

So, he is not condemning it. He is saying, just as one is attracted to, just as there is that force of attraction in that, let my heart be attracted to you. So, the reflection is reminding him of the reality.

Because he is philosophically convinced that that is the reality, this is the reflection. If we are not philosophically convinced, then what may happen is the reality may remind us of the reflection. We hear Radha Krishna's pastimes and we may become sensually agitated.

That's why siddhanta bhalya chitte na kareyada. So, study the philosophy, understand the philosophy, understand the difference between the reflection and the reality and then we can become attracted towards the reality. Then as we become attracted towards the reality, then what happens? Iha hai te krishna lage, sudhrudha mana.

With determination, we will fix our mind on Krishna. Understanding that Krishna is the source of supreme happiness. There are many sources of happiness in this world, but they are all like sparks.

They will give a little pleasure, but Krishna is like a huge sun. He can warm us with unlimited pleasure, unlimited happiness. All our longings for life and love, happy life and everlasting love, all those longings are fulfilled in Krishna.

And how they are fulfilled in Krishna is what the Bhagavatam depicts. Whether Krishna is present in front of us or Krishna has departed from us, still because the devotee's heart is devoted to Krishna, so the devotees find fulfillment in Krishna. I will summarize.

I talked about how the Bhagavatam offers a prelude. The Bhagavatam center is Krishna's pastime in the 10th canto and Krishna's instruction in the 11th canto. But it offers the prelude in the setting by describing Krishna's pastime in the 9th chapter from 7th to 15th cantos, 15th chapter of the 1st canto, as it sets the scene for the conversation between Parikshit Maharaja and Shukadeva Goswami.

Then this is the section where Krishna's pastimes are described the most. One full chapter in the 2nd chapter and this chapter also, the questions that are there, they are also describing Krishna's pastimes. And then here, specifically, we discussed how Vidura acted very strategically.

Rather than going against the Dhritarashtra, he just left so that he could later come back and save Dhritarashtra. Whatever questions Vidura asks to Uddhava, Uddhava does not answer. Maitreya answers following etiquette.

And specifically with respect to this purport, we discussed how Krishna's position is transcendental and why understanding that is so important. So that connection I discussed how God is not just the best of all beings. He is the basis of all beings.

And questions such as how can God create a stone that he cannot lift? These are questions which come from assumption that God is just another being like a stone or another being like some other creator. But God is an entirely different being. And we need to counter the assumption underlying the question.

It's like the question may come that I will stop beating your wife. The only way to answer the question is to counter question the assumption underlying the question. So God exists in his own category as a different being.

And this otherness of God is called as transcendence. In some tradition, the Abrahamic tradition, this transcendence is excessively emphasized. And that's why they say that any representation of God is a misrepresentation.

And the misrepresentation will become a competitor to God. And therefore, misrepresentations will be destroyed. But the Vedic understanding is that yes, there can be misrepresentations of God.

But more importantly, God has original form. And when that form is revealed, if we are truly the seekers of God, if we truly want to be lovers of God, then we should want to know more and more about God. And by focusing ourselves on God, on his form, devoting ourselves to his form, we can rise towards transcendence.

So, one mistake in approaching God's form is to think that it is just a misrepresentation. The other is the impersonalist misconception. That is, it is not a misrepresentation, but it is a transitional representation.

It is a representation which is to be transcended. They think that while we are conditioned, we need a form to meditate on. So, we can meditate on Ish Jagdish, who is Brahman in Saptoguna.

And later on, we go beyond that. But that is a misunderstanding. Their conception of God is like the relationship between God and his form is like that between a nation and its flag.

It is basically in conception. And that is why they think any form can be worshipped. But the Vedic understanding is, it is not ascending symbolism.

It is not our own imagination. But it is descending symbolism that the person and their photo, they are intrinsically connected. The photo is not created by the imagination about the person, but the photo is actually a depiction of what the person is like.

So, like that, the deity depicts what Krishna is like. And by worshipping the deity, by worshipping Krishna, why is this? Why does Krishna's form can be so easily misunderstood? And why does Krishna reveal his form at all? That is because then he reveals to us the real mango. And to the extent we understand philosophically, this is a real mango, then we can become detached from the reflected mango.

So, philosophically, we understand what is the reality, what is the reflection, and then we direct our devotion accordingly. If we direct our devotion without philosophical understanding, then instead of getting attracted to the reality, we may equate the reality with the reflection. And that is what happens in Sahajaism, where they brought the reality down to the level of the reflection, unfortunately.

But if you understand the philosophy, then that philosophical understanding will give us the momentum, the intellectual impetus to move from the reflection towards the reality. And that reality, our longing for life and love eternal is perfectly fulfilled. Thank you very much.

Are there any questions or comments? Yes, sir. Towards violence, philosophers… I did not say that they are focused towards violence. But you can continue your question.

Yeah. So, like schools of thought, one school of thought is, you know, quite, I would say, inclined to destroy other schools of thought. And they are saying they are doing it because their tradition says so.

So could there be a harmony between such things? I see it could be… And then it could just be a survival of the fittest. Yeah. So, there are different religions.

And if the Brahmic religions have said that you cannot worship a form at all, then is it possible for there to be harmony? Or is there going to be ultimately a survival of the fittest? We have to look at the world through Shastra perception, not through the lens of the current socio-cultural or socio-religious divisions of the world. We think, okay, we are Hindus, they are Christians, they are Muslims, you know, we Hindus are good, those Muslims are bad. This is a material division.

The Shastric vision is there is Sattva Guna, there is Rajoguna, there is Tamoguna. And in all religions, there are people who are Sattvic, there are people who are Rajasic, there are people who are Tamasic. And even in the Hindu tradition also, there are people who have been Tamasic.

They may not have been as violent as in other religions. But there are other ways in which the Tamoguna has been expressed. For example, the caste discrimination, it was quite often terrible, the way it was done, lower caste were discriminated against.

So, that is completely Tamasic. And that Tamasic nature was exhibited by those who were actually meant to be Sattva Guna, the Brahmanas. So, the point here which we are making is that first of all, it is very easy to blame others, to demonize others and to blame others.

But relationships form when we see the similar in the other. Now, there is similarity between us and them. And that is essentially, we are all human beings.

And people accept religion, because it helps them in their own way to make sense of life. Wherever people are, people are essentially similar. Wherever people are, they want to get on with their lives.

And at that time, whatever religion they come across, which helps them to make sense of life in some way, they accept that and they move onward in life. So, it is not good to label people according to their religion. Because within the religion itself, there is a wide variety.

So, for example, in one sense, we are also part of the Hindu religion. But there are festivals where, in the Hindu religion itself, in that broad tradition, there are festivals where, you cannot call the word festivals, but there are, whatever it is, where sometimes millions of dogs or millions of cats or millions of animals are killed. In Nepal, the big thing happens over there and lot of protest about that.

So, now, we would say that that is not what we are doing. We may say that, yes, we are transcendental, they are mundane, but the fact is, it's all within the same tradition. And they will also find something to justify that.

So, within Christianity, within Islam also, there are people in goodness, there are people in passion, there are people in ignorance. And within any group of people, those who are in ignorance, there is no possibility of peace. So, whether it is between two religions or whether it is between two races, whether it is between two countries, say if India and Pakistan, if Indian rulers are passionate, if Pakistani rulers are passionate, there is no peace possible.

If Indian rulers are ignorant, if Pakistani rulers are ignorant, there is no peace possible. There is no harmony possible. So, this lack of harmony or the provocation towards violence, that is primarily determined by the modes in which we are living.

And those modes impel people to overpower others, to dominate others. And for those modes, there can be different kinds of rationalizations. In America, there was the idea that the white race is superior to the black race.

And that's why they tried to dominate the black people for so long. So, that was based on a externalized notion where some people based on a particular category are labeled in a particular way. So, that sort of labeling indicates a non-shastric vision.

So, there are Christians in goodness, you know, I am a part of several e-forums where we talk with various people of various religions. There is one of my Muslim friends, he told me that, I have written this about this also in my book, GK for PK, I wrote it. He said that it is easier for, this Muslim friend told me, it is easier for me to communicate with moderates of other traditions than extremists of my own tradition.

So, we cannot paint all Muslims in one color. So, he is saying that even I can't communicate with extremist Muslims. So, if there is an extremist, there is a moderate Hindu, or there is a moderate Christian, then there is possibility to communicate among them.

So, there are people who are in sattva guna in various religions, and it is sattvic people who can communicate, understand and expand their horizons. And it has happened also. There are many Christians who initially came to India with very negative conceptions.

We try to label Christian in one color. But there are many different Christians of very different dispositions. Now, ISKCON in America, when it came under the, when it was accused of brainwashing, at that time, you know, it was our Christian friends who saved us.

What happened is, of course, it's not that they were concerned about us primarily, but they, at that time, helped us to recognize, they said that they are bona fide religion. And they recognized that if today the charges of brainwashing are brought against the Hare Krishnas, tomorrow they can be brought against Christians also. So, because all religions have some common values which go against the mainstream materialistic values.

So, at that time, actually 1965, when Pope John Paul II was there, at that time, Vatican II was a major intellectual landmark in the history of the Catholic Church. Till then, the Catholic Church had the idea that actually all other religions are false. And Jesus is the only way to God.

They consider the other Abrahamic religions to be okay. They said Judaism is okay, but afterwards they have deviated. They say Jesus is the only way.

But in Vatican II, the Catholic Church recognized that we accept as good and holy that which is respectable in other religions. Now, they kept the wording a little vague, but overall, because of that, they became open to other religions. And this actually happened in 1965, just a couple of months before Srila Prabhupada went to America.

And that's why when the devotees started becoming serious devotees, if you look at the early reports of ISKCON, you'll find that there are Christian people who came and stayed in Hare Krishna temples. And some of them, like Professor Harvey Cox was there, and there are other professors, they said that these Hare Krishnas, they are utterly devoted to God, just as the original followers of Jesus were. Not caring about the world, completely devoted to God.

And it was testimonials like these, that eventually, when the court cases came against us, and they said that these are not just a cult, they are an ancient religion. And they are as devoted to God as our most serious practitioners are. That was what actually protected us.

So then our devotee leaders, Anuttama Prabhu is our communications director, he has been having for almost 30 years, they have been having a Vaishnav Christian dialogues going on. And two years ago, they published a journal of the various dialogues they've had. And it's very beautiful, the way the Christians, they have described how when they actually encountered the Hare Krishnas, what conceptions they had before, and how their conceptions changed.

They had, originally they thought this was just a pagan. You see, every religion has a derogatory reference for those who do not belong to that tradition. The Muslims call anyone who is not a Muslim as a kafir.

The Christians call everyone as pagans. We call them as Mlecchas and Yavanas. So everyone has that.

But the difference is we also have a philosophical vision, by which we recognize that there can be people in different modes. So there are Christians in goodness, and there are Muslims in goodness, and between them dialogues are possible. So when they encountered, when the Christians, their primary idea of Hinduism was impersonalism.

But when they encountered the Bhakti tradition in India, at that time, they said this is actually very similar to the love of God that is talked about in Christianity. And Prabhupada focused on that. That he said that we are also, Jesus gave up his life for the sake of love of God, and we are also teaching love of God.

So Krishna says in the 18th chapter, 20th verse, that knowledge in goodness means to see similarity. Knowledge in passion means to see dissimilarity. And knowledge in ignorance means to see only one fragment of reality, and to see, think this is everything.

So, knowledge in goodness means to see similarity. Sarva bhuteshu yenekam bhavam avyaynikshate. Avivaktam vivakteshu taj jnanam viddhi sattvikam.

That to see that actually, as I said, what is similar? We are all human beings. We are all aspiring to find meaning and happiness in life. And different people might try it in different ways.

There may be something right, something wrong in what they are doing. But essentially, there is similarity. The capacity to see that is goodness.

The capacity to see in passion is, oh, this is different, that is different, that is different. And therefore, there can be no similarity. And ignorance means to just take one sample, to take one sample and to label everyone based on that sample.

Oh, you know, you people, you people did violence, you people destroyed our temple. Well, they may have done that 500 years ago. And now we want to blame them for that right now.

Imagine if today somebody said that, oh, your ancestors, you know, you are Brahmins, you discriminate against our caste. So, therefore, we will destroy you now. We cannot do like that.

So, taking one sample of people and labeling everyone in that category, according to a particular label, that is actually knowledge in the mode of ignorance. So, we should see according to Shastra, to the extent the mode of goodness arises in the world, to that extent peace is possible. To the extent the mode of passion and ignorance arises in the world, to that extent violence will take place.

And that violence can be because of many causes. Religion can be a major cause, but atheism can also be an equally serious cause. Actually speaking, if you see, religious violence, we live in a culture where often religious violence is given a huge amount of media space, and then it occupies a lot of mind space within us.

But if you look at the biggest confrontations in the recent centuries, the World War I, World War II, they were not fought on religious grounds. And within communist China and communist Russia, actually, three times more people were killed than what were killed in World War I and World War II combined together. So, World War I, World War II were not on religious grounds.

The communist pogroms, pogroms means annihilation of people, that was based on basically anybody who they felt was a threat to their rule. And they were atheistic governments. So, the point is, it is very easy to blame atheism, it is very easy to blame religion.

But you need to recognize that there is goodness, there is passion, there is ignorance. And wherever there is ignorance, wherever there is passion, there, there is going to be violence. Where there is goodness, there is a possibility of harmony more and more.

So, what we need to do is, we develop our own goodness, and we connect with people in other groups who are also in goodness. If we label other people, we become hate mongers, those people are like that, those people are like that, then we actually contribute to disharmony in the world. So, is peace possible? Yes, to the extent mode of goodness becomes more and more prevalent, peace is possible.

But at the same time, we also recognize we cannot live in a utopia, there are real threats. And we cannot simply stay in goodness when there is violence and ignorance, when there is passion and ignorance around. So, the Pandavas, when they were, the Udyoga Parva is the Parva before the war.

So, at that time, what they were doing? They were doing things, they were hoping for the best and they were preparing for the worst. That means, they were trying various ways to negotiate or to try to have a peaceful settlement. But at the same time, they were also forming alliances with various armies so that in case the war happens, we will be ready for the war.

So, like that, we should be hoping for the best, we should strive to increase the goodness within us and try to connect with people who are in goodness. But at the same time, we recognize that there are real threats and there are, if there are real threats, Kshatriyas are required to protect. And to develop a kind of Kshatriya force, that is also a part of the mission of protecting Vedic culture.

But to focus only on one, to think that, oh, they are violent, so we will also become violent. No, that is not the solution. Rather than considering they to be one category, we should know within they, there are different shades of people.

And we try to communicate with those who are in goodness and we need to take the necessary measures to protect ourselves from those who are in passion and ignorance. Does it answer your question? So, let me stop here. Thank you very much.