Don’t anoint everything as spiritual or denounce everything as material

That was a good answer to my question. Now, Sanatana Goswami in his Vaishnav Toshni describes that this is the point in the Bhagavatam, or this chapter, from which the tenth canto stops being chronological.

Prior to this, the Bhagavatam has been more or less chronological. That means, if we see first there are the Vrindavan pastimes, then there are the Mathura pastimes, then there are the fortieth chapters of Vrindavan pastimes. Next ten chapters are the Mathura pastimes.

And then from the fiftieth chapter, Dwarka is built. From then there are the Dwarka pastimes. So, even when he does a sort of historical reconstruction linearly, when he does that in the Vaishnav Toshni, he describes that actually there are some pastimes also which are not exactly sequential in the first forty chapters of the Prajalila also.

But more or less they are sequential. But in the later part of the Bhagavatam, when we come to Dwarkalila, the pastimes are no longer sequential in the way in which they occurred. We will see, if we see this pastime of Pradyumna, certainly after Krishna is married to Rukmini, then they have a child.

That is a natural sequence. But then the Pradyumna's life, almost entirely is described over here. And if we look, as we go further, towards the end of the tenth canto, there we will see there is a pastime of say, Krishna helping Krishna, Arjuna kidnapping Krishna's sister Suvadra.

So, that is about Krishna helping. So, in the Mahabharata, the focus is on Arjuna's kidnapping Suvadra. In the Bhagavatam, it is on Krishna's planning how Arjuna kidnaps Suvadra.

So, if you look at the Sanskrit verses, you know, in every, when we write or when we speak, there is a primary doer. And then there are assistants to that doer. So, if you look at the Mahabharata, the focus is on the Pandavas.

So, Arjuna is the doer over there. Whereas, if you look at the Bhagavatam, it is Krishna who is the doer. So, it is Krishna who plans that his sister will have a worthy match in.

Arjuna, he arranges for that. Now, if you see, before that, this is something like the 83rd-84th chapter, if you look at the linear sequence, before that, the Kurukshetra war has already got over. In the, if you go sequentially by the pastimes.

Now, in the Kurukshetra war, Abhimanyu was 16 years old. That means, Suvadra's marriage must have happened at least 16-17 years before that. So, that pastime comes later.

So, now, Sanatana Goswami gives the reason for this. He says that, as Shukadeva Goswami starts going more and more into description of Krishna's pastime, his ecstasy becomes more and more. And then, his Katha, it is based not so much on Smriti as on Spurti.

Smriti refers to conscious recollection. Whereas, Spurti refers to spontaneous recollection. Conscious recollection means that we come in front of the deities and then we try to meditate.

This is the same Krishna who manifested 5000 years ago. This is the same Krishna existing in the spiritual world. And we try to apply our thoughts in a particular way by which our contemplation can become deeper.

So, that is Smriti, where there is conscious application of thought so that there can be sustained recollection. Whereas, Spurti is spontaneous recollection. There is no effort.

There is just, the thoughts start flowing on their own. At least for me, Spurti happens with respect to sense gratification. Thoughts spontaneously flow.

So, actually Spurti is what will happen or what happens to advanced devotees because their love for Krishna is their natural disposition. For us, devotion for Krishna is more or less a cultivated habit. We are trying to cultivate attraction for Krishna.

Anusheelanam. That's why, Rupa Goswami when he defines Bhakti, he says it is a cultivation. Anusheelanam.

So, right now, we are cultivating that. Whereas, Shukadeva Goswami, as he is speaking more and more about Krishna, he is getting so much more excited that rather than a Smruti, there is a Spurti that is happening. So, he is normally speaking.

Parashar Maharaj asks some question and Shukadeva Goswami gives the answer. And if you look at the start of the 10th Canto or the end of the 9th Canto, the last chapter of the 9th Canto is a summary description of Krishna's pastimes. And then, Parashar Maharaj asks, please describe his pastimes in detail.

And that's how the 10th Canto begins. So now, if we see, here in the 10th Canto, when he is starting to describe Pradyumna's pastime, he just goes into the detail of that pastime. And in general, in case of Leela, there is fact and there is feeling.

So, feeling is more important than fact in the case of Leela. But, that does not mean fact is falsified. It means fact is subordinated and transcended.

Three examples of this before we move forward into this pastime. The most standard example we could give is of the Chaitanya Leela. We see Chaitanya Mahaprabhu saw every forest as Vrindavan, every river as Yamuna.

Now, every hill as Govardhan. Now, this is from the material point of view a defective perception. Because that forest is not Vrindavan.

That river is not Yamuna. But, when we come to the level of transcendental love, the importance is not on accurate perception. The importance is on devotional connection.

How much is a person able to see the connectedness of everything with Krishna? So, in the case of Leela, this is the first example. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, is he wrong in perceiving every forest as Vrindavan? No. It is right in a transcendental sense because he is seeing everything connected with Krishna.

And it is not factually also wrong. Because Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, although he thought every forest to be Vrindavan, he did not stop at that forest. He went onwards till he came to the actual Vrindavan also.

So, that means, from the spiritual perspective, the utility of things is not dependent on their factual nature in this world. The utility of things is based on their capacity to connect us with Krishna. That is the primary utility of things.

So now, second example of how fact is subordinated to feeling, is in the whole foundation of Krishna Leela itself. When I give Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's example, that example is of, of course Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is also God and it is also his Leela. But it is his recollection of past times.

It is recollection of the venue of the Lord's past times. But now if you go into Krishna Leela, here, Yashodamayi thinks that if I do not feed Krishna, Krishna will starve and fall sick and he may die also. Now, here the fact is, Krishna is the Annadata.

He is the person who feeds everyone. And more than that, his body is spiritual. It is imperishable.

So, from the factual point of view, it may seem to be wrong, Yashodamayi is feeling. But from the spiritual point of view, it is ornament. It is a experience, it is a expression of her great devotion.

That she feels that Krishna will not be able to live without me. So, feeling is more important than fact in the transcendental realm. So, the whole point of Leela is that fact is subordinated.

If the facts of Krishna's supremacy were always held at the centre, no Leela would be possible. Yashodamayi would never be able to think of Krishna as her child. And practically the whole Vatsalya Rasleela would not be possible.

Even the Madhuri Rasleela would be difficult because the Gopis would not be able to think of Krishna as a cowherd boy. You think of him as God and how can they have contrary rasa with God? So, the fact is subordinated to feeling in Leela. This is directly with respect to Krishna Leela.

Now, coming backwards to us. So, one is when I talk about Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is more or less at the level of Smriti, of the level of Spurti. Spontaneously his thoughts go towards Krishna.

Whereas now, Krishna is in the, whereas Yashodamayi is directly in the Leela of Krishna. Now, coming back to our level, what is important for us? Is fact more important or is feeling more important? Now, if we see at the level of Tattva, there has to be clear analysis. This is matter and this is spirit.

And that Tattva, if we don't understand, then we confuse the material and the spiritual. And that is undesirable. So, firstly, when at our level, most of our feelings come from the bodily level.

And I'll talk about how those feelings can also be dovetailed. But, first there has to be differentiation between the material and the spiritual. Then, after there is a differentiation between the material and the spiritual, then, even if the feelings are having a material origin, they can be spiritualised.

Even if the feelings are having a material origin, they can be spiritualised. You know, there can be two extremes where one is that we reject everything as material. The other is we simplistically spiritualise everything.

So, rejecting everything as material, that is what the Mayavadis do. They say this whole world is Maya, Brahma Satya, Jagan Mithya. And they reject the whole material world in itself.

We have to just go beyond the world. And, curiously, in the Abrahamic religions also, although, in the Abrahamic religions refers to Christianity, Islam and Judaism, and we have the Dharmic religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism. Now, in the Abrahamic religions also, there is, to some extent, a rejection of matter.

Not exactly in the philosophical sense in which it is there in the Vedantic tradition. But, now, one of the main reasons why the Abrahamic religions are militantly opposed to deity worship. Militantly opposed.

Because, actually in the Quran it is said, Allah can forgive any sin, except the sin of idolatry. They consider that as the only unforgivable sin. And why is there that conception? Because, there is a radical divorce of matter and spirit.

And they think that matter is so low, matter is so sinful, that it can never come in contact with the absolute. So, that is why they have the whole idea that, if you conceive of God in any material form, you are minimising God. So, now the difference between these two things is, between these two approaches, these two approaches to the rejection of matter, is that in the Vedantic tradition, there is the understanding of the absolute truth as impersonal.

Now, normally we associate form and personality together. That means we say that Krishna has form and Krishna is a person. And the impersonalists say that Krishna does not have a form and he is not a person.

Now, in the Abrahamic religions, the conception is in between. They consider God to be a person but not having a form. They consider God to be a person but not having a form.

And in that sense, now, they ascribe form to matter and what the nature of God is, they say it is unknowable. So, now when Krishna descends to this world, he descends in a particular form. In this verse, the word is used, Krishna virya samudbhava.

Now, virya, it is in a euphemistic sense, the word seed is used to refer to that. So, now Pradyumna was born from the seed of Krishna. This naturally raises the question, what is the nature of Krishna's interactions with his devotees? And what is the nature of Krishna's pastimes? Now, as I said, the first extreme is to reject everything material.

Then, the other extreme is to talk of everything artificially as spiritual. When Srila Prabhupada was in his final days, at that time he was very sick. And in his extreme sickness, because of the body practically being on the verge of breaking down, there was some drool coming from his mouth.

And some devotees started circulating the idea that because a pure devotee's body is transcendental, even this drool is transcendental. And then Tamal Krishna Maharaj writes this in his TKG diary, where the last year is quite heart-wrenchingly and painstakingly. Painstakingly from his point of view of detail in recording, but heart-wrenchingly from when we see how even a great devotee can have a lot of trouble at the body level.

We see that. So, he records this and Prabhupada was asked this. Prabhupada said, this is nonsense.

This is nonsense. He says, this is Asanapi Kleshadasa Deha. This body is temporary and it gives misery.

So, he said, now Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, what the devotees thought was, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu when he would exercise, sometimes tears would come out of his eyes. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, sometimes mucus would come out of his nose and drool would come out and that is considered spiritual. But Prabhupada said, this is not spiritual.

So, Prabhupada is strong in dismissing that idea. So, now when we say a pure devotee's body is spiritual, we have to understand that there is a difference between spiritual in constitution and spiritual in application. Spiritual in constitution means that something is made of Satchitananda and spiritual in application means that something is used for spiritual purposes.

So, even a pure devotee's body will grow old, will get deceased because in constitution, it is not spiritual. In application, it is fully spiritual because it is being used for Krishna's service. In contrast with that, Krishna when he descends in this material world, his body is spiritual in constitution.

So, Krishna's body is Satchitananda. So, they attempt to spiritualise everything. So, it leads to several logical paradoxes.

So, for example, now if we say, Krishna's body is spiritual, then we know Krishna's body is spiritual in the sense of constitution. Now, what about Krishna's associates? We say, oh, Krishna's associates are also spiritual. Okay, then among Krishna's associates, there are also demons.

Is the demon's body also spiritual? Now, here, if we simplistically try to spiritualise everything, we'll have a problem. We know the demon's previous life is also described and the demons come there because of certain reactions. Now, there are two different things.

There is speciality and there is spirituality. The two are different things. Anybody who participates in Krishna's pastimes is special.

Anybody who participates, that soul had a fortune to be there when Krishna manifested, that is special. But we shouldn't equate special with spiritual. So, it's not that everybody who manifests in Krishna's pastimes has a spiritual body.

And next thing we'll have to say, Chandakasi, he was a Muslim. Oh, his Muslim body was also spiritual. And then there are bandits and there are all kinds of people are all their bodies spiritual? Now, so, we cannot simplistically spiritualise everything.

Nor can we simplistically reject everything as material. So, the important principle here is that actually, anukulyase sankalpa pratikulyase varjanam. So, whatever is favourable, we accept it.

Whatever is unfavourable, we reject it. Now, when Krishna descends to this world, the verse ajopi sanauvyayatma, it is a very important verse. 4.6 in the Bhagavad Gita.

That is a transition. 4.5 Krishna tells that we have gone through many births. bahuni me vetitani.

And 4.7 yada yada hi dharmasya says that I come again and again for reestablishing dharma. So, in the 4.5 Krishna says that that my memory is not affected. That I remember everything.

In 4.7 he says he descends. In 4.6 he describes the nature by which he descends. ajopi sanauvyayatma bhutanam isvaropisan prakritin svam adhishthaya sambhavamyatmamayaya sambhavamyatmamayaya by my internal potency I descend.

So now in this world we have illusion. In America there is a university where they teach people how to do video how to do whole movie industry, how to go into that, how to shoot video and how to direct a movie, how to edit a movie. So it is called the American Institute of Illusion.

The American Institute of Illusion. So, if you consider the movie industry or the TV industry it is maya's maya. This whole world is maya but within that we are creating a further maya.

So it's an illusion within illusion. It's maya's maya. But when we talk about atmamayaya atmamayaya Krishna says, it is his internal energy.

So, when we talk about illusion's illusion, it's one thing to be in illusion and to identify oneself with the body. But, it's in another degree of illusion where I don't even identify myself with the body. When we go into illusion, if we are watching a movie, hero thinks, I am the hero.

Man who is watching the movie thinks that I am the hero. Woman who is watching the movie thinks that I am the heroine. So what is happening? It's one level of further illusion.

To misidentify with the body that we have is bad enough. To misidentify with the body that we don't have, that is worse. So that is illusion's illusion.

Maya is maya. But, now when we come to Krishna tattva, the word that is used is yogamaya. Atmamayaya, yogamaya.

Now, the word yogamaya is from a logical point of view, it is an oxymoron. Oxymoron is a figure of speech in English where two contradictory words are brought together. For example, it is said suicide is an act of courageous cowardice.

Suicide is an act of courageous cowardice. Actually, why? Because sometimes people may go and lie in front of a train. Of course, now lying in front of a train is an old-fashioned form of suicide.

Nowadays, people have more modern ways. But either way, whatever it is, if somebody goes and lies in front of a train and thinks, here is the train coming and maybe next day, come out. A person feels, loses nerve.

Because, to die or to kill oneself requires courage. But, when one is killing oneself, not because of a sense of sacrifice or dedication to a higher cause, but because of frustration with one's life, that is cowardice. So, now courageous cowardice is two opposite words.

So, when two opposite words are brought together, normally it will make no sense. But, a figure of speech is when two opposite words are brought together to convey a deeper meaning. So, oxymoron is the name for that figure of speech.

So, Yogamaya is an oxymoron. Why? Because maya is that which makes us forget reality. And yoga is that which connects us with reality.

So, what does Yogamaya mean? That something which connects us with reality, something which makes us forget reality. How are the two brought together? So, Yogamaya is that energy of Krishna, which makes us forget reality to connect with a higher reality. Like earlier I said, in Leela, fact is subordinated for feeling.

So, Yogamaya does this subordination. Yogamaya subordinated the fact of Krishna's supremacy to cultivate the feeling of Krishna saying, Yashoda being my child. So, Yogamaya is in that sense, it is a divine illusion.

A transcendental illusion, a spiritual illusion, where that illusion is in the service of reality. How is it in the service of reality? Because that illusion is connecting us with Krishna. It is helping us go deeper in our relationship with Krishna.

Of course, by this I mean, when we become purified, it will be for us. It is for the pure devotees, who are having that relationship with Krishna. So, Yogamaya is what operates in Krishna's pastimes and Yogamaya operates even when Krishna's great devotees are acting.

So, here, when Shukadeva Goswami is going beyond a linear chronological narrative to a sphurti driven narrative to a spontaneously recollected narrative, that Sanatana Goswami explains in Vaishno Doshani, that that is according to the will of Krishna for the pleasure of Krishna. So, he says that this is no doshana. This is a bhooshana.

Normally, if somebody gives a sketchy narrative, like I am an editor, say somebody is writing an article, and the linear narrative is messed up, I will say, this needs editing, you have to rewrite it properly. But, when the same thing is done by a pure devotee of a sphurti, that is a bhooshana. That means, there, the feelings are so forceful, that it is not that the linear narrative or the historical sequence is not known.

But, Krishna says that even a yogi who is not yet perfected, but a yogi who has practised some level of spirituality, then gets deviated, in the next life, that yogi immediately becomes attracted to Krishna. And that attraction is avashaha, helpless. So, that, of course, that attraction is to the general spiritual or transcendental principles, avashaha.

But, if that helpless attraction can be there, even for a soul who is still partially conditioned, then for a soul who is completely pure hearted, there is that forceful attraction of feelings, which just drives the thinking and the speaking. So, therefore, this is a bhooshana, it is not a dhooshana, it is an ornament, it is not a defect, when he leaves the narrative, leaves the linear narrative for the sake of a spontaneously recollected, driven narrative. Now, in this particular narrative, when we were talking about facts and feelings, even in Krishna Leela, there is a qualitative difference between Vraja Leela and Dwarka Leela.

Now, qualitative not in the sense that one is material and other is spiritual, both are spiritual, but the qualitative difference is in that the intimacy is much more in Krishna Leela, in Vraja, than it is in Dwarka. Now, interestingly, this particular pastime that is happening, it is Krishna's son Pradyumna, in one sense, his life is as adventurous as is his father's life. Krishna, he was born right from his childhood.

You know, Putana came along and she tried to poison him and after that Trnavartha came and took away. Just as Krishna was abducted by Trnavartha, similarly, his son is also abducted. Now, Pradyumna is described over here, that is, in all ways or in no ways is he inferior to his father.

So, here, Pradyumna is there are, we know there are four, there are the four manifestations of the divine. So, Vasudeva, Sankarsana, Pradyumna, Anuruddha. Now, there is Vyuha and there is Avatar.

And there is a difference between the two. Vyuha, there is in the Mahabharata, there is a, in the Mahabharata, there are three main sections which are devotional, in terms of Bhakti. Most of the Mahabharata is Karmakanda.

So, the Bhakti sections are the Bhagavad Gita, the Vishnu Sahasranam and the Narayaniya. Narayaniya is a section where there are prayers and glorification of Narayana that are offered along with an analysis of his Tattva. So, in the Narayaniya, the concept of the Vyuha is elaborated.

So, what is the difference between the Vyuha? We talk about Chatur Vyuha. Chatur, we know is four. Now, Vyuha, that actually refers to a spiritual manifestation or a, most precisely, a manifestation in the spiritual realm.

See, Avatar is the descent from the spiritual to the material. Whereas, Vyuha is a manifestation in the spiritual. An expansion of the Lord in the spiritual realm is called as Vyuha.

So, for example, now, we know that Krishna expands as Balram and Balram manifests as Chatur Vyuha, Vasudeva, Sankarsana, Pradyumna and Arjuna. From Sankarsana, there is Narayana. From Narayana, there is again a second Chatur Vyuha, Vasudeva, Sankarsana, Pradyumna and Arjuna.

Now, none of these have anything to do with the material world. They are all Vishnumurtis who are there in the spiritual world. Now, Prabhupada also does this differentiation, but Prabhupada is usually more focused on the essential message, not on technical precision.

So, Prabhupada generically uses the word expansion for referring to a manifestation that is at the same level. That means, if a spiritual manifestation of the Lord manifests again in the spiritual realm, that is an expansion. And when there is a manifestation from the spiritual realm to the material realm, that is an incarnation.

So, Vyuha and Avatar. So, Vasudeva, Sankarsana, Pradyumna and Arjuna, they are Vyuha. Whereas, when Krishna descends to this world, then that is an Avatar.

Now, the word Avatar also is one of the many Sanskrit words that are not translatable. So, Prabhupada would use the word incarnation to refer to Avatar. Now again, I'll go back to the same difference between the Vaishnava understanding of incarnation, the Mayavadi understanding of incarnation and the Abrahamic, the Christian understanding of incarnation.

And then we will return back to this particular pastime to conclude this class. So, the word incarnation is used conventionally or in terms of English language convention, it is used to refer to Jesus' manifestation in the world. As I told earlier, in the Christian tradition, God is considered to be completely unknowable.

And that is the reason they say that Bible does not give any positive description of God, because God cannot be described in words. So, then their idea is that if God is unknowable, how will He be lovable? Therefore, God out of His mercy, manifested as Jesus. Now, for 400 years after Jesus came and went, Christians were confused about who was Jesus.

And then, in the 4th century, the Catholics at that time, they came together and they made an Ising Creed. And they said that that is considered to be foundational document, doctrinal document of Christians. And they said that divinity of Christ is manifested in the humanity of Jesus.

Now, whatever that means, I will not go into a philosophical analysis of that particular statement. So, Christ is considered to be God. So, the divinity of Christ is manifested in the humanity of Jesus.

So, they accepted the fact that when Jesus came, He came as a human being. So, He had a material form. When He was crucified, at that time, when the nails were pierced into His body, blood came out of His body.

So, He had a material body. So, that is the sense in which they used the word humanity. But, although He had a material body, they had the idea of the Holy Spirit.

Now, in Isla Prabhupada, He would analyse things at different levels of precision for different levels of audiences. So, at one time in a lecture, Isla Prabhupada asked, Prabhupada, what do you think about the Holy Ghost? So, Prabhupada replied, all ghosts are unholy. All ghosts are unholy.

So, now, the word ghost, it has a decidedly negative connotation. And what that person wanted to ask was, actually, he was asking a question about the Holy Spirit. So, but he used the word Holy Ghost and Prabhupada dismissed him about it.

He said, all ghosts are unholy. Now, in the Christian tradition, they have the idea of the Holy Spirit as a means of connection between the divine and the human. So, that Holy Spirit, which belongs to God, manifested in Jesus.

And their idea is that, anybody who surrenders to Jesus, that Holy Spirit will manifest through that person also. But not to the same degree. So, you can become Jesus-like, but you cannot become Jesus.

But the point here is, they use the word incarnation implying or understanding the fact that Jesus had a material body. But still, they consider, because the Holy Spirit had fully manifested in Jesus, so they consider him to be an incarnation. Now, when we use the word incarnation to refer to Krishna's manifestations in this world, it is philosophically problematic.

Because the problem is that Krishna does not descend in a material form. Krishna's form is transcendental. Now, the Mayavadis also accept the concept of incarnation.

But their idea is that the incarnation is Brahman in contact with matter. So, their idea is that Brahman, when it contacts with goodness, it manifests as the avatars. When Brahman contacts with passion, that manifests as the jiva-tattva.

So, all of us are Brahman in contact with passion. And jada-tattva, matter, is Brahman in contact with tamas. So, is Brahman in contact with tamas.

So, their idea is, any form or personality is manifested when there is contact of Brahman with matter. And, now, because of this, their idea is we have to go beyond form, to the formless. And form is considered to be a tool to the formless reality.

So, when they talk about the concept of incarnation, or the Mayavadis use the word incarnation, from the Mayavad philosophy point of view, it is okay. Because they do consider that there is a contact of matter, contact of spirit with matter that is happening. Now, if you look at the word incarnation, from the etymological point of view, now, there is the word, there is this central word in it is karna.

Now, karna is very much related with flesh. Like we have carnivorous animals, those who eat flesh. Or we have carnal desires.

Carnal desires refers to desires of the flesh, sexual desires. So, incarnation literally means to come in flesh. And that is why we have the word reincarnation.

That means to come in flesh again. So, reincarnation is not a philosophically precise word. Now, Srila Prabhupada, when he would use his words, now, Prabhupada had two different extensions.

Yesterday I was at a long meeting with Giriraj Maharaj in Juhu. So, he was telling how Prabhupada would speak according to levels of people. So, you know, there was one Hindu VHP leader who was quite close to Srila Prabhupada, Sadajivatlal.

So, he told Prabhupada one time that Prabhupada, you know, you pronounce Sanskrit verses with a heavily Bengali accent. So, Prabhupada said, what can I do? I have a Bengali body. So, Prabhupada said, what can I do? I have a Bengali body.

So, Prabhupada did not deny his Bengali body and his Bengali nature. But at the same time, the message that he gave was transcendental. So, the point which I am making here is that when a devotee, even an Acharya Lakshya Prabhupada gives a message, the Acharya will use words or there will be there is a message and there is a medium for the message.

So, the pronunciation is a medium that we understand. But even the language is a medium. The language is also a medium and when the language is a medium, they the word choices are also a medium.

So, now Srila Prabhupada faced a formidable task of giving a message to, giving the message of the Vedic literature to an audience that was radically different from the original audience. The audience of Srila Prabhupada was historically, culturally, linguistically, intellectually, religiously, philosophically and practically disconnected from the original audience. And it was a huge, huge bridge, a huge, huge ocean that Prabhupada had to scale over.

You know, we say Hanuman went across the ocean to Lanka. Now Prabhupada, yes, he went across the ocean also to go to America. But you know, his physically going across the ocean is not as remarkable as his intellectually going across the ocean and making the spiritual message accessible to Americans.

Now that is a far greater feat. Otherwise, explain that wisdom to people who have no knowledge of it. It is so difficult.

Purnachandra Maharaj was telling us once that how deep-rooted is the ignorance of the bodily conception? He said, one time I was giving a class and he said, you are not your body. So one person asked, then whose body am I? So there is no doubt that I am the body. So if I am not my body, then whose body am I? So the level of ignorance is so much that to penetrate a spiritual message in that is extremely difficult.

So that Srila Prabhupada did that is itself remarkable. Now, when Srila Prabhupada did that, he, if you see in his translations, normally he does not use any Sanskrit terms in his English. He usually uses English terms.

So he quotes a lot of Sanskrit verses. But when he is translating into English, he generally uses directly the English, uses English translations for the words. So now, Srila Prabhupada is conscious that actually the English words are not precise.

But it is like, see, there is a concept which is internal. Concept is intellectual. The term is verbal.

See, if I have to carry a suitcase. In a suitcase, if I have to carry, there is a handle for the suitcase. And the handle helps me to carry it.

So now, sometimes, you know, some suitcases have handles which are not visible only. Just for the sake of style, the handles merge into the suitcase. Sort of suitcase covering.

Now an unfamiliar person comes around and looks at all around the suitcase. Where is the handle for it? So the person doesn't know how to move the suitcase. And just without the handle, trying to move the suitcase is very difficult.

So, just as the handle makes a suitcase accessible and movable, similarly, terms are handles for concepts. So concept is like the suitcase. Term is the handle for the suitcase.

So terms are verbal. Concepts are intellectual. Now, if you, if there is a porter, a porter, a pulley supposed to carry something, then the suitcase is also of a very strange shape.

And there is no handle to it. The porter will wonder, how will I lift it? How will I carry it? So, Prabhupada did not give double unfamiliarity to people. The concepts anyway were unfamiliar.

So if Prabhupada started using terms also which were unfamiliar, then it would be like unfamiliarity squared. And then that would lead to bewilderment squared. So, Prabhupada usually kept familiar terms.

Now, although he had familiar terms, but he imbued those terms with new meanings. Like, for example, we use the word deity worship. Now, the word deity, if you look at it in English dictionary, the deity refers basically to divinity.

It's equivalent to divinity. So, for example, we have forest deities, water deities, rain deity. So, it just refers to a particular manifestation of divinity associated with a particular place or a particular form.

Prabhupada used the word deity, but it's like a, it's a, it's a new meaning to the word deity. What is the meaning? That the materially manifested, not materially manifested in sense of material, but manifested in matter. The form of the divinity that is manifested in matter, that he called as deity.

Now, Bhakta Siddhanta Thakur, he used the word Srimurti. And if you read Gaudiya Math, publications, even in the English publications, he will use the word Srimurti. Now, those who are not so familiar with the philosophical context of the discussions, they often use the word idol.

Now, the word idol has a very negative connotation. Because as I said, idolatry is considered to be a great sin. In fact, you know, it is not just a sin.

In the Bible, when a sin is to be condemned, it is compared to idolatry. This sin is as bad as idolatry. So, idolatry is like the mortal sin.

You know, it is like a mortal sin. So, that's why to use idol to refer to the sacred form of the divine, that would be a terrible misrepresentation of reality. So, Bhakta Siddhanta Thakur did not use the word idol.

He used the word Srimurti. He sort of refused to, because the word was not translatable. So, he just used the Sanskrit also in his English writings.

But Prabhupada was writing to a entirely different audience. Just as he infused the word deity with a new meaning. That is, deity refers to the manifestation of the divinity in matter.

So, like that, Prabhupada used the word incarnation, but he infused it with a new meaning. That is, a manifestation of God who is visible to people at the material level, but who is himself not material. So, if you want to be more precise in terms of English terms, we could use the word descent.

One who descends from the spiritual world to the material world. Now, when Krishna descends to the material world, and this is the last point I will take and I will conclude this, that if Krishna is spiritual, Krishna's form is spiritual, then how is he visible to everyone else who has materialised? Now, one could say that he is not visible only. But it's not like that.

He was visible. When Krishna was in the court, say he came to the Yudhisthira's assembly in Hastinapur to negotiate for peace, he was visible to everyone. It was not that everyone there were pure devotees.

Obviously not. Duryodhana was the model of an anti-devotee. So, definitely he was not a pure devotee.

So, actually the Yoga Maya, it has a two-fold purpose. When Krishna manifests, what it does is, when Krishna manifests in this world, Atma Maya, when he manifests, one is, although Krishna manifests in the material world, Krishna remains uncontaminated. That is what is done by Yoga Maya.

But the other thing that is done is, see normally spirit is invisible to matter, is inaccessible by matter. Now, the soul is there in the body, but we can't see the soul with material eyes. But, Yoga Maya, the second thing that it does is, that when Krishna descends to this world, to the material eyes, he appears to be just like one of them.

So, Krishna remains visible. Now, Krishna is not accessible in the sense that people may not understand Krishna to be God. Duryodhana did not understand except Krishna to be God, even after Krishna showed the Vishwaroop.

But, he could see Krishna, he could interact with Krishna. So, Yoga Maya does these two things. One is, it maintains Krishna's spirituality even when he is in the material realm.

Second is, it makes Krishna's spiritual form visible, accessible to those who are in the material realm. So, when Krishna Veera Samudbhava it is talking about, we should not think of it simplistically as an act of procreation like it happens in the material world. It is actually, the whole thing happens according to the Yoga Maya's arrangement.

And, how it precisely happens is something which is Achintya for us. It is inconceivable for us because the whole concept, first of all the concept of spirit itself is not conceivable for us. See, Krishna says, the Atma itself is Achintyoyam.

Now, if the Atma is Achintya, then the Paramatma is so much bigger. He will be so much more Achintya. And then when the Achintya comes in contact with matter, how exactly it happens, that is very difficult for us to understand.

But the broad principle that we understand is, the principle of mercy that underlies accessibility. That Krishna descends to this world out of his mercy. How exactly he manifests his mercy is not as important for us as how we can benefit from the mercy.

Just like when I go to a doctor, how exactly that medicine is made is not as important as how I am supposed to take the medicine. Now, if I want to become a doctor, that's a different issue. And that will require a big training and before I can become a doctor, first I have to become from a patient to a healthy person.

Then I can think of becoming a doctor. So, similarly, if we want to study philosophically very deeply how Krishna manifests in the material, yes, our Acharyas have written many many books and there is exhaustive analysis given also. But the most important thing is, when Krishna makes, although he is spiritual when he makes himself accessible at the material level, we should focus not on the minutia of exactly how things happen but on the principle of mercy by which Krishna makes himself accessible.

And that same mercy manifests in his deity form also. And when we benefit from that, when we take darshan of Krishna as a deity, when we hear Krishna as a sound vibration of the holy name, sound vibration of Krishna katha, then our consciousness gets elevated and then ultimately we return back to Krishna. So, I will quickly summarise.

I started by talking about how here from this chapter onwards, the narrative goes from Smriti to Smriti. From conscious recollection to spontaneous recollection. And then I discussed elaborately how Smriti is not how this non-chronological narration is not a dushana, it is a bhushana.

And in that connection I discussed how fact is subordinated to feeling. And I gave three examples, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Krishna and then a pure devotee also, Srila Prabhupada. Then I discussed about these two extremes of rejecting everything as material or simplistically declaring everything as spiritual.

So, both are extremes which have to be avoided. And in that connection we discussed about the Mayavadi understanding, the Vaishnav understanding and the Abrahamic understanding. And the whole subject is complex.

How matter and spirit interact and how matter can be spiritualised, even when it is not spiritual in constitution. The precision of that is difficult to understand but the purpose is clear enough and the purpose is what we should focus on. That is to gain access to Krishna's mercy and to elevate ourselves spiritually.

Thank you very much. Granthraj Srimad Bhagavatam ki Srila Prabhupada ki Gaur Bhakta Vrinda ki Matai Gaur Premanandi Thank you very much. Hare Krishna.