Bhakti Shastri (007) – Sri Isopanisad Mantra 05

Podcast

Hello Krishna! Welcome back to our Isha Opanishad study. Today we will discuss the fifth verse of the Isha Upanishad.
The fourth mantra was what we discussed yesterday which talked about how the absolute truth is inconceivable. So we’ll continue the discussion. This is a part of the second subsection of the Isha Upanishad, section 4 to 8 which is understand Ishwara by spiritual vision.
So in that 4 to 5 we talk about Ishwara is inconceivable to our normal intelligence. Let’s look at the mantra. tad ejati tanna ejati tad dure tadvantike tad antarasya sarvasya tadhu sarvasya shivaya taha So tad ejati, that absolute truth, ejati means walks.
Tad na ejati. Na ejati means it doesn’t walk. So tad dure tadvantike, that absolute truth is far away and he is close also.
Then tad antarasya sarvasya is inside of everything at the same time tadhu sarvasya shivaya taha is outside of everything. So here three contradictory attributes of the absolute truth are talked about. He walks, he does not walk.
He is far away, he is close. He is inside everything, he is outside everything. At first glance this appears absurd and contradictory.
And Srila Prabhupada’s translation makes that contradiction even more apparent. The Supreme Lord walks and does not walk. He is far away but he is very near as well.
He is within everything and yet he is outside of everything. So let us try to understand how this works out. So let’s go over the purport of Srila Prabhupada.
We can divide this purport into five main parts. The first point that Srila Prabhupada makes is the Supreme must be inconceivable. Then the second point is inconceivable doesn’t mean that we cannot understand at all.
We can gain some understanding. So that understanding is how the absolute truth is far yet near. That is what Srila Prabhupada explains.
Then in connection with how that Lord is close by, Prabhupada introduces the concept of Deity. And he talks about the Lord manifesting as Deity. The science of Deity worship is paragraph 3 to 6. And then Srila Prabhupada addresses the normal standard Mayamadi notion that the absolute truth has no qualities.
And he looks at what the word nirguna actually means. The absolute truth how is nirguna yet saguna. And then in the last line Srila Prabhupada addresses the point raised in the mantras third and fourth line.
So normally when we refer to a mantra, in scholarly circles, this will be 5A. This will be 5B. This is 5C.
This is 5D. So in the last section of the purport, how the Lord pervades everything, it is separate. That section Srila Prabhupada addresses what is given in 5C and D. How He pervades everything, it transcends everything.
So now let us look at each of these points. The supreme must be inconceivable. So Jiva Goswami in his Sandarbhas addresses this point that logic cannot understand the absolute truth.
But when logic cannot understand the absolute truth, the absolute truth is not illogical but translogical. So what is the difference between illogical and translogical? If we consider this to be the logical level, illogical means that which is below the logical level. All that is below logic is illogical.
Whereas all that is above logic, that is translogical. What does it mean below logic and above logic? Below logic means something does not make sense. Something is so insensible, something is so silly that it cannot stand the scrutiny of logic and it falls apart.
So some person comes along and claims, I am God. Somebody told Srila Prabhupada, I am God. Prabhupada said, I am the Queen of England.
So it is such a stupid claim. Any person claims that I am God. So it is illogical.
Illogical means that which cannot stand the scrutiny of logic. Whereas translogical means that in whose presence logic cannot stand. Translogical means that in whose presence logic cannot stand.
So God, the absolute truth is so great. Absolute truth is supreme. And supreme means superior to our logical faculty.
If we say logic should be able to understand and comprehend God completely, then God is no longer supreme, logic becomes supreme. So, as is written away, don’t make logic into a secular God. Secular God means that people say don’t believe in God or they don’t care for God, don’t value God and they say logic is greater than God.
Don’t make logic into secular God. Let logic be our minister, not master. That means that we understand that logic is valuable.
Logic is very useful in many cases. But logic is not the absolute authority. Logic is subordinate to God ultimately.
So let logic be our minister, not master. That means wherever is the jurisdiction of logic, there we use logic to examine and understand what is what. But beyond that, we understand that there are many places where logic does not apply.
So how it doesn’t apply? For example, when we talk about a torchlight. A torchlight can help us see the way when it is dark. And a torchlight is very valuable.
But if I decide to point the torchlight at the sky at night and say I want to see where the sun is, I cannot find the sun with the torchlight. The torchlight has its utility, but then there are areas where also the torchlight will lead us to futility. The torchlight will not be useful for us to find the sun in the sky.
The sun is far greater. So to find the sun, we cannot use the torchlight. When the sun rises on its own, at that time we will see the sun as a centre of ultimate glory without the torchlight at all.
So the first point here is that when we come to God, God is like the sun, logic is like the torchlight. So we don’t deny the role of logic. When there is darkness, at that time logic is valuable, no doubt.
When there is complete confusion, anybody is claiming anything, then to consider what is right and wrong, we have to use logic. And the Vedic scriptures also do use logic. In fact, the whole Bhagavad Gita, the Vedanta Sutra is all based on logic in many cases.
But at the same time, when it comes to the direct study of the absolute truth, we understand that the absolute truth is the greatest being. It is greater than logic also. So the Lord is not illogical, but translogical.
So logic does not substitute for experience. I’ll explain this point. Suppose I have to go to a doctor to find out what is my disease and what is the treatment I should take.
Naturally, I’ll have to use my logical intelligence to evaluate what the doctor is saying. If I have a stomach upset and the doctor says, we have to amputate your leg, I say, what’s this? Does it make sense? So we will use our logic naturally. Now, if after using my logic, what the doctor says makes sense, then the doctor describes the healthy condition to me and tells, this is the medicine that you take, then you will become healthy.
Now, is it possible that just by using my logical intelligence to understand how the medicine works, I’ll get cured? No. Logic cannot substitute for experience. Logic helps us to understand which experience I should undergo and whether that experience is producing the desired result.
Should I go to a doctor to take treatment or not? Does what the doctor says make sense or not? And after that, when the doctor says it will cure me, is it curing me actually? So I can use my intelligence to evaluate that. But beyond that, logic cannot substitute for experience. Similarly, logic can help us to differentiate between real spirituality, authentic spirituality, and shadow or pseudo-spirituality.
So, logic does have its utility. But beyond that, logic cannot cure us. For that, we have to practise spiritual life, we have to practise devotional life.
And when we practise devotional life, that gives us the supreme result of divine perception, of perception of the higher reality of life. So to continue with the doctor example, instead of just talking about good health, if I talk of a person who is blind, and there is a medical process by which the person can be cured. Now the doctor may describe, this is the disease in your eye because of which you are not able to see, this is the medicine you will take, and by that you will get cured and you will be able to see.
Now the process of medication will lead to the recovery of the eyes of the person. And when the eyes recover, at that time the person will be able to see. But this doesn’t mean that just logically understanding how the process works, will be able to grant the perception, the vision to the person.
No. The person has to undergo the treatment, then vision will be possible. So similarly in this case, we have to actually develop a higher understanding, a higher vision, by which we will be able to see the supreme reality.
The superior reality of life is spiritual reality, and currently we do not have spiritual vision. So rather than rejecting the spiritual as illogical, we have to accept the spiritual as translogical, and raise ourselves upwards. So now there is a kind of logic even in transcendence, and let us try to understand that.
So now, for example, दद्धूरे तद्ध्वान्तिके, this is what the Aishwarya Upanishad is saying, that absolute is far away, and it’s close also. So now, is this a contradiction? Actually it’s not a contradiction, it’s a paradox. What is the difference between the two? Contradiction is opposite statements that don’t make sense.
For example, you say X is fat, and then you say X is thin. Now both do not make sense at the same time. They are contradictions, X is either fat or thin.
So, paradox on the other hand, is opposite seeming statements that make sense at a deeper level. Opposite seeming statements. They are not contradictions, they are opposite statements, and they are meant to grant us understanding at a deeper level.
So for example, when we say the least corrected papers are the most correct. We discussed this example earlier also. The least corrected papers.
Something that is least corrected. So the teacher is checking the paper, and the papers that are least corrected have minimum red marks. Now what happens is, the least corrected papers are most correct.
What does it mean? It means that, actually, the least correct and most correct doesn’t make sense, but there is a higher meaning. The teacher has had to correct those papers the least, because what the student has written is most correct. The least corrected papers are the most correct.
They are the juxtaposition, juxtaposition means bringing close to each other, of contradictory seeming words, opposite seeming words, least corrected, most correct. That juxtaposition forces us to think. And then, oh, this is what it means.
Similarly, in the scriptures, give us contradictory seeming statements. There is a deeper meaning that is there. And that deeper meaning has to be understood by proper contemplation.
Without that contemplation, we just stay at a superficial level, and we will reject, oh, this doesn’t make any sense. It makes sense, but we have to go deeper. So, how is this possible? We understand this at many levels.
We know that the Absolute Truth has three manifestations. There is Brahman, there is Paramatma, and there is Bhagavan. So, the Paramatma aspect is right next to us in our own heart.
So, being present in the heart, the Paramatma is closer and the closest. Even if some person embraces us tightly, still that person can’t come as close to us as the Paramatma does, as the Paramatma is always. sarvasya caham hrdi sannivishto In 15.15 of Bhagavad Gita, Lord Krishna says, sarvasya caham, in the hearts of everyone, hrdi sannivishto, I am sitting very close, closer than the closest.
So, in that sense, tad antike, but at the same time, Krishna is Bhagavan, He is in the spiritual world, performing pastimes, and tad dure, He is so far away. Brahma Samhita says, panthastu kotishatavatsara sampragamyo vayorupi manasvamuni pongavanam sopyasthiyat prapadasimnyavichintyatve govindamadhipurusham tamaham bhajyami So, Brahma Samhita says that, that even the great sages, by the path, panthastu kotishatavatsara, for hundreds of crores of years, if they, sampragamyo, they keep travelling, how fast? vayorupi manasvamuni even at the speed of the wind, or even at the speed of mind, still, prapadasimnyavichintyatve prapada, even the feet, pada is feet, prapada is the front part of the feet, that means the toes, they will not be able to touch even the toes of the Supreme Lord. avichintyatve He is, He can’t be understood.
To that Govinda, I offer my obeisances. Brahmaji is praying in Brahma Samhita. So, this is so far away, that we can’t reach Him.
So as Bhagawan, He is far away. As Paramatma, He is close to us. So, similarly, tadejati, tannaijati, what was the first line of this verse? That person walks, that person doesn’t walk.
What does it refer to? Actually, Supreme Lord as Brahman, He is all-pervading. Supreme Lord as Brahman, He, because He is everywhere, He doesn’t have to walk anywhere. As Brahman, as the all-pervading light, apanipadau javanau grahita pashyatachakshashranau tyakarana So, the Svetasvatara Upanishad describes that that Lord, apanipadau, He has no hands and no legs.
At the same time, javanau grahita, although He has no hands and no legs, when somebody offers Him food, immediately, from wherever He is, He comes there and He accepts. So, if He does not have legs, how does He come? If He does not have hands, how does He accept? So, pashyatachakshashranau tyakarana So, that person, achakshau, He has no eyes, but He sees, pashyati, akarana, He has no ears, sashranau tyakarana He has ears. How does all that happen? Because, although He does not have material eyes, He has transcendental eyes.
Although He does not have material ears, He has transcendental ears. So, here, the point that is being made is deep, that what seems to be a contradiction at a material level, at an immediate level of perception, conveys a deeper reality. So, Shreya Prabhupada brings out this point in his purport by talking about taddure tadvantike He brings to the point of deity worship.
So, now, what exactly is the concept of deity worship? To say that God can’t appear as matter is to limit Him. This is a very important point to understand. Many impersonalists and many iconoclasts, iconoclast means, icon means symbol, iconoclast means those who destroy symbols.
So, iconoclasts refer to those religionists who do not accept deity worship. And they often delight in destroying deities because they say all symbols are false and symbols need to be destroyed so that we can go to the real God. We can focus on the real God.
So, they say that God is infinite or unlimited. How can you limit that God to a stone form like this? So, for such people what is described is that when they say that God can’t come as a form, are we not limiting God by that? One can argue that if we say that God is in a particular form, like here we have Lord Chaitanya, so, God cannot appear in a form. So, God can’t appear in a form.
God can’t appear in a limited form as a deity. Doesn’t that limit God? So, what way can we say that we are not limiting God? So, by saying that God can’t appear in a form, we are limiting Him. So, actually speaking, the Vedic scriptures, especially the Pancharatra scriptures describe that God can appear in form.
He is so unlimited that He can appear in a limited seeming form and still stay unlimited. God is so unlimited that He can appear in a limited seeming form and still stay unlimited. How is this possible? There is a great Sri Vaishnavacharya, Pilailokacharya.
He was another prominent successor of Ramanacharya. Earlier I talked about one successor, that is one line of successor. Vedanta Desi Ka was a prominent acharya.
The other is Pilailokacharya. So, Pilailokacharya gives this example of the elephant. See, there is a small child and the child sees a majestic elephant walking on the street.
And then the child thinks, Oh, I want to touch the head of the elephant. The child is so small, no matter how much the child stretches up, the child cannot reach the elephant. Stop.
How will the child reach? Even if the child grows up, the child will never reach the top of the elephant. For the child, it is not possible. But if the elephant sits down, the elephant sits down and lies down and then brings the head close to the child, then the child can touch the head very happily.
So, similarly, all of us souls, Amaivaamshoji, Valloke, we are small amishas of the Lord. We are like that child and we cannot access the Supreme Lord. The Lord is at the spiritual level of reality.
So, how can we access Him? We have materialised material senses. We can’t. But when the Lord descends, then the Lord becomes accessible to us.
That is the great mercy of the Lord that He descends from the spiritual realm to the material realm and manifests as the deity. This is the elephant sits down. Now, when the elephant sits down, the elephant still has its height, it still has its power, but it has chosen to sit down.
Similarly, as I said, the unlimited is so unlimited that it can manifest, that it can manifest in a limited form and still stay unlimited. The elephant can sit down and still have the power which it has when it is full height. So, when Krishna manifests as the deity, He is not limited.
He is manifesting His unlimitedness in a different way. He, when He manifests as the deity, His focus is not on manifesting His unlimitedness in terms of His largeness. He is focussing on manifesting His unlimitedness in terms of His mercy, in terms of His accessibility.
God does not delight in exhibiting His greatness so much that He remains inaccessible to us. God’s primary concern is to make Himself accessible to us. And He makes Himself accessible to us as the deity.
Sushle Prabhupada explains that because matter and spirit are both God’s energies, so He can convert matter into spirit and spirit into matter. So, when Krishna manifests as the deity, the deity may be made of material elements, but by the presence of Krishna the deity becomes spiritualised. It is no longer material.
The deity is made of material elements but deity is no longer material. The Lord has manifested as the deity over there. So, here the important point to understand is that Krishna is not concerned primarily with His majesty.
He is primarily concerned with His mercy and His accessibility. So, because He is concerned with showing His mercy and making Himself accessible, so He comes down as the deity. So, that Lord who is that we are in the material vision, the Lord is the spiritual level of consciousness.
He is far away for us. He manifests to us and becomes accessible to us. So, now, the deity may appear material to us.
Why? Because the deity seems to just be material. Some people say that, what is this deity? The deity can’t move, the deity can’t talk, the deity can’t even move a fly from its head. How can this deity be God? The point is, the deity has not manifested to show omnipotence, to show majesty.
The deity has manifested to show accessibility. So, because the deity has manifested for a particular purpose, we have to keep that purpose in mind. If Krishna wants, Krishna is present as a super soul even in the heart of the fly.
And Krishna can do whatever it wants to the fly. But His point, when He comes as the deity is, the devotees want to see Krishna. Devotees want to serve Krishna.
And Krishna manifests as the deity to give the devotees the opportunity to serve Him. So, therefore, when Krishna manifests as the deity, at that time, if a fly is there on the head of the deity, what do the devotees think? Krishna, I am going to serve the deity. I am not serving the deity properly.
I am being negligent. I have to become more attentive, more careful. I should make things so clean that no flies will come.
I will drive away the flies. So, actually, the deity has manifested not to show omnipotence. The deity has manifested to give an opportunity to do service.
Whenever the Lord manifests through any material manifestation, at that time, that manifestation generally follows the laws of material nature. So, some people from some religions, they say that what is this deity? They will come and desecrate the deity and say, where is God? But those same people also consider their holy book to be sacred. They consider their particular scripture to be sacred.
Now, somebody can take that scripture and burn it. Now, when the scripture gets burned, they say, ordinary book gets burned, this book gets burned. What is so special about the book? You know, the sacredness of a scripture is not demonstrated by its fireproofness.
The sacredness of a scripture is understood through the wisdom that is there in it. When one studies it, understands it, applies it, experiences the transformation, then one understands this book is sacred. So, just as a scripture is sacred, still the scripture, when it is manifesting through a book, it will be susceptible to material laws.
If it is burned, it will burn. Similarly, Krishna when he manifests as the deity, he is not manifesting to prove his omnipotence. Just as Krishna when he manifests as a scripture, he is not manifesting as a scripture to prove his omnipotence.
There he is giving us accessibility through the wisdom. Now, he is giving us accessibility through the form. But the point is, he is demonstrating so that we can serve him.
He is demonstrating himself as a deity so that we have the opportunity to serve him. So, every manifestation of the Lord has a particular purpose. The Lord manifests his omnipotence in the world through death.
So, when he descends, when he comes as time, no matter how defiant, how arrogant, how atheistic a person may be, how powerful, how world-conquering, how autocratically unchallenged the person may be, when Krishna comes as time, as death, nobody can do anything. That person simply has to perish. So, that’s helpless.
Nobody can avoid that. Nobody can stop that. The famous dictator, when he was dying, the last thing that he did was, just before he died, he lifted his fist and looked at the sky, trying to move the fist up.
But nothing happened. He had to die still. Defiance will not save us at the time of death.
So, Krishna manifests his omnipotence as time, as death in this world. And his other manifestations are Deity and scripture. They are meant to give us opportunity to serve him.
So, now, when we want to understand the Deity, there are many differences. First and foremost, between a Deity and a statue, the first difference is, the Deity is made according to scriptural description. Bhaktivinoda Thakur talks about three levels of vision of the Deity.
Jadmai, Manomai and Chinmai. So, Jadmai, one thing, this is just a statue. Why are these people worshipping a statue? Like some politician or some film star, people make a statue of that person.
So, that person has got nothing to do with that statue. That person is a soul, who may be alive or dead. And if that person is dead, the soul has gone to some other body, depending on their karma.
And that soul has got nothing to do with the body. And when a statue is fashioned according to the kind of body that person had, that statue is just a stone shape or a mud shape. It doesn’t have anything to do with that person.
So, when people have materialistic consciousness, when they are Jada, Jada means dead matter, when they are at the Jadmai level, they think of the deity as just a statue. Then beyond that, the next level is Manomai. At the level of Manomai, a person perceives the deity as a symbolic representation of the Absolute Truth.
So, one thinks at this level that God is ultimately formless, but one has to ascribe some form to the Lord. So, why does one have to ascribe form to the Lord? Because one does not feel emotions when one is connected with the formless something. So, the idea is if I want to feel patriotic, so now I just look around, my country is everywhere, how do I feel patriotic? So, then I have the flag of say, if I’m Indian, I have the tricolour flag.
I look at the tricolour flag, I salute it, I hear the National Anthem, and I feel patriotic feelings welling up in my heart. So now, the flag is a symbol of nationalism, of patriotism, of the nation, and so, the flag is a means by which patriotic feelings are evoked in my heart. So, at this level, at the Manomay level, one imagines things that the deity is like a flag, the deity is a symbol, and its symbol is meant to evoke feelings of devotion in our heart, sublime feelings.
But the idea underlying this is wrong, because the idea of a flag is a concrete symbol for something that is abstract, that is nationhood, patriotism. So, now, the idea here is, in the case of Manomay, that the absolute truth is represented by the deity, and ultimately the absolute truth, we don’t know what it is, but probably it is formless. So, people who have this idea, especially if they are with an impersonalistic mind, then they say that ultimately, because the absolute truth is formless, and the purpose of the form is just to evoke devotion.
So, different people can have different forms. They can make their own forms, they can choose their own Ishtadevata, and then they can worship that. The concept of Ishtadevata is a valid concept in the Vedic scriptures.
There are many forms of the Supreme Lord, there is Vishnu, there is Krishna, there is Ram, there is Narasimha, and in Krishna also there is Vrindavan Krishna, there is Dwarka Krishna. So, there are so many different forms of Krishna, and one has one’s own Ishtadevata, means the form of the Lord that is most dear to us, with whom we have an eternal relationship. So, we focus on worshipping that form of the Lord.
That is the concept of Ishtadevata. But, this concept of Ishtadevata, one’s cherished deity, is distorted when the idea is that actually the Ishtadevata is just a tool. That means, I have to worship the Ishtadevata pre-think about the Ishtadevata, till I understand that this is just a form, and I have to go beyond the form to the light.
So, this is a distorted idea. It’s not based in scripture. So, because of this, people say that, OK, I can worship.
You worship this devata, I worship this devata, that person can worship that devata. And some people say that, OK, I will worship my guru. And some say, I will worship myself only.
Ultimately, I have to evoke feelings. So, this becomes a reduction of religion to absurdity eventually. Now, many of you may have seen this quote that people write sometimes on their T-shirt.
I was an atheist till I discovered that I was God. So, what is the idea of this? You think God ultimately is just a light, and that light is present within me only. So, if I have to conceive of something, let me think of myself as God.
So, this is a very distorted idea of impersonalism. We will discuss impersonalism in detail in our future classes. But this is actually a caricature of impersonalism.
This is a mockery of impersonalism. And there are people who are parading ideas like this all the time in today’s society. As people say, whatever form you want, you can worship, because ultimately, you have to go beyond the form to the light.
In fact, there are some spiritualists who say that you worship the form, choose whatever form you want, and then you meditate on the form. For example, you take your Ishtar there. Let us take some deity, meditate on that deity.
And then the success of your meditation is, when you are meditating on the deity, you concentrate, concentrate, concentrate. And by the power of your concentration, the deity crumbles into powder. So, when the deity crumbles into powder, what does that mean? You have gone beyond the form, gone beyond the form to the light.
This is a monstrous idea. And it is unfortunate that such ideas are going on. And there are some seekers who just, in order to say that, actually the deity has crumbled to the powder, what they do is, they actually make the deity, beat the deity into powder.
And they say, see, I have attained enlightenment now. So, this becomes again, as I said, a caricature of spirituality. Very unfortunate.
So, Manomay is the idea that the Absolute Truth is formless, and that this is just a representation of the Absolute Truth. So, another way the Manomay can be applied is that, okay, that the Absolute Truth may have a form, but this is just a medium to that. This is not that, this is just a medium.
We’ll look at the second later, but let’s understand this first concept in a different way. So, the idea of this the Absolute Truth being manifested through a symbol of deity is that there is no intrinsic connection between the way the Absolute Truth is and the form that is there for the deity. So, for example, now India currently has a tricolour flag.
So, if today the Indian government feels that, actually, agriculture is no longer very important for us, that’s not giving much revenue, and that just is so dependent on the vagaries of nature, we don’t want to make our economy dependent on agriculture. And therefore, we don’t want it represented in a national flag also. So, they decide that, we’ll remove the green colour from the flag.
Now, can the Indian government do that? Yes, it can. If the government passes the resolution in the Parliament, then instead of tricolour, we can have bicolour. So, what does it mean? In the case of the concept of Indian nationhood and the flag, there is no intrinsic connection.
The connection was just in our conceptualisation, in our mind, that this flag was associated with this concept of nationhood. And if I just change my conceptualisation, then okay, this particular flag is not associated, this flag is associated. So, this is the idea of what is often called as ascending symbolism.
That means, there is a symbol, but from my imagination, I move upwards from the concrete symbol to the absolute truth, to the higher reality. There is no intrinsic connection. And there is no this kind of symbol attributed to the absolute truth.
So, for example, the Vedas say, Natasya Pratimhasti, that there is no representation of the absolute truth. That means, that we cannot ascribe this kind of forms to the absolute truth based on our own imagination. So, that’s what our imagination is changing.
And if I ascribe one form today and another form tomorrow, that is invalid. Therefore, this is incorrect. Now, to understand what it is correct, actually, suppose a man goes to office, and when he goes to office, he has a wallet.
In the wallet, he gives a photo of his wife. Now, one day, he comes back home, and his wife picks up the wallet, and he finds the picture of some other woman there. She is shocked.
What is this? So, the husband says, you know, actually, I am thinking of you only, but I just decided to change the picture. She is infuriated. I will change my husband.
So, the way the photo of a person is, and the way the person is, the direct connection between them, the two cannot be separated, because that person has originally a particular form, and the photo depicts that form. So, the descending symbolism is based on the concept that the person has an original reality, and the representation is based on that reality. So, Krishna has an original form in the spiritual world, and when that form is depicted through the deity, then that form is not just a mental concoction.
That is based on the original nature of God. So, the way God is actually, that is depicted through the deity. So, this is also one way people think that, okay, so, the deity, then the deity is like a photo of God.
That means, this is what God looks like, and we get a replica of God as the deity. That is certainly a better understanding, the idea that God is formless, and we ascribe any form to him, but still it is not the complete understanding that when we have a photo of a person, as I said earlier, the photo and the person are not related. The person is somewhere else, the photo is somewhere else.
But because Krishna is all-pervading, because Krishna is present everywhere, and Krishna is not just any other person, Krishna is the Supreme Lord. Because he is the Supreme Lord, and because he is all-pervading, he can manifest wherever he wants. That is a major difference between a photo of an ordinary person and the deity of the Supreme Lord.
The deity of the Supreme Lord is a manifestation of the Supreme Lord and the Supreme Lord is non-different from him. So when the devotees pray to the Lord, my dear Lord, please, we want to serve you, please manifest as the deity. So when the deity is made according to the original scripture description, and then the devotees pray to the Lord, my dear Lord, please manifest as the deity, and they perform the Prana Pratishtha.
So Prana Pratishtha is they invite the Lord to manifest as the deity. So at that time, the Lord personally appears, and he resides in the deity. So at the time of Prana Pratishtha, the deity actually manifests non-difference from the Lord.
So from that time onwards, the deity is the Lord, there is no difference. So what does this actually mean? It means that Krishna is manifesting himself as the deity. And when we come to the Chinmay level of consciousness, Chinmay level of consciousness, at that time, we understand this point, that the deity is non-different from Krishna, non-different from the Absolute Truth.
How is the deity non-different from the Absolute Truth? Because the Absolute Truth has chosen to manifest as the deity. The Absolute Truth is all-pervading, but although that all-pervading Truth is normally inaccessible to us, now that Truth has chosen to become accessible to us. So the Bhaktar Samrasindo depicts this based on a Puranic verse, अतः स्री कृष्ण नामादि नभवेद ग्राय्यमिन्द्रियै सेवोन्मुखेहि जिवादो स्वयानेवस्पुरत्यदा So it is described, अतः स्री कृष्ण नामादि that the name of Krishna and other such similar things, नभवेद ग्राय्यमिन्द्रियै that one cannot understand these things with one’s gross senses, gross senses one cannot understand, but सेवोन्मुखेहि जिवादो when one performs सेवा, beginning with the tongue, जिवादो, that means we chant the holy names, take Krishna Prasad and engage in service to Krishna, then स्वयानेवस्पुरत्यदा स्वयानेवस्पुरत्यदा means that the Lord chooses to manifest Himself स्वयानेवस्पुरत्यदा by His own will He manifests His पुरत्य पुरत्य means He is पूर्ति He manifests Himself and then we understand so presently when we approach the deity, we serve the deity with a reverential attitude, with faith that actually Krishna is non-different from the deity and His faith is based on philosophical understanding philosophical understanding that Krishna is all-pervading, Krishna is omnipotent and most importantly Krishna is merciful and wants to be accessible to us, that’s why He manifests as the deity and with this faith when we serve the Lord, with our eyes take darshan of the Lord, with our hands do worship of the Lord with our tongue we glorify the Lord, by all this the Lord will become pleased and then He will reveal Himself to us, He will elevate us to the spiritual level of consciousness and then He will reveal Himself to us so that we can see Him so at that time Srila Prabhupada will say when you become pure, this very deity, Prabhupada pointedly said this very Krishna will talk to you so when we become qualified that will happen, till that time we have to strive to acquire the necessary purification and qualification by practising devotional service, so at the Chinmay level of consciousness one has this reality realisation of this reality so now that was what we were discussing till now that the Supreme Lord is close and far, how is He close and far? as Bhagwan is far away but as a deity He is so close to us so let’s move forward and discuss this further, so first Srila Prabhupada says how the absolute truth is impersonal, is inconceivable, then He talks about how the Lord manifests in the world as incarnations and He manifests also as the deity so this is Srila Prabhupada talking about the deity and now Prabhupada writes again in 4.11 he uses the word yathamaam prapadyante tam sthahiva jameham and Prabhupada says on the basis of that he has another explanation, for the surrendered soul He is always within reach whereas for the unsurrendered soul He is far far away and cannot be approached so Krishna is revealed based on our attitude Krishna doesn’t reveal Himself to anyone and everyone now Srila Prabhupada comes to the point of saguna and nirguna let’s discuss this now so the word saguna refers to that which has no qualities and nirguna refers to that which has qualities so how are these two verses to be practically understood that something is saguna and something is nirguna actually the saguna refers to that which has absolutely no material qualities that is nirguna and saguna refers to that which has qualities so Srila Prabhupada explains that the word guna can mean qualities, it can also mean modes so normally the impersonalists take it to refer to qualities, nirguna means that lord who has no qualities and saguna refers to that lord who has qualities however, the word guna also refers to modes and there are three modes of mother nature, ignorance, passion and goodness and the lord is transcendental so nirguna can also mean that the lord does not have anything to do with the three modes, he is beyond the modes so nirguna can either mean no qualities or it can mean no modes, no effect of modes so the impersonalists try to say that the lord has no qualities but the devotees explain that the lord is actually unaffected by the modes now who is right? there can be contradiction about this but Jiva Goswami talks about this in Sandarbhas, well Devdevachan also talks about this in the Govinda Bhashya and they emphasise that whenever we describe the absolute truth, we are talking about the absolute truth and there is some description which involves qualities even when the impersonalists say that the absolute truth is pure consciousness so at that time they say that the absolute truth is pure is a quality so they say that brahman is unlimited that is also a quality the brahman is filled with happiness, that is also a quality so if the absolute truth had absolutely no qualities then there would be nothing left to the absolute truth so to say that there are no qualities in the absolute truth that is to reduce the absolute truth to an absolute nothing to zero so even the impersonal brahman that the Mayavadis talk about even that has some qualities there is some description of it that is unlimited, that is all pervading that it is blissful these are all qualities ultimately so the word nirguna is meaningless when it is used to say there are no qualities whereas nirguna means when we say it refers to that which is beyond the modes then it is more logical and not just logical it is also more scriptural more scriptural because the scriptures often talk in remarkably interesting terms so let us look at this verse from the prayers of Gajendra this is so 8, 3, 8 and 9 so here Gajendra this background story is that Gajendra is in danger caught by the crocodile and he is praying to the supreme lord and when he prays to the supreme lord he is offering this prayer so na vidyate sa janma karma va na nama rupe guna doshe bhava bhapi lokapya sambhavaya samaya tan yana kula mrchati so he is telling over here, my dear that absolute na vidyate sa janma karma va we cannot know the janma karma of that lord not the name, not the form, not the qualities we don’t know anything about that lord so there are several descriptions here which may seem impersonalistic that actually the lord does not have any form or qualities or attributes or activities and then when the lord comes in response to Gajendra’s prayers there is a person who comes with form with qualities, with activities and that person comes and rescues Gajendra so here, what is happening there is an obvious contradiction here if you think about it Gajendra is praying to an absolute truth who is apparently if you look at the verses many of them seem to describe an impersonal absolute and yet a personal absolute comes and rescues Gajendra and Gajendra goes back to the spiritual world with that absolute so what is happening is it that Gajendra is praying to one person and some other person is coming no, the person to whom Gajendra prays that is the person who comes so when Gajendra is praying and he is asking for the lord to appear, who does not have any qualities or forms that refers to the qualities and forms which other people in the world have which devatas have which he himself has the lord does not have any of those qualities but the lord does have transcendental qualities and that is indicated again in this verse itself so here it is described therefore I offer obeisances to that supreme lord who is Para-Isha who is transcendental and is Ishwara this is Isha Vasya Upanishad so Isha is there in this verse also now that lord is absolute truth he has unlimited energy the most significant point for us is that lord is he has no form at the same time the lord is he has many many forms now how is it possible that the lord has no form and many forms this is actually amazing something which we can’t understand easily but the point is that he has no form he has many forms this means that the way to understand it is means he has no material form he has nothing to do with anything material at the same time means he has many spiritual forms so when the scriptures say that the absolute truth is nirguna that nirguna doesn’t refer to qualities it refers to modes and the absolute truth has nothing to do with the three modes but still at transcendental level the absolute truth does have qualities absolute truth does have form in that sense the absolute truth is living, loving, all attractive person filled with many qualities in the most attractive form so here when Prahlad Maharaj is describing the lord’s description he is talking about nirguna in terms of the lord having no qualities that are produced by the modes but he has transcendental qualities now Prabhupada gives the example of Prahlad Maharaj over here and he says that Prahlad said that the lord is everywhere and the lord manifested through a pillar so here Prabhupada is giving this example to say that so how? the lord was inside of everything and that’s how he manifested through a pillar so when he manifested through the pillar what happened? now this is very dramatic to understand so this was the pillar Hiranyakashipu is here Prahlad is here where is your Vishnu? is he everywhere? yes he is everywhere is he there in this pillar? yes he comes and and Narasimhadev emerges from it such a scary sound that Hiranyakashipu closes his eyes and now what happens after that? Hiranyakashipu gets killed and Narasimhadev is victorious now what does Prahlad do? Prahlad has said that the lord is everywhere and the lord is in the pillar also and does Prahlad go and offer obeisances to the pillar and embrace the pillar and offer prayers to the pillar? no he respects the pillar because the lord was present over there but he understands that the lord is different from the pillar and when he has to offer prayers he doesn’t offer prayers to the pillar he offers prayers to the lord who is seated on the throne now that means the lord pervades everything and at the same time the lord transcends everything the lord pervades everything means that he is present everywhere in this world at the same time his existence is not limited to this world he pervades this world he is everywhere but at the same time he also transcends this world so pervasion means to be inside this world transcendence means to be beyond this world so this is referring to the pervasion of the lord the lord pervades everything that is demonstrated through Prahlad Maharaj saying that my lord is everywhere and Hiranyakashipu and Narasimhadev coming out of the pillar but he is outside of everything also he is outside of everything how? we see that when Krishna opened his mouth to show Yashodamayi his mouth to check whether there was any dirt in it then she saw the whole universe so now she saw the whole universe inside Krishna and Krishna was outside now of course what she saw was wonderful because in that universe she saw Vrindavan and Vrindavan she saw herself and she saw Krishna also that was quite mystical but essentially she was there with Krishna and there was the whole universe inside him that means Krishna was separate from the universe that he is outside of everything so in this way the Ishopanishad describes the lord in terms that are not contradictory but paradoxical he pervades everything at the same time his existence is not reduced to everything, he transcends everything bahunam janmanam ante jnanavan mam prapadyate vasudeva sarumiti samatma sudurlabha so it is said that bahunam janmanam ante after many lifetimes jnanavan mam prapadyate why surrender unto me? vasudeva sarumiti they understand vasudeva to be everything so it is interesting that this verse says that when they understand vasudeva is everything they don’t surrender to everything they surrender to vasudeva what is the difference? if they are surrendering to everything it means everything is God but they don’t surrender to everything they surrender to vasudeva because vasudeva is the source of everything and he is beyond everything so there are two schools of thought here there is pantheism and panentheism pantheism means pan means all pantheism means everything is God so people say ok then, this wall is God this table is God, the universe is God, everything is God pantheism is the idea whereas panentheism means yes, everything is sacred but God pervades everything but God his existence extends beyond everything God pervades everything and God transcends everything also that’s what Vaishyopanishad is telling in this verse that he is inside everything but he is beyond everything Prabhupada concludes over here the fact is there is nothing but God within and without within and without everything is a manifestation of his different energies like the heat and light emanating from a fire and in this way there is oneness among his diverse energies but then Prabhupada says although there is oneness however the Lord in his personal form still enjoys unlimitedly all the pleasures enjoyed minutely by the tiny parts and parts of living entities so the enjoyment of the Lord we will discuss later but the point is that Krishna pervades everything but still Krishna has his own life beyond this world in the spiritual world and there he enjoys so to summarise we started by discussing this verse how the point of Supreme Lord having inconceivable attributes is continuing and there in it is described that first of all he is inconceivable because he is the supreme so logic should be our minister not our master the Lord is not absolute or illogical it is translogical then we discussed the difference between paradox and contradiction and the scripture contains paradoxes which force us to go deeper to reconcile the opposite statements and come to a greater understanding and then we discussed about the Deity worshipping Lord Krishna manifests as a Deity not to prove his omnipotence but to give us an opportunity to serve him like the elephant sitting down so the child can reach.
The Lord is so unlimited that he can manifest in limited seeming form and still stay unlimited so Krishna’s concern is not his majesty but his accessibility and then lastly we discussed the concept of Saguna Nirguna but how? Because Indra when he prayed for a Nirguna Lord, a Saguna Lord appeared, that means the two are the same so Nirguna is not from the perspective of Lord having no qualities but from the perspective of Nirguna means Lord not being influenced by modes and this understanding we see that the Lord is close yet far depending on whether our vision is Jadamayi, Manomayi or Chinmayi when we see the Deity of the Lord and lastly the Lord pervades everything yet he transcends everything so the Vishwa Upanishad doesn’t teach Pantheism it goes beyond that to a very special kind of understanding of God where God lives in everything and still he exists far beyond everything in his own life in the spiritual world. Thank you very much