Chatur Shloki Bhagavatam 3 – Understanding material nature

Material world is being further analysed. The two verses prior to this, the first verse said that I alone exist. I existed before creation.

I am existing now and I will exist in the future. The second verse said that if you see anything existing, anything appears meaningful, but is disconnected with me, then that is illusion. And this verse is stating, what is the relationship between the Lord and the world? So the example from Sankhya philosophy is given, Sankhya metaphysics is given, that the elements enter into this world and still have their separate existence.

Similarly, Krishna enters into this world and the same time has a separate existence. So there are two broad terms which are used to denote two conceptions of God's relationship with the world. One word is transcendence and the other is its opposite, which is called immanence.

So transcendence means something which is beyond matter and immanence means presence within matter. So when God is conceived of as existing entirely beyond the world, then that aspect of God is called his transcendental aspect. And when God is conceived of as manifesting in this world, that aspect is called as his immanent aspect.

So, for example, Krishna's existence in his own eternal abode, that is his transcendental manifestation. In contrast, in the 10th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, when Arjuna asks Krishna, when he asks in the 10th chapter that, how can I contemplate on you in this world? So after that Krishna gives various answers about how among the Devatas I am Indra, among the mountains I am the Himalayas, like that he gives various manifestations he describes. So these are the immanent manifestations.

How is God manifest in this world? So God's presence in this world is called immanence. His presence beyond this world is called transcendence. Now, if we take this broad analysis, is the holy name immanent or is it transcendent? Yeah, the holy name, Prabhupada emphasises, it's a transcendental sound vibration.

That point he makes to stress that the holy name is not like an ordinary sound. It is divinity manifesting through the sound. But when we utter the holy name, even non-devotees can utter the same sound vibration.

And that sound vibration is coming from a physical throat, which is a material construction. So that is the transcendental Lord manifesting in the sound of this world. So it is an immanent manifestation.

So it is transcendental in the sense that it is not material. But it is transcendence manifest in the material world. So deity is also an immanent manifestation of God.

The deity is itself transcendental. But when you consider in terms of philosophical categories, the deity is an immanent manifestation of the Lord. Avatar, the very word avatar means avatarati iti avatar.

So Prabhupada uses two words quite often, incarnation and expansion. And the two are not identical. Expansion, the way Prabhupada uses it in general, it is to refer to the Lord's manifestations at the same level of reality.

That means, say we have in the sequence of manifestations that is described in the Bhagavatam, say from we have Krishna, Balaram manifest. From Balaram we have Vasudeva, Sankarsana, Pradyumna manifesting. And from that we have Narayana manifesting.

From that again Vasudeva, Sankarsana, Pradyumna manifest. And from that we have Mahavishnu, Garbhodaksha, Vishnu, Shuradaksha, Vishnu. These are all manifestations at the spiritual level.

So Vasudeva, Sankarsana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha, when they manifest through Balaramji, these are expansions. Whereas when Krishna descends to this world, whether it be Narasimha or Vamana or whoever, that is not exactly an expansion, that is an incarnation. So incarnation means descent from the spiritual level to the material level of reality.

The avatar is not material, but the avatar has descended to the material level. So when there is an expansion, that means a manifestation at the same level of reality. Whereas incarnation is a manifestation from a higher level to the lower level of reality.

Now technically speaking, the word incarnation doesn't reflect precisely the philosophical understanding of avatar. So incarnation, it comes from the root Karna. And Karna we use for carnal desires or carnivorous animals.

It means flesh. So incarnation, the word actually is originally used in, it originally has come from Christianity, where they have the idea that Christ, their conception of God, came as Jesus. So God, now Jesus, came in a body of flesh.

So incarnation means to come in flesh. And that's why we have reincarnation, that is to come again in flesh. That means to come again in another body.

So now incarnation in that sense is not what Krishna does. Krishna, when he comes, he is coming in a spiritual body. He is not coming in a carnal body, in a physical or a flesh body.

So another more precise word would be descent. The divine descent of the Lord. The Lord descends from the higher level to this level.

He is, he remains the same. Instead of Prabhupada, he wrote in English, what is inside our mind, there are concepts. And how we express those concepts, what we use for that is called terms.

So what is, if I have to carry a big suitcase, the suitcase has no handle, carrying it becomes very difficult. So the handle is like the term and the suitcase is like the concept. So terms are verbal handles for mental concepts.

So what Prabhupada did in general in translating his strategy was that he would use familiar handles for unfamiliar concepts. So he did not want to, in general, burden the readers with double unfamiliarity. First you have an unfamiliar concept and you have an unfamiliar term also.

So in general, even if the terms, the English terms were not adequate, Prabhupada would use the terms and then he would clarify the concept. So this handle is normally used for this, but Prabhupada's incarnation doesn't mean this. Incarnation, when he uses the word incarnation, this means actually it is Krishna who is descending in his transcendental form.

So, for example, the Madhuryaras, Prabhupada translates it as conjugal. Now conjugal is not a precise translation again, because Madhurya, especially if it is to describe the relationship of the Gopis with Krishna, then the Gopis are not married to Krishna, technically speaking, in the terms of Leela, they are not married to Krishna, whereas conjugal refers in the English language to the relationship between a married couple. So Bhaktisiddhanta Sri Thakur and before that Bhaktivinoda Thakur, they use the word amorous to describe the relationship of Krishna with the Gopis, the amorous pastimes of Krishna.

Now the word amorous often has the connotation of love, and especially sexual love. So Prabhupada wanted to avoid that connotation. So he used the word conjugal and then he further explained how, what the nature of that relationship is between Krishna and the Gopis.

So coming to our discussion here, the topic is that how does Krishna manifest in this world? So here it is stated that he enters into this world and at the same time he does not enter into this world. So I'll use a few terms here. First I'll talk about two terms, emanence and transcendence.

The philosophy that has emerged from the Vedas, Hinduism what is called today is a broad system of thought which is roughly based on the Vedas. Much of it has been added further. So the Hindu system of thought is often thought of as pantheism.

So pan means all. So pantheism means everything is God. So people have the idea you worship stones, you worship mountains, you worship trees, you worship everything.

It's a pantheism. But the Vedic philosophy is not pantheism. It is actually panentheism.

Panentheism means God is everything and he is more than everything. That God manifests in this world, but God also has existence beyond this world. That is not pantheism.

It is panentheism. So if the Vedic philosophy was simply pantheism, then the question would come up. We see that Prahlad Maharaj in the Seventh Canto of Srimad Bhagavatam, he is asked by Hiranyakashipu, where is your Vishnu? And what does he say? He says he is everywhere and yet when Vishnu appears at Narasimhadev, then he appears to a pillar.

When Narasimhadev has appeared and he has delivered Hiranyakashipu, after that Prahlad does not go and garland the pillar. He goes and garlands Vishnu, Lord Narasimha. Why? Because God is present everywhere, but God is not everything.

There is a difference between the two. So panentheism means, yes, everything is the energy of God in that sense. It is also to be respected, but everything is not God.

And now moving forward, the point here is that God enters into everything and Prabhupada talks about how? He enters as the Paramatma, as the Supersoul. So, Andantarastha Paramanu Chayantarastham, he enters into the universe, he enters into every atom. And when Krishna enters into the world, into every atom in this world, what does he do there? Modern science studies nature.

In fact, Newton and most of the people whom we consider scientists, they did not refer to themselves as scientists because the word scientist was not existing only at that time. They called themselves natural philosophers or even natural theologians, because they all believed in God. So the idea is theology is the study of God.

But when God is studied through nature, that is called as natural theology. And they all consider themselves mostly as natural theologians. And theology and philosophy, the difference between the two is that usually theology is based primarily on revelation.

It is the study of God and it is based on revelation. Whereas philosophy is the study of the ultimate truths of life. And the way the term is defined now in today's ethos, philosophy is talked of more as based on logic.

So there is an intersection no doubt between theology and philosophy. So initially Newton and others identified themselves as natural theologians. But then as God's role in the canvas of the universe started being more and more sidelined, they started calling themselves as natural philosophers.

And eventually the term came up science. So originally the conception was when the scientist studied the universe. So Newton famously said that, Oh God, I think thy thoughts after thee.

I think thy thoughts after thee. What he meant was that every discovery that he made, he saw that not just as a scientific discovery. He saw it as a spiritual insight.

He saw it as an insight into the way God had designed this world. So through the study of nature, can God be understood? Yes and no. I'll explain why both it is.

Before I go into how it has evolved in science, we see in the Bhagavatam itself, nature is seen as a means for meditating on the Lord in three broad ways. One is the second canto, second is the third canto and third is the fifth canto. So the Bhagavatam progresses towards Krishna's pastimes in the tenth canto, which is the heart of the Bhagavatam.

And that is meditation directly on Krishna. Krishna's pastimes as they are performed when he descends in this world. But the Bhagavatam leads us towards that meditation by describing various ways in which nature can be used as a tool for meditating on God.

So the first such usage of nature is in the second canto, in the description of the Virata Rupa, the universal form. Now again, some terms, the word is used generally in the Bhagavad Gita that is called as Vishvarupa and the word that is used in the Bhagavatam is Virata Rupa. Now are the two the same? No, the two are not same.

What is the difference? First of all, the Vishvarupa that Krishna reveals, that is a revelation. Whereas the Virata Rupa that is described in the Bhagavatam, that is a conceptualisation. What does that mean? That actually Arjuna asks Krishna, He says in 11.4 that, My dear Lord, if it is possible for, if it is possible, if I am qualified, then please reveal your form to me.

And then, Krishna says, I am giving you divine eyes and with these divine eyes you behold my form. So it is clearly a revelation. That means Krishna himself is revealing that form to Arjuna.

On the other hand, when the Bhagavatam talks about the Virata Rupa, the Bhagavatam talks about it as a conceptual tool for meditating on the greatness of God. So if you want to understand how great God is, at that time for understanding that, for meditating on that, we can envision that, oh, the sun and the moon are the eyes of God. The mountains are the bones of God.

The big rivers, they are like the pores in the body of God. The huge trees, they are like the hair in the body of the Lord. So when you start thinking of hair on the body like a giant tree, start thinking how big the body must be.

So this is a conceptualisation. The Bhagavatam uses the word Kalpitaha. Kalpitaha, it is related with the word Kalpana.

Kalpana in Sanskrit means imagination. So this form is Kalpitaha. Imagination doesn't mean it's a concoction.

That's why I use the word conceptualisation. That it is a conceptual tool for meditating on the greatness of God. And that's why we will see that the Virata Rupa is described many times in the Bhagavatam and all the details are not always the same.

In the second canto, a particular part of the body of the Lord may be compared to a particular limb. So the same Virata Rupa conception is talked about in the 8th canto, when the Devatas are offering prayers to Vishnu. Or it is talked about in the 10th canto, in the 40th chapter, when Akrura is offering prayers to Krishna Balram after he has seen them, Krishna especially, when he has seen them in the Jamuna river in the form of Vishnu.

And at that time some details vary. So the point when we talk about the Virata Rupa is that there are various Loka. There is Satya Loka, Jana Loka, Tappa Loka.

There is no Virata Rupa Loka where the Virata Rupa eternally exists. The Virata Rupa is a conceptualisation of how God pervades the whole universe and indeed the universe is the body of God. So conceptualisation means it is a way in which we can use our intelligence and our imagination to appreciate the greatness of God.

So the Virata Rupa as described in the Bhagavatam is a tool for meditating on the greatness of God. And the Bhagavatam says, actually Prabhupada describes this, he calls it as the first step in God realisation. That particular chapter where this is described, he calls it the first step.

That means this way of meditating on God is not a very, very, very exalted way because people are still thinking in terms of matter. And so they don't think of God in this way. But thinking of God proper begins when we go beyond matter and we understand that God is transcendent.

But this also is a good way for beginning meditation on God. To understand God, there are two aspects of His to be understood. One is His greatness and the other is His sweetness.

Understanding His greatness evokes submission. And understanding His sweetness evokes affection. And the combination of submission and affection comprises authentic devotion.

So there has to be an understanding of both God's greatness and His sweetness. Some people, especially people who are born up and brought up in a culture, in childhood where they have been hearing Krishna's pastimes, often they feel that Krishna is a nice character, a nice character, a sweet pastime he performs. So they may have some affection.

But when they don't have the submission in terms of understanding that Krishna is God, then the devotion that they may have, there is not very transformation. So Prabhupada would focus on first of all understanding the greatness of God and then moving onwards to the sweetness. So once Prabhupada was asked, Prabhupada, please describe Rasnila.

So Prabhupada said, first Kurukshetra lila, then Rasnila. What is Kurukshetra lila? Not the fighting alone. Kurukshetra is the place where Krishna spoke the Bhagavad Gita.

And in the Bhagavad Gita, the greatness of God is revealed. You have to understand the greatness of God. Then you can understand His sweetness.

So I was talking about the whole discussion of greatness and sweetness came because we are talking about how the Bhagavatam talks about the manifestations of God in nature. The first is the Virat Rupa, which is a conceptualisation of God through nature, through the universe. That is the first way the Bhagavatam talks about using the world as a means for meditating on God.

The second is in the third canto, which is the theistic Sankhya. Sankhya is one of the schools of philosophy that evolved in India based on the Vedas. So Sankhya, if we go to the university and study Sankhya today, Sankhya is often thought of as non-theistic.

Sankhya does not talk about God primarily. So Sankhya basically, the word Sankhya comes from the Sanskrit Sankhya. Sankhya means to count.

So Sankhya involves essentially analysing material nature, analysing the world around us and primarily the material world around us and understand what is it this is made up of. We see so many attractive things in this world. We think, oh, if I just get these things, I'll become happy.

But if we analyse, somebody sees a very attractive car and thinks, oh, if I get this car, it'll be so nice. But Prabhupada tells, what is a car? It is just a combination of metal and rubber and certain other components. Now, if somebody brought a pile of metal and a pile of rubber in front of us, we would not fall in love with that.

So Sankhya, all the systems of philosophy which are there in the Vedic culture, they were ultimately meant to promote spiritual consciousness. Sankhya, we could say roughly, it is what in today's thought system is called as deconstruction. Deconstruction means building up.

Deconstruction means separating apart. So Sankhya involves deconstructing the material world into its components. So there is a beautiful form which captivates us, but we start thinking, oh, this is just made of earth, water, fire, air, ether.

Now, if somebody brought a pile of earth, somebody brought some fire, somebody brought some air, somebody brought some water and they kept those piles in front of us, it's not that we would be singing love songs about them. So each of those elements. So when we deconstruct the attractive objects of this world into their components, then the spell of attraction that the world casts on us, that spell can be countered.

So Sankhya's purpose was to deconstruct or analyse the world into its components so that we can free ourselves from its spell. And traditionally as Sankhya evolved, Sankhya was taught by Kapila Muni. Now, as it evolved, it often went in atheistic directions.

But the Bhagavatam explains Sankhya in a theistic way. So in the Mahabharata it is mentioned that there are three kinds of Sankhya. Putting that again, I won't use too much technical terminology.

I'll put it simple now. We can call it as 24 Sankhya, 25 Sankhya and 26 Sankhya. What that means is, 24 Sankhya means it just analyses the material world into 24 elements and leaves it at that.

The 25 Sankhya is, it analyses the material world and says there is this Prakruti and there is a Purusha. But then it doesn't analyse the Purusha too much. So there is only one Purusha and 25 Sankhya often relates with impersonalism.

The Bhagavatam Sankhya is 26 Sankhya. The 24 material elements, then there are two Purushas. There is the Anupurusha, the Atma and there is the Vibhupurusha or the Purushottama, that is the Paramatma.

So the Bhagavatam, it takes the existing systems of thought. That is Sankhya was the prevalent system at that time. And it shows how Sankhya is not atheistic or even non-theistic.

It is theistic. So it explains Sankhya in theistic terms. That means if we look at the analysis of the Bhagavatam, when Kapilamuni instructs Devahuti, the instruction is about devotional service.

But it is not only about devotional service. It is about how devotional conclusions can be derived from Sankhya. How the analysis of the material world leads to an understanding and appreciation of the glory of God.

So by analysing, okay, this world is made of all these complex elements. But where do these elements come from? How do the elements combine in such a way that the elements themselves are not particularly attractive, but such an attractive manifestation comes up. Right in the first verse of the Bhagavatam it is said that it is by Him that this illusory world appears real.

By Him. So what does that mean? That if somebody reads a book, if we are sitting in the room and somebody else is reading a book, and we find that person is completely lost in the book, completely absorbed, then we will think this must be a good book. Otherwise, if it is a boring book, it will not get absorbed.

And a good book means the author is good. The author has written the book in such a way that the reader is getting absorbed in the book. So just as a neutral observer or a detached observer can see in a good work of art, the expertise of the artist.

In a good book, observer can see the expertise of the author. Similarly, the theistic Sankhya of the Bhagavatam takes our thoughts, Oh, from these elements, this beautiful world has come up and how beautiful must be the person who has made this world. So through the analysis of this world, the Bhagavatam, traditionally Sankhya simply leads to detachment.

But Bhagavatam takes us through the analysis of the world, not just to detachment from the world, but towards attachment to the Lord by whose intelligence this world is manifested. So in connection with Sankhya, this example is, this person's example, that the elements enter into the body and at the same time they don't enter into the body. What does that mean? That we, our body from the point of view of Sankhya, it is made up of the five elements, earth, water, fire, air, ether.

So now consider one element fire. Now, if we try to localise, where is there fire in the body? There is no particular place where we can say fire is there. If there is fire anywhere, that part of the body would get burnt.

But fire is distributed in the body. So fire is distributed in the body and that fire is not exactly in the same form as we normally call fire. If we have fire from which fire comes, it is not exactly the same fire that is present in the body.

That fire, the Bhagavatam infers from the existence of heat. This heat is present where fire is present. So we see there is a temperature in the body and that indicates that there is a fire in the body.

For example, the digestive process happens. The digestive process involves some metabolism, some change and change requires heat. So the Bhagavatam says, the Ayurveda, which Bhagavatam refers to also, it is that there is a Jatra, there is a digestive fire.

So now fire is in that sense existing in the body. But at the same time, fire has its separate existence also. So fire exists within the body and fire exists outside the body also.

Similarly, the Bhagavatam says God exists in this world and God exists outside the world also. So God is both immanent and transcendent. And moving forward to the third meditation in the Bhagavatam, that is in the fifth canto, it is in cosmology.

Now, if you look at the cosmology that is described in the 15th chapter to the 25th chapter, the vision of the cosmology is given. At the same time, the Bhagavatam is not primarily a cosmological book. If you look at the figures, there are figures mentioned, but they are not exhaustive figures.

As some distance is mentioned, and the focus of the Bhagavatam is on describing how dharma and devotion pervades the universe. The point of describing the cosmos is not to give an exhaustive detail of the cosmos. It is to describe how there is dharma and devotion all over the universe.

And therefore, the idea is everywhere people are practising dharma, therefore, you should also practise dharma. And in the third canto, as well as the fifth canto, the descriptions are preceded and concluded of the universe that by understanding this, one's appreciation of the Lord, one's devotion to the Lord will increase. So to give an example of the Bhagavatam's description of cosmology, say now, it's celebrating its 50th anniversary.

Now, say somebody might describe how now the Krishna consciousness movement is spread all over the world. And we may describe, oh, we have so many centres in Australia, we have so many centres in Japan, we have so many centres in America, we have so many centres in South America. Like that, we may describe all over the world how we have so many centres.

And suppose a report is made of that. And then, say 500 years down the line, if somebody reads this report, and based on this report, they try to construct a map of the world. You know, say if some ISKCON devotee writes a report about how ISKCON is there all over the world.

The purpose is not to describe a map of the world, isn't it? It is assumed that you know the map of the world and what we are describing is how there is Krishna consciousness movement all over the world. So, similarly, the Bhagavatam's purpose is not primarily to give us a cosmological description. Bhagavatam's purpose is what? To describe how the whole cosmos is pervaded with dharma.

And how we are meditating on the greatness of the universe and how the great lord and his devotion manifests all over the universe, our devotion will also increase. So, after describing the universe in connection with the lord, thus, first through the Virat Rupa, second through Sankhya, and third through the cosmology of the fifth canto, the Bhagavatam then moves on to focus on the avatars. The avatars are described in the second, third, fourth cantos also.

But after the fifth canto, the focus becomes more and more on avatars. The conceptual analysis is not there so much in the Bhagavatam after that. In the sixth canto, we have various avatars described.

And in the seventh canto, we have Prahlad. In the eighth canto, we have Bali Maharaj. We have Lord Ramachandra.

And in the tenth canto, eleventh canto is Krishna. So, now, here, I started this whole discussion by talking about can from the study of nature we can come to know God? So, the Bhagavatam says, yes, we can. But while describing the Bhagavatam itself, I mentioned how through Sankhya, there have also evolved atheistic schools of thought.

Why? Because one may just analyse the material elements and leave it at that. And not think of anything beyond matter. So, by the study of nature itself, one can move towards atheism or one can move towards theism.

Both ways it's possible. One has to be guided properly. And today, mainstream science, I explained how originally it started off with theists, with people who saw nature as the artwork of God.

In fact, Galileo, he said that God speaks through us through two books. One is the book of scripture and the other is the book of nature. So, it's the same God who is speaking to us through both these books.

And we can understand his glory through both. But over time, as science started discovering more and more laws for understanding how nature worked. So, then the idea started coming up that the laws themselves are enough for explaining.

Why do we need God? So, we often use the argument that God is the designer. Design requires a designer and law requires a lawmaker. We often use both these arguments to talk about the existence of God.

Now, these two are different arguments. They are not the same. And actually, the second makes the first redundant.

Laws require a lawmaker. Then, if the law produces a design, then the design does not require a designer. I'll explain again what I mean.

Say, if I see a pot, a pot requires a potter. But, if I make a pot making machine and it operates according to certain laws. You put this much earth, this much water and you rotate the wheel at this much speed.

Then after that, if that is made precisely according to law, then a pot will come. And the pot will not require any designer. The pot's design does not manifest directly through a designer.

It manifests by the law. Now, of course, I can say that the law requires a lawmaker. But the two are different.

If a law can produce a design, then the design does not require a designer directly. So, what happened is, as science started studying nature, the idea was design requires a designer. But then, we found that there are laws.

And if the laws produce design, then the design is not coming from God, it is coming from the laws. And of course, we can say the laws require a lawmaker. But then, God's action is not directly evident in the universe.

The universe, God is manifesting through the laws. And Krishna also talks about this, that in this world, material nature is working under Krishna's supervision. So, supervision, what does it mean? A supervisor usually does not do anything oneself.

Supervisor makes sure that others do things. So, Krishna's actions, if we study from scientific perspective, we don't see Krishna performing miracles all the time. I'll conclude with one analysis here, that nowadays the question comes up, that is God a scientist or is he a magician? So, what does this mean? The Pope of, the current Pope, he said that God is a scientist, he is not a magician.

And what do they imply by this? They say science means that things are law-bound. And magic means things are arbitrary. That when you do magic, there is no logical explanation, there is no law-bound explanation for this.

So, is God a scientist or is God a magician? That means, does God work through the laws of nature? Or does God perform miracles which defy the laws of nature? So, actually, God is both and he is more. God is, normally when he works, he does work through the laws of nature. At the same time, Krishna can go beyond the laws of nature also.

So, for example, when Krishna lifts the Govardhan Hill, a sceptic may ask, how did Krishna, with his little finger, find the centre of gravity of Govardhan? So that he could put his finger right at the centre of gravity. That's how he will balance Govardhan. So, Krishna does not have to find the centre of gravity because he is the source of gravity.

The law of gravity, it will act by his will and if he wants, he can suspend the law of gravity for some time. So, at the same time, you know, if God was simply a magician, then there would be nothing wonderful about Krishna lifting Govardhan. See, the Vrajivaha says, afterwards asked Nanda Maharaj, Krishna is a small 80-year-old boy, how did he lift this mountain? That means, even at that time, it is not like mountain lifting was an ordinary thing.

That time they also understood mountain is a heavy object and it cannot be lifted up. So, even at that time, there is an understanding that there is a normal working of nature. So, there is the understanding of God as a scientist.

Scientist means God works through the mechanisms of nature. And there is an understanding that God is a magician. That means, he works through supernatural miraculous interventions.

And both are true. God is a scientist and he is a magician. And if we study the scientific working of nature, we can appreciate God, if we see that where is the system of arrangement coming from.

Okay, we may say nature works according to laws, but where do those laws come from? There is a famous Indian mathematician, Srinivas Ramanujan, he said that an equation for me has no meaning unless it represents a thought of God. An equation has no meaning unless it represents a thought of God. We may say that nature works in a very organised way, that's what science reveals.

But if we leave God aside completely from the universe, then the question comes up, what if we wrote a story of the universe? So what would be the story? That at the beginning, there was nothing. So nothing existed because of nothing. Something happened to nothing because of nothing.

And because of something happening to nothing, because of nothing, everything came about. This is, I am not being a caricature, here literally, you know, without God as the cause of all causes, we cannot explain anything. Why did the universe have to exist at all? How did the universe come about? Why are there laws of nature according to the universe? To go a little deeper, if we consider purely the atheistic world, everything has just come about by a chance explosion.

By just an explosion, and somehow after exploding, things started organising themselves. So there are three questions that come up. One is, why did the world start organising itself? If there was just an explosion, then you just have a uniformly distributed dust cloud all over the world.

But we have a universe with precise forms. That's the first thing. How did the external design come up? Second is, if everything is just coming from an explosion, we have a brain, we have consciousness.

How did our intelligence, our consciousness come about from the explosion of just disorganised matter? And thirdly, we see that the universe operates according to laws. So if the outer world is a result of a chance explosion, the inner world, our brain is also a result of a chance explosion, then why should there be a correlation between the way we think and the way the world works? See, E is equal to MC square, Einstein came up with. F is equal to GM1M2 upon R square, Newton came up with.

Now, why should… Maths is basically a conception that we have come up with the human mind. So if the human mind is just dust particles come alive, then why should some conception which has come up in the human mind correlate with the way the universe works outside? There is… there is… there is sometimes… Atheists argue that, you know, you say that God is required to explain the things that you can't explain in science. And they say, this is called as the God of the gaps argument.

That, you know, whatever is the gap in scientific knowledge, for that you say God is required. But that is not the Bhagavatam's understanding. That is, God is not the explanation for the unexplainable.

God is the explanation for explainability. Why is the universe explainable at all? Why does the universe work according to laws? Why are the laws of mathematical precision at all? So God is not the explanation for the unexplainable. He is the explanation for explainability.

In that sense, He is the foundation of science. Without God, there would be no science. Because there would be no order in the universe and there would be nothing for science to discover.

So science operates on the faith that there is order. Even when science pursues disorder, it tries to go deeper and look at how the order comes up. This point I will discuss more in tomorrow's class where it talks about inquisitiveness and how our inquisitiveness can lead us towards God.

But suffice it to say that, God is the explanation for explainability. And in that way, by looking at nature, we can, if we look at nature and analyse, why does nature have the order? If we are satisfied with the order of nature, we may not go towards God. But if we analyse the rationale for the existence of order in nature, then by the study of nature also, we can move towards God.

So the Bhagavatam here, in this third verse of the chatushloki, the focus is on how God relates with the world. And we discussed that God is both immanent, present in the world, and transcendent, beyond this world. And how does the Bhagavatam talk about His eminence? That is in three ways.

The virata rupa, which is the conceptualisation of God's greatness by meditating on the great manifestations of the universe and thinking that these are manifesting, this is how I can understand God's greatness. The second is, through sankhya, we deconstruct the world into its elements, but don't stop with the deconstruction. Beyond that we go towards analysing how the beautiful construction of this world is evidence of God's brilliance, God's intelligence.

And thirdly, we look at the universe and see how dharma and devotion pervades the universe. And by understanding that the great universe is pervaded by the glory of the great Lord, our devotion is enhanced. And then we came to modern science, how originally it was studied in natural theology, that means understanding God through nature.

So God speaks through scripture, and God speaks through nature, that was the idea. But then as it was thought that nature could be understood without God, so natural theology became natural philosophy. And from natural philosophy, today, we have modern mainstream science.

And can we understand God through the study of nature as is done through modern science? Yes and no. If we see the orderliness in the universe, and we understand this orderliness is coming from God, then as you would have said, I think thy thoughts after thee. We can see scientific progress as manifesting God's intelligence as a scientist.

But at the same time, God is not just limited to nature, to the working of nature. God can work beyond the normal working of nature also. So God is a scientist, but God is not just a scientist.

He is also the supreme magician. And if he wills, he can suspend the laws of nature, and he can perform extraordinary miracles. So God exists in this world, but he is not restricted to this world.

He is not just nature, he is more than nature. And that the Bhagavatam says where? It says elements enter into this world and still exist beyond. Similarly, Krishna exists in this world and still exists beyond.

So thank you very much. Are there any questions or comments? Yes. Okay.

So can I explain incarnation, manifesting planet, plenary portions? Plenary portions, the word plenary actually means complete. So plenary portion is an axiom. The complete portion.

What do you mean by how can a portion be complete? Complete means whole actually. So what Prabhupada mentions about plenary portion in our tradition, what it means is that when God expands, the expansion is a portion in the sense that it is coming from the source. But at the same time, the expansion is equivalent to the source.

So in that sense, it's a plenary portion. So Vishnu and Krishna, they are not different. It is not that from the point of rasa, we may say there is a difference.

But in tattva, they are both God. So plenary portion means that a whole that is manifested from the whole and because it is manifested, so it's a portion, but it's complete in itself. So it's plenary.

And expansion, as I said, it means when there is the material level of reality and there is the spiritual level of reality. So when there is expansion in the spiritual level of reality for the God in one form, he manifests in many forms. That is called expansion.

So that can happen in the material level, in the material world also. When Krishna is performing rasa leela, he manifests with one gopi and then he manifests with many gopis. That is an expansion.

So when there is a further manifestation of the Lord at the same level of reality, that is an expansion. But there is a manifestation of the Lord which crosses from one level of reality to another level of reality. That is called an incarnation.

And it descends from the spiritual world to the material world. That is an incarnation. Yes.

You had a question? Yeah. So Narasimha, Varaha, they all have their planets in the spiritual world. So are they expansions or are they incarnations? Well, when they descend in this world, they are definitely incarnations.

Because the concept of incarnation is to descend from the spiritual level to the material level. Now it is interesting when you talk about Narasimha and Varaha, whether Narasimha exists in the spiritual world as Narasimha, as a half-man, half-lion, that is questionable. When Prabhupada had the Bhagavatam cover designed, at that time when he talks about there is a plant of Narasimha, there also depicts Narasimha as a Vishnu form.

In Chaitanya Chaitanya Amrut also, when Lord Chaitanya is talking about the various expansions, there is one of the expansions of the Vishnu murti is called as Narasimha. So the idea is that there is an incarnation of the Lord called Narasimha, but he manifests in that form of half-man, half-lion, specifically to honour the word of Brahma at the same time, ensure that Hiranyakashipu's reign of terror is ended. So like that, the incarnations which are there in the spiritual world, they may be in a different form from which they are manifested in this world.

They manifest in a particular form in this world for a particular purpose. But there is a difference between some incarnations like Krishna Ram. Krishna manifests in the same form in the spiritual world, and he is here in the same form in this world.

But for other incarnations that might not exactly be the same. Is that clear? Yeah, they are the expansions of Vishnu. Okay.

So in the seas of expansions, Krishna, Balram, then Chaturviva, then Narayan, and then again Chaturviva. So the Vishnu murtis are further expansions of Chaturviva. So the word Vyuha is basically the Sanskrit for expansion.

And avatar is for incarnation. So Vyuha means expansion in the same level of reality. Okay.

Any other question? Yes. We have different avatars. We have like Satya Yuga, Prithaya Yuga, before Parashara, we have other yugas.

Oh, okay, yeah. So the question is, is there any correlation between the various avatars and the various yugas? No, not necessarily. For every yuga there is a yuga avatar.

But you have to understand that neither Krishna nor Ram are the yuga avatars for their yuga. They are leela avatars. See, yuga avatar is the person who is in the yuga dharma.

Now, Dwaapare Paricharyayam. Dwaapare, Dwaapar Yuga, which was the, it was Paricharyayam, Tretayam Yajatomakai. In Tretayuga it was, Dwaapare it was deity worship, Tretayuga it was yajnas, fire sacrifices.

Now if you see, how much does Krishna teach deity worship? There is not even a single direct verse about deity worship in the Bhagavad Gita. It is implied through Madhyaji, Maham Namaskuru, but it is not directly. So Krishna, he teaches deity worship, there is one chapter in Uddhava Gita.

But then that is right at the end of his life, he is just giving one chapter. In Mahabharata, there is not much emphasis on deity worship again. So Krishna is not, and further, more importantly, Krishna has come at the end of the yuga.

Now what is the use of teaching the yuga dharma at the end of the yuga? Isn't it? So, Krishna is not the yuga avatar for that age. He is a leela avatar. He comes by his own will.

So the yuga avatars for each yuga are different. It is mentioned in the 11th canto of the Srimad Bhagavatam, and Hamsa and Yajna and the other avatars which are mentioned like that. So, the list of dasha avatars that we know about commonly, or the list of avatars that is given in the Bhagavatam, the second chapter, the third chapter, these are avatars which are described from various yugas.

So, in that sense, there is a correlation between avatars and yugas. In the sense that there is a yuga avatar for each yuga. But the list of avatars that we know about, be it dasha avatar or the list of avatars in the Bhagavatam, this is not directly correlated with the yugas.

Broadly speaking, the avatars that are described in the Bhagavatam in detail. See, there is a listing given, first in the third chapter of the first canto, then I think again in the sixth or eighth chapter of the second canto. There is a list of incarnations.

And then, incarnations are further described. So, what is described later, the pastimes which are described, they are described of the various avatars who appeared in one day of Brahma. Now, the third canto onwards, the Bhagavatam is like the history of one day of Brahma.

And then the various incarnations that appear at different stages in the universe, they are described. So, while describing, say, the descendants of, in Swayambhu Manu, descendants. Then, Dhruva Maharaj is described.

And then how Vishnu appeared to Dhruva Maharaj is described. Or while describing his descendants, Pruthu Maharaj is described. And then again how Vishnu appeared.

Pruthu Maharaj himself is avatar. But Vishnu appeared, he was Shaktyas avatar. So, Vishnu appeared to him again.

So, like that it is described. So, the Bhagavatam, Bhagavatam's listing of avatars from the third canto to the end, that is primarily the various avatars that appeared in one day of Brahma. Primarily in Swayambhu Manu, primarily in Vaivaswap Manu's life.

From the third canto to the eighth canto. And from eighth canto onwards in Vaivaswap Manu. In Swayambhu Manu.

First is Swayambhu Manu, then Vaivaswap Manu. And the Dasha avatars, they are a list of incarnations which have been talked about by various Acharyas. The prominent among them is Jaidev Goswami.

These are ten prominent incarnations of the Lord. But they are not in any particular Yuga sequence. Parashuram is the avatar who is mentioned in Ramayana also and is mentioned in the Mahabharata also.

So, he is someone who is existing for a very long time. So, it's not that these are avatars which are related with a particular Yuga or a particular Yugadharma of a particular Yuga. Is it clear? Yeah.

Are the Dasha avatars related with the evolution of the earth? See, this is a correlation that is often brought about by some Hindu thinkers to try to show how Vedic scriptures are also scientific. And Bhaktisthana Swargapura also used it once. But he uses it in a very different sense.

Now, Prabhupada strongly was opposed to it. And literally, if we are trying to read evolution in the Bhagavatam, it doesn't work. Because we see that the first avatar is Matsya, at least in the Dasha avatar sequence.

But then, so evolution may say that first life came in aquatic form. And then it came elsewhere. But along with Matsya avatar, there is Satyavat Muni.

And there are all the species there already. So, he comes with Matsya avatar and he saves Satyavat Muni along with all the others. Along with other living beings over there, when the cosmic inundation happens.

So, in that sense, we cannot correlate the Dasha avatars with the evolution theory directly. But what Bhaktisthana Swargapura does is, that he explains in one article that he basically uses the idea of evolution to explain how Krishna is the most evolved conception of God. And he says that there are various incarnations.

And God can appear as a half man, half lion. God can appear as a dwarf. God can appear as a boar.

So, God can appear in various species. And his highest manifestation is in a beautiful human form as Krishna. So, in that sense, he uses the thought that is there of a progression in evolution, uses that to talk about the glory of Krishna as the most evolved manifestation of the Lord.

But to read evolution directly into the Vedic narrative of the Dasha avatar, that is actually, it is not a warranted inference. Does that address your question? Yes. Just consider that there is usually arguments that have come up in scientific literature.

Okay. So, scientists do not explain that God is the explanation for explainability. And they have come up with so many arguments against intelligent design.

So, now again, these two are not to be confused. Intelligent design claims that the design has come from God. Whereas when I talked about God as the explanation for explainability, I am not talking about the design coming from God.

I am talking about the whole system of the universe being law bound. That itself requires God as the explanation. The two are different.

Earlier in the class I mentioned that design requires designer and law requires lawmaker. These are two different arguments. So, intelligent design claims that the design of the things in this world cannot be adequately explained by laws.

And their idea is that God has to intervene in some way to make the design of this world. That is an argument and there is a huge debate about that. And I won't go into that subject.

See, we are looking at principles over here. See, once we get into specifics, we have to really get into the details. If we get into specifics, then there are so many details, so many specifics involved.

Then we could get caught in the intricacies of specific theories. And then we may give this evidence and somebody will come up with this argument, somebody will come up with this argument. It goes on a lot.

And we have to get deep into the field. So, rather than focussing on the specifics of certain theories. See, we are not primarily scientists.

And we can't claim that we know more about science than scientists. That will not work. People cannot, unless we have really that much knowledge.

If we try to, we can't really compete with scientists in their game. But what our question is that does science explain everything? No. See, science is a tool for acquiring knowledge.

Science is itself neither theistic nor atheistic. Science is like a map of the world. A map is used for navigating.

But the map itself does not tell what kind of people are living in the territory. Map is a map. So, currently the map of science is primarily being used by atheists to promote atheism.

But theists can also use the map of science to promote theism. But then what we are talking about right now is, science, rather than trying to get into specific theories within science, we are looking at science as a broad body of knowledge. And what science can validly explain and what science cannot validly explain.

So, science begins with the assumption that there is order in nature. If that assumption had not been there, in Newton, when he saw the fruit falling, he asked, how did this fruit fall down? Asking the question, how did this fruit fall down, presumes that there is some rational explanation for why the fruit fall down. So, now on what basis can science assume that there is a rational functioning in nature, that nature functioning according to the rational order.

On what basis can science say that? And even when sometimes science finds that things are not rationally explainable. So, for example, Newton's theory of gravity, when science went deep into the subatomic realm, they found the fundamental particles, they don't seem to be following the rules of Newtonian physics. At that time also science continued with the faith that there must be some deeper order.

And then by that they have come up with quantum physics. So, the point is, science operates on the faith that there is order in nature. Now, we are asking the question, what is the rationale for this faith? So, the two are different arguments and the two, we can also use the intelligent design argument, but then we have to be well equipped.

It's like if you have to play a particular game, you have to learn that game properly. So, there are intelligent design theorists have also countered whatever atheists have argued against. And it's a very heated debate going on.

But I am talking at a different level right now. What I am talking about is at a level of fundamental things. That why does science, on what basis does science assume that the universe has a rational order? So, the basis for that, the most coherent basis for that is the order of the universe rests in God.

Otherwise, if everything came just by chance, why would the things have order? So, what science does is, mainstream science right now, it stops with the natural order. And it doesn't ask the question where the natural order came from. And atheists may argue that everywhere, in all schools of thought, you have to stop somewhere.

So, you go beyond the natural order to God, you say we stop with the natural order. But then natural order, it begs an explanation, where did it come from? So, we accept the explaining power of science and we are using it. Prabhupada used technology in Krishna's service.

We accept the explaining power of science. But we are not questioning science directly. What we are saying is, on what basis, there is a particular worldview that science uses, that science assumes for it to function.

And what is the rationale for that worldview? So, science itself could not function if it assumed that the world was disorder. It assumed the world is orderly. And why does science assume like this? What is the most rational explanation for the world's being order? That is God.

That the world reflects the intelligence of God. Does it address your question? Thank you. Yes, the last question.

Okay. This is the last question. So, the question is, here it is said that Lord is present everywhere in the nature also.

And Bhagavatam says that Paramatma is present everywhere. At the same time, He is undivided. So, how if He is present everywhere as His expansions, how is He undivided? Yeah.

Actually, om poornamadah poornam idam poornat poornam udachite. Invocation of the Isha Upanishad says that from the complete whole, complete units come. At the same time, what remains is complete Himself.

What that means is that Krishna, when He expands, so is it that the Paramatma within you and the Paramatma within me are different? No, it is the same Paramatma. It is the same one super soul. In 13.31, Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita that bhuta-pratah-bhavam, in the living entities you see in the world, they have many many different natures.

There is one underlying nature beyond it all. And from that one underlying nature, everything is manifested. One who sees like that, such a person has spiritual vision.

So, when Krishna expands, it is not that the expansion has become two persons in the sense that they are one person in many forms. Paramatma in your heart and Paramatma in my heart are not like identical twins. The identical twins are two different persons.

But this is, when we say Paramatma has many expansions, He is one person who is manifesting in many forms. So, one rough example that is given for this is, there is a moon overhead and there are many pots of water. And in the pots of water, we see the reflection of the moon.

It is the same one moon which is reflected in the pots. So, similarly that one super soul is manifested in many forms. So, it is like one person in many forms.

It is not different persons. So, when we understand this, then we understand that Krishna can manifest in many forms. At the same time, He is the same.

He is undivided, but still He appears as if He is divided. So, it is out of His love for all living beings that He manifests within their heart. And His presence flows to them as the Paramatma.

But at the same time, it is the same one person. It is not different. Does it address the question? You would like to add something? It is the basis of the difference.

Yeah, it is the basis of the difference. Thank you.