How the Universal Form makes Krishna accessible

[Bhagavatam class on Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.3.3 at Krishna House, Gainesville, USA]

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
So today we are discussing about a concept that will come repeatedly in the Srimad Bhagavatam that is called the Vishvarupa, the universal form of the Lord. So I will talk about three aspects, the universal form as a conceptualisation. First I will talk about the concept of the universal form.
Then I will talk about two understandings of the universal form in terms of conceptualisation and revelation. And then I will talk about how the universal form helps in spiritual realisation. So let’s try to understand the concept first.
So Prabhupada writes in his book On the Way to Krishna that all knowledge comes from Krishna. But all knowledge doesn’t begin from Krishna. What he means by that is that it is not that suddenly one day somebody starts thinking about God.
It’s very rare. Usually we look at the world around us. The sky is so big, so many planets, so many stars.
Where did it all come from? So it is from contemplation on the world that our thoughts go to that Lord who is beyond the world. So now whatever knowledge we get, the insight, the inspiration, the illumination that we get, it all comes from Krishna. So in that sense Krishna is the source of all knowledge.
But he is not the beginning point of knowledge. The beginning point is the world. We observe the world and then while trying to figure out the world we start thinking about God.
Maybe there is some invisible being who is needed to explain the visible world. In fact all progress of knowledge, sometimes atheists say that or sceptics, materialists say that seeing is believing. But actually all progress of knowledge happens by moving beyond seeing is believing.
We observe the visible and then postulate something invisible to explain the visible. So for example, we see Newton saw the fruit falling and then he postulated based on that. Invisible principle of gravity.
So all scientific progress happens by moving from visible to the invisible. The visible phenomena are explained by recourse to invisible principles. Similarly, when at a philosophical and fundamental level we try to understand where everything came from.
At that time we move from the world to a source of the world. And that source we understand is the absolute. So now some people ask, a common atheistic question is if God created everything, who created God? Now every question has to, before we can ask the question, we have to understand the question that we are asking.
That means if I ask who created God, then the question comes, what do I mean by the word God? If we understand that God is the cause of all causes, that is the definition of God, sarva-karana-karana. Then by simple logic, the cause of all causes can’t have a cause. If the cause of all causes would have a cause, then that cause of the cause of all causes would be the actual cause of all causes.
So, wherever we stop in retracing backwards, that point is what we call as God. That’s why when people want to understand God, they have to ensure that they start with the definition, not the depiction or conception. Some people may have a conception or come to a temple and see an image that is God.
Or some people may say, okay, Christians may say that Jesus is God in some way. Or whatever, God is an old man as is depicted in St. Jeph by Michelangelo. But these are all different depictions.
First we have to start with the definition. Definition means the cause of all causes. So the cause of all causes can’t have a cause.
Therefore, the question who created God is like asking who made a circle circular. A circle is by definition circular. You can ask who drew a circular circle.
But nobody made a circle circular. A circle by definition is circular. Similarly, God by definition is the cause of all causes.
He can’t have a cause. So, another way to understand this point is that God, what is the relationship between God and time? God is not a being who is created in time. If A leads to B, B leads to C. And I am with C right now.
Like when you meet someone, you may ask them, who are your parents? Or where do you come from? So we are asking for their origin. But we can ask for the origin only when something exists in the domain of time. But if something exists outside the domain, asking for its cause only reflects our unawareness of that thing.
An example to illustrate this, suppose there is a small child. And a child reads a novel for the first time, a fiction story. And then the child reads Harry Potter for the first time.
And then after reading the whole thing, the child comes to know, oh, this novel is actually written by an author. And the author’s name is J.K. Rowling. And the child starts looking through all the pages to find where is J.K. Rowling in the book.
J.K. Rowling created the storyline, the timeline, the characters, the plot. But J.K. Rowling doesn’t exist in the novel. So the author is the creator of the novel, but the author exists outside the novel.
Similarly, God is the creator of the whole system of cause and effects, the time and everything that happens in the world, but he exists outside this. So therefore, the question who created God is incoherent. The question itself reflects the unawareness of the questioner about what we mean by the word God.
So when somebody asks who created God, rather than trying to answer the question who created God, he says, you know, what do you understand by the word God? First you need to understand the concept, then you can ask the question. So why are we talking about this? That here, so the concept of the Vishwaroopa, of the universal form of the Lord, is that a God who is outside the time domain, outside matter. He is referred to by the word transcendental.
So transcend means to go beyond. So transcendental means that which goes beyond matter. So that Lord who exists beyond matter can’t be perceived by any ordinary means.
Because our senses can only perceive matter. They can’t perceive that which is beyond matter. So therefore, if God is beyond matter and I can perceive only that which is within matter, then how can we possibly reach God? How can we possibly come to know of him in any way? And therefore there are various systems of arrangement.
So this is the material level of reality. This is the spiritual level of reality. And God exists at the spiritual level of reality.
And we can only perceive at the material level. So how can we ever know God? There has to be some connection between the two. So the Bhagavatam reveals this connection at multiple levels.
So one connection is God himself descends from the spiritual world to the material world. And that is called avatar. Avatar, Vishal Prabhupada translates as incarnation or descent.
So when God himself chooses to come to this world, then we can perceive him. Now God comes regularly but he comes quite infrequently. Sambhavami yuga yuga.
Comes once in a millennia as a yuga avatar. Some other times he also comes, his avatar. So what about all the seekers who are present at a time when God is not present? How do they perceive God? So there are various ways.
One is that they can recollect what God did, his pastimes. It’s like now Krishna is not there directly but you can recollect his pastimes. That’s what the Bhagavatam is centred on.
To perceive the presence of God in his absence. That is the mood of the Bhagavatam. Because the sages are discussing soon after Krishna has departed from the world.
So how to perceive the presence of Krishna in his absence? That is by hearing about him. That is the essential message of the Bhagavatam. But before people, not everybody is ready to hear.
So Krishna comes from the spiritual world to the material world, descends, performs pastimes, benedicts people and then he departs from the world. So bhavesmin krishyamananam avidyakamakarmabhim shravanasmaranarhani karishyanti kechana In 1.8.35, Kunti Maharani says that those who are suffering in material existence, if they hear the pastimes of the Lord, they can become purified. But that is a way which not everybody can access.
So another way is that the people can conceive God as manifested in the universe. And that is what is called the universal form. It is we observe the world around us and we try to connect our observation of the world around us with God.
Now this aspect of God is called as immanence. There are two words. Transcendence, which is what we usually hear.
The opposite of transcendence is immanence. Transcendence means God exists beyond nature. Immanence means he exists within nature.
So virata is vast. Vishwa is universe. So virata rupa and vishwa rupa, these words are synonyms.
Rupa means form. So virata rupa means the vast form. Vishwa rupa means the universal form.
And both of these refer to God as manifested, as seen in relationship with the universe. So this will be described more in the second canto, the chapter called the First Step in God Realisation. So when we look at the world around us and we see the huge objects in the world, then some seekers in order to try to think of the Lord, they try to conceptualise God in connection with the world.
So for example, it is said that the mountains are like his bones. The trees are like the hair on his body. The ocean is like the water in his navel.
So by this way, we can say, Oh, you know, if somebody, this big tree is like a hair on his body, how big he must be then. So the idea is, people who can think in material terms, they are impressed by material size. So when they are encouraged to think of God’s greatness in material terms, they say, Oh really, God must be a very big person.
So now when we talk about from the material level, we go towards the spiritual level of reality. So the universal form can be seen in two ways. One is a conceptualisation and the other is a revelation.
Conceptualisation means it is from bottom up. Revelation means it is from top down. So conceptualisation means when seekers, they want to think, how do I conceive of the greatness of God? Then they are given some directions for thought.
Like I said, think of the sky as, think of the whole universal planetary system as connected with various limbs of the body of the Lord. So the sun and the moon are his eyes. The various planetary systems are parts of his body.
Now this is a conceptualisation. So here the word that is used is Kalpita. Kalpita, Prabhupada in the word to word translation says Kalpita comes from the word Kalpana.
Kalpana is imagination. So the universal form when it is conceptualised by the seekers, now there is no particular planet or particular level of existence where this particular form of God exists. That there is no particular form of God, in a way there is no particular level in the existence where there is a form of God which is existing and there the sun and the moon are his eyes.
No, this is a conceptualisation. So the conceptualisation has a purpose. That purpose is to help us get awareness of God’s greatness.
And because it’s a conceptualisation, that conceptualisation can be done in different ways. So in many places in the Bhagavatam when the Vishwaroopa is talked about, some details are given differently. So for example, one common detail is the sun and the moon refer to his eyes.
But his arms may be compared to one particular part of the universe. His chest may be compared to another part of the universe. And in different places the exact details of the comparison may be different.
The point is that by this conceptualisation, by this thought exercise, we understand the greatness of God. Now there is also another, the same word Vishwaroopa or Virataroopa, as Prabhupada uses both synonymously over here, it is also used to refer to something else. So here I would like to take a small detour and explain the relationship between terms and concepts.
We have discussed this earlier in one of our sessions here. Terms and concepts? No. So see terms are verbal tools.
Concepts are intellectual abstractions. So now when we want to think of something, when we talk about something, we need a verbal tool. So a simple example to illustrate that is, say if you have a suitcase.
A suitcase is a big bulky object. To carry a suitcase, it is very difficult if the suitcase does not have a handle. So the handle of the suitcase is like the term.
And the suitcase itself is the concept. So once I went from here, I was going from Alachua itself, travelling out. And just before I was leaving, my suitcase broke down.
The handle just came off completely. So the devotee is sitting at one devotee’s house. The devotee gave me a new suitcase.
And I was in a hurry, I took the suitcase. And usually I don’t carry my luggage. Other devotees carry my luggage or we have a wheelchair to carry the luggage.
So when we checked in the bag, by the time I came to the other station, I came to the carousel, I forgot how my suitcase looked like. So I only remembered that the handle was blue. So then when I was there with the wheelchair assisted, we were taking out different suitcases.
Is this my suitcase? All the suitcases with blue handles, I was pulling it out and checking. Is this my suitcase? Is this my suitcase? Is this my suitcase? So what happened over here is that the handle is simply a term. And just as the same coloured handle might be there to many different suitcases, it might be attached to different suitcases.
So like that the same term can be used to refer to different concepts. So we have to not only know the term, we have to know the term, what concept it is attached to. So to illustrate this, let’s consider a common term that we use, mind.
Now the word mind, in our philosophy, we use it to refer to an intermediate level of existence between the body and the soul, subtle level of existence. But the mind can refer in normal conversation to many different things. We may tell someone, have you lost your mind? Now what does mind mean over here? Have you lost your mind? Common sense, intelligence, basic common sense, isn’t it? So in our philosophy, mind and intelligence are two very different things.
But the word mind, mind is a term. In our philosophical understanding, that term is like the handle which is attached to a particular suitcase. But that same term can be in another conversation, another context, be attached to another suitcase.
Or sometimes we may say that, give this your full mind. It’s an important subject. What does mind mean over here? Attention, yeah.
So Einstein was one of the greatest minds of the last century. Here, what do we refer mind to? Not just intelligence, intelligent person. He was one of the greatest minds.
So here we are referring to a person with an attribute. So same in western philosophy, there is the mind-matter duality. Where the word mind is said to refer to anything beyond matter.
So in that sense, they use the word mind to refer to spirit. So the same word mind, like I discussed how many terms now, mind can be intelligence, it can be attention, it can be intelligent person, it can be the non-material realm, whatever it is. So like that, the same term can refer to different concepts.
So the same handle, same coloured handle, same texture handle can be attached to different suitcases. So similarly, the word Vishwaroopa or the universal form, it can refer to two different things. It is one term, but it can be associated with two different concepts.
So one concept is what is talked about over here. That is the conceptualisation. Here it says Kalpita, it is Kalpito Loka Vistaraha.
How it is conceptualised or imagined that the Lord’s form pervades all of existence. Now this is a conceptualisation which the seekers do for their own contemplation. But the other meaning associated with the same word Vishwaroopa, that is the revelation which Krishna gives.
So for example, now in this month of Karthik, we sing the Damodarashtakam. In the Damodarashtakam, that is describing Krishna’s childhood pastimes. And when Krishna was performing his childhood pastimes, at one time, Mother Yudhisthira asked him to open his mouth.
Asked him to open his mouth, what happened? What did she see? She saw the whole universe inside him. And so Krishna was revealing how the whole universe was present inside him. Similarly, another time when Krishna had gone to the Kauravas, those were the enemies of Krishna’s devotees, to try to petition for peace.
The Kauravas tried to arrest Krishna. And Krishna at that time manifested a universal form. Had a huge, just spanned a whole of the sky.
And he was just laughing. The soldiers who had come to arrest him just fell back in terror. You know, there was fire and smoke and sparks coming out from his body, in his pores, looking a fierce person.
Now, that form was revealed for some time. All the soldiers got petrified and just came to their senses and fled from there. And Krishna laughed and he came back to his normal form.
So here, Krishna similarly does this in the 11th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, which is called as Vishwaroopa Darshan. Krishna reveals the Vishwaroopa. So here, when we are talking about the Vishwaroopa, this is not an imagination.
This is not a conceptualisation. This is a revelation which is given by God. The same handle can be attached to two different suitcases.
The same term Vishwaroopa can refer to a conceptualisation done by the seeker. It can also refer to a revelation given by the Lord. Now, in both cases, the purpose is the same.
The purpose in the case of conceptualisation is to get a sense of God’s greatness. When the seeker wants to get that sense of God’s greatness, the seeker conceives like that. But when God himself wants to give us a glimpse of his greatness in material terms, that time there is the revelation.
And so when Krishna wanted to show Arjuna, he showed the universal form. Arjuna, I appreciate, oh my God, he is such a good… I thought the person who was my friend is so great. When Krishna showed the Vishwaroopa to the Kauravas, the Kauravas thought we are going to arrest this person but he is so bad, how can we arrest him? The idea is people in both cases are given a glimpse of God’s greatness in material terms.
In terms of material size, in terms of material power, in terms of material pervasiveness. How great is this God? naantam na madhyam na punasthamadim pashyami vishveshwar vishwaroopa Arjuna says, as I look at this form, I don’t know where is the end, where is the beginning, where is the middle. I just can’t, in English you say, I can’t put my head around this.
Now what is this? He says, anantabahu dharavaktranetram I see many many arms, I see many many faces, I see many many eyes, I see many many legs. What is this form? So the idea is when there is a cause for understanding or reason for understanding God’s greatness, the conception or the conceptualisation or the revelation of the universal form is given. Now for devotees this is considered to be a preliminary step.
Because the essence of spiritual growth is to go beyond the material conception. So something may be very great materially or something may be very small materially. The material dimension is not important because even that which is great materially is eventually not going to stay great materially.
When we have big mountains, they are also going to be eroded in new course of time. So a devotee understands greatness not in material terms but in spiritual terms. tadvai bhagavato roopam visuddham sattva-murjitam That the Supreme Lord’s form is transcendental.
So Krishna, when he manifests his personal form, he does not delight in showing his greatness. He is so small that his whole body can rest on mother Yashoda’s lap. His legs don’t go beyond her lap.
He is so small at that time. And yet when he wants, within that tiny body which fits on mother Yashoda’s lap, he can actually see, he can reveal the whole universe. So Krishna has the potency to reveal his greatness at any time.
But he does not in the spiritual world delight in revealing his greatness. He does not delight in brandishing his prowess. He simply delights in the reciprocation of love.
And the Bhagavatam focusses more and more as we move forwards from the first canto onwards towards the tenth canto, towards more and more personal and personable manifestations of God. So there are many different avataras that are described. That there is a form of Krishna, of the Lord which is like a giant fish.
There is another form which is like a giant boar. There is another form which is half man, half lion. There is another form which is like a dwarf.
So there are many forms described like this. There is a form of the Lord which is like a warrior. So now Bhakti Sadan Sri Thakur describes that there is, if we consider these various conceptions of God, there is an evolution.
Evolution does not mean that one form comes from another here. Evolution refers to an evolution in the revelation which leads to the understanding of God. So yes, if we consider the form of Narasimhadev, he was half man, half lion.
He was so huge that when he moved his head, the clouds started flying away. The momentum created was so great. So his dimension was huge, his momentum was also huge.
Now Krishna is a tiny person, relatively speaking as compared to Narasimhadev. But Krishna, this Bhagavatam states over here, Krishna is the source of all incarnations. He is the person from whom all these majestic forms of God also have come about.
So God in his original manifestation, he does not delight in his Godhood. He does not delight in people having to come down, bow down to him. And he revels in majesty.
Krishna delights simply in the reciprocation of love. So when the Europeans came to India first to colonise India, they had a conception of God as some kind of stern being, old, grand old man sitting on a cloud with a beard, throwing down 100 bolts. And then they came to India and they saw, they came to Bengal, they saw these pictures of this sweet looking boy with one hand in the butter pot, butter smeared on his face.
They asked him, what is this? They asked him, this is God. God, what is he doing? He is stealing butter. Now they just got intellectually short circuited.
Just couldn’t conceive what is going on. How can this be God? And if he has to, what is one of the qualities of God is that he never does anything immoral. So why does God steal? And even if you have to steal, steal something valuable, why butter? So actually Krishna, he delights simply in the reciprocation of love.
And if for the purpose of reciprocating love, if there are devotees, normally in the western conception of God, God is the father and we are the children. Oh father, thou art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Give us our daily bread.
That is the standard prayer that is offered in the church. Prabhupada would say at one level this prayer is good, at least we are going to God for bread. But at another level, the prayer shows our love for bread, not love for God.
So actually what happens with Krishna is this normal conception that God is the father and we are the children, that gets reversed. That God becomes the child and we have Nanda Maharaj and Shodamayi as the parents of God. Now Krishna is interested simply in the reciprocation of love.
And for the reciprocation of love, he takes an appropriate form. Now the mother will always love her child. Even if the child grows up to a 30-40 year old healthy big man, the mother will love her son, love her daughter.
But the maternal love is most manifest when the child is small. That is the time when the child is most dependent and the relationship is most intimate. So for reciprocating love with his parents, Krishna as God, although he is the supreme being who sources and pervades all the universe, he manifests a tiny form which fits on mother Yashoda’s lap and thus he intensifies his mother’s love for her.
And this way Krishna, Prabhupada would say, he is the perfect person in every relationship. If he is a child, he is a perfect child. If he is a friend, he is a perfect friend.
If he is a lover, he is a perfect lover. And he is a lord, he is a perfect lord. So Krishna in the spiritual world reveals that perfection is not simply in greatness.
Perfection is in appropriateness. That whatever is appropriate for a particular relationship, Krishna manifests that. So Krishna’s perfection in the spiritual world is not in his greatness but in his appropriateness.
For whatever form of relationship is required, he manifests the appropriate form. But when his godly powers are required, he will summon them. He will just be like an ordinary boy playing with his friends and sometimes the friends may defeat him and as a punishment he may carry them on his shoulder also.
But if there is a demon who comes and threatens his friends, Krishna in one moment will manifest his godhood and destroy the demons. So God’s greatness is in service to his sweetness. God’s greatness exists in the spiritual world but it is in service to his sweetness.
So he wants to have sweet loving relationship with his devotees. And whenever it is required that for the facilitation of those sweet relationships, the greatness will be manifest. Then the greatness will be manifested.
But primarily it is the sweetness. So when we approach Krishna in the Bhagavatam, we have this both understanding of his greatness and his sweetness. And thus we can be deeply attracted to them.
And that’s what the Bhagavatam depicts. From the first canto onwards, initially we will see his greatness being depicted more and more. But as we move towards the tenth canto, his sweetness will be depicted.
And thus, appreciating both his greatness and sweetness, we become deeply attracted to him. Ultimately, Krishna says, when we understand him like this in 4.9, he says, janma karma chame divyam evam yo vetti tattvatah. tyaktva deham punar janma naiti mam eti so arjuna When we understand his pastimes, but how? Not just as entertaining story, tattvatah.
That this is God, for the sake of love, choosing to perform, choosing to take this small lovable roles and perform such pastimes. Then we become attracted to him and then he conquers our heart. When that happens, we attain his eternal abode.
So I’ll summarise what I spoke. I spoke three things. First I talked about the concept of the Vishwaroopa.
That God exists beyond this world. And he is not accessible to us because he is spiritual. Our senses can only perceive material.
So one way we perceive him is through his divine descents as avataras. So when he is present, we relish his presence. When he is absent, we relish his pastimes.
But those who are not on the level to appreciate his pastimes, for them there is another way. That is seeing the Lord’s greatness in terms of this material cosmos. That is the Vishwaroopa.
So Vishwaroopa can be seen in two ways. There is conceptualisation and revelation. So terms are like the suitcase handle and concept is like the suitcase.
So same suitcase handle might be there for different suitcases. So we have to understand what term is in what context referring to which concept. I discussed how our mind can refer to different things.
The Vishwaroopa can refer either to conceptualisation that is done by a seeker who wants to appreciate God’s greatness. And in that case, different parts of the universe may be compared to different parts of the Lord’s body. Because it is a conceptualisation, it is not real.
There is no abode where the universal form as conceived by a seeker exists. But there is another which is revelation. When God himself wants to give a glimpse of his greatness in material terms, then he may manifest his majestic power in which the whole universe is present within him.
In which his form pervades all of the universe. So that is a revelation. And through both of these, revelation and conceptualisation, the purpose is to raise our consciousness from this world towards the source of the world.
So at the start I talked about how to say that God is the source of the world. To ask the question who created God, like asking who made a circle circular. Now God is by definition the cause of all causes.
He can’t have a cause. He is like the author of a novel who does not exist in the novel. So now how do, while we are existing in this world, come to know about him? By appreciating his pastimes.
So in his pastimes, Krishna does not follow the rule of this world that in order to be great you have to be materially great. Krishna’s greatness is not in size, it is in appropriateness. So for reciprocating love with his devotees, if a tiny form like a baby is required, Krishna manifests that form.
So when we appreciate Krishna’s sweetness, first appreciate his greatness to understand that he is really God, and then appreciate his sweetness that this God chooses for the sake of love to manifest such small sweet forms and appropriate pastimes therein. Then we can become attracted to him. And that progressive attraction is the gift that the Bhagavatam offers us through its progressive revelation of God.
Thank you very much. Hare Krishna. Yes, sir.
I was appreciating this point about sweetness and greatness. And seeing devotees present Krishna consciousness, we have the greatest philosophy. Some devotees really emphasise the greatness of the philosophy.
And some devotees present it very sweetly. Oh, beautiful. Yeah.
Yeah. Yes, sir. You can speak.
I’ll repeat the question. I have a point about attraction to Krishna. Sometimes, you know, you should focus on these certain pastimes.
And don’t jump over your guru or Prabhupada. So how do you, you know, because everyone has their specific relationship with Krishna. But at the same time, if my understanding is correct, we’re observing our spiritual master in his service to Krishna.
So how do you cultivate our individual relationship with Krishna without overstepping, you know, or minimising the importance of guru or his position in our life? Okay. So how do we develop our relationship with Krishna without minimising the position of the guru? Prabhupada often compares the spiritual master to a transparent via medium. It’s like if I have spectacles, the spectacles are transparent.
I can see through the spectacles to whatever is there on the other side. So like that, the guru, sometimes some people say, why should I not, why can’t I have a direct relationship with God? Why do I need someone between me and God? So the guru does not come between us and God. He removes that which is between us and God.
He removes the misconceptions, the misdirected cravings that come between us and God. And actually we have a personal relationship. Prabhupada writes in the 18th chapter Bhagavad Gita Purport, that experience is through the parampara, but the experience is direct and personal.
So that is the mystery of the parampara. So it’s not that we are not meant to have a personal relationship with Krishna. In fact, Prabhupada says in one conversation that he says, when you go back to the spiritual world, I will introduce you to Krishna.
So what this means is we are all meant to have a personal relationship with Krishna. Now as far as minimising the spiritual master is concerned, if we consider spiritual master as dispensable, now I made advancement, I don’t need my spiritual master. That is a wrong attitude and that is not at all pleasing to Krishna because Krishna, spiritual master has done so much service to Krishna and Krishna is pleased with the spiritual master also.
At the same time, it is not that all our knowledge of Krishna has to necessarily come from our spiritual master only. Sri Prabhupada himself in the first canto of Srimad Bhagavatam says that, the serious, first chapter itself actually, he says that, he gives a long list of commentators on the Bhagavatam. He is a serious student to study all these commentators, the commentaries of all these commentators also.
And interestingly there Prabhupada even gives the name of commentators like Nimbarka, who are not even in our Sampradaya. So Prabhupada is that inclusive. What Sri Prabhupada’s concern was that we should not, we should not jump to that which we are not mature enough to receive.
This especially applies to Krishna’s intimate pastimes with the gopis. It’s very easy to misunderstand them as mundane and that misunderstanding has happened among many observers and many practitioners. So our Acharyas have been especially cautious about it.
Not just Sri Prabhupada, Bhakti Sankhya Thakur, Bhaktivinoda Thakur also they have been cautious. At the same time, it doesn’t mean that they don’t want us to read about Krishna or read about the previous Acharya’s commentaries. Sri Prabhupada’s example himself we see, he said that we should not jump to the 10th canto and he did not appreciate people who do Bhagavad Kathas on the 10th canto directly.
At the same time, Sri Prabhupada gave Krishna a book, which is the 10th canto. Now, so the point is that Prabhupada wanted us to know Krishna. And he not only wrote the Krishna book, he wanted the Krishna book to be distributed to people in general.
It’s for street distribution Prabhupada said. So what does it mean? That means it’s not that Prabhupada doesn’t want us to know Krishna, but we have to make sure that Krishna is understood properly. That we should not misunderstand Krishna thinking him to be a mundane person or thinking his exalted relationship with the Gopis as mundane relationships.
So, if we have got enough philosophical grounding, Prabhupada gives that philosophical grounding through his commentaries, through his explanations in the Krishna book. And with that philosophical grounding, if we understand Krishna, then there is a far greater likelihood that we will approach his pastimes, even his confidential pastimes, with due reverence. So, it’s not so much a matter of denial that you cannot read this or deprivation.
It’s a matter of elevation of our understanding so that we can appreciate what is being given. So, if we practise bhakti for some years, we consult with our senior devotees, and then if we feel the inspiration to read say some previous Acharya’s books, then with the blessings of our shiksha gurus, with the blessings of Srila Prabhupada, we can read. In fact, if we don’t read our Acharya’s books, who is going to read it? Isn’t it? If we don’t access what our tradition has given us, who else is going to access? The mundane scholars, if they may access it, they will not be able to understand it properly.
They will not be able to relish it. So, Prabhupada has written his books for us, and the previous Acharyas have also written their books for us. But we have to make sure that we get the proper understanding.
So, we always have a reverential attitude towards Srila Prabhupada. And then Prabhupada has connected us with the tradition. So, we gratefully connect with that tradition in a mode of service to Srila Prabhupada.
Does it answer your question? Yes. Sometimes, I meet people who say, I don’t believe in God, but for me, nature is my God. The mountain is my temple, or the beach is my temple.
So, you mean it’s supposed to encourage them to observe the greatness of nature, and by that they make spiritual progress, or what should we do? Okay. So, people who say that nature is my God, the beach or the mountain is what I conceive as divine. So, how do we help them to appreciate God? Yes.
See, the word God has been associated with a lot of baggage, because of which people are put off when they hear the word God also. So, different people have different conceptions of God. Kalkanpur was written in that beautiful book, The God Who Dances.
So, Friedrich Nietzsche also, he was very strongly against God. But he also said, if I would believe in God, if he knew how to dance. So, what does it mean? That means, his disbelief in God was not so much because he, whatever be his reasons, but at least inferred from this statement, he did not have a conception of that, of God that was aesthetically appealing.
So, if you have a conception of God as a person who judges and who punishes, and who sends people to hell forever, that is quite an alienating conception of God. And many people may well actually prefer atheism to a conception of God like that. So, because the concept God is associated with so much mental baggage, so people may often have some hesitation in accepting God.
But if they appreciate nature, then that is good. It could be well in the mode of goodness. And then we can take the step forward.
Yes, nature is wonderful. And where does nature come from? Where does the natural order come from? What is it based on? Now, nature is, if you go at a philosophical level, it is not neither self-existent nor self-explanatory. What does that mean? That one of the, Buddhism is also a system of atheism that emerged from India.
Now, Indian tradition is very broad. If you consider from the 5th century BC to 5th century AD, India produced more books on atheism than the whole world. Because India at that time was dominated by Buddhism and Jainism.
And both of them were what you can call as mode of goodness atheists. Mode of goodness atheists. They practised regulated living, but they were atheists.
So, anyways, the point which I was making there is that this conception of atheism, which came from India at that time, Ramanujacharya and other Acharyas, they refuted that. And the idea that nature is God, it raises the question, where does nature come from? What is it based on? And if we look at nature, it is not an independent reality on its own. Because, so one of the Buddhist justifications of atheism was that the universe is existing as it is.
And if you look at the history of physics, one of the popular theories of atheists was what they call as the steady state universe. Basically, the universe is as it existed right now. And therefore, there is no need for any creator.
So, eventually scientists by coming to know about the cosmic background noise, which they consider as the echo of the original explosion, they felt the evidence pointed towards the universe having a beginning. So, we may refer to the Big Bang theory derogatively. It did not come from the Big Bang.
But actually the Big Bang theory was like a big step forward towards the existence of God. Because if the universe is existing as it is, then there is no need for God. But if the universe has a beginning, then it needs a God.
So, the Big Bang may have occurred, but the point is, what came before the Big Bang? So, what existed before the Big Bang? What caused the Big Bang? So, if you look at nature, what scientists do is, scientists just study universe as it exists primarily. But when it goes to origins, it’s extremely speculative. There is an astrophysicist John Wheeler.
One of his students came and told him, Sir, there are so many cosmological theories. How do I get a hang of all these things? So, it’s a typical materialistic reply here. You know, if you miss a bus, a girl or a cosmological theory, don’t run after it.
Another one is soon coming. So, the cosmos as it functions may be well understood by science. But as it is originated, it’s very difficult to understand.
So, if you look at nature, you look at the beauty of nature, you look at the majesty of nature, where did it come from? Evolution may be portrayed as the explanation. But in the word evolution, I have a whole class on this, I just mentioned two minutes here. See, evolution can refer to three different things.
Evolution is referring to small changes which happen in nature. Now, you can have dogs just small which become big, apples just small which can become big. Those are changes.
In the Krishna book also it is talked about how Krishna did plant breeding. So, that was one of the arts which he learnt. So, evolution as observed changes within species, that is something which we also accept.
We have no problem with that. The second is evolution which refers to one species leading to another. And third is evolution as a magic wand that explains everything.
It’s like considered to be an alternative to God as an explanation of everything. Now, Prabhupada’s criticism is primarily for the third. And this third is something which even scientists, it’s only atheists who talk about it.
Scientists don’t support this idea. Evolution can explain only when there is something to evolve. So, where did that something which evolved come from? That is something which is not so well known.
So, the evidence which is often portrayed is for this first. And that is true, that is undeniable. But this is used to boost B and C also.
The evidence which we have can explain how various species came up. And not only that, everything came about. So, the point which I am making is even from materialistic perspective, where nature with its majestic beauty came from is not explainable.
So, if we can avoid the religious baggage that is associated with the concept of God and then we draw from nature as an inference from its majesty, from its beauty, from its artistry towards God, then that is a very much intellectually acceptable conception. Einstein, there are both kind of statements of it. Some statements which he says that I don’t believe in God and I don’t like to people to associate me with those who believe in God.
But there are other statements where he says, I do believe in God. He says, I believe in intelligence which is manifested in the universe. So, he was disillusioned with the Judeo-Christian conception of God which he got from the religion which he was born in.
But from his study of science, he felt that there was in nature manifested intelligence. And he definitely strongly believed in that intelligence. So, if we can just, when people are nature lovers, don’t bring in any conception of God but just focus on drawing from nature towards the entity, the being, the source of the order, the beauty, the artistry of nature.
Then people are much more open to accepting God. Thank you very much.