If everything coming from Krishna is also Krishna, then is everyone God?

Answer Podcast

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
At one level, I said that Krishna is a distinct individual at the same time everything that emanated from him is also Krishna.
So, does this support the idea of people who say that I am God or everything is God, we are all God? No. Firstly, what I said is Krishna also talks about this in the Bhagavad Gita in 9.17, 18, 19 He says, I am the grandfather, I am the mother, I am the father, I am… and Prabhupada writes in the Parpod that the mother is Krishna, the father is Krishna. He says everything is Krishna.
So, what does this mean? Krishna says or rather Krishna says that the person who becomes knowledgeable bhavnam janmanam ante jnanaman mam prapadyate vasudevah sarvam iti samatma sudurlabham So, there is a philosophical difference between vasudevah sarvam iti and sarvam vasudevaiti God is everything but everything is not God. To make this in a more graphic way, difference evident, in the Narasimha Prahlada Neela, at one time, Prahlada is asked by Hiranyakashipu, where is your Vishnu? He says he is everywhere. Then is he in this pillar? Yes, he is in this pillar also.
And then what happens? He knocks down that pillar and Narasimhadeva emerges from there. Now, after the whole pastime happens, after Hiranyakashipu is delivered, now Prahlada does not go and garland the pillar. He goes and garlands Narasimhadeva.
Why is that? All the Prahlada himself has said that God is present everywhere and Prahlada saptam vedat that his words were proved too by the Lord when he manifested through the pillar. And yet Prahlada does not go and garland the pillar. He goes and garlands Narasimhadeva.
What that means is that the Lord, that Krishna is everything in the sense that nothing can exist without Krishna and Krishna is present in everything. In the 11th chapter, I think 40th verse or 39th verse, sarvam samapnosi tatosi sarvaha it is said that you pervade everything in that sense you are everything. sarvam samapnosi tatosi sarvaha So, vasudevah sarvamiti that means Krishna is everything.
Nothing exists without Krishna. But that does not mean that everything is a substitute for Krishna. That does not mean everything can be worshipped in place of Krishna.
If you see the same verse bahunam janmanam ante it says gyanavan mam prapadyate It doesn’t say gyanavan sarvam prapadyate. After many lifetimes, the wise, those who become knowledgeable they surrender to me knowing me to be everything. vasudevah sarvamiti Now, they know me to be everything then why does Krishna say they surrender to me? He could have said they surrender to everything.
No. So, there is a sense of oneness and there is also a sense of difference. That’s the Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s philosophy of achintya bhedah bhed.
So, in the case of the Advaitic idea that when we say everyone is God there there are many implications which are definitely not there in the Vedantic understanding of the absolute truth. The implication is that there is ultimately no need to worship anyone. Because the whoever you are worshipping actually ok, this is philosophical the the Advaitavada is actually not so much a contradiction of Vaishnava of Vaishnava philosophy as an inversion of Vaishnava philosophy.
Inversion means what? The Vaishnava philosophy explains and that’s what the Bhagavatam also says that the personal manifestation of the absolute truth is the highest manifestation. And from a brahmanohi patishtaham the impersonal manifestation comes from the brahman and rests on the brahman. Whereas the impersonal the Advaitic idea is that the impersonal is the absolute truth.
The impersonal all pervasive brahman is the absolute truth and Bhagavan the conception of the personal absolute truth is a temporary emanation from the impersonal. So, when they say that ok, you know everyone is God their idea is that this particular manifestation of God personal manifestation that you are worshipping that is an illusion and ultimately you have to go beyond that and realize the impersonal oneness of all being. So, this is a very different conception which is violent to the devotional understanding because there is no no ultimate reality given to the conception of the personal absolute truth and their idea is when you advance you go beyond the personal and then you realize you are one with the impersonal whole and therefore this is very different from the Vaishnava understanding.
Vaishnava understanding is that we have individuality, we have personality, we have free will but our existence is not independent of God’s existence. Our existence is based on God’s existence. In that sense, because we are His energies we are eternally dependent on Him.
We have no existence independent of Him. In that sense Vasudeva is Sarvamiti. So, for another, to conclude this point when Krishna talks about the Vibhuti Yoga, the 10th chapter he says, Pandavana Maham Dhananjaya He says, among the Pandavas I am Arjuna Arjuna could have said Oh Krishna, we two are one then you shut up, I don’t have to hear from you Isn’t it? We two are one.
If you are enlightened I am also enlightened. No, when he says among the Pandavas I am you there is a sense of oneness. Vibhuti is of course an elaborate subject, what Vibhuti means but suffice it to say that it does not imply absolute oneness.
So, there is oneness but there is also differentiation within that oneness. And within the differentiation within oneness, there is loving reciprocation. So, Vasudeva Sarvamiti.
It’s not Sarvam Vasudevaiti. Of course we could say that everything is Krishna in the sense that everything is the energy of Krishna. But when the impersonalists say everyone is God their idea is that actually there is no need to worship any personal God.
So, that is not the Vaishnava understanding at all. Is it clear the difference? Any other questions?