The concept of God 1-Hierarchical or Categorical Bangalore Bhagavatam 7.2.9 – Chaitanya Charan

This is an AI-generated transcript and it might not be fully accurate:

What is going on is this particular section is being described. So normally when I take bhan class I try to use a framework called chit. We look at the context we look at some insights and we will look at some fast

and then we look at some takeaways. So basically try to expand our consciousness with respect to the market. So the context is that this is the seventh candid total 12 cans we are more than from the 12 canonical perspective we are more than halfway ahead. Now if you talk from the number of verses perspective the 10th candle and 11th candle have a large number of verses the 10th candle is almost one/ird of the entire bath. So we’re not yet number wise we are about halfway through but broadly the the as Bhagatam is moving forward it’s not just a list of stories that are being told yes there are many stories being told but through the stories there is an evolution that evolution is in two things in the understanding of Bhagawan and the dedication of the bhta so the understanding of Bhagwan will have its summit in the 10th candle where more and more the the most personal and personable manifestation of the divine will be revealed that is Krishna who has so many loving relationships he’s ras now as we move towards that if we see initially when the bhag when the lord is described as the bhagatam starts off from second kando first kando is more or less setting up the stage that how does parish has come to a place where he want to be the bhu. So if we start in the second kanto there we have the virat group that is primarily being described that is the primary conception of god that is elaborate discussion the aara is still given but in the third you know capila is described but capila is not so much as god as he’s a teacher he doesn’t kapa doesn’t perform any leas except instructing his mother of course Then we come to the fourth cando. In the fourth cando there are multiple past times but again the focus is not so much on loving reciprocation with God. The one of the main stories that is blue. So there’s a story of truth through there the story of where there are many interactions with the lord but the personal very intimate reciprocations. I’m going to start from the subject. So jwami explains that among all the in the Paras are Krishna, Narma and Rah. They have a lot of personal relationships with the Lord. So that first is Narasma and Nasma although he is mighty but the way he lovingly reciprocates in paral is quite sweet and conversely that the other side how the devotees keep sacrificing more and more for the sake of the lord that is discret. If we see in the fourth end, I won’t go into all of it, but just contrast will just restart the screen. So in the bhagatam, we’re looking at the context now to understand what is going on. So now in the fourth car, Say how is the dedication seen? See dedication is seen. Say for example if you’re trying to practice bi and say people outside trouble us people outside criticize us they they discriminate against us because they’re practicing bi then okay it’s very difficult you know the environment is not supporting but if instead of people outside troubling us if people inside troubles our own family member opposite A lot more dedication to go. If you’re trying to proper practice bacti and devotees only troubles you know that means there’s a conflict between devotees and because of some internal politics or whatever some devotees troubles then it will be even more difficult to get this. So delegation is see in terms of how much opposition and what kind of oppositions come. So see if you see the fourth candle then the story of the fifth seventh candle then the story of Now if you see in one sense dha is in pain both of them are hurt by their part but there’s a categorical difference is one time he hurt by his father and that is simply a neglig that he did not respect on the other hand prahal what happens praala is initially seated on his father’s lap what wanted was not given praala already had that and then what happened is Dua was begging for it requesting it and his father it did offer and he felt insulted by that and he went to Lord Vishnu to to do what to get a kingdom bigger than his father. Now now if we consider Pranad’s situation he he was the inheritor of the kingdom. So now It is like because it’s like there is pain and for relief from pain there is devotion. You seek relief for relief devotion is practiced. That is the story of Dhua broadly speaking and still it is glorious for pain anywhere that he came to Krishna and he dedicated himself to Krishna is glorious. But if you see Praalad’s story There is actually he is in comfort. He’s in royalty. And for him there is pain because of devotion. He’s not practicing devotion to get relief from pain. His pain is caused because of his devotion. So now this in such a situation most people go to God because they have problems and God please give problem. But if because of our bacti practice itself we face problems then that will require a much much greater dedication to continue the practice of bacti and that is the dedication of so we could analyze the whole bhagat like this that how there is a through the various past time there’s evolution in the in the reciprocal personal nature of Bhagwan and how there’s evolution in the dedication of the bhta. So broadly today’s talk I focus on the evolution and the conception of Bhagwan because the bakta is not yet appeared in this particular past. So this is second cap second chapter and here what is happening here Nikashipuru is saying that I want to destroy the whole cosmic system of administration and his irrational is being killed. So he said I want to get back at him. How do I get back at him? So he says multi-prong strategy he has. He says first is that we stop all the young we stop all the sacrifices and then by that the will be and now he’s saying that on the other side I will do a lot of tapasa and with the tapasia I’ll gain more and more power. And one day when I gain enough power to destroy Vishnu and when I destroy Vishnu then all the devot will also be destroyed. So you see Vishnu is like the root are like the tree and everybody will be destroyed. So now further he will actually say if you look at it as further description he will also say that while I am performing to to strengthen myself all of you go and destroy the yogis you go and p the brahmanas. So you go and destroy all the places where dharma and bacti is being practiced. And his idea is by this you can weaken Vishnu. So the idea is if we want to win a war against someone there are two ways either we strengthen ourselves or we weaken the other person. Best is that we can do both. You can strengthen ourselves and weaken the opponent and the chance of winning is the post. So normally speaking what we he’s saying is this is what we will do to overpower and destroy. So that is the context in which these verses are being spoken. Now the inside I will focus on one key concept and what it implies. See broadly when we talk about God there are two conceptions of God. One is a hierarchical conception of God. and the other is a categorical conception of God. While the bhagatan seems to or the broad tradition seems to talk about these two conceptions of God, there are some references which will point to both but only one of them is complete. What do I mean that a hierarchical conception of God? Here the idea is God is the best of all beings. That means there are many beings beings there are we humans among humans there are some more powerful there are many beings and the top of this hierarchy is God so there are various dutas they also have various powers there are dutas there are higher dutas like that there’s a hierarchy of being and god sits at the top of the hierarchy god rules at the top of the hierarchy that is god is the best of all beings now there are some pointers to this for example in the book siddh we says that that we humans can have at the maximum number of this many qualities that Shiva can have this many qualities. How much that we human beings can have?

50 qualities. Shiva has 55, Vishnu has 64 and has 60 and Lord Krishna has 64. So this seems to be a hierarchical conception where there is there are greater and greater number of qualities. Now this is one conception. And the other conception is God is the basis of all being. God is not just the best of all beings. There’s not just a hierarchy in which God is at the top. So that God exists in a completely different category. There might be a hierarchy but God exists in a different category only. That the hierarchy cannot never reach God and God’s not exists far above everyone else but God is also below. Below not in the sense of being subordinate but below in the sense of sustaining everyone else. So this is for example there are many verses in the which say the qualities of the lord are so many that we might be able to count all the sand particles on a beach the number of stars in the sky but we will never be able to count the qualities of the lord. Ramachar is Vishnu is he says infinite qualities. So God exists in a completely different category. So if you see these two conceptions they the difference between them is not just a matter of technicality. If we consider here it’s like a a tennis tournament. If you consider that in tennis there is Say man said there is a system of for 80 in it’s WTI for women. So like different players have different number of points based on how many matches they have won, how many matches they have played, how well they have played. So there’s one player who is seated number one right now and that person sits at the top of the hierarchy. But if that person doesn’t win sufficient matches and some other player wins more matches, then what happens? The number one will go down and somebody else will become number one. So the idea is that in the hierarchical conception of God, God sits at the top of the hierarchy but that is just because he has more power than anyone else. If somebody else gets more power than him, then that person will displace God at the top of the hierarchy. So this is the hierarchical conception of God. And we have the we have one describing the Lord as aud that nobody can be equal to him, nobody can be above. That indicates that this categorical this hierarchical conception is actually wrong. Now Hindi Kashu has this hierarchical conception and that’s why he’s thinking that if I can do more austerity and increase my power then I can overthrow I can kill God and I can overthrow God. So it’s a hierarchical conception of God. Now the categorical conception of God is God is God exists in a different category of being. So in the viba section in the 10th chapter not yoga section there’s one verse where Krishna says that nothing could exist without me that this is talking about a categorical concept. of God. God is not just one being among many beings. God is not just the supreme being among many beings. He is the being that sustains all beings. He is the being without whom nothing would exist. So it is very important that this categorical conception of God be clearly understood. And you will see if you say the hierarchical conception is the conception of iron. and Brahalad tries to counter it and Brahalad uses this categorical conception. Let’s look at a verse in the Bhavatam which illustrates this. This comes in a conversation between Rahad and Han Kashipu where Hir Kaship is asking him from where have you got your phone? The whole all the tremble when I get angry. But you seem to be fear this. Where have you got this power? It’s like some tiny kid is say Ukraine is standing up to Russia. Well, Ukraine getting it power. Ukraine is not a very powerful. So Ukraine is getting it power from America. It’s not a war between Ukraine, Russia as America and Russia. And right now America is in two minds. It should be support and not support. Ukraine will be anxious. What if America doesn’t support? So the idea is that is paraly you know who is backing him who is backing him by which he is standing up to me like this and what is the prat’s reply can seem just cheeky like sometimes some church some kids talk smart you know talk in a way is provoking others provoking others but he’s not actually proing kashi he’s educating kashi so let’s try to understand Let’s recite this verse. So what he’s saying is where is where are you getting your power from? This is where I’m getting my power from. So it is not only our I am getting my power. You are also getting the power of the same place and that even this one who gives your power as Brahma this power also coming from that person that person is completely transcendent is the moving non-moving is higher inferior lower higher all this hierarchy is there But all of them are under the control of Brahma. So the idea is he seems to be it’s where is your power coming from? My power is coming from where your power and even the source of your power is coming from. Like it’s like you are almost agitated person. You are not actually you have the source of your power. So don’t be so proud. But it’s not like that. He’s trying to tell him that Vishnu exists in a different category and he’s thinking that Vishnu is your enemy but later on he said Vishnu is not your enemy. Now if God had wanted to be our enemy, God would have destroyed us at any moment. If God were against us, we wouldn’t even exist at any moment. Our existence could have been ended long long ago by the Lord. So he says that the your only enemy is your own uncontrolled and misguided mind. So it’s interesting that when he uses the word it comes two verses later over here make your mind okay that I have conquered the six directions this except for the So that your own mind is working against you. And he’s saying uncontrolled and misguided. So put these two adjectives in the description. Except for the uncontrolled and the guided mind, there’s no enemy. So uncontrolled means we offer have many desires which are not good for us and misguided means that we think that the universe and the lord of the universe is against us and we want to be happy and there is someone out there who doesn’t want us to be happy and that’s why we are unhappy so uncontrolled refers to we are actually thinking that the things which will make which actually make us unhappy will make us happy that’s uncontrolled part of it and the misguided is that we are thinking that when I am trying so much to get happiness. Why is the universe opposite to me? Is there someone out there who doesn’t want me to be happy? That’s the idea. So this categorical conception of God is what Brahan is trying to tell that Vishnu is not your competitor. Say something if he’s out of your ring or that person is out of your ring. What that means is that you cannot compete with that person. So now somebody I related to their rewarding but that’s not possible with respect to God. No matter how powerful we become actually whatever power we have it will always come from God. And that’s why God exists far above in a different domain itself. This is one of the common uh conception that we need to clarify if We have to counter atheism. If we counter atheists now in the west for more than two decades mathemat two two and a half decades there have been a lot of public debates about the existence of God especially after 9/11 uh that was the twin tower attacks in America. After that there’s somehow there was not at a political level there was a suspicion about Islam which soon was overcome by the allegation of Islamophobia that anybody criticizing Muslims or saying that they terrorist means you are being Islamophobic. So that trend was pushed back against but at an intellectual level there’s a strong attack on God itself that God and religion this that that was considered to be the cause of all problems in the world. So religion is the source of all evil. One atheist wrote a book another atheist wrote a book he said that among all the bad ideas that the human mind has invented. There is no idea as toxic as the idea of God. So, so basically a lot of aggressive criticism of atheism. So now first time in India this about a month or so ago there in the public domain there’s a de debate between an atheist in the east and became quite viral. This was interestingly between it was in India but it was a Muslim moola and a Muslim atheist. So there’s a debate between them

and um I made a couple of podcasts responding to that also the other also done some things but the thing is that if you see the conception of God that both sides are debating so often the conception itself needs to be understood clearly. So for example somebody asks can science by future advancement discover God? Well God is not like undiscovered set light around Jupiter. That means you know we just not observed enough and you not got technology sophisticated enough. See God is not another material object that future scientific advancement will find something. So the idea is when people approach the idea of God okay what is it that what is God that most people approach God in some conception of the hierarchical understanding only. The hierarchical understanding is oh God is the strongest of all beings. So it is God is not just supremely powerful. That’s why the word omnipotent sometimes all powerful. So it is true all powerful is not the same as supremely powerful. Supremely powerful is still the hierarchical concept of God that there are many people are powerful. But then one being supremely powerful. So for example after the cold war for some after the afterumia fell now America is a superpower. America is supreme power. There are many powers in the country world but America is supremely powerful. God is not just supremely power. God is all powerful. That means all other people who have power it all comes from God. So you know that understanding this this categorical understand understanding of God. It is if it is not there and the hierarchy of understanding God exists at the best of all beings that leads to a lot of confusion. So often the causal question comes up. Causal question is that okay if God created everything who created God? Now the answer to that question is God exists outside the domain of creation. It’s like sometimes you have a novel or you have novel series where some family or Some it’s for many generations characters are talking about okay this person had this father this grandfather this person had this child this daughter this this this grandchildren so now we can trace the genealogy okay this person came from this person this person came from this person this person came from this person now however much we know the genealogy and however much we further trace back we are not going to find the author in the geology isn’t it we can know everything about Harry Potter’s the story line but in the Harry Potter’s genealogy you’re not going to find JK Rolik. Why? Because the author exists outside the world of the story. So God exists outside the domain of time and space. We all exist within the domain of time and space. So God exists in a different category and in English with respect to being. So this is a bit of a philosophical concept. It’s already I’ll make one more philosophical concept and then we will uh come back towards this more simple takeaway. See in with respect to beings there are two kinds of beings in English the word contingent and essential. So in the bhagatam for example what is the first words of the bhagatam? So nowad is started as treated as independent. Now now we often understand the word independent from our context of independent. So what is for example say India was a politically dependent country. Now we have independent that means our our government is not brought about by someone else. Our government comes from our So that is independence. But in in the spiritual sense when we use contingent means dependent and if we use swarat as independent. So there independent and dependent is not just meaning that god does not depend on anyone. It actually means that sarat means that See if you have a five story building the the sixth story can be built on it. The sixth story may exist or may not exist. Even the fifth story may exist or may not exist. The third story may exist or may not exist. But the ground has to exist. Isn’t it? If the ground is not there, nothing will exist. Isn’t it? So all the levels of a building are contingent. Their existence is is in a sense optional. When contingent means dependent the farad the word is used their existence itself is optional. So the building may the entire building may be there a particular number of stories of the building may be there nothing might be there but the ground has to be there. If the ground would not be there then there will be no building at all isn’t it? So when we talk about being there has to be a nonoptional So when we talk about existence there are many all of us exist. Now if one of us would not exist if one of us would die well then there’s some people who have uh grieve our death but you know we did not exist we as we know ourselves in our physical identity. We didn’t exist before and we will not exist after some time. But our existence is contingent. That means if it doesn’t exist, the world will still go on. If we don’t exist, the world will still go on. And if it and we we don’t sustain the world. There is a existence which is optional and there’s a existence which is nonoptional. That that being without whom nothing would exist. that nonoptional existence is the existence of God. So this is actually one line of argument for the existence of God that see the design argument is a very preliminary argument and in serious philosophical circles nobody takes it seriously because what happens is that three reasons for it I won’t go into all of it but and it’s not that nobody takes it seriously there are serious there’s a counter arguments also given about it but it works at a particular level the the problem with the design elements are. This is uh that first is that just because we see design that does not mean there has to be one designer. There could be many designers and there could be designers and it could lead to politics. Just because there is design it could also mean there could be an evil designer because there’s so much so much pain in the world and you could say our bodies are designed for pain. There are one organism lives on another orans one or naturally eats other organisms. So we could say that the evidence of their design is not a benevalent divine benevolent supreme but a malvolent supreme or we could say that it’s not a design it’s a illusion of design that what we think is design has come from natural processes and that is the argument which mainstream designs are accepted through evolution and other things that actually all that we think is designed has come from natural processes but the point is that the design argument is not the only argument for the existence of God. So this there’s another argument for the argument for existence. The argument of existence is that if we say something exists right now, a lot of things exist, right? And we see that everything comes from something. We came from somewhere. This building came from somewhere. So now if we trace it backward, we keep tracing it backward. Does it have to stop some somewhere. So now somebody might say this just goes on and on and on forever. But the problem with that is science does not seem to support that because science has come up with the idea of the big bang. Now interestingly when the big bang theory was first proposed that was actually very strongly championed by theists and was condemned by theists because the big bang theory was seen as the strongest evidence ever given by science for the existence of God. Why? Because the whole idea of a big bang implies that there’s a beginning. There’s a beginning and there’s a beginning. There has to be a beginning. So almost all atheistic schools of thought, whether it is Roman atheism or Indian atheism, Indian atheism, Buddhism and Janism, both of them are basically atheistic backings. So all of them operate at the idea that the universe is eternal. If the universe is eternal, then there is no need for God. So when science came up with the evidence that the universe is expanding and that it began from a particular point cosmic explosion. So that was seen by many people mainstream intellectuals uh scientists as undeniable evidence for the existence of God. And that’s why a so vehemently opposed the big bang theory that the opposite of the big bangor was the steady state theory. The steady state theory is that as the universe is right now, that is how the universe was. So if the universe was always the way it is, then there is no need for a beginning. There’s no need for a beginner and that’s why there’s no need for a god. So now see whenever any evidence comes up the will try to use a will try to use this. So the came up with the idea that the big bang happened without any conscious beginning to it. But the problem with that is not just from a scientific perspective from a philosophical perspective that everything has a beginning. So now if we are saying that there is a particular point which does not require a beginning then we are actually so God exists outside the domain of cause and effect like I talked about the author exists outside the genealogy of the characters in the novel. Now what has happened happened is science had to propose that what existed before the big bang was in a different categ. So everything needs a cause but whatever existed before the big bang does not need a cause. So basically science ended up proposing something transcendent something which transcends the normal conceptions of space and time and primarily causality that a leads to b. So now of course The current ATCT defense is that the universe is a eternal chain of what they call as big banks and big crunches. So the universe expands and the universe contracts and the universe expand the US contracts and that’s how it has been going on and that’s how it go forever. So it’s basically another version of the steady state theory that that now of course there is and sorry

psychic theory

psychic theory. So the so this current if you look at it from a point We have hard evidence. There is absolutely no evidence of a there have ever been a big crunch that everything compresses and everything falls into itself and gets destroyed. But then their idea is that oh when everything falls in a big crunch everything is destroyed. So there is no evidence at all. So it’s very convenient that you you propose a theory for which within the theory itself there is no evidence possible. So,

so anyway, if you move from the point of pure logic that everything exists that has a cause. So, if we trace it backward, backward, backward, either this has to go on forever or this has to go to some starting point which exists outside in a different category that every effect has a cause. Every cause that also has a cause. Like that you go backward. backward. Either this has to go on forever as it’s called an infinite regress or if it has to stop it has to stop in some being that is categorically different. So the science proposes that the start of the big bang whatever existed the singularity is outside in a different category or you say that being in a different category is God. So now which is a more reasonable explanation? More reasonable explanation is that that we see matter does not have selforganizing properties. If there is just a there’s a sand pile, the sand pile would organize itself into building or into even sand gases for that matter. If if the starting which exists beyond the domain of cause and effect, if it were either it it is conscious or it is insensient. So now the more reasonable explanation is basically there three points in this argument. First is that so everything comes from something. We go backward backward backward then the something from so at the start either everything came from something or everything came from nothing. Now we don’t see anything coming from nothing. Nothing comes from nothing. That’s all. So among the two, everything came from something or everything came from nothing. Everything came from something is more reasonable. Now if everything came from something, now is this something going on and on forever or does this something stop at? Now it goes on and for on and on forever. There’s no scientific evidence for that. The universe doesn’t seem to have a beginning. is called sciences. So then that something has to exist outside the category of cause and effect. Now that something from which everything came which exists outside the cause and effect like that that which is the causeless cause of all causes. Now what is more reasonable? It does it that it came from a consist starting point of consciousness or the starting point of matter. Matter does not organize itself. Consciousness organizes itself. Consciousness organize itself. Consciousness can organize things around itself. Now see our philosophy when we say God exist in the beginning. Now God is not just an isolated being. God exists with his energies. So the problem with the idea that God alone existed is that then where did matter come from? See consciousness can organize matter but can consciousness create matter from nothing? So did can God create something from nothing? Well, he can but even God doesn’t have to create something from nothing because God means God and his energies. So again this as long as we are operating within this hierarchical conception of God. Hierarchical means oh there are many beings and God is one being among them then we will always be vulnerable to being attacked by these. So that oh some people imagine that this person is God. Some people imagine that person is God. Like you people imagine this thing is God. So like that people say that oh small children the best believe in Santa Claus. But as they grow up they stop believing in Santa Claus. So like that when humanity was in its infant state it believed in God. As humanity grows up it should outgrow the belief in God. So the logic is that as long as we think God is just another being among many beings then we’re always prone to attack by atheists. So the categorical conception of God that God is not in the best of all beings called the basis of all beings. What are the three steps? So everything has a cause. Each see an argument is as strong as the steps of the argument. So everything has a cause. That’s what you observe and categories everything comes from something. Now this is the first step of the argument. Everything comes from something or everything comes from nothing. So from nothing is not a very sensible. Now know that something can be within causality. That means within cause effect or at it can be beyond cause effect. If it is within cause effect then what happens? It only begs the question where did that come from? So within cause effect means it leads to what is called infinite regress. It will lead to endlessly dis going on. So this is not acceptable. Something beyond God’s effect means that is what this is the meaning of that it is a God is a non-contingent being. God is a being whose existence is not optional. It’s essential. What happened? Now the third step is then That something that something is it insensient or is it sensient? So praupath glorified spiritual master as absolute essenti calamity has removed. So the idea is if it’s insensient then from there how does organization happen? We see the world is organized. organization. How did this happen? So sensient being can organize things. So this understanding of God as a categorically different being is so important because this actually uh most of the arguments for atheism come from the conception that God exists within the hierarchy of all. So the so this is the insight what this is the takeaway for us. So the takeaway there can be many takeaways but I’ll focus on just one thing that when we talk about this categorical conception of God versus a hierarchical conception of God that it’s very important that always to remember that God is greater than our conception of God. that God is always greater than our conception of God. And we see this dynamic in Arjuna. Arjuna says after hearing the Chhattishloki Bhagat Gita which at 17 at one level marks the conclusion of the Bhagat Gita at least a conceptual level Arjuna says he says I accept everything you say. So at one level he says if you see that he says you are the supreme being you are the ultimate reality he’s category saying that the next verse he says that I accept everything you see and yet the very next point he’s saying that actually you cannot be known that you cannot be known even by the deutas then what is that So does Arjuna know Krishna or does he not know Krishna? So that is the next verse he says who can know Krishna only Krishna can know Krishna that only you can know him and then he says next was I want to know more about you. So this actually if I understand that God is greater than my conception of God. This will lead to two things. At one level, it will keep us in curiosity. I want to keep learning more. But more importantly, this curiosity will bring humility. One of the biggest problems in religion when fanaticism comes that is when people think that my conception of God is the only right conception of God. And anybody who disagrees with my conception of God is not only wrong but is evil. And therefore that person should be destroyed. But God is far greater than our conception of God. And by extension this also means that praupad is greater than our conception of and that is why fanaticism when it happens in our moment where no this is what praupad should praad wanted us to do. If you’re doing this we are deviating from praapad and so many conflicts come up so recognize that prahuad is greater than our conception because krishna is all attractive now this has not been a freefor all mean anybody can do anything and say I’m doing this for pleasing if somebody says in a temple we’ll start be fac ly they start us out and why that way people who eat beef will also come to the temple.

Well no we want people who eat the beef also to come to the temple but we don’t have sat factory in the temple. So our beef animal house or we don’t have to sell beef in our obviously not there are boundaries but those boundaries are far bigger than strictly our conceptions. So what happens is when we become very we You don’t have this curiosity and humility is related. Curiosity how are related? Humility is that I don’t know everything. Curiosity is I want to know more. You know but in one sense the opposite of this is fanaticism. Fanaticism is I know I am right and I know you are wrong. So there is no humility that maybe I may not be right. There’s no curiosity. You’re doing something. something like this. Why are you doing this? What is your thinking about it? So this understanding that God is greater than my conception of God. That means the ways to approach God will be very will be different from the ways we approach God. And that’s fair enough. So I’ll just conclude with one example of this. How our perception of God can actually if you come to attach to it that can make us unnecessarily fanatical, unnecessarily confrontational. So we see this that in Chhattan Mahapu’s case when Chaitananya Maha Prabhu went on his tour of South India he went down and then he came back up. So he met two Ram Bhtas and then two Ram Bhtas he met and one of them on seeing Mahabrau s chanting Har Krishna. The other was very devoted to Lord Rah and he was lamenting how I be touched by by Ra and Lord Chaitanya got the matsuran uh was Kuruban Kuruban sorry Kurban in which it is said that it was Mahasa who was touched and he pacified him and there is no description over there that Mahham U did this service so that he would make that Ram Bhakta into Krishna that Ram Bhakta stayed a Ramaka. So Maha Prabhu appreciated that actually yes we worship Krishna and we are attracted to Krishna and if by associating with you become attracted to Krishna that’s wonderful but if not you are attracted to other manifestation of divinity then it’s not my business to prove that you are walk Mhm. In even in the bay bhagata and sanatan gwami goes when he goes to aunta there all the residents think that we should choose the source of all incarnations and goami doesn’t feel the need to put in practice actually they’re wrong they’re not or when he goes to go they go to he goes to iodonta actually the thing that ra is the source of one incarnations yes there are many many to manifest but ra is the greatest again there is he doesn’t feel insecure oh you know but they’re wrong so what happens is that once we understand that yes there’s a philosophical reality of Krishna but there’s also a personal reality of Krishna and the personal reality means that Krishna can attract different persons in different ways so that understanding so in our tradition one of the things is that God himself has many different manifestations. So they’re all different. So the aspect is not impersonal. Means that there is one ultimate reality but it also has many bones. So God is greater than our conception of God. And that’s why when we see said that if we go to a place of worship of some other religion then And how should be our mood? So that we should be thinking that my lord, my god, my lord has manifested here in a different way. Because of my political conception, I cannot exactly understand how he’s manifested. But he’s attracting these people toward him and seeing how compassionate my lord is to attract these people in this way. My devotion to the lord as I know him is increasing. So is Krishna can attract people through the different Vishna traditions. Krishna can attract people to different Vic traditions. Krishna can attract people to different non- Vic traditions. The same one God and God is greater than our conception of God. So if I am here, I’m going up a mountain peak and here at the peak at the top is God. So now I have got a peak of the peak. The peak of the peak means I got a glimpse of what is at the top and my glimpse is real. But somebody was going up from here. They have got a different peak. They got a different glimpse. The same ultimate reality. But that ultimate reality is so great that I don’t really know it fully. Even if we get to the peak still it’s so vast it’s like ocean we can know what the ocean tastes like what it feels like to be in the ocean but you cannot say I know the pollution so that’s why there has to be a certain level of humility and that there’s always more to know about God there’s always more to know about how God attracts people in this world so I want to be committed to my path to God at the same time I don’t my commitment does not have any lead to intolerance. My commitment does not have to lead to fanatics. This is the way I’m going up the mountain. There are others who may be going another way of the mountain. Now, of course, this doesn’t again mean that always go up the mountain. Some way might just go round and round the mountain. Somebody might not be going up the mountain at all. Somebody might going into the valley away from the mountain. So, this is not relativism where oh, whatever you want to be, you can believe. Praad had objective criteria. What was objective criteria? He said we consider Jesus to be our guru. Why? Because he had so much love for God that he was ready to sacrifice his own life for the sake of God. If a road is taking me up the mountain, there are objective criteria. What is that? I should be going closer to the peak of the mountain and I should going further from the bottom of the mountain. Like that. If a path is taking us closer to God. The objective criteria is that our love for God should be increasing and our infatuation with material things should be decreasing. If these two are happening, some way people are approaching God. Their conception of God may be different from ours, but we don’t focus on that. So, I’ll summarize what we discussed today. Three main points. We discussing about basically understanding or expanding our conception of God. That was the topic. So I started by the context of how in the context of the bhagatam the bhagatam has its own evolution that evolution is both in the conception of bhagawan and in the dedication of the bhta. So we contrasted how there’s more intimacy in the seventh canala than say the vahala or some other lord. Similarly we contrasted Rahalad’s dedication is both are great devotees but Ralad is tested far more. Rha goes to God because of his pain gain relief. Pranad experiences pain because of his going to god his devotion. Then in ter of insight that’s where we spend the maximum time. We talked about God as a categorical con as a hierarchical conception that is God is the greatest of all being the best. of all beings and then categorical conception is God is the basis of all being. So we discuss how Kashipu has this hierarchical conception and when he seems to provoke Kashu he’s not provoking him he’s educating him and he’s saying that that actually God exists in a different category and this categorical conception of God what does this mean that God is the non-contingent being contingent means dependent but it’s not dependent in the sense of like political dependence independence it’s that non-contingention means God’s existence is not optional God’s existence is essential and then we discussed about the what is called the cosmological argument for the existence of God that if we go backwards so everything has to come from something not nothing and that something has to be conscious so that’s how we can come to the idea of the existence of God. And then the takeaway for us from this was that that we always understand that God is greater than my conception of God. Each of us Krishna has revealed us himself to us in a particular way. We are trying to go up the mountain and we have got what is what is at the peak of the mountain. This is God. So As we are trying to move up this mountain, we have got a peak of that peak. But still it’s only a peak and there will be that if I understand my concept, God is always greater than my conception of God. The result of this would be at one level curiosity. I want to know more and that is associated with humility non- different from humility. I don’t know anything. And the very this curiosity come with humility combined is one of the best antidotes for fanaticism. Andism is where I think I I know that I’m right and you are bound. So this humility can help us. The curity it does not mean relativism. We are not saying that everything goes in the name of everybody has their conceptions of God. There are objective criteria are we actually become more attached to God and are we going become more detached from material things? That is the evidence that we are going up the peak up toward the peak of the mountain. Thank you very much. Very good questions.