Are forms like Narasimha eternal in the spiritual world?
Answer Podcast
Download by “right-click and save content”
Are they eternally there in the spiritual world or are they not there and they just descend here for a particular purpose? Here, our Acharyas have not given one clear stand and that’s why this matter falls in the arena of Achintyato. It forms a matter of something which is inconceivable. So basically, the Bhagavatam is very clear that when Narasimhadeva appeared first, that form was never seen before.
Adrushta. That it was never, never, it was not just invisible, it was Purvam. Before this it was never seen.
And that’s why it is also said that Lakshmi Devi also did not recognize Narasimhadeva. Who is this person? I never see him. Who is he? So now, some Acharyas take this to mean that this form is not present in the spiritual world.
It is manifested for a particular purpose. And some devotees try to support this also by saying that even in Prabhupada, Prabhupada himself, nobody asked this question to Prabhupada directly. And when Prabhupada made the cover of the Bhagavatam first canto, at that time he depicted the various Vaikuntha Lokas.
And in the Vaikuntha Lokas that he depicted, one of the Lokas is also Narasimha. But in the Narasimha Loka, he depicts Narasimha in the form of Vishnu Murthi. And similarly in Chaitanya Charitamrita, in the instructions Sanatana Goswami, when Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is talking, at that time, he talks about the various Vishnu Murthis in the various Vaikuntha Lokas.
There also Narasimha is mentioned as one of the Vishnu Murthis. So based on this, one can say that actually there is a form of the Lord by the name Narasimha, who exists in the spiritual world. But he is in a Vishnu Murthi.
He is not in the form of Narasimha specifically. Now of course, there is the other line of thought also and that line of thought holds that actually the forms of the Lord are all eternal. And Avatar means that which is present in the spiritual world and that descends to this world.
So if Narasimha is descended to this world, he is Avatar, that means he should be present there also. So now this is also a defensible line of thought. At the same time, it is not very… it is not necessary that when Narasimha descends to this world, the principle of Avatar is that that which is there, descends over here.
But it does not necessarily mean that the Lord has to be present there in that specific form alone. He can be in the Vishnu Murthi there and he can descend here. So in that sense, both points of view are defensible from the Shastra.
And the important thing to recognize here also is that the Lord is Bhakta Vatsala. So the Lord reciprocates to the devotees according to their desires. So it is also possible, I mean to support the second point of view, Prahlad has an eternal relationship with Narasimha.
That is the form in which the Lord delivered him. So in the spiritual world, does he relate with him as Narasimha or does he relate with him as Vishnu? It’s from the Bhava point of view, it is more likely that he will relate with him as Narasimha. So the second perspective is also supportable from scripture.
And there are some inferences from the Brihadbhagavatamrut which seem to say that in fact, there in one section in the Laghubhagavatamrut and Brihadbhagavatamrut it is said that actually if one meditates on a particular form of the Lord and desires Sarupya Mukti, so in Narasimha Loka there can be not only Narasimha there, there can be other Parsiyas who are also in the form of Narasimha. And their form of half-man, half-lion will manifest because of their absorption in that form. So now, Sanatana Goswami doesn’t say that exactly in his commentary over there.
What he says is that whichever form a devotee desires to meditate and desires Sarupya Mukti can achieve that. And whichever form, he mentions the list of forms like Varaha, Vamana, Narasimha, Matsya. Now the question is that is it that there is a Vaikuntha where the Lord is in the fish form and everyone else is in the fish form? These are inconceivable subject matters.
And because our Acharyas are not elaborate on them, we recognize that these are things which we may not be able to definitively resolve. Humility in the intellectual realm means accepting not just that I don’t know, but also accepting that I can’t know. Humility in the spiritual realm means accepting that I can’t know.
That’s why those devotees who insist on one position in subjects which are in subjects where our Acharyas have taken multiple positions to insist on one position as the Siddhantic position and the other position as a deviation that actually is not proper. Because these are inconceivable subject matters. And if we are sincerely practicing Bhakti, the Lord may guide us with a particular understanding.
And we accept that understanding as anukul for our Bhakti. Now for some other devotees, some other understanding may be anukul and they may be guided accordingly.