​If Bhagavan and Brahman are non-different, are a gulab jamun and its fragrance non-different?

Answer Podcast

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Thank you. See, there is an object, one object. If you look at the Bhagavatam verse 1 to 11, So, the word is advaya.
Advaya is non-different. That tattva is non-different. And that non-different absolute truth is known as That means that same one absolute truth has different names.
So, Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan are the different names of the same one absolute truth. That is the first point to understand. So, that means the same absolute truth is referred to by different names.
So, if the same object is referred to, then naturally the features will be the same. I will give you a simple example. You know, you may say that the head of state of America, I can say the president of America, I can say Barack Obama.
All three are referring to the same person. Obama is the personal name of the specific name. It is the president is the administrative head, depending on the administrative structure in this country.
And head of state is a generic name. The head of state can be a king, he can be prime minister, he can be a president, whatever. So, just as all these three names refer to the same person, but they are referring to him from different perspectives.
Obama refers to him as a specific individual with a particular name. President refers to him within the administrative structure of America. And head of state refers to him in the general sense of how he relates, how he is seen by the rest of the world.
So, like that, Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagwan, they are all referring to the same one absolute truth, but with an emphasis on different features. So, it is not that the fragrance of, we are not saying the fragrance of the Gulab Jamun is the Gulab Jamun. Rather, we are saying that, suppose, instead of putting it that way, we could say that, if the same object Gulab Jamun had three different names, based on its fragrance, if somebody only knew the fragrance of the Gulab Jamun, and based on that, they gave a particular name to it.
They called it, say, Suvas Jamun. No, no, it is not Gulab Jamun, it is fragrance. Then now that we had Suvas Jamun, and then we had, what is something very attractive, beautiful with eyes, Sundar Jamun.
If he has a Suvas Jamun, Sundar Jamun and Gulab Jamun. So, Suvas Jamun is based on just the fragrance. Sundar Jamun is based on the fragrance and the sight.
And Gulab Jamun is based on all three. So, now these three are different names, they are all referring to the same object. Now, Suvas Jamun is also, it is not just fragrance, it is also sweet, it is also spherical, it is also good looking.
So, in that sense, Brahman, when we say it is a feature of the Lord, that is from an analytical perspective. But from the synthetic perspective, you remember in the Aishwarya Bhagwat, analysis means dividing things into their parts. Synthesis means seeing them together.
So, it is not that, you know, it is like Krishna is here and Brahman is here. Krishna and Brahman are the same absolute truth. But for the purpose of analysis, we will separate it apart.
But for the purpose of functionality or the purpose of reality, they are all the same person. So, in that sense, because Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagwan, they are all referring to the same object and that object is Satchitanand. But when we talk about Brahman realization, those who refer to it as Brahman, they have realized, or rather not even those who refer to it as Brahman, those who think of the absolute truth to be Brahman alone.
That means those who have seen only the fragrance of the Gulab Jamun, or sensed only the fragrance of the Gulab Jamun, they have not known the other features. So, it is they know only the Sat aspect of the absolute truth. So, in that sense, the Brahman realization is Sat realization.
But Brahman itself is the same object as Satchitanand. So, that is all. Is it clear now? But it does not mean that the effulgence which is Brahman is meant to give its qualities only to be eternal.
It does not mean that. Oh, no. It is like the Atma… You do not attach quality of eternality to effulgence and… No, no, not like that.
Because the soul is also not just Sat. Soul is also Satchitanand. And soul is also called sometimes the spark of the absolute truth.
It is like one spark falls away from the fire, then it will get extinguished, Prabhupada says. Like that, we have become separated from Krishna. So, we are also sparks of Krishna only.
And we are not just Sat. We are Satchitanand. So, similarly, the sparks that comprise Brahman are also Satchitanand.
But those who have realized only that Brahman aspect, they have not realized that there is Raschichit, there is Ananda. So, the differentiation is not in terms of what it is. The differentiation is in terms of how it is perceived.
Is that clear now?