Vedic Conception of God is beyond polytheism, monotheism and henotheism ( SB 06 03 05 at ISKCON Juhu)

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
does anyone have any questions Shastaro dandadharinah, shastaro dandadharinah, kasya syatamnava kasya, kasyatamnava kasya, vrtyus ca mrtame vava, vrtyus ca mrtame vava, yadisyur bahavo loke, yadisyur bahavo loke, Shastaro dandadharinah, shastaro dandadharinah, kasya syatamnava kasya, kasyatamnava kasya, vrtyus ca mrtame vava, vrtyus ca mrtame vava, yadisyur bahavo loke, yadisyur bahavo loke, Shastaro dandadharinah, kasya syatamnava kasya, kasyatamnava kasya, vrtyus ca mrtame vava, Shastaro dandadharinah, kasya syatamnava kasya, kasyatamnava kasya, vrtyus ca mrtame vava, yadi, if, syu, there are, bahavaha, many, loke, in this world, shastaro, rulers or controllers, dandadharinah, who punish the sinful men, kasya, of whom, syatam, there may be, na, not, va, or, kasya, of whom, mrtyu, distress or unhappiness, ca, and, amrtam, happiness, eva, certainly, va, or, Translation and Purport by His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta, Swamish Latha Prabhupada Translation If, in this universe, there are many rulers and justices, who disagree about punishment and reward, their contradictory actions will neutralize each other, and no one will be punished or rewarded. Otherwise, if their contradictory acts fail to neutralize each other, everyone will have to be both punished and rewarded.
Purport Because the Yamadutas had been unsuccessful in carrying out the order of Yamaraja, they doubted whether Yamaraja actually had the power to punish the sinful. Although they had gone to arrest Ajamila following Yamaraja’s order, they found themselves unsuccessful because of the order of some higher authorities. Therefore, they were unsure of whether there were many authorities or only one.
If there were many authorities who gave different judgments, which could be contradictory, a person might be wrongly punished or wrongly rewarded, or he might be neither punished nor rewarded. According to our experience in the material world, a person punished in one court may appeal to another. Thus, the same man may be either punished or rewarded according to different judgments.
However, in the law of nature or the court of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, there cannot be such contradictory judgments. The judges and their judgments must be perfect and free from contradictions. Actually, the position of Yamaraja was very awkward in the case of Ajamila because the Yamadutas were right in attempting to arrest Ajamila, but the Vishnudutas had baffled them.
Although Yamaraja under these circumstances was accused by both the Vishnudutas and the Yamadutas, he is perfect in administering justice because he is empowered by the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore, he will explain what his real position is and how everyone is controlled by the Supreme Controller, the Personality of Godhead. Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare, Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare Hare Krishna The last chapter of the Ajamila pastime and here the Yamadutas are raising what is the standard practical and philosophical objection to polytheism.
Theism means belief in God. Monotheism refers to belief in one God. Poly is plural.
So polytheism refers to belief in many Gods. And if there are many Gods, there will be mutual conflicts. And who will be the final decision maker? And that will lead to confusion, contradiction, conflict and eventually disorder.
Now, when the Europeans first came to India, they had their own Greek civilization and they had experience of polytheism within the Greek tradition. There were many different Gods associated with different features of nature and they considered that the monotheism of the Abrahamic religions was superior. The Abrahamic religions refer to those which accept Abraham as their main prophet.
So Judaism, Christianity and Islam, all three are called as Abrahamic religions. And all three pride themselves on being monotheistic. They consider how foolish that somebody can believe that there are many Gods.
There is one Supreme. God means Supreme. How can there be many Supremes? So when they, with that intellectual and cultural background of Greek polytheism which seemed to them to be very simplistic and naive, actually Greco-Roman polytheism it was, the Greeks were more philosophical, the Romans were more like Kshatriyas.
So when they came to India and they found in India they had so many Gods and this seemed very peculiar. How can there be so many Gods? They said, these Indians are so primitive, they believe in so many Gods, this is polytheism. And then when they started studying the scriptures, then they found things even more confusing.
Because at least in the Greco-Roman tradition, there were different Gods associated with different aspects of nature and they were considered to be having jurisdiction in their area. But when they found in the Vedic tradition that there are different Puranas and different Puranas seem to glorify different Devatas as Supreme. So some Puranas glorify Devi, some Puranas glorify Brahma, others Shiva, others Vishnu.
So they just couldn’t digest the idea, they got intellectually short-circuited. You know, they had earlier the Vedic philosophy is too profound to fit into these simplistic Western categories of monotheism and polytheism. So actually then some of these astrologers came up with a new term for the Vedic conception of the absolute truth.
They called it Hinotheism. H-E-N-O, Hinotheism. What is this Hinotheism? They said that the idea is there is one formless absolute and that absolute has many manifestations and whichever manifestation a person likes to, that person can worship that.
So they had the idea that this is one non-personal absolute truth who has many personal manifestations. This is not exactly impersonalism. I won’t go into the subtle differences between Hinotheism and impersonalism over here.
But suffice it to say that they thought that the idea of the Vedic scriptures is Hinotheism. Now, if we look at the Bhagavad Gita, the Bhagavad Gita talks about other gods. But it talks about them not in either a sense of simplistic monotheism or polytheism or uncritical polytheism.
Why not simplistic monotheism? In the Abrahamic religions, there is god in singular and there are gods in plural. But there is a difference. There the idea is there is only one true god and all other gods are false gods.
False gods means these are actually imaginary entities. They don’t exist, they don’t have power. Or if at all they have some power, they are malevolent.
And their idea is that in order to establish the worship of the one true god, we have to stop, terminate, destroy the worship of all false gods. And that’s why right from the Old Testament times, the Old Testament is the sacred book of the Jews, from the Old Testament itself, wherever any kings of the Abrahamic religions conquered any land, the first thing that they would do is, they would go and destroy the idols which were being used to worship the false gods. In fact, even Mohammed, when he came back to Mecca, he had to flee to Medina.
Then later on he gained power when he came back to Mecca. Then in the Kaaba, there were several idols and he destroyed all of them. And that is considered to be a glorious act of celebration.
It is meant to glorify God. The worship of the false gods has been stopped and the worship of the true God has been started. And that is also the reason why so many deities were desecrated by the Muslims during their rule.
And even the Christians also did that, but in a less gross way. We often very simplistically say, Krishna, Christ, Allah, they are the same God. Yes, we say this, but this is not how Muslims and Christians see it.
They consider Allah as the only true God and whether it is Krishna or Ram or Shiva, they say all these are false gods. They are the manifestations of the Shaitan, of the Satan, to allure people away from God. And we have to bring them down so that the worship of the one true God will be established.
This is not a belief of some fanatical followers of the Abrahamic religions. This is the mainstream belief of those Abrahamic religions. So, that’s why to some extent, intolerance is ingrained within those religions.
And that’s why the terminology which is used, religious tolerance, that itself bespeaks of a superiority complex. See, when we have a relationship, if a husband and a wife get married and they say, throughout my life I will tolerate you. When we say I tolerate you, that is not a sign of respect.
Now, who would like to be tolerated? So, when they say we should have religious tolerance, what is the idea? It’s a very self-congratulatory idea that what we believe is true and what you believe is false, but still we will tolerate you because we are so broad-minded. So, the Vedic culture is not a culture of religious tolerance. It’s a culture of religious respect.
So, tolerance indicates an intrinsic assumption of superiority. And this is ingrained in these traditions. So, their idea of the false gods is based on there is only one true God and there are many others who are actually upstarts, who are trying to usurp the position of the one true God.
But in contrast, within the Vedic tradition, when they talk about different gods, these are not false gods. They are assistant gods. There is one supreme being and he manifests through different people at different levels.
So, now Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita talks about the worship of the gods. Srila Prabhupada is the first person in our Gaudiya tradition to coin the usage of the word demi-gods. So, Srila Bhagavad Gita and others, they would use directly the word devata because they were preaching largely to an Indian audience.
So, they did not need English terms. Srila Prabhupada was the first person to use the word deity to refer to the manifested form of the Lord. Bhakti Sahasrat Thakur would use the word Sri Murthy.
So, the word deity, actually in English, does not refer to the manifested form of the Lord. This refers, generally technically in English, it is used idol or icon or image. And deity, technically speaking with respect to English language, refers to some manifestation of devotee, of the divine.
Not necessarily an embodied manifestation. For example, there are forest deities, there are nature deities, there are river deities, there is a supreme deity. But Srila Prabhupada used the word in a particular way and that has become now mainstream within ISKCON that deity refers to the embodied manifestation of the absolute truth.
So, like that, Srila Prabhupada used the word demi-gods. So, now the word devata is not literally translatable. There are many Sanskrit terms which are not actually translatable into English.
So, Srila Prabhupada was pragmatic in his usage. In the, what we think of, there are concepts in the mind and to verbalize those concepts, we use terms. So, concepts are intellectual, terms are verbal.
Now, terms are handles for concepts. If I have a big suitcase, I can’t just carry the suitcase, it has to have some handle with which I can carry it. So, concepts are like the suitcase and terms are like the handles for the suitcase.
So, terms are used, they are words which enable us to access the concepts. So, now Srila Prabhupada would use terms which were roughly equivalent in English better to have inaccurate handles than unfamiliar handles. That means the term demi-god or for example the term incarnation which Srila Prabhupada uses, that is not an accurate translation of the concept avatar.
Because incarnation has the word karna within it. Karna means flesh. So, incarnation basically comes from the Christian conception of Jesus’ appearance.
So, Jesus had come in material flesh. So, according to the Abrahamic Christian tradition, the divinity of the father was manifested in the humanity of the son. So, that means they said that Jesus was a human, he came in flesh, but he was God manifested in flesh.
So, the term incarnation is coming with some Christian theological baggage which does not apply to the Vedic context. Because when Krishna comes or any of the other avatars come, they do not come in a form of flesh. Incarnation, the word karna is related with carnivorous, those who eat flesh, or carnal pleasures, pleasures associated with sex.
So, Srila Prabhupada, philosophically he would clarify the terms. He would use the word incarnation, but he would tell that Krishna does not have a material form. So, better as long as the handles are familiar, see if the terms are also unfamiliar and the concepts are unfamiliar, then it will become too difficult for people to relate with it.
So, Srila Prabhupada, in order to make things appear a little accessible, would use familiar terms for unfamiliar concepts. The same way, the word demigod, Srila Prabhupada would use it to refer to the devatas. So, now the demi and semi are prefixes.
Prefixes means what comes before a word and modifies its meaning. So, pariyaptam, apariyaptam. So, a comes before and it’s a prefix.
So, demi and semi are prefixes which qualify in terms of decrees. Like we have circle and semicircle. Semicircle means half-circle.
So, demigod means semi-god or half-god. So, they have some powers of god, but not all powers of god. That’s the term Srila Prabhupada would use to refer to the system of cosmic governance wherein there are different departments with the devatas being the department heads.
So, these devatas are not false gods. They are not competitor gods. They are assistant gods.
That’s the fundamental difference between the gods in plural in the Abrahamic tradition and the gods in plural in the Vedic tradition. Now, the gods in plural in the Vedic tradition are the demigods. They may sometimes develop fanciful ideas about their own power and occasionally they may challenge the true god as happens in Indra’s Govardhan Leela when he challenges the power of Krishna.
But that is not their intrinsic position and that is not what they normally do. Their normal function is to assist the Supreme Lord. So, they are assistant gods.
Now, when Krishna talks about these devatas, he talks about them in many places. For example, he talks in 7.20 to 7.23. Then he talks about them again in 9.20 to 9.25. Then he talks again in 17.4 in the Bhagavad Gita. So, I won’t go into all these sections.
I’ll just focus on one section, the first section, which contains some significant terms in Sanskrit. So, first in 7.20 to 7.23, Krishna uses the word Anyadevata. So, he says these devatas, Anyadevata.
The word Anya cannot be mistaken. Anya means other. So, Krishna is not talking about morphing of all the gods into one.
See, I am there and there are Anyadevata. So, then in the next verse, he uses another interesting term. So, Krishna has first used the word Devata.
Now, he is using the word Tanu. Now, Tanu means body. So, Tanu-Bhritam, those who are embodied.
So, whichever form a person desires to worship. With faith, one desires to worship. I make that faith strong.
I make their faith strong. So, it’s interesting, when somebody desires to worship a Devata, that person, Krishna uses the word Tanu, here, not Tanu, Tanu here, because people are attracted to forms. So, people in Tamoguna will be attracted to some forms.
People in Rajoguna will be attracted to some forms. People in Satoguna will be attracted to some forms. So, according to their modes, whichever forms they are attracted to, Krishna says, I make their faith strong.
So, this is radically different from the Abrahamic religions, where God says, thou shall not worship any other gods except me. Krishna says, no, if you want to worship other gods, I will make your faith strong. Why? Because Krishna is not concerned with his glorification.
He is primarily concerned with our elevation. He is concerned not with his own glorification. Krishna, even when he speaks about his supremacy, in the Bhagavad Gita, he speaks that not to prove his position, but to improve our disposition.
Not to prove his position, but to improve our disposition. What does that mean? To elevate us to a higher level of understanding. So, if somebody can worship the Supreme Lord, there is no need for such a person to worship the Devatas.
But if somebody cannot worship the Supreme Lord, then it is better that the person worship the Devatas and make some level of progress. Suppose, a father has two sons, and one of them is brilliant, and that person gets very good marks, say 80% marks in the exams. The other is not so good, and just gets 40% marks, barely passes.
And both of them have come today with the results. And both of them have got 60%. So, the first person, the son comes and says, Father, I have got 60%.
And then the father says, Shabash, very good, I am proud of you. Second son says, Father, I have got 60%. Badmash, I am ashamed of you.
What have you done? So, what is this? Both of us got 60%. Why Shabash to him and Badmash to me? It is because your level is higher. So, like that, Krishna, he says in this 7.21, that if somebody wants to worship the Devatas, I give Shraddha to that person.
So, good, you worship the Devatas. At least rise from atheism to some level of theism. But then, two verses later, he says, those who worship the Devatas, they are Alpamedhas.
He says, Badmash, what is this? So, it depends on the level. So, if somebody can worship Krishna, then there is no need to worship the Devatas. So, there are three levels.
If somebody is at the level of atheistic materialism, then coming to the level of worshiping the Devatas is a step up. It is like from 40% to 60%. But if somebody is at the level of worship of Krishna, for that person to start worshiping Devatas, it is like going down from 80% to 60%.
That is undesirable. So, in that sense, there is no competition between the one true God and the many false Gods, as it is there in the Abrahamic religions. There is a progression from lower conceptions of God, from worship of the assistant Gods to the worship of the Supreme Lord.
So, there is not competition, but progression. And this progression involves something significant. It involves Krishna assisting the worshiper of the Devatas according to the level either to become fixed in the worship of the Devatas or to rise higher to his own worship.
So, Krishna says, I give faith. Now, Srila Prabhupada, in his translations, often integrates his purports. That means, when he gives a translation, he doesn’t just translate, he also sometimes puts the purport in the translation.
Srila Prabhupada was not very technical in his writings. He focused on essence. He made sure that the essential message was given clearly.
And that’s why sometimes Srila Prabhupada will translate words in such a way that even if they are not literally accurate, they convey the essential meaning. That’s why in the translation of this verse, Yo yo yam yam tanum bhakta, 7.21, Srila Prabhupada starts with the translation by saying, I am present in everyone’s heart as a super-soul. And you look in the Sanskrit, where is I, where is super-soul? There is nothing.
Yo yo yam yam tanum bhakta, 7.21, 7.21, So aham is there, I is there, but there is no super-soul, there is no heart over there. So where is Srila Prabhupada getting this? So actually, Srila Prabhupada, in one sense, sometimes there are some cars, which they say will give maximum mileage per hour or per liter of petrol. So like that, Srila Prabhupada gives us maximum mileage with every word and every message that he gives us.
So even in the translation, he integrates the purport. So when Krishna gives faith, how does he give faith? As the super-soul in the heart. Okay, you want to worship this devta? Yes, worship this devta.
The Madhvacharya explains that another way it works is that Vishnu also gives the Rajasic and the Tamasic Puranas. Ultimately, all the Vedic literature is described in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad that they come from the Absolute Truth. So, in the Bhagavad Gita also that is confirmed.
karma brahma udbhavam viddhi brahma akshara samudbhavam tasmat sarvagatam brahma vittam yityam yajna pratishtitam. In 3.15, Krishna says, brahma akshara samudbhavam. Here, the word brahma refers to scriptures and it comes from akshara, the Absolute Truth.
So, it is the Supreme Lord who gives the Rajasic and the Tamasic Puranas also. For what purpose? So that those particular devtas will be glorified in those Puranas and accordingly, people who want to worship them will be inspired to worship them. See, normally, it is an etiquette that when we are introducing a person, we glorify that person.
We don’t minimize that person. Suppose, some famous cricketer comes to a particular place and that cricketer is being introduced. Then they will say, oh, he has made so many centuries, he has won so many matches, he has done this, he has done that.
They won’t say, oh, but he is not the top cricketer. There is another person who is the top cricketer. When we are talking about one person, we talk about that person.
So similarly, when the Puranas are talking about Shiva, for example, Shiva Puran, they don’t, Shiva is not supreme. They don’t do like that. When they are talking about Shiva, they will talk about Shiva.
They will glorify Shiva. Because the purpose is, those who have the psychophysical nature, those who have the mentality to worship Shiva, they should be encouraged, their faith should be boosted. And over a period of time, they will evolve to higher understandings of worship.
And they will come to the principle of pure devotion to the supreme lord. So, the first difference I said is, within the polytheism that was familiar in the Abrahamic religions and the Vedic understanding of the absolute truth is, there is no false god and true god. There is one god and there are many assistant gods.
And secondly, there is no competition, there is progression. With the supreme lord also facilitating both people’s devotion to the various gods and then their progression to his pure devotion when they are ready for it. Now, that’s why we will see over here that even in the Vedic context, even in the Vedic culture, there can be confusion about who is supreme.
One of the reasons why Maharaj Yudhishthira performed the Rajasthani Yajna was, he wanted to demonstrate to the whole world the supremacy of Krishna by having him glorified as the greatest being in his Rajasthani Yajna by offering him the Agra Puja when the greatest of sages and the greatest of gods were also present. So, similarly, here we have Yamadutas in this particular section. So, Yamadutas are an interesting species in the sense that there is black and white.
There are good people, there are bad people. But then there is the blurring of the lines. Are they good or are they bad? And this sort of thing forces us to think.
So, the Mahabharata, this is why sometimes it’s confusing because there is a blurring of the lines. Karna is in many ways virtuous but in many ways he also acts maliciously. So, there is black and there is white and there is the blurring of the lines between the two.
So, in the Vedic context there is Brahma who is like the Brahmana among the Devatas and then there are four Devatas who are considered to be the Lokapalas. They are considered to be the foremost among the Devatas. These four Lokapalas are Indra, Kuvera, Varuna and Yamaraja.
So, these four Lokapalas are the most prominent among the Devatas and normally when Arjuna is described in the Vannaparava, the third parava of the Mahabharata when Arjuna wants to do austerity so that he can get weapons. So, he goes to the Himalayas and starts performing austerities. So, at that time all these four Lokapalas come and they all bless them.
So, Varuna gives him his weapons, Yamaraja gives him his weapons, Kuvera gives him his weapons and Indra also doesn’t give immediately. Indra says you come with me to heaven. I will bless you at that time.
So, it is a great honor that Arjuna was able to go to heaven in this very body. So, Arjuna says that it is by Krishna’s mercy that in this very body I went and not only I went to heaven but Indra allowed me to sit on his own throne. Mahadasanartham.
So, his asan, half asan Indra was sitting half asan Arjuna was sitting. So, we are talking right now about the Lokapalas. So, these four Lokapalas are considered to be the most powerful among the gods and the gods are good, generally speaking, and the demons are bad.
Now, among these gods, if we see Indra’s servants and Varuna’s servants, they are also considered godly beings. Now, Kubera’s servants are the Yakshas. They are slightly on the border.
The Yakshas sometimes act in ungodly ways and that’s why we have Yakshas fighting with Dhruva Maharaj and killing Dhruva Maharaj’s brother also and Krishna actually groups Yaksharakshams together. He would group Yakshas with the Rakshasas and that’s how they are grouped sometimes. So, they are not exactly godly but they are not entirely demoniac also.
So, the Yakshas, as long as they are following Kubera, then they are kept under control. Now, Yamadutas, they are, now Yakshas when they are portrayed also, they are not portrayed in attractive ways but they are not portrayed in ghastly ways also. But normally when Yamadutas are portrayed, they are portrayed as very fearsome beings.
So, it’s interesting that Yamadutas, so Yamaraj is one of the Lokapalas but his servants are not considered virtuous, noble beings. They of course have a job to do and that job is an unpleasant job. So, then they have a bodily complexion, bodily features which are what are required for their job.
So, people are expected to follow Dharma at various levels. They have fear, desire, duty and love. They have bhaya, ichcha, kartavya buddhi and prema.
As Bhaktivinoda Thakur talks about in Chaitanya Shiksha Amrita. So, the Yamadutas, they enforce Dharma at the level of bhaya. That means people are fearful of the Devatas, of the Yamadutas.
I don’t want to see the Yamadutas, therefore I will not do any sinful activities. So, now when there is obedience at the level of fear, there is often not much enlightenment. The only enlightenment is, I don’t want to feel the blow of the stick.
I don’t want to, why are you doing this? If I don’t do this, I will be beaten. So, there is not much enlightenment at that level. So, the Yamadutas are expected to administer Dharma at that level and that’s why they themselves are not very enlightened and that’s why they are committed to their master, that is Yamaraj and Yamaraj gives them orders and then they go and follow.
But they are not aware of higher principles, that there is some being higher than Yamaraj and that that being’s followers can overpower us, because that being is more powerful than Yamaraj. They had no awareness of that and they are shocked. Vishwanath Chikkadakur says in his commentary that they were so frustrated that they were on the verge of committing suicide.
Because it’s it’s a dishonor. Suppose police come to some place and they think you are a criminal, I am going to arrest you. And then, they are coming publicly, everybody is there watching and the police are coming to arrest somebody and then suddenly somebody else comes.
Who are you? What are you doing? I am a bigger policeman than you. Get out of here. You know, in India one of India’s politicians India’s embassy officers in America she was arrested publicly in America and it became a big India-American conflict.
It was a disgrace that she was publicly arrested and humiliated and then she was eventually deported. So now if say the American police comes along to arrest somebody in public you know, it’s a humiliation for that person but the police have a sense of power. We are coming and arrest over there.
Now suppose the American police come there to arrest in America and suddenly some Indian policemen come over there and they have guns and everything and they go away. You cannot arrest over here. It’s our authority.
What is this? They will feel insulted. It’s our authority. So, like that, Yamadutas, they thought it’s our authority.
Who is coming and intervening over here? How dare they intervene? So they felt humiliated, frustrated at this happening and they went and asked Yamaraj, what is this? And here they are raising the objection that we were not going and arresting someone whimsically. That person was sinful and that’s why we are arresting. So, how were we baffled? So, it’s a valid question.
So, in logic there can be arguments which are valid without being correct. If the premise is correct then the conclusion will be correct. And if the argument goes from valid premise to correct conclusion, it’s a valid argument.
But something can be valid without being complete, without being correct. Why? Because the premise may not be all encompassing. I won’t go into logic right now.
But the point here is that it is a valid argument for them but it’s not a correct argument because their knowledge is not complete. The premise, premise means the basis, the assumptions from which they are starting, they are not correct. They are thinking that Yamaraj is supreme and how dare his power be challenged? And indirectly, how is our power be challenged? Because we are serving him.
So, this happens when our knowledge is incomplete. That we have our own set of ideas and we assume certain things should happen in certain ways based on our conceptions. And when things don’t happen that way, what is happening? Why are things happening like this? You know, as devotees, when we are practicing our spiritual life, we also have to have this faith that Krishna knows better than me what is best for me.
Krishna knows better than me what is best for me. Often, we think that I want to practice my life in such a way. I want to do these things.
I want to serve Krishna. And I think that these things are favorable for my devotional service. And if these things happen, it will be very good.
And sometimes, exactly the opposite thing happens. And we get frustrated. How is this happening? You wonder, is Krishna there? Does Krishna really care? Does Krishna want to help me? No, actually, selective faith can be deceptive faith.
What do you mean by selective faith? When we pray to Krishna, we pray, please this thing is going wrong, please set it right, let me pray like this. This indicates we have some faith in Krishna. Faith in Krishna’s power, His omnipotence, His supreme power.
This is faith, definitely. But this is selective faith. Why? Because faith in Krishna means faith not just in Krishna’s power, but also in Krishna’s intelligence.
So when we pray to Krishna, Krishna, please let this happen this way. What that means is, we think that we have the intelligence to know what should happen and Krishna just needs to use his power. So, we don’t have faith in Krishna’s intelligence.
We have faith in our intelligence and Krishna’s power. And we think Krishna should use his power to make things happen the way we want them to happen. And this sort of faith in God can be deceptive.
Because we think that I have faith in God, but we don’t have proper faith in Him. And that’s why these kind of people often, they recoil from the extreme of showy religion to brazen atheism. I worship God so much, and still so many wrong things happen.
Why still things happen? God doesn’t exist. And worship of God is very bad. Just give it up.
So, actually, religion is the opium of the masses. No, religion is not the opium of the masses. The masses are the opium of religion.
What does it mean the masses are the opium of religion? See, religion, dharma, is transcendental. But when the masses start following it sentimentally, without philosophical understanding, then they bring their conceptions into religion. And there are religious leaders who pander to populism.
Populism means that they speak and say things which will make them popular, which will let more and more people sort of externally affiliate with religion, but without any deep faith in God. So, when we say masses are the opium of religion, what that means is that when the religious leaders start pandering to the masses, then, just as opium intoxicates and contaminates, similarly, those populistic pandering contaminates religion. So, actually, Srila Prabhupada did not pander to such contaminations.
For example, in the Abrahamic religions, there is the idea Father, give us the daily bread. It’s good that people are going to God at least for bread, but then that shows love for bread, not love for God. So, Prabhupada would say that we go to God simply for worshipping.
So now, coming back to our point of selective faith can be deceptive faith, when we worship God, while being attached to our own intelligence and our own expectations of how things should work out. When things don’t work out that way, then we can recoil towards atheism. God did not do anything for me.
What is the use of belief in God? But rather, if, from that selective faith, we move to complete faith. That means, Krishna, I don’t know. I don’t understand what is best for me.
I thought this was best, but you have some other plans. I surrender to you, my dear Lord. I surrender to you.
I will do your well. Please guide me, how I should act. So, initially, Prabhupada was asked, what is the best prayer that we can offer? Prabhupada said, if you pray to Krishna, please give me the strength to serve you.
In fact, when you chant the Hare Krishna Mahamantra, what is that? Engage me in your service. Essentially, that means, Krishna, give me the strength to serve you. That means, sometimes things will work in ways that I cannot understand.
Even when such things happen, Krishna, please give me the strength to serve you. So, that attitude, that disposition will ensure that our faith will go on steadily. Our bhakti will go on steadily.
So, we have faith not only in Krishna’s power, Krishna can do things which we can’t, but we also have faith in Krishna’s intelligence. He can see things that we can’t. He can do things for us in a way that are good for us in the long run.
Even when in the short run, they seem to be bad. So, therefore, by having this complete faith in Krishna, no matter what happens, we can continue on in devotion. And, actually speaking, there is one thing which Krishna always offers us, and that is His remembrance.
We may or may not get material things in life. Even when we need material things for our service to Krishna, we may or may not get them because this world is a place of limited resources. And that’s why some things may or may not come.
But Krishna’s remembrance is available in unlimited quantity. There is as much supply as there is demand. And the demand can never become more than the supply.
In fact, the problem is that there is no demand only. Krishna is ready to give as much remembrance as He wants, as we want. So, if we just focus, whatever happens, Krishna, please let me remember you.
And based on your remembrance, if I remember you, then, that if we remember Krishna, then Krishna will also give us the intelligence of how best we can serve Him. And that is the basis, this understanding that the most valuable thing in our bhakti is our remembrance of Krishna, is our bhakti of Krishna. And when we keep that as the center of our devotion, then whatever happens at the material level, that won’t shake us.
Yes, it may change certain things. If I fall sick, I may not be able to do the same services which I was doing earlier. But still, there is some other way I can serve Krishna.
So, I’ll conclude with a beautiful meditation from Kunti Maharani’s prayer, which Vishwanath Chakradakur gives in his commentary. So, Kunti Maharani also offers a set of prayers from 1.8.18 to 1.8.42. 43, actually. So, 42nd prayer is what I’m going to talk about.
She says, just as the Ganga flows towards the ocean, let my consciousness flow towards you. So, Vishwanath Chakradakur in his commentary to this verse says, that what is the significance of this river flowing towards the ocean? Actually, river flowing towards the ocean is a favorite analogy of the Mayavadis. But they focus not on the flow, they focus on the merging.
They say, oh, the river merges into the ocean. The devotees focus not on the merging, they focus on the flowing. That the river and the ocean exists eternally.
Krishna is the ocean, the devotee is the river and let the river constantly keep flowing towards Krishna. Let the river of our consciousness constantly keep flowing towards Krishna. So, when the Upanishads use this analogy, it is not that this analogy is Mayavadi, the river is merging into ocean.
It’s a valid analogy, but its interpretation has been done in a incomplete way. The focus is not just on merging, it’s on meeting. And the Vaishnavas, for them, it’s flowing.
So, he says that what is the characteristic of a river? When a river flows, it actually does two things. Nothing holds the river back and the river holds nothing back. What does it mean? Nothing holds the river back.
If some rock comes, the river will go below, round, above or just erode the rod and go through it eventually. So, nothing holds the river back. And secondly, the river holds nothing back.
The river doesn’t think oh, I’ll send only 30% water, 70% I’ll keep with me. No, all the water goes towards the ocean. So, this Kunti Baharani is praying like this to Krishna that nothing holds the devotee back and the devotee holds nothing back.
Nothing holds the devotee back. No matter what happens, somehow or the other, a devotee finds a way to serve Krishna. Krishna Prabhupada was penniless.
He was contactless. He had no contacts, very little money, he was old, he was sickly and yet when he was in Jaladuta, what was he praying? He was not saying, Krishna, let me recover from my heart attack, let me not die in America. What is he praying? He is praying Nachato Nachato Nacho Nachao Semate.
Kashtere Putamejada Nachao Semate. So, please make me dance, make me dance, make me dance. So, he is praying, let me serve you.
So, Prabhupada had no material facilities when he went to America but still nothing holds the devotee back. Prabhupada was serving whatever be the situation, somehow or the other, find a way to keep serving Krishna and then similarly a devotee holds nothing back. The devotee serves, the devotee offers everything into the service of Krishna.
So, Srila Prabhupada, right from his earliest waking breath till his last breath when he will sleep, absorbed in service to Krishna. He sleeps so little, writing, speaking in his dictaphone, giving us the purports and then speaking about Krishna throughout using all his energy for the service of Krishna and this is the standard of pure devotion and this is the standard that the Bhagavatam enthrones as the ideal for all of us and we can aspire for by studying the Bhagavatam and by serving the Bhagavatas. So, I will summarize.
We started by talking about polytheism and the Vedic conception of absolute truth, one God and many Gods. It is different from the Western understanding of polytheism. There is not one God and many false Gods but one supreme God and many assistant Gods and there is no competition.
There is progression among all of them and we are all cooperating to elevate the conditioned souls and then the second main point we discussed is when there is confusion it is often because of our preconceptions. So, the Yamadutas are confused because they presume that Yamaraja is supreme. Similarly, when we are trying to serve Krishna and things go wrong there is confusion because we have the preconception that our intelligence is good enough and Krishna should make things happen according to our intelligence but when we surrender to Krishna having faith not just in his power but also in his intelligence.
Krishna, you know what is best for me. Then we can gradually come towards this level of pure devotion where nothing holds a devotee back and a devotee holds nothing back. Thank you very much.
Are there any questions? Everyone is worshipping energy. So, how these are different and how we are considering them like they are increasing in order of worship? Good question. So, there are atheists who also worship matter and devotees also worship the paraphernalia of the Lord.
So, there is some level of worship of matter there also. So, what is the difference between these? The difference is essentially in our consciousness. How much do we see the connection of things with Krishna? Prathagdhrisha.
Prathagdhrisha means separatist vision. That separatist vision is the cause of our misery. When there is no Prathagdhrisha then there is no misery.
So, the materialists see matter but they don’t see its connection with Krishna. They think matter is all that exists. They are not just materialists, they are fanatical materialists.
Matter is all that exists. The devatas, the demigod worshippers, they do not understand exactly there is one Supreme Lord and everything is energy. The devotees, when we use the paraphernalia also, we understand everything is a manifestation of Krishna.
But that doesn’t mean everything is to be worshipped. See, this idea that everything is to be worshipped is called as pantheism. Pantheism means everything is God.
So, in the Bhagavad Gita, 7.19 is often used to justify pantheism. Everything is God. Actually, that is not the correct translation.
Sarvam Vasudeviti is not. It is Vasudeva Sarvamiti. So, it is God is everything.
Everything is not God. What is the difference between the two? God is everything. Everything is not God.
What is the difference? The difference is there in the words itself. You know, when the person becomes jnanavan, the jnanavan sees Vasudeva Sarvamiti. But whom does the jnanavan surrender to? He says, bahunam janmanam te jnanavam sarvam prapadyate is not there.
Jnanavan mam prapadyate. So, Vasudeva Sarvamiti is in the sense that everything is connected with Krishna. Everything is a manifestation of Krishna’s energy.
It’s considered sacred. But it itself is not a separate object of worship. You know, when Prahlad Maharaj was asked by Hiranyakashipu, is your lord there in this pillar? He said, yes.
And the lord emerged from the pillar. But when the lord emerged from the pillar, Prahlad Maharaj offered obeisances to the lord, not to the pillar. Isn’t it? So, Vasudeva Sarvamiti is not Sarvam Vasudevaiti.
So, actually, the idea is one has to see the connection. So, the materialists, the atheists, they don’t see any connection with God. The demigod worshippers see some connection but their philosophical conception is not very clear.
The devotees see the connection with a clear conception also. That is what makes the difference. Any other questions? Hare Krishna Prabhu.
Wonderful class. You said that Abrahamic succession of religion, they believe only in one god and rest of the gods are false. But they also talk about angels by Christian and Farista by Muslim.
So, what is that? So, what are the conceptions like angels in Christianity or in the Abrahamic religions? The angels are not considered in their tradition as objects of worship. They are considered to be assistants. So, God has some level of assistants who are closer to him than we are.
But their idea is we don’t worship them. So, whereas you Hindus worship so many other gods. And this idea of angels is very strong, worship of angels is something which is even more strongly condemned in the Islamic faith.
Although Gabriel was the person who revealed Quran to, the angel who revealed the Quran to Muhammad. But they see worship only one true god is Allah. So, the conception of angels is in one sense you could say that they are assistants.
But they are not assistants in universal administration like the devatas are. And the devatas are authorized by Krishna to accept worship on his behalf. For those who are not ready to worship.
But in their conception, the angels are just, they are not really in charge of cosmic administration. They are higher beings. See, if you see in the Bible, there is not much described description of cosmology.
In terms of, there is one, there is God, he should devote himself to God. The Bible primarily is talking about the activities of people. The Old Testament talks about the lives of the chosen people and the various prophets, how they live.
And the New Testament and the Gospels talk about Jesus and the other books in the New Testament talk about the prophets and what they talk about Jesus and their activities. So, there is not much positive description about God or about the universe and its levels. So, what exactly is the ontological, ontology means the nature of existence.
So, what is the ontological position of the angels is not directly clear in the Bible. And that’s why many Christian theologians like St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, they borrowed a lot of concepts, philosophical, cosmological, eschatological, all such concepts from the Greek philosophy. So, St. Augustine borrowed primarily from Plato and Socrates, Plato.
And Thomas Aquinas borrowed from Aristotle. So, they don’t have a clear conception of cosmology where the angels have a position of worship or a position of jurisdiction like the devatas have. That’s the difference between angels and devatas.
Thank you. Yes, Mataji. Just a minute, let the phone come.
You had a question? Somebody had a question? Yes, go. When the mic goes there, you can ask. Yeah.
Hare Krishna, Prabhu. Thank you so much for such a clear and lucid class. You said that Krishna, he sees the devatas as assistants and there is no competition.
May I ask why did Lord Brahma and Lord Indra not have the same mood towards Lord Krishna as a little boy? Yes. Since the devatas see Krishna as the Lord and they are not competitors, then why did Brahma and Indra not see Krishna similarly? They had the Brahmavimohanlila and the Govardhanlila where they apparently defied the authority of Krishna. Krishna is a manifestation of God who is very intimate and even the devatas don’t have regular interactions with Krishna.
See, Vishnu is God in office. Krishna is God not just in his home, he is like in inner chambers of his home. So, you know, Vishnu also is God in the home in one sense because Vishnu also stays in Vaikuntha with his associates but Vishnu is the functional manifestation of God and the interactions of the devatas are with Vishnu and they know Vishnu to be supreme but when Krishna manifests, Krishna doesn’t seem like God.
He seems just like an ordinary child and he does mischief like a child and that’s why when Brahmaji saw this, Brahmaji heard that this Krishna has killed the kila ghasur, he was amazed. Now, technically they know, Brahmaji himself along with the devatas and Bhoomi had prayed to Vishnu, please let, please descend as an avatar and the lord said, I will descend as an avatar. So, in that sense they know and Brahmaji in the third chapter, in the second chapter of the 10th canto, he described the garbhastuti, that Brahmaji along with the devatas offer prayers also but there they have an intellectual conception, oh this is Vishnu and incarnation of Vishnu is going to manifest but when actually the lord appears and the lord starts manifesting his fast and this Krishna is such a sweet endearing cowherd boy that he just can’t conceive how can he be God.
So, when Brahma has to offer food, you know there is sahasra, seersha, purusha, he offers many prayers and then he offers bhoga and here there is Krishna, he is playing with the guavas and Madhumangal has drunk a lot of chhaaj and Krishna wants to drink it and Madhumangal drink it Krishna does like this on Madhumangal’s cheeks the chhaaj comes out of his mouth and then Krishna drinks that and Brahmaji gets a culture shock this, eating jhuta, not just jhuta, jhuta from somebody’s mouth how can this be God so that’s why he gets confused so they are not aware of the intimate past tense of Krishna and the intimate form of Krishna and that’s why they start thinking this is really God and they start getting confused but then Krishna when he wants he can reveal his supremacy and then they understand ok this, although this manifestation of God is so intimate, so sweet but still this has the potency of the supreme being and that’s why in the Brahma Vihon Leela we see the sequence that Brahmaji takes away the guavas and then Krishna expands the guavas but when Brahmaji wants to see how come the guavas are there at that time when Krishna reveals how all the guavas are his expansions he reveals the guavas to be forms of Vishnu, he doesn’t reveal the guavas to be his own expansions why because Brahmaji is aware of the glory of Vishnu he is just not aware of the glory of Krishna this particular manifestation of God that’s why he shows the expansions as expansions of Vishnu over there and that’s how he is able to understand ok, Hare Krishna yes Hare Krishna Prabhuji you just explained that how the Lord is not Sarvam Sarvam is Aham Sarvam Kalam Idam Aham is there and the devotees, the Lord says that Jomam Pashyati Sarvatra Sarvam Chamai Pashyati so what exactly does it mean when we say that Lord is not Sarvam because there are other places where Sarvam is used Jomam Pashyati Sarvatra Sarvam Chamai Pashyati so what I meant specifically was there are actually two conceptions of God philosophy, there is Pantheism and there is Panentheism Pantheism means everything is God, actually God is this nature, nature is God, this table is God, this mic is God, everything is God Panentheism means God is everything and God has his existence beyond everything else yes, the whole material world is God’s energy so in that sense God is everything, but just because God is everything doesn’t mean his existence has become diffused, everywhere and he does not have any specific localized personal manifestation so Pantheism has that diffused understanding of the absolute truth that God is everything and then everything can be worshipped but there is no need, there is no conception of a transcendental God see the manifestation of God in matter there is a philosophical question is there Vedanta Sutra is, the whole Vedanta Sutra is trying to answer this question, what is the relationship of the three tattvas there is Jeev, Jagat and Jagdish, Jagat is matter Jeev is the consciousness and Jagdish is the Supreme Lord, so what is the interrelationship between these three tattvas so what is the relationship between say Jagat and Jagdish so the idea that God is manifested in matter is called as immanence immanence and the idea that God is beyond matter is called as transcendence transcendence means beyond matter so now God is according to Bhagavad Gita both immanent and transcendent Pantheism when people say that everything is God they say that ok you can worship anything and everything but there is no transcendent aspect to God so Pantheism reduces God to only immanence whereas Pantheism includes both immanence and transcendence that’s why we see this in 9.4 and 5 in the Bhagavad Gita 9.4 Krishna says mayatatamidam sarvam jagatam vyaktam arthinam so C and D the verses have four parts A B C D so C and D he says and then in 9.4 he says that and 9.3 he says all living beings are situated in me so that he says and then exactly opposite of that so refers to his immanent aspect yes all living beings are situated in me actually not only are all living beings situated in me the first part of it says he says I am also situated in everything I am pervading everything so 9.4 basically talks about the immanence of the Lord but the immanence does not exist God God exists beyond this world also and that is emphasized in 9.5 mamatma bhuta bhavana so I am not situated in all I am not situated in this earth the world is not situated in me I am transcendental and 9.6 gives the example of the wind and the sky just as the wind moves about in the sky but the sky is greater than the wind similarly all living beings and all of existence is situated in the Lord but the Lord is greater so when we say a devotee sees Krishna everywhere that does not mean that the devotee doesn’t see Krishna in a personalized aspect also now we see that Lord Chaitanya every river he saw as Jamuna every hill he saw as Govardhan but still Chaitanya Mahaprabhu did not think oh now I have seen Jamuna I will stay here only still he went to the Jamuna and Vrindavan isn’t it right? so God is everywhere but still God is at one special place also that is in his abode in his personal manifestation so we don’t the Vedic philosophy is not pantheistic it is panentheistic God exists in nature, God pervades nature but God extends beyond nature also so I can say some material vision and the transcendental vision is a different vision that we see the different way the material things that Lord is not exist that is material vision so personally the Mayavadi they said the Brahma is only the truth but the devotee sees that everything is God so the transcendental vision he can see so only the person who is decorated with the love he can see that everything is God yes, when the devotee sees everything as God, that pure person with vision of love sees everything as God at the same time, yes but still there is also difference as I said, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is seeing everything in a very Krishna-ized way but still there are levels of manifestation, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu sees every hill as Vrinda, as Govardhan but still he doesn’t stop at that hill he goes to Govardhan so it’s more a matter of the connection of consciousness to be able to see everything connected with Krishna so impersonalists are not able to see anything connected with Krishna materialists are also not able to see materialists are not able to see anything connected with the spiritual absolute truth the impersonalists see the connection with the spiritual absolute truth but not the personal absolute truth the devotees see the connection of everything with the personal absolute truth but they don’t forget that there is a person and these are his energies, Prabhupada would give the example that when a mother sees the shoes or the toys of a baby the mother is absorbed in the remembrance of the baby but the mother doesn’t think that the toys are the baby so like that a devotee doesn’t think that the material energy itself is Krishna. A devotee understands that Krishna has his self-existence in the spiritual world and everything is connected with Krishna. So now, of course there is a whole seminar which I have given about there are eight levels of manifestation of God that are talked about in the Bhagavad Gita.
So I won’t go into that right now but suffice it to say that a devotee can see everything is connected with Krishna and Krishna existing beyond everything else so I think we’ll stop here. Thank you very much for your kind attention. Shri Prabhupada ki