Chatur Shloki Bhagavatam 1 – Understanding the Absolute Truth

Word to word translations, Aham, I, the personality of Godhead. Eva, certainly. Asam, existed.

Eva, only. Agre, before the creation. Na, never.

Anyat, anything else. Yat, all those. Sat, the effect.

Asat, the cause. Param, the supreme. Pashat, at the end.

Aham, I, the personality of Godhead. Yat, all these. Etat, creation.

Cha, also. Yeha, everything. Avashishe, remains.

Sah, that. Asmi, I am. Aham, I, the personality of Godhead.

Translation and purport, by His Divine Grace, A.C. Bhaktivedanta, Swamishli Prabhupada. Translation, Brahma, it is I, the personality of Godhead, who was existing before the creation, when there was nothing but myself. Nor was there the material nature, the cause of this creation.

That which you see now is also I, the personality of Godhead. And after annihilation, what remains will also be I, the personality of Godhead. Purport, we should note very carefully that the personality of Godhead is addressing Lord Brahma and specifying with great emphasis himself.

Pointing out that it is He, the personality of Godhead, who existed before the creation. It is He only who maintains the creation and it is He who remains after the annihilation of the creation. Brahma is also a creation of the Supreme Lord.

The impersonalist puts forth the theory of oneness in the sense that Brahma, also being the same principle of I, because he is an emanation from the I, the Absolute Truth, is identical with the Lord, the principle of I. And that there is nothing more than the principle of I as explained in this verse. According to the argument of the impersonalist, it is to be admitted that the Lord is the creator I and that the Brahma is the created I. Therefore, there is a difference between the two I's, namely the predominator I and the predominated I. Therefore, there are still two I's, even accepting the argument of the impersonalist. But we must note carefully that these two I's are accepted in the Vedic literature, Kathopanishad, in the sense of quality.

The Kathopanishad says, yityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām eko bahūnāṁ yo vidadhāti kāmān The creator I and the created I are both accepted in the Vedic Vedas as qualitatively one because both of them are Nityas and Cetanas. But the singular I is the creator I and the created I are of plural number because there are many I's like Brahma and those generated by Brahma. It is the simple truth.

The father creates or begets a son and the son also creates many sons and all of them may be one as human beings. But at the same time, from the father, the son and the grandson are all different. The son cannot take the place of the father, nor can the grandsons.

Simultaneously, the father, the son and the grandson are one and different also. As human beings they are one, but as relatives they are different. Therefore, the relativities of the creator and the created or the predominator and the predominated have been differentiated in the Vedas by saying that the predominator I is the feeder of the predominated I's and thus there is a vast difference between the two principles of I. This is a very long purport, so we will focus on this section in today's class.

Om Jnanatmirandasya Jnananjunashalakaya Chakshurunmilitam yena Tasmai Shri Gurave Namaha Nama Om Vishnupadaya Krishnaprasthaya Bhutale Shrimate Bhaktivedanta Swami Itinamine Namaste Saraswati Deve Gauravani Pracharine Nirvishesha Shunyavadi Pashyatya Deshatarine Vanchakalpatarubheshcha Krupasindhubhya Evacha Patitanampavanebhyo Vaishnavebhyo Namo Namaha Jai Shri Krishna Chaitanya Prabhu Nithyananda Shri Advaita Gadadhara Shri Vasadhi Gauravakta Vrinda Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare Hare Krishna So I'm honoured to be back here with all of you and last year all of you tolerated me very kindly Today I'll try to speak something on the Lord's Glories I'm grateful to have the opportunity again this year So today and in the next three days I'll be taking a series on the Chatur Shloki Bhagwat That's why instead of the regular verses we are having these four verses So this is the first of the Chatur Shloki Bhagwat So I'll take this class, today's class in three parts First I'll explain the concept of Chatur Shloki as it is found in the Bhakti tradition Then I'll talk about the context of the Chatur Shloki within the Bhagwatam and then we'll focus on this particular verse The Vedic literature are vast The Bhagavad Gita is 700 verses but the Bhagwatam is thousands and thousands of verses and the Vedas themselves, Jiva Goswami explains in the Bhagwat Sandarbha that many of the ancient Vedas are no longer available So because the Vedas were such a vast body of knowledge even in the Vedic times the Acharyas time and time again tried to condense the essence of scriptures in certain sentences, in certain statements like we may have, if we have a big book sometimes people are told to write a presi of the book abstract of the book The idea is that people can easily understand the essence of that subject by studying the shortened version and then they can later study the expanded version So Ramanujacharya talked about the Chatur Shloki of the Bhagwat Gita that is 10.8 to 11 and this is just before Arjuna says that now I have accepted you as the Supreme Personality of God So the Chatur Shloki is not just Chatur Shloki or any summary of the book is both in terms of the content and the context The content is, what do these 3 or 4 or whatever verses are there what do they say and the context is where are they placed So the Bhagwat Gita when we look at the Chatur Shloki over there 10.8 to 11 there we see immediately after that Arjuna says that now I accept you as the Absolute Truth now my now I accept everything that you say that you are the Supreme, not only are you saying it but others are also saying it Parambrahma Paramdhama Pavitram Paramam Bhavan Purusham Shashvatam Divyam and so before this Krishna at the start of the 10th chapter has stated that now I am going to speak to you the most confidential knowledge Parambhuya Pravakshami Bhuyaeva Mahabaho Shruname Paramam Vachah Yatteham Priyamanaya Vakshami Hithakamyaya So Krishna himself says that I am going to speak the most confidential knowledge and Arjuna says now I am enlightened so from the context we can understand what was spoken in between is very important and those four verses they talk, Gaudiya Vaishnavacharya has explained that they talk about Sambandha, Abhidheya and Prayojan that's how they can encapsulate the essence of the message of the Bhagavad Gita so similarly let's look at the Bhagavatams Chatur Shloki what is the context the Bhagavatam has various narratives or conversations going on at different levels so the outermost conversation is between the sages of Naimisharanya and Suta Goswami then the second conversation which is what the Bhagavatam is more defined for more well known for that is between Parikshit Maharaj and Shukadeva Goswami which starts from the first verse of the second canto towards the last few verses of the 19th chapter of the first canto we have Parikshit Maharaj asking the question Shukadeva Goswami appears but Shukadeva Goswami doesn't speak in the first canto his speech starts in the second canto and in the second canto we have multiple things happening and actually by the 6th chapter of the second canto whatever question specifically Parikshit Maharaj is asked about what is the duty of a person about to die so Shukadeva Goswami has answered in summary and at that time Parikshit Maharaj asks another set of questions and then the whole Bhagavatam starts off in earnest so here the Bhagavatam is transcendental at the same time it is chronological chronological in the sense that especially in the second canto onwards, from this point onwards, practically the 9th chapter onwards the Bhagavatam can be read as the narration of events within one day of Brahma so within that particular Brahma's day and Brahma's life the beginning is brought over here and from the beginning onwards then we start from the second canto the subsequent creations of various other Rudra and Kumaras and the sages that goes on and after that then the primarily the Manus what happens during the various Manus that is described so from the third canto onwards to the 7th canto end is described what happens in the life of Swayambhuva Manu and then afterwards in a quick overview from the first Manu to the 7th Manu is described and then 8th canto onwards to the 12th canto what happens in the life of Swayambhuva Manu that is the present Manu that is described so the Bhagavatam in that sense we could say is like a biography of the universe a biography of the universe normally we talk about biography of a person but we could have biography of things also where was this? how did it happen? where did it go? who all used this thing? so we could say roughly the Bhagavatam is a biography of the universe but it is not exactly telling just what all happened at what time in the universe it is a transcendental biography where within the history of the universe what all are the events of transcendental significance they are described now within the Bhagavatam's narrative the start here is at Brahmaji after he was created he was in darkness both literally and metaphysically physically there was darkness all around and metaphysically he did not know who am I? what am I? where am I? what am I to do? so at that time he performed Tapasya and by the performance of austerities he got enlightenment actually he performed austerity he was surrendered to the lord then he got an instruction to perform austerities then the lord appeared in front of him when the lord appears in front of him Brahmaji offers prayers and in the midst of offering those prayers the lord becomes very pleased with Brahmaji's austerity his prayerful attitude and the lord comes forward and shakes hands with Brahmaji so shaking hands is a way in which intimacy or affection is expressed and then prior to this this is the 33rd verse roughly from 25th to 29th, 30th verses Brahmaji asks some questions actually his prayer is going on for a long time but towards the conclusion of that he asks some questions so he asks my dear lord you are transcendental how do you manifest in a form that is visible to my eyes my dear lord you are transcendental and how do you manifest all the various energies by which creation takes place my dear lord how can I act in a way in this material world by which I can be an instrument for your will and yes my dear lord how can I while acting in this world for your service avoid becoming proud and then the lord starts answering his questions so now actually the lord's answer comes in 7 verses so Vallabhacharya refers to it as the sapt shloki rather than the chatur shloki bhagavatam he says the essence of the bhagavatam he says it comes in 7 verses but in our tradition Vishwanath Chakra Thakur he talks about it as chatur shloki and before that also Jeeva Goswami in his Bhagavat Santarbha focusses on chatur shloki because the earlier 3 verses before this are more or less building the narrative they are not so much filled with philosophical import as these 4 verses are so this is the background so this means in one sense Brahmaji's life journey is meant to mirror our life journey Brahmaji is born in darkness and then he becomes enlightened and then after being enlightened he acts as an instrument for the lord's will similarly all of us are also born in darkness in ignorance and we too are meant to become enlightened and after becoming enlightened we too are meant to act as instruments for the lord's will just become an instrument and it is interesting right in that verse where Krishna is telling Arjuna that you should become an instrument sometime the word instrument might seem somewhat depersonalising if you say this is an instrument I am using that means if you say something is an instrument that means that does not have consciousness that does not have intelligence that does not have its ability it is just working for somebody else so the bhakti philosophy then why do we say nimitta matram the word nimitta actually if we see Krishna compliments that with sauvya saachi there are many names of Krishna of Arjuna which Krishna uses in the Bhagavad Gita but this particular name he uses only once and sauvya saachi means that one who is ambidextrous one who is equally well versed in shooting arrows with both hands actually that is not an ordinary ability like even now we may not be shooting arrows but most of us do handwriting very few people are actually equally good at handwriting with both hands so we can write well with one hand but equally well with the second hand that is not so easy so Krishna while telling Arjuna to become an instrument for his sake acknowledges Arjuna's abilities so some people have this idea that human will and divine will are at war with each other so if we surrender to the divine will then we lose our individuality we lose our freedom the truth however is that human will is founded and fulfilled in the divine will human will is founded in the divine will Krishna could have created this world in whatever way he had wanted now if he had wanted us to be just insentient instruments then he could very well have made all of us as insentient instruments but Krishna wants the reciprocation of love so he has made us as conscious beings with free will and so human will is founded in divine will it is by God's grace that we have free will and human will is fulfilled in the divine will what does that mean? that means that when there is a loving relationship between two people at that time it is the pleasure of the lover to do the will of the beloved when we love someone naturally we want to please that person willingly and happily do what that person wants now sometimes when there is a loving relationship or affectionate relationship between two people say one person might be exploitative and doing that person's will may cause harm to other people so for example say somebody is like autocrat so when in the second world war say after under Hitler's rule there were millions and millions of people so after that there were the Nuremberg trials and many of the Nazi journals at that time said that we are not responsible because we are simply carrying out the orders so now in this case the plaintiff those who were those who had arraigned them for accusation they said that you have to use your human intelligence your human conscience how could you have killed people in cold blood and justified saying that we are just following orders so the problem is that in this world power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely so that's why when there is a thought of surrender to some authority people have apprehension that if we surrender then we may be exploited we may be made puppets for doing harm to us as well as to others but Krishna is utterly different from such worldly worldly people who use their power so Krishna is omnibenevolent he is the well-wisher of all living beings and to do his will is the best thing that we can do when we love him and when we strive to do his will become an instrument for him we actually bring out the best in ourselves so spirituality is not giving about giving up our individuality it is about realising our individuality now we just like sometimes some people say just be yourself yes be yourself but be your higher self not your lower self that means say in any field if somebody wants to play music so if you tell that person be yourself what does that mean it doesn't mean that you just say pick up a kartal and just play it whatever way you want that's actually your worst self so if a person wants to be a musician yes a musician has one's own individual way of playing music all distinctive famous musicians they have their individual style but what appears as spontaneous and natural style doesn't come spontaneously and naturally it requires days, weeks, months years of practise so to be yourself means to be actually our better self not our worst self and that requires practising even in musical sense there are some musical teachers also they use the word purification what does that mean the dissonant sounds that are coming the inappropriate ways in which you are expressing yourself they get cleansed by practise and then the pure music the consonant it's not dissonant that comes out something similar applies in our case also human will is fulfilled in the divine will that means when we practise devotional service to Krishna steadily by that our essential pure personality starts manifesting and then we become the best that we can be that is our free will it is about perfecting our free will so here when Krishna tells Brahmaji that you become an instrument of my will Brahma is asking how can I do this well so how can I act as your instrument properly this itself includes this question itself includes the understanding that when we act as an instrument for someone our free will is not lost because one can be imperfect instrument that means we have to use our free will properly so that we can become a proper instrument for the Lord in becoming an instrument for the Lord we become truly we sometimes if we get angry and then we speak something and suppose whoever we are shouting that that person has just kept recording device on maybe his mobile is on and after we blast everything out and after 3-4 days when you cool down that person brings that same recorded device and shows us did I speak this you know our our anarthas can make us strangers to ourselves last anger greed envy they can make us strangers to ourselves sometimes some people get so angry and they behave in such a way I don't know you who are you what kind of how are you behaving like this I never thought you would speak like this so we may say this to others when others behave improperly others behave shockingly but actually if we were to observe our own behaviour we also sometimes behave in ways that are shocking so this is not the real we this is not the real I for bringing out the real I there needs to be purification so I was making the point that our life story in a broad sense is or should be a mirror of Brahmaji's life story and in the first verse when Krishna speaks over here the lord speaks over here he is explaining his position so Brahmaji's question was my dear lord you are transcendental how do you manifest in a form in this world which we can access which we can perceive so to answer that question Brahmaji the lord first focusses on a philosophical understanding of his position so here he says he talks about himself in relationship with time he says so he says that it was I alone who existed in the beginning it is I alone who exists now and it is I alone who will exist in the future now there are atheists who try to say that there is a evolution of people's conception of god so they say when people were very primitive they believed in many gods they are polytheists then after that when people became a little more intellectually evolved they became monotheists believed there is only god there is only one god and then they say as people will evolve further they will become atheists there is no god so they had this idea from many gods to one god to no god now mayavadis take it around impersonalists rather they take it around and they say yes there is evolution but there is another kind of evolution people believed in many gods earlier then they believe only in one god and then they will understand there is only god that means there is no one except god so sometimes people have some provocative slogans they put on their t-shirts so in India some people saw they put I was an atheist till I discovered I was god so this idea that I am god is very titillating for the false ego of the conditioned soul at the same time there is in the broad Vedantic understanding the Vedas are a very broad body of knowledge now what the Vedas are saying that is not very clear so there is there are four schools of philosophy six systems of philosophy which evolved trying to explain what the Vedas say so for example there is a book now from that book what is its philosophy now philosophy there may be a philosophical book but philosophy itself is a body of knowledge and philosophy involves answering some fundamental questions now what is the nature of our identity what is the nature of this world what is the purpose of life there are various questions which comprise the heart of philosophy so from a book if you want to understand what its philosophy is then we have to look at how these questions are answered within that book and based on that we will understand the philosophy of the book so like that the Vedas are a body of knowledge and what the philosophy of the Vedas is that while explaining that six systems of Indian philosophy as they are called Shat Darshan they emerged and the most evolved among them most complete among them is Vedanta so Vedanta itself acknowledges that there is oneness between the absolute truth and this world but what is the nature of that oneness in that there is radical division between the Advaitic commentators and the Dvaitic commentators the Vaishnava commentators and the Advaitic commentators so the Vaishnava Vedanta says yes there is oneness but within that oneness there is variety so here I will to understand the import of this was especially in in terms of contemporary intellectual ethos let's look quickly at what are the broad conceptions of God that are there in various traditions so now if we look the major religious traditions in the world are the Abrahamic religions Judaism, Christianity, Islam and they have the concept of God as other God is radically different from the world in fact He is so different from the world that nothing in this world can be used to depict God He is utterly other and that is why within these traditions any depiction of God is considered a misrepresentation and that is why any depiction of God should be destroyed so now this idea that God is utterly other different from the creation this actually emerged if we look at the Bible earlier I talked about a book and its philosophy so now the Bible directly is not a philosophical book it is basically a book of the Old Testament is a book of the events that happened in the life of the chosen people how God intervened at various places and New Testament is basically a narrative of the life of Jesus and His various parables and instructions that He gave so neither of them are systematic works of philosophy so after Jesus came and went Saint Augustine of Hippo he integrated Christian Biblical Bible with the existing philosophy at that time and that philosophy is the Greek philosophy so the prominent among the Greek philosophers where Plato his teacher was Socrates Socrates did not write anything so Plato and Aristotle so Aristotle had a conception of God as what he called the unmoored mover unmoored mover what does that mean that God has set everything into motion but after setting everything into motion he himself is utterly unmoved and this leads this idea that God is so completely perfect that He is utterly unchanging because why do we change for example I am sitting in a particular position you are sitting in a particular position you may shift from this position because you are not comfortable you want to find a more comfortable position to sit so usually we desire change because the present condition that we are in is less than perfect so if God moved because of anything then that would mean that the earlier situation that God was in was not perfect and that would make God imperfect so his idea was God is the unmoored mover of course this raises the question if the unmoored state is the perfect state then why does God need to move anything at all you know if the unmoored part is still perfect why does there have to be a mover part at all but then if we don't have the mover part then there is no reason for the existence of the world itself and we know the world exists so then therefore the idea was God is the unmoored mover now from that conception it was taken into Christianity with some modifications and that's how they came up with the conception of God as the utter other that means God is utterly different from us so now the Vedantic understanding is that God and this world are a part of this of an integrated whole and the absolute truth Srila Prabhupada in his introduction to the to the Bhagavatam he says the terms God and the absolute truth are not exactly equivalent because God is something which the idea of it connotes the idea of a controller the supreme controller but a controller and some people may believe that there is something someone in control others may believe there is no one in control so the notion of God people may or may not believe in it but when you talk about absolute truth absolute truth means that which is the source of everything that which is the cause of all causes now this is something which is not a matter of belief why is it not a matter of belief because whatever we exist it has to have come from somewhere so even atheists have to acknowledge that everything has come from something now there can be debate on the nature of that something so whether that nature of that something is the eternal absolute truth or that something is as reductionist as atheists would have or as singularity that is variable but when we talk about absolute truth that is not a matter of belief everyone has to accept that whatever exists has come from somewhere now what is the nature of that somewhere that is the question so in the Indian systems of philosophy there are two schools of thought broadly they are called as Satkaryavada and Asatkaryavada Satkaryavada means that the effect is present in the cause we are now right now discussing the absolute truth is the source of everything so then what is the relationship between the absolute truth and the world that is the subject of discussion that is what this world is exploring Satkaryavada says that the effect is present in the cause whereas Asatkaryavada says that the effect is different from the cause so to give an example what this means is that Asatkaryavada Buddhism and Jainism these were actually largely Asatkaryavada so their idea is that if the effect is already present in the cause then why do you need to differentiate why do you need to say this is the effect and this is the cause the two could be very well called the same actually this differentiation comes from a bigger philosophical question which we could say is the problem of evil now God is understood to be good now if God is good at the same time we see there is a lot of problems in this world lot of misery in this world so how is it that from the good God this world is filled with illusion and evil comes about within the Abrahamic traditions the problem of evil is narrowed down to a smaller scope their scope is that okay why does evil happen in this world why do sometimes small children get terrible diseases why are there earthquakes when suddenly people who are in the middle of life are suddenly cut down why are there despotic rulers who are able to tyrannise and kill thousands of people why does God allow such evil this is definitely evil and this is a question which needs to be answered but the Vedantic world view is more encompassing rather than look at specific evils in this world yes small children getting sicknesses is evil is sad is heart breaking but then for that matter anyone getting sicknesses is painful as compared to the soul as compared to our nature to look for happiness all the time the existence of any kind of misery is undesirable so rather than highlighting specific forms of misery the Vedantic analysis focusses on the presence of misery itself if God is good if God is Anandamayi then why is this world Dukhamayi so to answer this question the point that is made over here is that some philosophers say that whatever is the absolute truth and this world there is radical disconnect between them there is no connection after an object changes into another object it produces effect then they are two different things and there is no connection now the Vedantic scholars they argue that if the effect were not present in the cause then any cause could produce any effect you know we may we produce oil from ground nut but we cannot produce oil from stone so unless that oil is potentially present in the ground nut we could not produce oil from it so if any if the effect were not present in the cause then any cause could produce any effect a woman becomes pregnant even a man could become pregnant no the potentiality for the effect has to be present in the cause otherwise the effect would not come from the cause so the Vedantic understanding is yes everything in this world that is there is present in the absolute truth and that's why the Vedanta sutra begins with the first sutra is enquire and that principle of enquiry will come later in the in this chatu shloki also but the second is the definition of the absolute truth is janma dhyasyataha that which is the source of everything and that same thing the Bhagavatam is saying over here the Lord is speaking that it was I who existed in the past it is I who am existing now it is I who will exist in the future so the later verses of the Bhagavatam will say that the suffering that we experience is because of our sense of separateness from the Lord and to think of anything as separate from the Lord that is itself illusion and that is the cause of misery that we will discuss later but in this particular verse Krishna talks in terms of time and he says that whether it is the past whether it is the present or whether it is the future it is he who is existing all the time and this means now obviously there itself we have Brahma who is existing Jiva Goswami raises the question in his Chittasutra Hrithika that he says that how is it possible that the Lord can say I alone am existing because at that time we can see Brahma is existing and the Lord it is described in the previous verses that when Krishna the Lord appeared he was not alone the goddess of fortune was with him his associates were there with him so obviously when he is saying aham eva I certainly eva can mean certainly eva can also mean alone so I alone I certainly existing so here when Krishna is using the word I he is using it in an inclusive sense not an exclusive sense exclusive sense means I and you so you are different from I but when Krishna is using the word I he is using it in an inclusive sense to include himself and his energies so Prabhupada writes in the Nectar of Devotion introduction that the absolute truth is Krishna and everything in relationship with Krishna and he says that Krishna and everything in relationship with Krishna is Krishna I wonder what does this mean no Krishna is one person who has his own individuality who has his own existence but Krishna is not just that Krishna is the absolute truth who manifests as a person and he is also everything else that exists because everything else that exists is also his energy that is connected with him it is not separate from him so I will conclude with one rhetorical question which atheists try to argue I will take it in two parts sometimes people ask this question ok if everything came from God then where did God come from so if God is the if God created everything who created God this question arises from a fundamental misunderstanding of who God is first I will give a provocative example to explain how this question itself is incoherent it is like if somebody asks you how can I make a square circle well you can't make a square circle the question itself is incoherent because square and circle are two different things and by the very definition of a square a square cannot be a circle and a circle cannot be a square so if somebody asks how can I make a square circle this question itself indicates one doesn't understand the definition of a circle and of a square so if there is a past definition itself a square circle is impossible and rather than answering this question one needs to counter the misunderstanding or the ignorance of the definition that has led to this question similarly if someone asks who created god how do you define god if your conception of god is simply ok there is some image in the temple and that is god or your conception of god is ok there was some person who existed sometime ago and that person is god well sorry your definition of god is wrong as god is the cause of all causes this is the definition of god then if we consider this definition of god then what does this question become ok who created god we could say who caused god using word cause then the question becomes who caused the cause of all causes this is itself incoherent question it's like you know who how do you make a square circle if you understand the definition the question becomes redundant the question becomes incoherent so like that if we understand god the definition of god is the cause of all causes then the question who caused the cause of all causes that question itself becomes incoherent if god had a cause then the cause of god would be god so wherever the causal chain will stop that point is god of course that is not a point but i am talking here point in a conceptual sense not in a philosophical definition sense wherever the cause of all causes stops that point is god so therefore who caused god that question itself doesn't make sense and that question comes because we are looking from an improper frame of reference like a child reads a novel for the first time and then ok there is this character there is a hero there is a heroine there is this villain and then after reading the whole book and enjoying the book then the child comes to know oh you know ok harry potter is written by jk rowling but where is jk rowling in harry potter world in harry potter's world there is no jk rowling does that mean that jk rowling doesn't exist no the novel the author is not present in the novel the author created the story line the author created the characters the author created the time frame but the author exists outside the novel so similarly god exists outside the cause effect of this world so again when we say god is the cause of all causes this also sometimes leads to another question if the soul is eternal then how did god cause the soul the soul is eternal then is god the creator of the soul no and if he is not the creator then how is the cause of all causes so here when we say god is the cause of all causes we have to understand this is not in a chronological sense it is an ontological sense chronology is time sequence ontology is the nature of existence so when we say god is the cause of all causes people ask okay who caused god this question who caused god comes from the conception that god is also within time in the time sequence okay son comes from father and the father comes from the grandfather grandfather comes from the great grandfather naturally when something is within the time sequence every effect has a cause and every cause is the effect of some other cause but this verse when krishna is saying i existed in the past i existed in the present i exist in the future this means the lord is saying that i exist outside the time domain and when something exists outside the time domain applying questions about the time domain to that leads to incoherence so yes when you talk about ontology ontology is the nature of existence that means krishna is the cause of the soul not in the sense of origination krishna is the cause of the soul in terms of sustenance we would have no existence without krishna we are eternal krishna is eternal but our existence is dependent krishna's existence is independent and that's why he is the absolute truth so here when krishna when the lord is asked by brahmaji how are you manifesting in a form before me your form is transcendental and how do you manifest in the form so the lord is saying over here that actually i am even now transcendent although i am manifesting before you i am not affected by time i am not affected by matter i am not affected by anything of this material world and the same form same lord manifested before he is manifested now and he will be eternally manifesting hereafter also now in the future classes we will discuss i had raised the question of the question question of evil i just answered it in brief but i will address this in future classes but here the emphasis of the bhagavatam is that because krishna is the absolute truth in his highest person manifestation he is the source of the world he is the soul reality in this world. At the same time, He is the eternal unchanging reality despite this world being changing. So in this world, there is creation, there is the phase prior to creation when nothing was there, there is creation when something is there right now and after creation nothing will be there.

But in spite of that, the absolute truth remains the same. And that absolute truth, when we focus on Him, then the changes of this world do not affect us so much. What I'll discuss in the future classes, I'll further state and I'll summarise and conclude.

As I said, everybody accepts there is absolute truth. In the sense of there is some source from which everything has come. The fundamental difference between the materialistic world view and the spiritual world view, the spiritual world view is, from more, less has come.

That means Om Purnam, absolute truth is perfect. And from that, there are some other manifestations that have come. This material world has come from the infinite absolute truth, the finite living beings have come.

So from more, less has come. Whereas the materialistic world view is, from less, more has come. That means originally there was just some unicellular organism.

And from that, all the complexity of life has come. And before that, even before that unicellular organism, there was just dead matter existing. So this, we'll see how this notion that from less, more has come or from more, less has come, that affects radically the way we live in this world.

The purpose we ascribe for living in this world, that is radically altered by our sense of where we have come from. That we'll discuss in our future classes. To summarise, here we discussed about the principle in the Vedic literature, that because the message can be quite vast, it is summarised in certain verses which are seen as the essence of a particular book.

And this essence is determined both by the content and the context. So I discussed how the Bhagavad Gita chatushloki falls right in the, just before Arjuna acknowledges that now I have understood Krishna's supreme position. And Krishna also said that I'm going to give the most confidential knowledge.

And that's the context. And the content is that it gives the essential principles of sambandha-videha-prayojana. And the Bhagavatam, in terms of context, the Bhagavatam is basically conversations set in the form of stories.

And they are of a very important subjects. But within the Bhagavatam, from the second canto, around seventh, eighth chapter onwards, the Bhagavatam starts becoming like a biography of the universe or a history of life within one universe. And within that, our life story is meant to mirror the life story of the first living being, Brahmani.

So from ignorance, he rose to transcendence. He began, his life began with physical and metaphysical darkness, but he went to the level of enlightenment. So how we can traverse that same path, the Bhagavatam guides us towards that.

And Brahmaji asks specific questions and the Lord answers. So in this verse, he states that the absolute truth is eternally unchanging. I alone existed in the past, present and future.

So we discussed about the difference between the various schools of thought that came in the Vedas. So the Vedanta says that, yes, this world is related with the absolute truth. But the nature of the relationship is a matter of debate and discussion.

In the Abrahamic religions, the absolute truth is considered to be very much other. And that remoteness of God is sometimes something which makes God relatively not so lovable. Because he can't even be known.

Any depiction is considered a concoction and deviation, meant to be destroyed. And this notion came from the Aristotelian conception of the unmoved mover, that God is himself, he sets the world in motion, but afterwards he's not connected with the world. And we discussed that in the Vedantic understanding, God is connected with the world.

And unless the effect is present in the cause, the effect would not come from the cause. So in that connection, we discussed how? When we say God is the cause of all causes, to say where God came from, it is an incoherent question, which comes from not understanding the definition itself. It's like asking how to make a square circle.

So rather than answering the question, we correct the misconception that led to that question. And God is the cause of all causes, not in a chronological sense, but in the ontological sense, because he exists outside chronology. He exists outside time.

And from his transcendental existence, where he is eternally unchanging, he manifests within this world and still retains his transcendence. So how his transcendence relates with this world, in terms of the ignorance and the misery in this world, that we will discuss in our future classes. Thank you very much.

Are there any questions or comments? Yes. Okay. Correct.

Yeah. So at one level, I said that Krishna is a distinct individual and at the same time, everything that emanated from him is also Krishna. So does this support the idea of people who say that I am God or everything is God, we are all God? No.

Firstly, what I said is, Krishna also talks about this in the Bhagavad Gita. In 9.17, 18, 19, he says, I am the grandfather, I am the mother, I am the father. And Prabhupada writes in the Purport that the mother is Krishna, the father is Krishna.

He says, everything is Krishna. So what does this mean? Krishna says, or rather Krishna says that the person who becomes knowledgeable, bahunam janmanam ante, jnanaman mam prapadyate, vasudevah sarvamiti, samatma sudurlabha. So there is a philosophical difference between vasudevah sarvamiti and sarvam vasudevayati.

God is everything, but everything is not God. To make this in a more graphic way, difference evident, in the Narasimha Prahlad Leela, at one time, Prahlad is asked by Hiranyakashipu, where is your Vishnu? He says, he is everywhere. Then is he in this pillar? Yes, he is in this pillar also.

And then what happens? He knocks down that pillar and Narasimhadev emerges from there. Now after the whole pastime happens, after Hiranyakashipu is delivered, now Prahlad does not go and garland the pillar. He goes and garlands Narasimhadev.

Why is that? Although Prahlad himself has said that God is present everywhere and Prahlad's words were proved too by the Lord when he manifested through the pillar. And yet Prahlad doesn't go and garland the pillar. He goes and garlands Narasimhadev.

What that means is, that the Lord, that Krishna is everything, in the sense that nothing can exist without Krishna and Krishna is present in everything. In the 11th chapter, 40th verse, Sarvam Samapnosi Tatosi Sarvaha, it is said. That you pervade everything, in that sense you are everything.

Sarvam Samapnosi Tatosi Sarvaha. So, Vasudevah Sarvamiti, that means Krishna is everything. Nothing exists without Krishna.

But that does not mean that everything is a substitute for Krishna. That does not mean everything can be worshipped in place of Krishna. If you see the same verse, Bahunam Janmanam Anti, it says Gyanavan Maham Prapadyati.

It doesn't say Gyanavan Sarvam Prapadyati. After many lifetimes, those who become knowledgeable, they surrender to me, knowing me to be everything. Vasudevah Sarvamiti.

Now they know me to be everything, then why does Krishna say they surrender to me? He could have said they surrender to everything. No. So, there is a sense of oneness and there is also a sense of difference.

That's the Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's philosophy of Achintya Bheda. So, in the case of the Advaitic idea that when we say everyone is God, there are many implications which are definitely not there in the Vedantic understanding of the absolute truth. The implication is that there is ultimately no need to worship anyone.

Because whoever you are worshipping, actually, so, okay, this answer will become a little philosophical. The Advaitavad is actually not so much a contradiction of Vaishnava philosophy as an inversion of Vaishnava philosophy. Inversion means what? The Vaishnava philosophy explains and that's what the Bhagavatam also says that the personal manifestation of the absolute truth is the highest manifestation.

And from a Brahmanohi patishtham, the impersonal manifestation comes from the Brahman and rests on the Brahman. Whereas the impersonal, the Advaitic idea is that the impersonal is the absolute truth. The impersonal all-pervasive Brahman is the absolute truth and Bhagavan, the conception of the personal absolute truth is a temporary emanation from the impersonal.

So, when they say that, okay, everyone is God, their idea is that this particular manifestation of God, personal manifestation that you are worshipping, that is an illusion. And ultimately, you have to go beyond that and realise the impersonal oneness of all beings. So, this is a very different conception which is violent to the devotional understanding.

Because there is no ultimate reality given to the conception of the personal absolute truth. And their idea is when you advance, you go beyond the personal and then you realise you are one with the impersonal whole. And therefore, this is very different from the Vaishnava understanding.

Vaishnava understanding is that we have individuality, we have personality, we have but our existence is not independent of God's existence. Our existence is based on God's existence. In that sense, because we are His energies, we are eternally dependent on Him.

We have no existence independent of Him. In that sense, Vasudeva Sarvamiti. So, for another, I'll conclude this point.

When Krishna talks about the Vibhuti Yoga, the 10th chapter, He says, Among the Pandavas, I am Arjuna. Arjuna could have said, Oh Krishna, we two are one. Then you shut up.

I don't have to hear from you. Isn't it? We two are one. If you are enlightened, I am also enlightened.

No, when He says, Among the Pandavas, I am you, there is a sense of oneness. Vibhuti is of course an elaborate subject, what Vibhuti means. But suffice it to say that it does not imply absolute oneness.

So, there is oneness, but there is also differentiation within that oneness. And within the differentiation within oneness, there is loving reciprocation. So, Vasudeva Sarvamiti.

It's not Sarvam Vasudevaiti. Of course, we could say that everything is Krishna in the sense that everything is the energy of Krishna. But when the impersonalists say, in the Advaita Vastu, everything is, everyone is God, their idea is that actually there is no need to worship any personal God.

So, that is not the Vaishnava understanding at all. Is it clear, the difference? Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions? Yes. Okay. So, when we look at the Bhagavatam's narration of how creation takes place, the biblical narrative of Adam and Eve being there in Eden.

So, how do we reconcile that? Is it literal or what? See, the Adam and Eve story, whether it is literal, that is a matter of debate even among Christian theologians. Because there are several issues with that. Because they say that if the immediate criticism of the literal interpretation of the Adam and Eve story is that Adam is a person who lived long, long ago, and he committed a sin, and that is also not a very grievous sin.

He ate one apple. So, now to say, to say that because of that sin, now everybody is contaminated with evil. All the problems in this world have come because of that one thing alone.

So, that means all the earthquakes that occur, all the aid that occurs in the world, all the millions of people, they die. They die because someone ate an apple. If it had not been such a grave subject, it would be a laughing matter.

So, even from a philosophical point of view, the idea that that one act is the cause of all suffering for everyone, that is philosophically problematic. So, another problem that comes up with the idea is that evil becomes transmitted like a genetic defect. Now from Adam, he is evil and through him, because he is the progenitor of everyone, so everyone is evil.

So, there are Christian theologians also who give theological interpretations of this. And even the seven days in which God created the world, whether those seven days literally refer to seven earth days or they refer to phases within the earth's history or whatever, that is also a matter of debate within Christian theologians. So, now first thing we need to recognise is that we, it's like comparing oranges and apples.

If I ask which fruit is better, is orange better or apple better? They are two different fruits. You cannot literally compare them. So, the biblical narrative is coming from a particular frame of reference.

It's coming from a particular way of looking at things. And Bhagavatam narrative is coming from a different frame of reference. And that's why we cannot compare both of them.

And certain principles are definitely true. The principle that when there is suffering, our suffering increases because of rebellion against God. So, if we consider Adam's act of eating an apple, not just as an act of eating an apple, but an act of rebelling against God, of wanting to enjoy separate from God, then that makes a broader sense.

And then we also see that this is something which is the cause of our suffering. Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita, machittah sarva-durgaani madhya prasadat tarishe jata chetam ahamkara nashosyasi vinamsyasi. If you act according to my will, be conscious of me, we'll pass over obstacles.

If you don't, you'll be lost. So, if you look at that more in terms of principles rather than as a literal narrative, then we can make broad philosophical sense of the story. And whether it is literal, as I said, even Christians, they can't explain their own philosophical understanding and the basic problems of life by taking that story only literally.

So, that particular kind of… Now, there are some devotees who try to correlate Adam and Eve with one particular Manu called Adam and Havyavati. Now, that sort of correlations are fine. But there is a whole, as I said, a worldview that is associated over there.

And just saying that these names are present in the Vedas and those names are also present over there, this name is similar, it glosses over a significant philosophical differences that are there. So, that particular incident, because it comes from a different frame of reference, we focus on the principles. We can't analyse from the Bhagavad Gita's perspective, the principle of rebelling against God and that causing our suffering, that is a perfectly compatible principle.

The literal narrative is, of course, as I said, it doesn't agree with the Bhagavatam narrative of things. And Jiva Swami gives the explanation that the Bhagavatam is the Amala Purana. So, what to speak of literature like Bible, even within the Vedic literature, we understand because Bhagavatam is what is written by Vyasa in the maturity of the revelation.

So, the Bhagavatam is the highest pramana and whatever other things are given in the other literature, in the other Puranas also, to the extent they agree with the Bhagavatam, to that extent we say that they are telling the truth, to the extent that they are not agreeing with the Bhagavatam, that means it is a relative truth given for a particular purpose. Just like we have certain scriptures which may talk about certain other devatas are supreme. That is for people with a particular mentality to offer them limited elevation.

So, Krishna's mercy, there is always the frame of reference for understanding the absolute truth. Without considering the frame of reference, we will not be able to understand what the absolute truth is. And the frame of reference is so important that once we understand the frame of reference, we will also understand the absolute truth does not always speak the absolute truth.

What does that mean? In Govardhan Leela, Krishna speaks Karma Mimamsa. Krishna says, actually why do you need to worship the devatas? You can simply, you just do your duty and the devatas will give it. They are duty bound to give the results.

This is not the Vaishnav philosophy at all. Why is Krishna speaking this? No, Krishna is playing with Indra's ego over here. He is telling Indra, you are irrelevant.

He is inflaming Indra's ego. So, the Acharyas explain and this is not just Acharya's interpretation. They are not imposing their words on Krishna's words.

Krishna himself speaks other things at other places. So, the point is, even when Krishna speaks something himself, there may be a particular context in which he is speaking it and if you understand that context, then you will understand that this may not be the absolute truth all the time. So, we have to understand the Siddhanta from the Shastra and then see everything in the light of that Siddhanta, be it within the Bhagavatam itself, within the broad Vedic literature or within scriptures outside the Vedic literature also.

Does that answer your question? Thank you. Any other questions? One last question. Yes, Mother.

Okay. So, if the soul is eternal, then how is Krishna the cause of the soul? Yeah, the word cause has multiple meanings. So, for example, if a child builds a house of cards.

So, the child is the cause of the house of cards. So, now the child is the cause of the house. The child is not the cause of the cards.

The cards were already existing. The child made the house. So, here we are using the word cause not in the sense of origination.

We are using the word cause in the sense of arrangement or organisation rather. So, the child organised the cards into a house. So, the word cause itself can have various meanings in that sense.

When something is the cause of something, that doesn't necessarily mean that it alone is the source of that. So, for example, if we say this caused that to happen, you know, his words made me angry. Okay, the words may be a cause of my anger, but it also may be that I might have been in a bad mood because of something and because of that, the words sparked my anger more.

So, within causes also there are various kinds of causes. So, here when we talk about Krishna being the cause of all causes and the Krishna being the cause of the soul, here the word cause is used in the sense of the nature of the existence of something. It's not its source.

That means the soul and Krishna both are eternal, but the soul is a dependent truth. The soul cannot exist without Krishna. That Krishna says that nothing can exist without me.

I am the source of everything and nothing can exist without me. So, to understand this notion of this understanding of God, again going to the Prahlad Maharaj pastime. Now, before Narasimhadeva appears, Hiranyakashyapu asks Prahlad, who is the source of your strength? You know, even the devatas, they tremble when I raise my eyebrows, but you are so audacious.

Who is the source of your strength? Now, here Hiranyakashyapu has the conception that maybe there is some being and he is giving strength through Prahlad and he is thinking that if I can crush that being, then Prahlad's bravado will also collapse. So, now Prahlad's answer is actually from a completely different frame of reference. What does he say? He says the absolute truth is the source of my strength, your strength and even Brahma's strength.

He is the source of all living beings. So, what Hiranyakashyapu is saying is, he is thinking of God as just one being among many beings. Maybe he says Vishnu is the best of all beings, but I can become better than him.

That's his idea. See, when some people have the idea that God is the best of all beings, the hierarchy of beings and God is the best. Now, this is at one level true, but it is not a complete understanding of God.

Because if you say God is simply the best of all beings, then you may have in tennis, so and so is the best player. Well, tomorrow somebody else can become the best player. Isn't it? If you simply think of God as the best of all beings, then you may think God is replaceable.

Somebody else can become the best of all beings. So, God is not just the best of all beings. He is the basis of all being.

He is the basis of all being. Nothing can exist without God. And Prahlad's answer is from that frame of reference.

He is saying, you are thinking, okay, there is some being who is superior to you and you will try to overpower him. No, that being, he is the source of my strength, your strength, Brahma's strength, everyone's strength. So, God exists as the foundation of all being.

So, what it means here is that Prahlad is saying, you will not have any strength without him. So, like that the soul will have no existence without God. In that sense, the soul is caused by God.

It is more in the sense of the nature of existence, not the source of existence. Does it answer your question?