Gita Study Pune 2013 – 11.47-55 – How Virat Rupa revelation ends in glorification of bhakti

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Thank you very much. Asmai Krishnatmane Namaha So, we continue our discussion with the 11th chapter. Are there any questions that were left unanswered? Yesterday? About the 11th chapter per se? One, two.
Okay, what we will do is, so, let us complete the 11th chapter first. Then we will have questions. Is that okay? We do not have much remaining now in the 11th chapter.
So, we completed Arjuna’s prayers and after his prayers, Arjuna now has asked Krishna please reveal your two-handed form. Now Krishna responds. First he speaks something, then the movement goes backward and Sanjaya tells what has happened over there.
And then again Krishna starts speaking, then Arjuna speaks, and then Krishna speaks. So, this is the most conversational as well as eventful chapter of the Bhagavad Gita. And of course, it is the most dramatic.
All remaining is conversation. This alone is action. A lot of dramatic action in this chapter.
But to help us get a proper way, a proper sense of the action that is there, there is this movement forward and backwards. So, when the two people are conversing, the conversation is described. He is speaking this, he is speaking that.
Then the emotions that are there associated with the conversation, give us a sense of that and the conversation is shifted backwards. That Sanjaya, the conversation is shifted backwards to Sanjaya so that Sanjaya can tell us what is the reaction on Arjuna also of what is happening. Mayogat Darshitama Mayogat Tejomayam Vishwamanandamadhyam Enmetu Dhanye Nadrishtapurvam So, Nadrishtapurvam.
So, now it is once again Krishna telling. So, we saw that Adrishtapurvam becomes three times. So, first Krishna spoke, then Sanjaya spoke and now, then Arjuna spoke and now Krishna is also speaking.
And this form which I have shown you is Nadrishtapurvam. It has never been seen before. And he is telling Maya Prasannena Tavarjunedam Prasannena When you asked me to show you the universal form, I happily showed it to you.
Prasannena Rupa Param Darshitam This is a very extraordinary form. Param Rupa it is. Extraordinary form which I have shown you.
How would I show you Atmayogat by my own potency. Tejomayam Vishwamanandamadhyam This time the characteristic of this form Tejomayam Vipalyam Vishwam All of the universe is provided Nandam Nandam Nandamadhyam Nipunastavadim As it is described. It is everywhere.
There is no beginning, no middle or end. Aadyam It is a primaeval form. Janmethudanyil Nadrishtapurvam Nobody has seen this before.
Now, after describing this, we will now slightly sort of tease Arjuna. That is what Chakravarti Path says. You are seeing such an extraordinary form.
Why do you want me to end this vision? This is just a rare form. So now he will describe the rarity of this form to see if Arjuna on hearing the rarity of this form will still want to see it. So the idea is that this is a different scale of perception.
It is not an intimate relationship. To see the It is not an intimate relationship that we see the Virata Rupa. But still the Virata Rupa is extraordinary.
So after seeing the Virata Rupa does Arjuna get captivated by that? Does he still want to keep seeing that? Krishna sort of tests Arjuna. Kuru Praveera Kuru Praveera Veera is hero. Praveera is special hero.
Vishesh hero. So Kuru Praveera So O Kuru Praveera That Ashtumpadanya Apart from you nobody has seen this. Again he is describing the rarity.
First of all you are a apart from you nobody has seen this and seeing it is also not very easy. Veda Yajna Dayanaya Madanaya Study of Veda Arjuna says I don’t want to see this but that vision is still there and Krishna is not withdrawing that vision. So Arjuna becomes almost desperate in general.
When he becomes desperate then Krishna says ok ok I will remove this form don’t be agitated become peace that is the next step. māte vyathā mā cha vimūḍha-bhāvo dviṣṭhvā rūpaṁ ghoraṁ idṛṇya-medhaṁ vipīta-dhī prīta-manāpana-stvāṁ tadevame rūpa-medhaṁ prapaśyat So, māte vyathā. Vyathā is lamentation, sorrow, distress.
Let there be no distress. Mā means no. Māte vyathā cha vimūḍha-bhāvo.
Vimūḍha-bhāvo means bewilderment. There is bewilderment and there is distress. Let there be none of these for my devotees.
All this has come because of dviṣṭhvā rūpaṁ ghoraṁ idṛṇya-medhaṁ. Because of this ghora rūpa. Yes, this is rare, but this is not a pleasant rūpa.
This is ghora rūpa. dviṣṭhvā rūpaṁ ghoraṁ idṛṇya-medhaṁ. It’s my form only.
I sing this. vipīta-dhī prīta-manāpana-stvāṁ. Vipīta means let it go away.
So, let the bhī, the fear go away. prīta-manāpana-stvāṁ. Let you become satisfied.
And then, that form which will take away fear and which will bring pleasure. Let that form be seen. pradeva-ve rūpa-vinam prakṣya.
See that form. Now, in the next verse, after he describes this. Now, please see the form that will make you happy.
So, here Krishna has given three verses. First two verses describe the glory of the, or the rarity and the glory of the universal form. And then, he describes, okay, now I will show you the form that will make you peaceful.
Interestingly, as you know that nowhere is it said that it is see viṣṭhvā rūpa vāca. But while these verses before this, that means 32, 33, 34, and these verses 47, 48, 49, they are spoken by Krishna in the form of viṣṭhvā rūpa. And then, the next verse describes in one verse, both, that Krishna reveals the chaturbhuja and then he returns to the dvibhuja.
So, Sanjay condenses that in fond words. And then after that, Krishna and Arjuna will continue their conversation. Sanjay vāca ity arjunaṁ vāsudevas tathoktvā vāsudevas tathoktvā sakam rūpaṁ darshayā māsabhūyā āśvāsayā māsacchabhīta-menam sacchabhīta-menam bhūtvā punasauṁ yavapūrmahātmā yavapūrmahātmā ity arjunaṁ vāsudevas tathoktvā So, to Arjuna, Vasudeva spoke to Sanjay saying, after what is it? sakam rūpaṁ darshayā māsabhūyā So, sakam rūpaṁ darshayā māsabhūyā He revealed his own form, āsabhūyā.
Bhūyā means again. āśvāsayā māsacchabhīta-menam āśvāsayā māsacchabhīta-menam, reassured him. He was fearful, reassured him.
bhīta-menam, that devotee Arjuna, who was bhīta, fearful, reassured him. āśvāsayā māsacchabhīta-menam bhūtvā punā saumya-vapur-mahātmā Punā means again, saumya-vapu, that Mahātmā, that great soul who could reveal all this form, he assumed the saumya rūpa. So, now, here, after this, Arjuna will speak.
And in the next verse, he will use the word, mānuṣyaṁ rūpaṁ Now, the viṣṇu rūpa is not the mānuṣya rūpa. It is actually korāṁ form, whereas the mānuṣya rūpa is the kṛṣṇa rūpa, or the rāma rūpa is mānuṣya rūpa. That means, here, the mānuṣya rūpa, by the time Arjuna starts speaking, the mānuṣya rūpa is being revealed.
So, now, if we see previously, before Krishna starts speaking, that means in verse 46, Arjuna has requested, please show me the chatur bhuja. And there is no reference to Krishna denying the request of bhuja. Why are we talking about all this in such a precise way? Because, Sanjay, in taking the action for Hare Krishna, he condenses things into one verse, and in one verse, there is no direct reference that there is a chatur bhuja, and then there is bhuja form.
But the ācāryas have analysed this verse, and then they have explained how there is a reference to both these forms in this verse itself. So, let’s look at that. So, in 46, Arjuna requested, please show the chatur bhuja.
47, 48, 49 is Krishna speaking. So, 47, 48 is clearly, he is saying that, why don’t you see this form? 49 says, okay, now I will show you the form that will make you peaceful. And then, in 51, the mānuṣya rūpa has come.
That means, in 50, both the forms have come together. So, let us see how that has happened. So, ity ārjunaṁ vāsudevas tathokula.
First line is clear that this is what Vāsudeva spoke to Arjuna. And then, the last line is, saumya-vapūra-mahātmā. Saumya-vapūra means the pleasant form.
That was what was manifest. Now, Chakravartī Pāla explains that for Arjuna, Arjuna’s relationship is with Krishna. It is not with Vishnu.
Although he knows that Krishna and Vishnu are non-different, but still, for him, even the Vishnu-rūpa is not the saumya-rūpa. Vishnu-rūpa is the Aishwarya-rūpa. It is like, the gopīs, when they were searching for Krishna, and then Krishna appeared in the form of Vishnu, the gopīs offered obeisance and said, there is Krishna.
So, we know that past time. Rādhārāṇī also asked them, Krishna has two hands, so we have seen the love of Rādhārāṇī. But the point is, that intimate affection that is there, the gopīs don’t have that for the Vishnu-rūpa.
So, for Arjuna, the saumya-rūpa is the Krishna-rūpa, not the Vishnu-rūpa. That means, at this point, Krishna has manifested now his own form, saumya-rūpa. This is not describing any form at all.
He just reassured him, who was fearful. Now, that means, if we go from influence, this way, this is how the ācāryas analyse over here also, 50B is referring to the Krishna hand, in the ABCD, the lines of the verse. So, 50D refers to the Krishna form, and 50A and 50C don’t talk about any form.
So, 50B is referring to the Vishnu-rūpa. So, svakam-rūpaṁ darshayāṁ āsapūyaha. So, svakam-rūpaṁ darshayāṁ.
So, his own form, svakam-rūpaṁ. Now, what does this svakam-rūpaṁ mean? We could say that it just refers to Krishna’s form only directly. Why does it have to refer to a Vishnu form? So, actually, Krishna and Vishnu are, in the sense of tattva, in the sense of philosophy, non-different.
And for Krishna, from the point of view of the Vishnu-tattva, all his forms are the same. They are all one form. So, in a sense, Krishna and Vishnu are one person, but different personalities.
They are one person, but different personalities. They are the same person. But they assume different moods and their relationship with different devotees.
So, svakam-rūpaṁ darshayāṁ āsapūyaha. That means svakam-rūpaṁ. That he revealed the form of Vishnu over there, which is his own form, and then he manifested in some other form.
That is the Krishna form. Now, why is the word bhūya there? Again, when before had Krishna manifested in the Vishnu form? Because punar is okay for the Krishna form, because Krishna was only speaking. So, come back to the Krishna form.
So, there is a reference to the Vishnu form in 11.17. So, now, in the Virāṭa-rūpa, when he saw this hundreds of hands and hundreds of legs, in the Virāṭa-rūpa, the centre was Vishnu. So, he said, brahmāṇam īśaṁ kamalāsanastam. So, he saw Brahmā, he saw everybody over there.
So, he saw also Vishnu over there. And Vishnu was like this at the centre. Sometimes we will see the picture of Virāṭa-rūpa.
So, we do see that. Of course, this Virāṭa-rūpa is depicted in different places. But Vishnu is right at the centre.
So, therefore, but later on, when the Kāla-rūpa started becoming prominent in his vision, then he could not see Vishnu. So, he knew that this is Vishnu, but he has never seen this form of Vishnu. That’s why he is asked, ākhyā hi ko bhavān rūpa rūpa.
Who are you? So, now, for Arjuna, when he is seeing the Vishnu form, he is outstruck, but he is not unsettled. He is not disturbed. He is not fearful.
But when the Kāla-rūpa becomes prominent, then he becomes shaken. So, then when the reverse vision goes forward, then from the Kāla-rūpa that is being seen, then the Vishnu-rūpa is revealed. And then when the Vishnu-rūpa is āsvāsayām āsvajhītaṁ eru.
And then he becomes completely pacified. Vyapetabhī prītamanā punastram. When, actually, he sees the Saumya-rūpa.
So, that means, first there is the Vishnu-rūpa, then there is the Virāṭ-rūpa, in which there is a glimpse of Vishnu form also. All the other devatas are there. The whole universe is there.
And then when the Kāla-rūpa comes in focus of Arjuna’s vision, then he becomes overwhelmed. Then he prays and Krishna accepts the request. And then he sees the Vishnu-rūpa.
And then after that, he returns to the Krishna-rūpa. This is how the whole progression occurs. Now, kiritinam gadhinam chakrahastam.
So, chakrahastam is the chakra which Vishnu carries. Kiritinam gadhinam. Gadha is also something which Vishnu carries.
So, it’s a hint. It’s not an explicit description. Chakra is not something which other devatas carry.
Chakra is the typical weapon of Lord Vishnu. Typical weapon. Distinctive weapon.
So, now, after this, Arjuna will speak. So, when Arjuna will speak, yes, now I am reassured. So, Krishna was telling Arjuna, please become pacified.
Please become reassured. So, Arjuna will say, yes, now I am reassured. So, krishvedam idam manusham rūpam.
So, I am seeing this manusha-rūpa, this form which is human-like. So, Krishna’s form is human-like but not material. Because material is that which is made of matter.
Human-like means it resembles human being. Actually, the more accurate would be that human form is God-like. Because human form is not the prototype on which God’s form is made.
Rather, God’s form is the prototype on which human form is made. But, tava saumyam janārdhana. So, yes, this is saumya-rūpa.
Earlier it was ugra-rūpa, ghora-rūpa. This is tava saumyam janārdhana. I am seeing that.
And, idānī must be samrutthaha. Samrutthaha means, now my vritti has returned to the normal peaceful situation. Settled.
He was unsettled, he has become settled. Samruttha. So, prakriti here doesn’t necessarily refer to particular nature, it just refers to nature.
So, Arjuna’s nature is to be as a joyful devotee of Krishna. So, he is able to return to that nature. And now, after describing this, Krishna will now glorify the form that he is revealing now.
In case there is some misconception that virat-rūpa is a very special form. One way to understand is Arjuna is not attracted to virat-rūpa. So, that means the dvibhujya-rūpa, the saumya-rūpa, the manuṣya-rūpa is more special than the virat-rūpa.
But, some people feel, okay, that is just Arjuna is not attracted, but actually the virat-rūpa is the highest. Now, Krishna will clarify by glorifying this rūpa, the rūpa which Arjuna is seeing right now. And how this rūpa can be seen? śrī-bhūd-vāna-vāca sudur-darśa-vidhaṁ rūpaṁ dṛṣṭa-vāna-sī-anmama devāpyasya rūpasya nityam-darśana-kāṁśinaḥ So, this is not only that form that is rare, even this is rare.
sudur-darśam, sudur-labha-praśānta-rūpa, sudur-labha-mahātmā. So, like that, very, very rare. Labha is gainable, sudur-labha is not easy to gain, sudur-labha is extremely difficult to gain.
So, sudur-darśam-idam-rūpaṁ, very rare to see this form. As you are seeing me right now, dṛṣṭa-vāna-asī-anmama. So, some people, they try to say that virat-rūpa is the highest.
But here, Kṛṣṇa is making it very clear, as you are seeing me right now, asī-anmama. Now, what He is saying right now is very clear from the previous verse. It is the saumya-rūpa, it is not the virat-rūpa.
And He is saying devāpyasya rūpasya. Even devatās, nityam-darśana-kāṁśinaḥ, even they are unceasingly hankering to see this form. Now, if you look at the Puranas, there are no prayers by the devatās asking you to see the virat-rūpa.
But, we know that when the devatās go to the Kṣīra-sagar, and they try to behold the form of Viṣṇu, they will generally only hear the voice. And when Kṛṣṇa was going to appear in this world, at that time, there is the whole wrong chapter 10.2, Garbha-stuti, where it will offer prayers that, you know, we are so fortunate that we will be able to behold your form. Yes, the devatās can see Kṛṣṇa’s form when Kṛṣṇa is there in this world.
But as compared to the vastness of the universal time scales and the vastness of the devatās’ lifespan, devatās being able to see Kṛṣṇa is also rare. And that’s why nityam-darśana-kāṁśinaḥ, they are always hankering to see that form. They don’t see it very easily.
And then Kṛṣṇa will describe that, OK, if it is sudur-darśana, if it is so rare, then how can it not be seen and how can it be seen? So in this way, especially in the 54th verse, very systematically and unambiguously, He establishes the supremacy of bhakti. So first He describes that what all, the form cannot be seen. nāhaṁ vedai nitya-pasa nāhaṁ vedai nitya-pasa na dāne na ca ijjaya nāhaṁ vedai nitya-pasa sakye vambidho darshṭuṁ viṣṭhivānasi mām yathā So nāhaṁ vedai nitya-pasa, not by study of Veda, not by performance of austerities.
na dāne na ca ijjaya So, I am not making charity. Now, ijjaya, ijjaya refers to worship. So here that worship does not refer to DP worship.
It refers to worship through the performance of fire sacrifice, ijjaya. So, by all this, sakye vambidho darshṭuṁ, not seen. So then, this verse, in a sense, is similar to na vedai yajñā dhaya nāhi na dāne That is what earlier He said, even the virat-rūpa cannot be seen.
That’s what He described in 12.48. But now, He will describe what is the way to see this form. So, both the virat-rūpa and the dhrujjhū-rūpa are rare. But the virat-rūpa, the dhrujjhū-rūpa is very special because it is eternal.
And it can be the eternal object of worship. So, we will see how can this form actually get in. bhaktyātmananya-yāśakya aham evam vidho arjuna aham evam vidho arjuna jñātum drishṭuṁ ca gatavena drishṭuṁ ca parantapa drishṭuṁ ca arjuna So, bhaktyātmananya-yāśakya Om live ananya-bhakti aham evam vidho arjuna That, evam vidho, as I am right now.
The word evam is very clear. As you are knowing me right now, I can be known actually. jñātum drishṭuṁ ca tattvena So, in this way, you will know me and see me in truth.
tattvena is similar to tattvatah which comes in 4.9 and it also comes in 18.55. So, when Krishna talks about knowing, often very frequently he brings the word tattvatah, tattvena. jñātum drishṭuṁ ca tattvena praveṣṭu So, now praveṣṭu, again we see that Krishna often uses this word in the context of knowing him. But he is not saying praveṣṭu and to me.
You see, enter. You will know me and you will enter. Now, where will you enter? That can, does it necessarily have to refer to enter into brahma-yogi? No.
Because Krishna is not mentioning anything about Brahman over here. Krishna is not having all-pervading light. It’s very clear he is talking about his personal form.
So, Prabhupāda explains praveṣṭu as enter into the mysteries of my understanding. So, you can refer to jñātum drishṭuṁ ca tattvena praveṣṭuṁ ca tattvena. So, the idea over here is praveṣṭu refers basically to entry.
And the understanding of Krishna is a mysterious zone. So, Śrīla Ṭhākura says in Avadhi-dhāmahātya that many people live on the dhāma but very few people live in the dhāma. Live on the dhāma means they are superficially in the geographical area of the dhāma.
But live in the dhāma means they have actually entered into an understanding of the dhāma and they are actually conscious of the spiritual reality that is pervading that dhāma. So, in this way, there is a difference between just knowing and entering into the understanding. The entering into understanding happens by when there is bhukti and there is a reciprocal mercy of Krishna that comes with it.
So, now after describing this, bhaktyā tu ananyaya śaktiā Ananya bhakti, now ananya bhakti is a very lofty level. Then what if we are not able to practise ananya bhakti? Then he will describe that we can practise sādhanā bhakti. So, that is the summary.
Prabhupāda says this was the sum and substance of the Bhagavad-gītā. mat-karmakron mat-paramo mad-bhakta-saṅga-varjita nirvairaḥ sarva-bhūteṣu yasamā me ti pāṇḍava So, mat-karmakron, work for me, mat-paramo. You make me the supreme guru.
So, there is a difference between the two, mat-karmakron mat-paramo. Some person may say, I am working for L&T, I am working for Tata Infosys. But you know, Tata Infosys is not mat-paramo for that person.
His supreme goal is, maybe he wants to have a big factory at home, he wants to go to America, he wants to do that. So, I may work for someone, but that person may not be my goal. So, mat-karmakron mat-paramo.
Work for Krishna, and Krishna himself is our greatest guru. mat-bhakta-ha And for that, we have to practise bhakti. So, mat-bhakta-ha refers here to the practise of bhakti.
So, overall, mat-karmakron is work for us. mat-bhakta is, become my devotee. That means, rendered devotee.
So, sang-dvarjita-ha. And, to be my devotee, actually one has to keep a distance from worldly association. Because worldly association contaminates us with material desires.
And especially, it dilutes and distorts our bhakti. Sang-dvarjita-ha. And interestingly, in this chapter itself, in 11.33, Krishna has told Arjuna that fight and kill your enemies and attain victory.
But in that same chapter, just 22 verses later, in 55, Krishna has said, Don’t be inimical towards any living being. Any living being. Be friendly towards all living beings.
So, what does it mean? Actually speaking, a devotee does not hate anyone. A devotee, when there is punishment to be given to somebody who is wrong, that punishment is given, but that is not in a personally vengeful or hateful sense. It is more like a surgery that has to be done to cure a person.
So, when a doctor sees that a particular part of the hand is infected, the doctor may have to amputate the hand. That amputation is not because the doctor hates the patient. It is simply because that infection should not spread from the hand to the rest of the body.
Similarly, for the soul, the body is like the dress. And when, because of some contaminated mentality, because of some sinful desires and whatever associated with that, if a person is excessively contaminated by vicious desires, then the soul and the body are cut off and the dress is being ripped away. So, that is basically a surgery.
That in and of itself does not purify the soul, but that delivers the sinful reaction for whatever is to be, for whatever misdeeds have been done. And that specific facility that was there for continuing the sinful activity, that is taken away. And the soul makes a new beginning.
So, now in the new beginning, the soul has free will and the soul may continue to do misdeeds, or the soul may change over and reform. That will vary depending on the soul’s nature. So, that’s why the mood is non-enemical.
nirvairah sarvabhuteshu Vishwaprabhupada, when Mr. N was opposing, at one level, we can say that Prabhupada was very belligerent and Mr. N was also very nullible. So, when Alhamdulillah, when Mr. N was died in that heart attack, or whatever, Prabhupada actually distributed prasad. But then, that is only one part of it.
Later on, when Mrs. N, she continued the battle for some time, but then she came and apologised, and the agreement was when she came in touch with Prabhupada, Prabhupada said, you are like my daughter, I will take care of you. Prabhupada was very forgiving like that. So, where the cause of Krishna was concerned, Prabhupada was uncompromising.
But, when that cause of Krishna was protected, Prabhupada didn’t fear any further malice or hatred towards anybody. So, nirvairah sarvabhuteshu. Now, in general, for many people, hatred, it chokes their interest.
Hatred is a very strong word. But many, some people’s lives are defined by hatred. Now, there are so many people who are, who feel, say, the terrorists feel that the west, or whatever, that the western world is the cause of all our suffering.
If only the western world would have gone down, then everything would be alright. Or, say, the lower caste Dalits feel that, actually, the upper caste is the cause of all our suffering. So, it’s easy to blame others for our problems, and to hate others for that.
But that doesn’t solve our problem. That actually disempowers us. Now, it may be true that some others may be causing some problems to us.
But, that doesn’t mean that we have to concentrate all our emotions on hating that person. Because, hating a person also lets that person dominate us. When we love somebody, through love, that person dominates us.
We always think of that person. What will please that person? And, how can I do something that will make that person happy? But, when we hate that person, we hate somebody, again, we are thinking of that person only. But, we are thinking in a way that neither makes that person happy, nor does it really make us happy.
We are basically letting that person live in our mind and live in our heart. We are letting that person dominate us. That was what happened to Duryodhana.
Duryodhana hated the Kauravas, Pandavas, so much. Even when he was living in the palace, he was thinking, Pandavas, Pandavas, I have to make them more miserable. They are in the forest.
But, what do I have to do? I have to make sure that they see how prosperous I am, and how indigent, how utterly poverty-stricken they are. And, that’s why he decided to take all his royal paraphernalia, and his queens, and go to Kamala, where he could parade his opulence and affluence to them. And, of course, that whole thing led to a disaster.
The point is that he was always very centric. He was always, he was like enemy-centric. And, that didn’t lead to anything.
So, as devotees, we may know that there are certain opposing forces, and we may have to do the needful to deal with those opposing forces. But, we don’t let those opposing forces dominate our consciousness. That’s a significant difference between a devotee who is a beginner devotee, and a devotee who is a serious devotee.
In the prayers of Indra to Narasimhadev, after Narasimhadev kills Hiranyakashipu, at that time, Indra tells that this Hiranyakashipu was such a dangerous demon, that because of his power and threats, he had completely dominated our minds. And, that’s why we are not able to practise Buddhism. But, now that he has died, now we will be able to serve him nicely.
Thank you for having killed him. So, that is Indra’s prayer. But, in contrast, what is Paramahamsa’s attitude? Whatever be the threat, he continues to stay fixed on devotees.
So, as devotees, we are not fearful, we don’t become fearful of anyone. We don’t let anyone else dominate our minds. And, we remain Christian-conscious.
Actually, to a certain extent, we may be happy even amidst problems. So, sometimes the problems are there. The real problem is not that the problems are there.
The real problem is that we become problem-conscious. We become problem-conscious means we constantly think that. So, problem-consciousness is not at all conducive to Christian-consciousness.
Problems are there and we have to deal with them. But, we will always remember that Krishna is higher than the problems. That’s why we stay fixed on Krishna’s service.
So, any questions about this? Dehatsama may be pointed out. Now, I have not gone too much into the purports. Prabhupada’s purport is systematically described in each of these.
Nirvaira, Sarvabhuteshu, each of these, how the implement is in our life. Prabhupada described it. You can read that.
9.25 is the essence of Bhagavad Gita. In 9th chapter it is told 9.34 is the essence of Bhagavad Gita. What actually do you have to know? Yeah.
Now, sometimes some verses, this may be the essence of the Bhagavad Gita, that may be the essence of the Bhagavad Gita. Well, those verses are saying more or less the same thing. They are talking about Bhakti Yoga only, you know.
What is the exact word used for this? Samya substance or essence? Essence, Prabhupada uses it. So? So, there can be multiple verses which convey the same essence in slightly different ways. So, it is not necessary that there has to be only one essence.
If you look at 9.34 and 11.55, the essential message is same. Manmanabha Madh Bhakto Madhyaji is there, here. Madh Karmakron Madh Paramah Madh Bhakta Sangh is there.
Essentially, it is the practise of Bhakti only. So, essence doesn’t have to be one. And there can be sometimes different perspectives from which the essence is discussed.
So, we discussed about Satyashloki Bhagavad Gita and Trishloki Bhagavad Gita. Trishloki Bhagavad Gita is primarily focussing on Bhakti directly. The primary focus is Bhakti in Trishloki Bhagavad Gita.
Whereas, when we come to Trishloki Bhagavad Gita between 15.16 to 18, the primary focus there is Bhagawan. How Bhagawan is beyond Akshara and Akshara. How Bhagawan is the highest reality.
That is also there in Trishloki Bhagavad Gita. But that is only the starting point. Aham Sarvasya Prabho Mata Sarvam Prabhavate.
After that, the whole focus is on Bhakti. Achitta Madhuta Prana Sattatam Kirtanam. Trishyam Sattatayuktanam.
Trishyam Evanukam Partham. So, now Bhagawan and Bhakti are the central concepts of the Bhagavad Gita. Central teachings of the Bhagavad Gita.
So, in Chaitrishloki, Bhakti is emphasised. In Trishloki, Bhagawan is emphasised. So, like that, there are two ways of understanding.
First is, there are multiple verses which can convey the essence. And the essence is quite similar. It can be phrased differently in different places.
And what is the essence can also be said to be different when we are looking, when we are analysing from different perspectives. So, if the focus is on identifying who is the supreme person, then the essence could be 15.16 to 18. If the focus is on identifying which is the best sadhana, then the focus would be, then that essence would be 10.8 to 11 in Chaitrishloki.
Is this clear? Yes. That is, we can speak here. Yes.
When Lord Shiva wanted to see Mohini Murthy, he said it was idle query. And we got into trouble later. Similarly, here also, when Arjuna saw Vishnu, he became bewildered and trouble was there.
But we don’t say it was idle query. Okay. So, when Lord Shiva saw Mohini Murthy, he got in trouble.
That was the idle query. So, was it similar to Arjuna? But Arjuna becomes fearful to some extent. Actually, one thing is clear that if we look at the context in the Bhagavad Gita, previously Arjuna has accepted the absolute truth in the 10.1213 code, in Param Brahma Param Dhamma.
And there he has asked specifically a question, Keshu, Keshu, Shibha, Vaishu. How can you know us in the material world? And then this is a continuation, 11.4, when he asks, Kanyasya eva tachyakti maya drashtamitikram. At that time, it’s more or less a continuation of the same theme.
So, we can see this in two ways. One way is that everything that Arjuna is speaking is orchestrated by Supreme Lord, so that the whole world can be loomed. So then, Arjuna is wanting to come in the middle of the two armies.
I want you to see, Kailamayasa Yodhya Vyam, Yodh Samana Vekshe, So, I want to see whom I have to fight with. All this is directly in arrangement with the Lord. That’s one way of looking at it.
The other way of looking at it is that, actually, through Arjuna, we learn what he has done wrong. We realise, even when Krishna is there, rather than asking Krishna about the strengths and weaknesses of the other, he thinks that, I want to see myself. So, in that section, the Aiksha, Iksha, Vashya, that comes a lot of time.
So, the whole idea is that the Pratyeksha Pramana gets loomed. So, when we want to learn some lessons from a particular narrative, then we don’t focus so much on the Yogmaya aspect. Everything that is in Yogmaya, if you see it like that, there is only to relish over there, nothing to learn over there.
But, when we want to learn something, then we will say, OK, this action was done in this way, but this was particularly, this was the incorrect choice. So, even in the Ramayana, or any other pastime, when Sita, she is attracted to a deer and she wants a deer, she is the goddess of fortune herself. So, how can she be deluded by a deer? But, when we want to learn some lessons, then we say, actually, one should not get attracted to something other than the Lord.
One should not go out of Lakshmi-Vedika. We can draw some lessons from it. So, in this case, Arjuna is not just directly acting under Yogmaya, which applies to the whole Bhagavad Gita.
But here, Arjuna has expressed his clear understanding, in 10.12.13.14, and then he is asking further questions, for the sake of Lokasanghara, for the sake of benefiting others. So, in that sense, Arjuna is not idle curiosity. Because, Arjuna also prophesied very clearly that, Arjuna wanted to set a standard for future people who will claim to be God.
That, that person can even display the Virat. So, I don’t think we can call Arjuna’s question as an idle query. Arjuna’s mood is also very submissive.
Unless he has even changed, it is possible to issue a query. And then, his form is so ferocious that he becomes overwhelmed by it. And in the case of Lord Shiva, the lesson that is taught over there is that, Lord Vishnu is so powerful that he can delude even Lord Shiva.
So, that sort of playing with temptation, or wanting to be exposed to temptation or illusion, is not desirable. So, now, the difference about this Mohini Murthi, is a form that is meant to create Mohini. Similarly, Markandeya Rishi, when he wants to see, he wants to see directly the illusory energy of the Lord.
Whereas, when Arjuna is asking to see, he is asking basically to see the Virat Rupa. So, it is not known that the Virat Rupa is creating Mohini. So, in a sense that, the danger is not there.
So, Vishwanath Chaturvedi explains in the 9th Hando that, Lord Shiva is thinking that, yes, the demons can get bewildered by this form, Mohini Murthi, but I will not get bewildered. So, the form was known to be bewildering. Whereas, Virat Rupa, it is not like a tempting form.
It is not, but still the form was so nasty that he got bewildered. So, it is not exactly an illusion. The fear of the demons is meant to loom in from the rest of the world.
So, you know. Guruji, like this Deva Vyasa Rupa sits, the demigods are also eager to see Krishna form. Generally, we say that, they are annoying reverence.
They want to see the Vishnu Rupa. Their pastimes are mostly with the Vishnu form. Of course, Shiva Gautam, 10th Canto, 2nd chapter does say that Krishna came.
But, what I heard is that, even when the demigods see Krishna, they see actually the four arms, more they get attracted to. Krishna has more opulence, not the two-armed form. That’s true.
The demigods are attracted more to the four-armed form than the two-armed form. I wouldn’t say attracted, they are more accustomed. Because they are, they worship in the mood of awe and reverence.
But, when the Lord performs pastimes, now see, among the demigods also, the Lord’s pastimes can be bewildered. Because, especially we see Brahmohamon Leela, we have Govardhan Leela. Actually, you will see that Brahma, Indra and even Varuna.
Varuna also, himself doesn’t get bewildered, but his servants get bewildered by saying, he is taking Nanda Maharaj to be an ordinary person. So, there are many who get bewildered this way. Even Lord Shiva fights against Lord Krishna when he fights with Banasura.
So, the form of the Lord, especially when he performs various pastimes, that is very special and rare. And the devatas, they have some idea that Vishnu is a very extraordinary person. Vishnu performs many leelas, Vishnu has many avataras.
And the Lord is extraordinary. So, the point over here is, that the Vishnu, even the devatas, for the devatas also, to see the pastime form of the Lord, which is the form of Krishna, it is rare. So, now, are they hankering to see specifically the form of Krishna? Not exactly.
They want to see the various pastime forms that the Lord has to reveal. Lord wants to, Lord reveals. And among them, Krishna form is also there.
The emphasis over here is that, this is, the Kankshita means that, it doesn’t necessarily have to mean that they are consciously hankering for that specific form. What they are hankering for is, how does the Lord perform pastimes? In so many extraordinary ways. That’s what we want to see.
It’s true that whenever a demon, some demon is killed, then the demigods shower flowers. That means the demigods are observing what the Lord is doing. They are observing because they have the desire.
So, occasionally, by his activities, they may get bewildered. But overall, they are so eager to see the form of the Lord. So, in a sense, in modern cricket and other sports, you have cheerleaders.
The demigods are like the cheerleaders of Krishna’s pastimes. You know, they are cheering by showering flowers and dancing and singing. So, now, obviously, they are eager to see.
But even they can’t see on a regular basis. Did I answer your question? Bro, you said, Yeah. Bro, you said two questions.
That in text 50, when you were describing that it comprises four-armed form as well as two-armed. So, there you mentioned that in the universal form, initially, Krishna, Arjuna saw Lord Vishnu. Then later on, it changed into, you said, Kala Rupa.
So, these two are different forms, this Virata Rupa and Kala Rupa. Yesterday also you were saying something like that. Are Virata Rupa and Kala Rupa different? In a sense, the whole thing is a part of one vision.
One continuous vision which kept changing. It was one revelation or one revelation. In one revelation, all these were shown.
But if we look at the content, you know, the content is clearly changing. Initially, you are saying that all the Devatas are offering glories. And then the focus is changing.
And now the warriors are entering into it. And the Kala Rupa, basically, that was… See, basically, the Virata Rupa, you have to understand what does it mean. See, God is… What is God’s relationship with the universe? One is, you could say that God is a… God is a pervasive cosmic background presence.
God is present everywhere. That is one aspect. So, God… So, cosmic presence means He is present throughout the universe and pervasive background.
That means, it’s like we are sitting in the room. So, we are present sitting in the room. But the room is like a background presence over here.
So, we wouldn’t be here if the room is not there. Room is the background which contains everything. So, one aspect of God’s relationship with the universe is like He is the background presence.
He is a pervasive background presence through which, through whose presence we see everything. Everything is sustained by Him, rather. That’s one aspect of it.
Now, the other is, material existence has these two characteristics, space and time. So, He is present in time as a supreme historical agency. Historical agency means the agency that brings about changes in history, that shapes events to happen.
So, God is not just a background presence. Like say, the room is a background presence for us when we are here. God is not just present in the background.
God is also shaping the unfolding of events. So, the Virat Rupa infolds both these aspects. But generally, the Virat Rupa primarily refers to the pervasion of space.
That is, pervasion of space is a background presence. But as far as the pervasion of time is concerned, then He is a historical agent. And not just, all of us are also, we can say, I am a historical agent.
That is, our history is very tiny. Whatever history we create, probably it gets forgotten soon after we will die. It is not going to last forever.
And often it is not remembered even when we are dead. So, our history is very tiny. But Krishna is a supreme historical agent.
He shapes everything that happens in history. So, God’s relationship is with respect to both time and space. So, if the Virat Rupa in the generic sense is used, it includes both pervasion of time and space.
Because both are the components of the universe. But in general, it often refers to specifically pervasion of space. And Kala Rupa specifically refers to pervasion of time.
So, how God encompasses space and time is revealed in the Kala Rupa. How God encompasses space and time is revealed in the Virat Rupa. And how He encompasses time is revealed in the Kala Rupa.
Prabhu, this worship of Vishwadu, is it considered like, is this also one of the paths mentioned in Vedic scriptures? And in that case, what is proper destination of those? And also, how is it different from Panchopasana, worshipped by more personalities? This Vishwadu Upasana mentioned in scriptures is definitely. Bhagavatam talks about that as one of the aspects, the first step in God realisation. This chapter in the second canto.
And that basically is talking about meditation in universal form. And even in 9.15, there is also the mention of Vishwadu Upasana. So, Vishwadu Upasana is definitely an authorised form of worship.
And it is especially meant for those people who are enamoured by material greatness. They have to think of God as to be great, and He has to be great in literal terms. And they are told to conceptualise God as pervading the universe, as the universal form.
Now, in general, that is a transitional sadhana. That is not a permanent sadhana. Another person will stay a Vishwadu Upasana throughout one’s life.
Now, as a rough correlation, we can say there are people who are nature worshippers. They consider nature as the highest reality. So, now, generally speaking, the Vishwadu Upasana, people who worship nature, they don’t think of nature in personal terms.
Now, in the Vishwadu Upasana, the personal aspect is not prominent, but still it is present. Actually, if you read the description of the Virat Rupa, still in the Bhagavatam, there is a lot of description, quite detailed, not only that he has eyes and hands and legs and he smiles, but there is even a description of his genitals and his private part. Now, there is no need for this sort of description, unless there is some purpose for that mention.
So, that conveys that actually that person who is meditating now is a person. So, it’s a personal meditation. But the personality aspect is not very clear.
We understand that the Absolute is in some way a person, but what it is, one doesn’t know. So, one is concerned in material terms. So, if you look at what the destination specifically will be, there is no place where people can continue to do Vishwadu Upasana eternally.
That means the Vishwadu Upasana is a conceptual tool or the tool for the spiritual path. So, whatever conception the people have developed while doing the Vishwadu Upasana, accordingly, they will get a particular result. In the Bhagavatam, you will see in the demigods, they sometimes talk about Lord Vishnu.
When he is offering prayers, when he sees Krishna within the waters of Yamuna, versus Vishnu and he sees him converted to Krishna, there also he offers prayers which are involving prayers to other artists. But his understanding is very clear. So, there he is doing Vishwadu Upasana, but he is not on the level of Vishwadu Upasana.
That means that Vishwadu Upasana can be a part of sadhana of seekers at various levels of spiritual advancement. So, whatever is their level of spiritual advancement, what is their conception of the Absolute, accordingly, they will get a distinction. It is definitely an elevating path, but it is not elevating enough to in itself be liberating.
So, liberation involves going beyond that. When you see the Absolute doesn’t even matter, then you cannot move beyond that. Now, about Panchopasana, I will talk about it historically and then I will talk about philosophically.
Historically, Panchopasana was a tool used by Shankaracharya to unite Hinduism against Buddhism. At one level, what he did was, he said Buddhism is talking about the Shunya, that similar concept is talked about in Hinduism as Brahma. So, the only difference is the name is different, but practically speaking all the attributes of Brahma are similar to the attributes of the Shunya of the Buddhists.
But apart from, now this whole thing was for the intellectuals. Both the concept of Shunya and the concept of Brahma, they are for intellectuals. What about the common people? Buddhism also recognised that it cannot spread effectively if it just stays at this intellectual aspect, and that there is Shunya.
So, that’s why Buddhism focusses a lot on right conduct. And today Buddhism is popular primarily because of their conduct. Now, most people don’t bother too much about the ideology of Buddhism.
So, Buddhism had its appeal also because of the simple and ethical behaviour that it recommended. So, Shankaracharya also observed that, if popular people are to be attracted, then the path of Jnana cannot attract them. The path of Bhakti cannot attract them.
Then, he basically saw which are the forms of worship that are being practised. And he sort of put them in a framework, where he says, okay, you have Vishnu, you have Shiva, you have Shakti, you have Ganesh, you have Surya, five prominent form of Buddhists, and you worship them, and they are all manifestations of Brahma. So, he brought some sort of structure to Vedic culture, and gave people to stay within the Vedic world.
But in his case, in the case of Panchopasana which is practised, it is quite clear to most practitioners, that these forms are transitional, and one has to go beyond these forms, and to attain formless Brahman. Whereas, in Vishvipasana, that is not at all clear. That’s why, in that character, it says, So, the Vishvarupaasana is differentiated from the Pratapvena Bahudha.
So, Pratapvena Bahudha is Pratipasana. Can I discuss this? I think I discussed Pratipasana, didn’t I? I discussed 9.15, I showed the slide also. So, Pratipasana is, so, when the demigods are considered as symbolic representation in the Absolute, which is considered to be impersonal, then they are worshipped.
So, Panchopasana, this is the historic one. Philosophically, there is a lot of creative theologising. Creative theologising means, it doesn’t mean a very innovative way for people to understand.
So, what he says is, these five forms of worship, which are there in Panchopasana, are progressive. And they all correlate with specific conceptions of the Absolute. Sri Krishna, Prabhupada in general, kept, avoided symbolic explanations, because that tendency was already there, and he did not want it to go out of control.
But it doesn’t mean that symbolic explanations are wrong. Prabhupada’s whole Krishna book doesn’t refer even once to what the demons in Krishna Leela mean. But that doesn’t mean that the symbolic explanations that are given by Bhaktivinoda Thakura are wrong.
It is Prabhupada who preferred to avoid symbolic explanations. But there are symbolic explanations given in our tradition. And Prabhupada, with respect to Panchopasana, Prabhupada emphasised the primary point that Panchopasana generally is associated with Mayavada.
But Bhaktivinoda Thakura, he explains that how this can involve a progressive spiritual understanding. So, he says, what are the five five deities who are worshipped with Panchopasana? Shakti, Devi. So, he says that, if you look at this in a particular way, in this particular sequence, then he says, Shakti is basically, now, Shakti has a particular form, that is Devi.
But essentially, Shakti refers to nature. The Goddess worshipped. So, generally, nature is considered as a single feminine.
So, he says, most people, they at least recognise that there is something greater than me. And that is the power of nature. If I am living in a forest, and I see a thunderstorm striking down, or I see the power of the cold, or the heat, or the waves of the ocean, whatever, I just say, nature has no power.
So, he says, in the beginning, when a person starts the spiritual quest, one recognises one’s subordination to nature. So, the first step is, he says, nature is my master, and nature is to be worshipped. Then, after that, he moves forward, and he starts thinking that, okay, nature is great, but how is nature working? Nature is working based on energy.
And the energy comes from Sun God. So, he associates the worship of Sun God with worship of energy. Now, often, we equate nature and energy.
But, one would have to separate them. Then, he says, after understanding that there is nature, there is the Sun, whose energy is the animating force, then the understanding of nature is furthered. At that particular time, one starts conceiving that, okay, within nature, there are powerful creatures.
For example, there is a very, very denial. If you look at nature, there is a great, but one starts conceiving of the absolute truth in animal terms. There is some being which is controlling the, controlling the nature.
So, morphism means to worship God in animal form. So, Ganesha is basically an elephant head. So, one moves forward from the worship of nature.
So, here what is happening? It’s a step up, because at least one has now attributed consciousness to the absolute truth. When one is considering the absolute truth to be just nature or energy, and not attributed consciousness to it. But now, one starts understanding the absolute truth as consciousness.
Then, after that, one starts, so now Shiva is a person. But generally, Shiva is also, generally the worshippers of Shiva are impersonalists. And their whole slogan is, जिव शिव एक हो जाते हैं.
That is their slogan generally speaking. So, here, when one comes to Shiva worship, one conceives of the absolute truth in personal terms. And then after that, when one comes to Vishnu worship, one worships the absolute truth in personal terms.
But, he says that, all these five are material conceptions. And even this conception of Vishnu is often contaminated by a material notion of his personality. And this transcendental Vaishnavism is beyond these five conceptions.
So, transcendental Vaishnavism is not a part of Panchapasana. So, the idea is, here, here the personal aspect is considered to be higher than the impersonal aspect. And that is the virtue of Vishnu worship.
But still, the overall conceptions are material. Because within Panchapasana, one thinks that ultimately I have to go and merge in the absolute truth only. So, that conception is still there.
That’s why Panchapasana is imperfect. He talks of Panchapasana as a procreation, which leads ultimately to transcendental Vaishnavism. That is centred on pure devotionalism.
Any other questions? Guruji, there are many good qualities in 13th chapter. But, why this quality is very special? It is mentioned only this quality here, that who is friendly to every living being. And after that, there are no shlokas in which it is written how to strive for it.
This is one question. Another question is how to strive for it. Why is friendlessness mentioned over here without making any other particular qualities? And, how can we strive for it? The different descriptions of qualities that come in the Bhagavad Gita are all in different contexts.
In the 12th chapter, we will discuss this of course. We are going to discuss this in the 10th chapter. But, I discussed in the 10th chapter, the list of qualities I described, that is described in terms of duality.
Bhayam cha bhayam, yasha yasha. And that is used to describe how Krishna is the source of everything. And, the qualities are described similarly in the 2nd chapter.
They describe more of a person who is equally poised to miss happiness and distress. Now, in the 12th chapter, there are the qualities of that endear one to Krishna. In the 13th chapter, what is described is the characteristics of knowledge.
They are not so much their qualities, but they are described in the context of what are the characteristics of one and knowledge. In the 16th chapter, 1, 2, 3 verses, Abhayam, Satyasham, Shuddhi, they are described as godly qualities. So, now if we actually get to study these qualities, we will see that all of them have differences.
Some qualities will be overlapping. For example, when the godly qualities are talked about, Abhayam, Satyasham, Shuddhi, Jnana, Yashas, in the 16th chapter, there is no mention of bhakti over their own stories. Because, those are material qualities.
One is born with those qualities according to one’s past life. Similarly, for that matter, when the Brahmanas qualities are described in the 18th chapter, there is no mention of bhakti over those. Because, a Brahmana does not necessarily have to be a bhakti.
You know, Brahmanas like Shukracharya, who are actually, in some ways, opposed to Lord Vishnu. Even Raksha-dharamana has its Brahmanas. So, Brahmana is characterised by Astikyam.
Astikyam is faith. In the scriptures. But, that doesn’t necessarily have to mean faith in the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Vishnu or Krishna.
So, the different contexts are there for where the lists of the qualities are given. And, why specific qualities are included in a particular place and not included, that depends on the context. In this particular case, actually speaking, as I highlighted the contrast, you know, Krishna wants Arjuna to fight.
But, Krishna doesn’t want Arjuna to fight in bodily consciousness, in material consciousness. Earlier only I told this, You know, in 12.37-38, first he described that, That’s what 12.37. But, immediately after that, in 12.38, he says, So, he wants Arjuna to fight with the equalised consciousness, not with the material consciousness. And, that’s why, he is clarifying that, yes, you may have to fight and you have to win over your enemies, but don’t hold the enemies in a, in a hateful spirit.
Do it because it’s a part of bhakti. It’s a part of your service to Supreme Lord. So, you shouldn’t hate anyone.
So, that hate will bring us down to material consciousness. So, that’s the first point. That’s why Bhairava is mentioned over here, in this context.
And, with respect to, in general, Krishna doesn’t describe how qualities are to be developed, in the Bhagavad Gita. Because, as I said, Bhagavad Gita is more about which sadhana to follow. Not how to follow that sadhana.
So, telling us this sadhana is the best, but how that sadhana should be followed is up to the person. After Sita Prajna, Krishna has given how to strive for, become Sita Prajna. After this, it is not mentioned how to strive for brain development.
Yeah, now, in the second chapter, how to become Sita Prajna is mentioned. There, that is the primary question, of Arjuna. He is asking the character of Sita Prajna in 54, 53.
And, he is asking that with the very intention that, he wants to become Sita Prajna. That is implied over here. But, here, the question is not so much Arjuna’s question, or simply, the version of Tera-Vishwaroopi.
So, here, it’s not so much, Arjuna is not talking so much about how to develop qualities. So, Krishna’s discussion is based on the context. So, here, Arjuna is not asking a specific question.
You will see later on, in the 14th chapter, when Arjuna asks about the modes, he has three questions. So, what are the characteristics of a person who is transient in the modes? What is his behaviour? And, how can I transient? So, when he asks the specific question, Krishna will answer. And, while answering, he will say, So, the answers are also specific to the context.
It is told that the Vibhuti Yoga, Lord Krishna spoke, is only so that we can remember him. So, is it the same reason that the Lord is telling that, I am the taste of water? He could also say that, I give the taste of water, but he is speaking, I am the taste of water, I am the intellect, I am the intellect. Is it the same reason, that we can remember Krishna directly? I want to show that, how his body grows energy, in the 9th chapter.
Okay, when Krishna identifies himself with nature, in various places, there are contexts for that. In Krishna’s 7th chapter, in 9th chapter, he is saying, I am the essence of everything. In 10th chapter, he is saying, I am the best of everything.
And, in 15th chapter, when he talks about it, he says, I am the sustainer of everything. There are three different things. The essence of everything, the best of everything, and the sustainer of everything.
So, when he says, I am the taste of water, he is basically talking about the essence. So, now, even in those verses, when Krishna does that kind of direct identification, he also gives verses, which very clearly makes a distinction also. For example, in that section only, when he completes the section, that is, 7.8, 7.11, 7.12 is, in general principle, So, although he says, this is a very important verse, 7.12, he did it.
All states of existence, in Buddhist fashion, I can be honest, they come from me. And, they are in me, I am not in them. I am not in them means, that my existence is greater than their existence.
So, this verse has to be understood in the context of 7.7. 7.7 was the second part of it. So, just as the thread pervades a necklace, similarly, Krishna pervades existence. And, for that specific point, of how he is immanent, remember, we should have discussed immanence and transcendence.
Immanence of God is present in nature and transcendence of God is beyond nature. So, is an example for immanence. I am, this is a necklace pervades the beads, or the thread pervades the necklace, beads and necklaces.
So, now, for that pervasion, the example I have given is 7.8.12. But, that pervasion doesn’t lead to the exhaustion of Krishna’s existence. It’s not that Krishna pervades, but then that’s all there. So, that implies that he is immanent.
And, in 7.12, he says that I am immanent. I am not in them. I am not in them.
They come from me. They are in me. I am not.
I am not in them. So, whenever there are examples given of some specific relationship with Krishna or something, even when he is talking about in terms of identification with himself, you have to see that there are certain statements we talk about abhedha, and there are certain statements we don’t talk about bhedha. So, if you talk about only the statements we talk about abhedha, if you don’t get a proper understanding of the scriptures, then abhedha is not the same.
That is why I am saying that abhedha is not So, as you said, this vishwaroopa is material form. It appears some places that Prabhupada is translating it as param as transcendental. And also, in 47, Prabhupada says that I showed you where my internal propensity is formed.
And, many purposes of Prabhupada writes that this form is transcendental and Prabhupada says material or transcendental. Yeah. So, is the Virat Rupa material or transcendental? That’s an important question.
And the word material and spiritual or material and transcendental is used in two different ways. One is applicational and the other is constitutional. Applicational means, like Prabhupada would say, this mike is spiritual because it is being used in Krishna’s service.
Now, that means it is being applied for devotional service, so it is transcendental. But it is made of material elements. So, in terms of constitution or composition, it is material.
But in terms of application, it is spiritual. So, if we confuse the two, then there can be a lot of misunderstandings. As far as analysis is concerned, we have to be very clear.
Matter is that which is made of earth, water, fire, air, and ether. So, the earth, air, water, fire, air, and ether are perishable spiritual elements. And spirit is that which is made of such elements.
This sort of differentiation is fundamental to philosophy, to clarifications. But beyond that, when we come to devotional application, at that time we see that everything is potentially spiritual. In the sense that everything can be used for spiritual purposes.
So, even the mike can be used for spiritual purposes. And then when it is used in that way, it becomes spiritualised or it is called spiritual. So, with respect to the deity, now first Chandu principle, or mike, it is called closer and closer.
When we come to the deity, the deity is made of material elements, but the deity is not considered material. Deity is considered transcendental. At the same time, the deity is a manifestation in the material world.
And it will generate the following material laws. That means, if somebody damages it, or it falls, then they do something like that. So, the deity is made of material elements, it manifests in the material world, but it is transcendental.
Because there is the manifestation of Krishna over it. Now, same way, the deity is made of material elements, but it is transcendental. So, the Virat Rupa is made of material elements, in the sense that its hands and legs are all material.
But the Virat Rupa is a revelation of Krishna. In that sense that it is a direct revelation of Krishna, it is transcendental. It is not material in the sense that it is not a mental imagination, not just a material conceptualisation.
It is a divine revelation. So, transcendental doesn’t mean necessarily that the forms of Indra and Ashwina, Ashwini Kumaras, all those are transcendental only. They are material creatures, powerful forces, no doubt, they are material creatures.
And they are comprising the form of the Supreme Lord, the Virat Rupa. So, the Virat Rupa is transcendental because it is a revelation of the Supreme Lord. And it is material in the sense that it is made of material elements.
Very Krishna. Krishna is there. So, Krishna is showing his two-handed form to Arjuna, so that Arjuna can become peaceful in the sense, because that was the familiar Rupa where Arjuna was meditating.
So, the importance we heard about, regarding this 18.65, Prabhupada, there is one paragraph where Prabhupada is stressing that the devotee should concentrate only on Krishna form and not other forms. That is also get repeated in this Mahatma-Nashtra-Namkarta also. These great devotees, they only meditate on Krishna, two-handed form.
So, why Prabhupada is strongly stating that one should only meditate on Krishna’s form and not other like Ram or Vara forms. It comes in 18.65. So, Prabhupada says in 18.65 that we should meditate only on the form of Krishna, not anyone else. There, Prabhupada is revealing Gaudiya Siddhanta to us.
Prabhupada gives drops of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, even in his generic commentaries. As we discussed earlier, his commentary in the Bhagavad Gita is generic. It is meant for general people.
So, he doesn’t give too much Gaudiya Siddhanta. He uses basic principles of Vedic spirituality. But in some places, he gives Gaudiya Siddhanta also.
In the Gaudiya Siddhanta, we want to focus only on Krishna, not Ram, not anybody else. So, Hindu Swami uses Aham Sarvasya Prabhavo. I am the source of everything.
So, he says Sarvasya means Sarvasya. That means Krishna is the source of Vishnu also. He uses that to explain that Vedic.
Aham Sarvasya Prabhavo. I am the source of everything. So, Krishna is the source of everything and everyone.
That means he is the source of Vishnu also. This is one of the pramanas used to establish how Vishnu comes from Krishna. So, that way, the Gaudiya Siddhanta is given by Acharya as an intro to the Bhagavad Gita.
Akshaya Prabhava also does that. Akshaya Prabhava by no means stopped the worship of other deities. He himself established Ram temples in various places.
In Washington, he established Ram temple. Some other places also. In Radharasi Bihari also, we have Ram temple.
So, Prabhava has established this. So, it’s not that Prabhava is making an absolute statement that applies for all people at all times. He is giving the Gaudiya Siddhanta which applies at a very elevated level of consciousness.
Prabhava is giving it there. So, in general, the principle is that whenever we see any specific or blanket statements, that means, this is what you should do. This is what it is.
Whenever Acharya makes a statement, that is for emphasis. To get a correct understanding, you also have to look at the other statements that have been made by Acharya. Other places.
So, Prabhava may say in one letter to one devotee. So, you are reporting to me that you are facing some problems because of sex desire. So, then I think the only way ahead for you is to get married.
In my standing instruction to all my disciples, if they are difficultly controlling sex desire, you can get married. So, now, is that the absolute principle? Even Brahma is troubled by sex desire. Nothing special about it.
Everybody is troubled. Secret is to tolerate the trouble. So, now, what does it mean? It means that actually with respect to specifically this disciple, there is a context.
Maybe he had written many letters to Prabhupada earlier and Prabhupada had given him some counsel and it was not working for him. Maybe he was weak-hearted or whatever. So, then Prabhupada said, now you get married.
So, we have to see in Acharya’s statements by looking at other statements also on the topic that he has made. So, if you take one statement, you may not get a complete understanding. It is not necessarily an incorrect understanding.
It is correct for that context. So, here I gave an example of context with respect to application. There I gave an example of context with respect to specific Gaudiya Siddhartha.
Did I answer your question? Any other questions? In the beginning, in this verse, Lord is clearly saying that you come to me and work for me, engage in my service. But in the beginning chapter, Lord is telling that work for his satisfaction. So, how it is that we use the word Vishnu for his satisfaction? So, here Krishna is referring to himself in first person terms.
You will come to me, work for me. Whereas, yajnaath aath karmano nahi, lobh koyam karmano nahi. Tadartham karmano, work for that, that absolute.
This refers to the Supreme Lord in the third person. So, this is something which we see repeatedly in the Bhagavad Gita. For example, 18.61 is third person reference.
So, after that, there is another verse which we don’t quote so often. That supersoul is controlling all living beings. Surrender to that supersoul.
But then, at this point, Arjuna gets revealed. And then he starts thinking, what should I do? Krishna says, now I complete the instruction. Decide what you want to do.
And then Arjuna is lost in thought. And Krishna tells, I have the most confidential mind. The point here is that if we let the continuity of thought go forward, it is very clear that the third person reference and the first person reference is of the same person.
It is referring to Krishna himself. Now, why does Krishna refer to himself as the third person? Whatever I have discussed, whatever I have studied, I have not found any explanation. So, whatever I am going to do is my inference.
And of course, this inference I have discussed with various devotees. So, it is a reasonable inference. But there is no acharya statement to back this up.
Generally, if you look at the context, then Krishna is referring to the supersoul. Or he is referring to the interaction of the absolute truth with the material world. He refers to that in the third person.
So, yajna. So, that is referring to yajna. Yajna is generally operating with the material world.
So, generally when Krishna is referring to the actions of the supersoul, then he refers to himself in the third person. He refers to God in third person. But when he is talking in devotional terms, and he is talking about himself having a devotional relationship with his devotee, then he refers to himself in the first person.
This is what we can infer from the context. So, Krishna is differentiating in a sense between God as the controller of the material world and God as the object of personal devotion. So, God as the controller of the material world, he is referring to in the third person.
And God as the object of personal devotion, he is referring to in the first person. And we will see that there is no ambiguity. Because if you see, some people say the third person refers that Krishna is not actually God.
God is somebody else. But no, there are very clear correlations. And if there is any, there is no room for confusion.
Because if you see, the content is the same. 18.61 and 15.59 are saying the same thing. It’s exactly the same thing.
So, it’s clear that the Ishwara and the indwelling Supersoul and Krishna are the same person. Apart from that, it’s extremely clear in 6.31. 6.31. So, Sarvabhutasthitam. That who is situated in all living beings.
Sarvabhutasthitam. Yo ma me bhajati ekatva maasthitaha. So, one who understands that there is ekatva between that entity who is situated in the heart of all living beings and me.
What will happen to such a person? So, first of all, Krishna is asserting the sameness between the all-pervading Supersoul and himself. And then after that, he says, sarvatah vartamanoti. So, yogi mayi vartate.
Such a person will become situated in me. He will remain in me. And he is also not saying that such a person will emerge in Brahman or something like that.
He is saying he will remain situated in me. That means that me is an enduring reality. It’s not a transitional or a temporary reality.
Which one has to go beyond as the Mayavadis claim. And again, there is a progression in 15.16, 17, 18 Mahasudras. 15.16. 15.16 is talking about there are two Purushas.
And 15.17 says that there is a third who is transcendental to both the Purushas. And then 14 says that I am that Purusha. So, it’s very clear that the third person’s reference and the first person’s reference are the same.
There is no ambiguity. And if at all there is any progression, I think the first person’s reference is higher. But it’s not that it’s lower which is transitional and one has to go beyond that.
Any other questions? In Bhagavad Gita, when it is spoken, then all the battlefield soldiers they have heard Bhagavad Gita or only Arjuna heard? All the soldiers of the battlefield hear Bhagavad Gita, there is no evidence that they heard it. Now Prabhupada, in one purport in the first chapter, I think that Bhagavad Gita is spoken openly in the battlefield. And this indicates that this knowledge is meant for everyone.
So, that’s the inference that Prabhupada draws. It’s a valid inference, important inference. But that doesn’t necessarily, I see some devotees use that inference to say that everybody heard.
But there is no very clear statement to that effect. And if you look at it, at the end, if you look at the Mahabharata, what happens at the end of the Bhagavad Gita is everybody goes on, Arjuna’s determination is changed, but nobody else is affected by that. So, nobody else is affected by that and nobody else is transformed by that.
And there is no reference later on in the Mahabharata of others saying that we also heard the Bhagavad Gita. In general, it is talked about Bhagavad Gita was spoken by Krishna to Arjuna and Arjuna got transformed by it. But whether others heard it at that time, the general understanding is that when the battle was about to start, when Arjuna said, I want to go in between the two armies.
So, actually the conches were blown. When the conches were blown, the battle was about to start. But Krishna was the righteous commander.
When he saw Arjuna coming in between, so, he told his soldiers to stop. He raised his hand and then he stopped. Arjuna came in between and then Krishna and Arjuna had a discussion.
So, the Bhagavad Gita takes about one muhurtha, that is about little more than one hour, the discussion. And then after that, Arjuna went back and then the battle started. So, it was Bhishma’s gallantry which ensured that at that time there was calm.
But they were having a personal discussion and whether everyone heard it. But certainly everyone saw that there was a very serious discussion going on. But there is no reference specifically that anyone else heard the content of the discussion.
This context is very, like, it is not common, like, after the conch shell is blown and everything is started, the war is not started exactly, but at that time Krishna has spoken Bhagavad Gita by bringing Arjuna. Yeah, the context is very uncommon and that actually is meant to illustrate how there is no situation so urgent that it cannot wait for spiritual knowledge. Nothing is more urgent than a war, in a sense.
But even there, one needs spiritual knowledge. The setting is dramatic and it is dramatic so that its message will be emphatic. So, the dramatic setting is meant to emphasise the vital necessity of that message.
And some scholars try to argue that the whole Bhagavad Gita is interpolated in Mahabharata. And we say Bhagavad Gita is a later book and Mahabharata is an earlier book or Mahabharata is an earlier Mahabharata. None of the Acharyas have supported this idea.
All of them have considered Bhagavad Gita to be an integral part of Mahabharata. And within the Mahabharata also, later on, scattered throughout, there are references to Krishna instructing Bhagavan. So, if somebody talks about interpolation, then there is an influential batch of scholars who try to argue that.
They say it is a dramatic absurdity that in the middle of a battlefield, somebody will have a discussion. But then, if somebody has done interpolation, that interpolation will have to be done in many, many places. Because wherever Krishna has passed on, they talked about in the Mahabharata later on, what Krishna did, what Krishna did with Arjuna.
Then there are references to Bhagavad Gita. So, that interpolation will have to be done everywhere throughout, which is quite unlikely to be done. And secondly, if you look at the language, language is very simple.
The Bhagavad Gita, the concepts may be complex, but the Sanskrit itself is not very difficult. And there is a continuous thread with the Sanskrit of the remaining Mahabharata also. So, in that sense, the idea that Bhagavad Gita is interpolated is interesting to see this routine.
Guruji, you told that till 10 days, Dhritarashtra heard from Sanjaya. So, that means, till 10 days, he was not having much information what is going on in war? Well, till 10, at least the way the Mahabharata describes it, first 10 days, he may have had some description. Maybe some messengers were coming and giving the news.
But he did not have, what you can say, live telecast. Like live audio cast. So, he did not have that.
But surely there must have been some messengers. They will keep people posted for what is happening. But the kind of mystic vision through which Sanjaya was able to see and describe, that was not there before.
So, this should continue till 10 days. Sanjaya should have spoken what has happened, this whole Bhagavad Gita and more. Till 10 days, what has happened till now.
You should not stop just till Bhagavad Gita where it ends. It does not stop till 10 days. Mahabharata continues.
See, I don’t know why this has become a source of confusion. It’s like, there is an event line and there is a narration line. Event line means what actually happened.
And narration line is, like you have the concept of timeline. Timeline means how events happen. So, there is a timeline, there is an event line and there is a narration line.
So, event line is the way events have unfolded. So, 1st day, 2nd day, 3rd day, 4th day, 5th day, like that, events have unfolded. In narration line, Mahabharata goes forward and then the event of the 10th day that Bhishma has fallen is described.
He says, how has he fallen? How could it have happened? And then many questions are asked. Describe to me in detail the event. Then the narration line goes forward.
So, it’s like the narration line, 10th day event, highlight is described first. And then there is a lot of backlash. So, all the remaining events are described.
And then from the 10th day onwards, when the narration line comes to the event line, from there they move onwards linearly. One more question. In the Shloka, Krishna says that this Parampara is broken.
But Arjuna Parampara is there or not? Ok, when Krishna says that Parampara is broken, generally speaking, the Kshatriyas are not considered preachers. So, when Krishna gave knowledge to Arjuna, that was not primarily to restart a new Parampara. The previous verses are given to tell that this knowledge is not some newfangled notion that I am just giving to you so that to make you fight.
This knowledge is ancient. It is coming out of time immemorial. And it is generally passed down from generation to generation.
And there were Raja Rishis who were having this knowledge. So, now certainly when we say that the Kshatriyas are not meant to preach, that doesn’t mean that they don’t give the knowledge to their sons. Because son gave it to son-in-law, son-in-law gave it to son and like that it goes on.
And Arjuna also gives spiritual knowledge to Abhimanyu and Pariksit. That is there. But the Kshatriyas do not set up like a gurukul where they teach.
The Kshatriyas do not give regular talks on scriptures. Occasionally, they may speak about scriptures also. But like Prithvi Maharaj when he comes back after the Indian horse sacrifices, when he is welcomed by the citizens, at that time he speaks instruction, words of instruction.
That is occasional. There is a king’s duty to speak also. The king does not take upon himself the role of being a systematic spiritual teacher of scriptures.
So, Krishna has given knowledge to Arjuna. So, spiritually the Raja Rishis continue to have that knowledge and they maintain their right, maintain the rule of dharma. But that is not meant to start a new parampara for the education of the masses.
The events unfolding in Mahabharata and Bhagavad Gita. After 10th day, it is given in Purnaprajaprabhu’s Mahabharata. When 10th day Bhishma fell, then he came and did the first narration.
Then he went back and again when 13th or 14th day when Dronacharya fell, Sanjaya came again and did the narration till that day. Each and every parva, he did narration for each and every parva. Bhishma parva, Drona parva and Karna parva like that.
Together. That description comes in Purnaprajaprabhu’s Mahabharata. Fine.
Any other questions? Why parampara? Because you say that the four paramparas, they are definitely mentioned in Purnaprajaprabhu’s Mahabharata. But are they not eternal? Are they not eternal? And then there are other paramparas also. And then how do we recognise that? Because we say that these four paramparas are coming from Lord Vishnu himself.
And they are eternal. That’s what I have heard. So, they are mentioned in Padapurana’s understanding.
But their existence is eternal. Because even the scriptures also will say they are eternal. So, are the paramparas eternal? Are the scriptures eternal? A lot of questions here.
So, first of all, Padapurana verses, Kalau bhave utkale purushottana. So, Kalau bhave. So, it is very specific that these four paramparas are of Kalyuga.
And the priest suggests that there might have been other paramparas. We don’t know. And Sri Vaishnava Kshetri Pavani has said this.
These are the inventions of the Acharyas are also mentioned in the Sampradaya. So, these four Sampradayas are for Kalyuga. That’s for sure.
In the other ages, there might have been other Sampradayas. Now, this doesn’t mean that the Sampradayas would not exist in previous ages. They might have also existed in previous ages.
But they are the four primary sources of spiritual knowledge. Systematic spiritual knowledge in Kalyuga. Other paramparas may not be existing.
Any one of you want to start from Lord Vishnu? They have to start from Lord Vishnu. He is the source of our knowledge. So, yes, historically, when Lord Vishnu, there may be some incidents, but they are not prominently highlighted.
When Vishnu spoke to Lakshmi or when Vishnu spoke to Shiva or the Kumaras. Prabhupada says that’s how the knowledge is given to Brahma. So, there may be other incidents also.
We don’t know. So, just as he gave knowledge to Brahma in a particular incident, there are other incidents when he gave knowledge to others. So, the persons exist beyond Kalyuga.
Brahmaji exists for many, many Kalyugas. Similarly, Shiva, Lakshmi also. So, what is emphasised in that verse is that these four are the primary, are the sources of spiritual knowledge in Kalyuga.
This doesn’t say that there were no other paramparas. Nor does it say that these paramparas are not existing earlier. The statement is specific over there.
So, I think we can’t extrapolate and debate about what that means. So, there may have been other Sampradayas and even the Sampradayas might also have been existing earlier. But in Kalyuga, these Sampradayas are the means of acquiring spiritual knowledge.
From where does it start and how many other Sampradayas are there? How many other Sampradayas are there is something which we’ll have to live in other Yugas to find out. So, okay, now I’ll explain this point. When he says scriptures are eternal, what does it mean? See, generally speaking, the Shrutis are eternal.
Smritis are not considered eternal. Smritis change according to time, place, circumstances. That’s the whole speciality of the Smritis.
Smritis are, to some extent, open-ended books. Smritis are closed-ended. This is what Shruti is.
These are the verses and these are the contents of those verses. Smriti, Bhaktivedanta Thakur gives the example that this is the weather changes, person will change their dress according to the weather. Similarly, he said, scriptural knowledge is present according to time, place, circumstances in the language that is understandable for the people of the land.
So, he was responding to the question about how the language of the Shrutis seems to be a much simpler and much more later form of Sanskrit as compared to Vedic Sanskrit. So, Shrutis, the Puranas, are Shrutis and Shrutis are phrases. Shrutis are basically realisations of sages.
So, now the realisations of phrases, realisations of sages are phrased according to the level of the audience and the level includes also the language. Time, place, circumstances comes over there. Now, Jiyu Goswami does a lot of analysis in the Sandarbhas to explain how this principle applies to the Puranas but not to the Bhagavatam.
The Bhagavatam is like a Channa Shruti. Although it is in the category of Smritis, but it is like a Shruti in the sense that it is eternal. And if you look at the content of the Bhagavatam, it is quite exalted.
In the Sanskrit, the Bhagavatam is remarkably complex. The Sanskrit of Bhagavatam is not like Gita’s Sanskrit or the average Puranic Sanskrit. It is very similar to Vedic Sanskrit.
Of course, there are differences, but the distance between the Bhagavatam Sanskrit and the Vedic Sanskrit is far less than the distance between the general Puranic Sanskrit and the Vedic Sanskrit. So, Vedic Sanskrit is here, Bhagavatam Sanskrit is here, Puranic Sanskrit is here. Puranic Sanskrit is far away.
Bhagavatam Sanskrit is very close to the Vedic Sanskrit. So, in general, the Bhagavatam in content, in style is quite similar to Shruti. So, the other Puranas do change.
So, what is eternal in scriptures? The Shrutis are eternal. The Smritis, their core content is eternal, but the way they are phrased, the way that message is explained, changes according to time, place, circumstances. This will become a debate.
People won’t accept that there are four Sampradayas now and then there were so many others which were there earlier. So, how do you restrict it to four? Is there any logic? It needs more explanation. Why only four and there was a specific incidence because of which it should be four? Because this is very much argued territory that I can start my own Sampradaya and this and that.
Because the other Sampradayas are mentioned in Srimad Bhagavatam. There are others also, like the conversations which are there. So, it mentions about, you were also mentioning about Bhagavatam saying this Maitreya Muni, we heard about the difference in that.
Correct. So, then how is it we define four only and like because how we have been spoken to is that the Sampradaya starts from Lord Vishnu. Therefore, the knowledge cannot be changed and it has to come down in the Sampradaya and Prabodh also seems to write all that how it is coming from Krishna in Bhagavad Gita.
Krishna coming down to Brahma, coming down to Narada, all that he has mentioned. See, that’s what the idea I have. The Parampara has to start from Vishnu and has to continue from there.
So, why only in Kalyuga there are four? Either we should say that there is four only always or if it is four here then there has to be a reason. Why only four? So, why are only four Sampradayas? Basically, in general, once you come to serious scriptural study, you cannot just use the Parampara card to defend yourself and falsify everyone else. That is not done by any Acharya.
When there is a debate, when say Ramanucharya is debating Vishishtadvaita with Vedantic meanings with Shankaracharya, he will use the Parampara card. I am in Parampara, you are not in Parampara, therefore you are wrong, I am right. Nobody will take that seriously.
Actually, you have to debate based on the content. So, Shankaracharya quotes scripture, Ramanucharya quotes scripture, Ramanucharya uses logic and in many ways, Ramanucharya’s logic is superior to Shankaracharya’s logic. So, Parampara is a sign of authorisation.
Authorisation is not something which will be accepted by everyone. So, we have to be able to defend our tradition based on the scripture itself, not just on the Parampara. Sometimes, we may unnecessarily denigrate others just because they are not in Parampara and sort of inflate ourselves just because we are in Parampara.
First point is Bhakti can be present outside Parampara also. Bhakti varies independently. Somebody might have practised Bhakti in a previous life.
You just continue on this life, this life they don’t take it as any Parampara also. So, Parampara is a standard for gaining systematic spiritual knowledge. I use the word Parampara, that is Sampradaya, Samyadrupaya Pradaya.
You get systematic, complete spiritual knowledge in Sampradaya. But that doesn’t mean that especially when you are having a serious scriptural discussion in intellectual circles, this Sampradaya affiliation is not going to work. It is an important affiliation and it is a part of the corpus of qualifications that enable a person to establish himself or his school of thought.
That alone is not enough. If you see, Jiva Swami in his Sandarbhas also, Prabhupada also. Prabhupada mentions Sampradaya affiliation once, but then after that he uses so much logic.
He is talking about existence of God, he is talking about Krishna’s supremacy. For example, 10.8 when he is talking about it, how Krishna is the source of everything. He does not say this.
As Sampradaya says, he uses so many references for that. So Sampradaya is one aspect of the qualification, very important qualification, but we can’t overrate it. We can’t overrate it and use that as an insurance against any form of intellectual discussion or debate.
It won’t work. Not for very long. Now, moving forward, with respect to Parampara, we will see that in general, the focus of the Vedic scriptures is towards elevating people’s consciousness.
It’s a systematic programme and that systematic programme is followed in a systematic way. It gives optimal results. When it is not followed in such a systematic way, it doesn’t give optimal results.
It gives some results. So now, that means if one wants the result of pure love of God, that is difficult to get without Sampradaya affiliation. But one can make some spiritual advancement even without spiritual affiliation.
Prabhupada even says that Socrates, he had realised himself to be, to a large extent, he had realised himself not to be a body-soul. And there is no reference that Socrates had any Guru in India, any of the four Sampradayas. But that doesn’t mean that he didn’t have the realisation.
So, one can get spiritual knowledge also, to some extent. And that some extent can be significant depending on the individual seeker’s seriousness. And so Sampradaya is one aspect of the qualification, an important one.
But it is not the only one. And it does not preclude or make unnecessary the other aspects of establishing our Siddhanas. As far as why four Sampradayas only, there is no explanation of that given in the Param Purana.
So, I don’t know anything about any further. But as far as other Sampradayas existing earlier, that is clearly mentioned in the Bhagavata. So, now what about people starting their own Sampradaya? I mean, you go to most institutions, they will give their own Sampradaya chart.
Now, the question is whether the Sampradaya chart is in some way harmonised with it. So, can people start their own Sampradaya? They can start, but that won’t be the source of authentic spiritual knowledge. Because, as I said, that’s not coming from Lord Vishnu.
So, the point is that four Sampradayas are mentioned in the scripture. And when the Sampradaya is not mentioned in the scripture, then the value of the spiritual knowledge that one gets from that is questioned. So, there is a lot of questions and maybe one question we can take and discuss afterwards.
The most important qualification of a Guru, as you said, is that he has to be coming in the Purusha Parampara. Now, if that, as you are saying, should not be overrated, that is not the only thing. Now, when I am saying that the qualification of a Guru to come in the Purusha Parampara should not be overrated, that doesn’t mean it should be underrated also.
It’s not that you have to go to two extremes. It’s that somebody might be coming in the Parampara and somebody might not be in proper standing right now. So, this coming in Parampara itself is not a guarantee of proper standing.
It is one important step. It is one part of it. So, it is not everything.
The whole principle of initiation is very different in different Sampradayas. Now, in Sri Sampradaya, you don’t have the Diksha Guru the way we have it. They have basically Grantha Guru.
Grantha Guru means that I go to a particular teacher to learn a particular Guru. So, to learn Sri Bhashya, I go to a particular teacher and he is my Guru for that. And then if I want to learn the Divya Prabhanda, like we have Vaishnav songs, they have Divya Prabhanda.
To learn that, I may go to someone and most of the men come in. So, Sri Bhashya Prabhupada, within his time, has given us a particular system of initiation which we should follow. That is what our Acharya has given us.
But that doesn’t mean that that is what we have to impose on others or we have to expect from others. So, the concept of initiation is quite complex and it is not something which is homogenised everywhere. Last question.
If a common man approaches us and there is an issue of what is bona fide, so then what tool we should use? Should it be parampara? Because Vedic scriptures ultimately become very confusing. We also caught several things we also are coping. So, finally the tool we have been using is that actually the Guruswara Parampara.
Then what is it? Parampara should definitely be used. Because Prabhupada himself used it. And we have used it.
It should be used. The only point is, that cannot be the only thing. After quoting parampara also, then we have to explain why we have to study it.
We might also understand it brutally. We can say that Prabhupada came in parampara and Prabhupada translated it. It is already written.
It is already written. It is also written in human language. So, parampara is an important qualification.
But along with that we have to intellectualise it. Actually the most important thing that creates trust in people’s mind is conduct. Actually Shankaracharya and Buddha, both of them were philosophers.
Buddha did not teach much philosophy actually. And Shankaracharya also, the philosophy that he taught was quite lofty. But both of them attracted a lot of people because of their charismatic and influential ways.
So, conduct is also very important. So, parampara, we should talk about it. We should talk about sculpture.
We should talk about logic. We should talk about mental aspects. Mental aspects, they all come together.
Thank you.