Why do different paintings of Krishna depict him differently? Why dont we have even one photo of Krishna that depicts him accurately?
Disclaimer: This transcript was generated using AI and may contain occasional errors or inaccuracies.
Question from Akshaya Leela Prabhu, this is a conversation of Srila Prabhupada, in which an interviewer asks him that, what does Krishna look like? Prabhupada says there is a painting, but he says this is a painting, who has seen Krishna? So Srila Prabhupada says that there are so many great people who have seen Krishna, and when Krishna was here on the planet, people saw him, and then we have the deities of Krishna. So the question is that, so one boy asked me, now by modern technology I can take photo of X, Y, Z and show this is how he looks like. Vedic technology was far more advanced, why can't my facilitator show me one photo of Krishna and tell, this is how Krishna looks like.
I have seen so many photos and in all of them Krishna looks different. Why is it so? Answer, Krishna as he originally is, is so exquisitely, so extraordinary, so supremely beautiful, that it cannot in its fullness be perceived by our material senses. So, when the scriptures give some descriptions of Krishna, the Acharyas are very clear that what we are getting through the scriptures, and then eventually based on the scriptures, when things are depicted in the painting, what we are getting is indicative of what Krishna looks like, it is not descriptive.
So, what does that mean? Indicative means, for example, when the scriptures say that Krishna looks like a bluish black, freshly formed monsoon cloud. Krishna's bluish black complexion is like that of a freshly formed monsoon cloud. So, now, when we look at a monsoon cloud, we may feel that this is so beautiful.
Ok, this is how Krishna looks like. But, Vishnachakra Thakur describes in his Sararth Varshini and similarly in his Bhagavatam commentary and Jiva Goswami describes in the Sandarbhas, Rupa Goswami describes in Lalita Madhav that actually our experiences of the worldly things that are compared with Krishna cannot give us an adequate experience of Krishna's beauty. So, in Rupa Goswami Lalita Madhav says that actually, earlier I had thought that I was, there is a devotee who is praying to the Lord, I composed choice prayers glorifying you and I thought I was glorifying you very beautifully.
But, now that I have seen you, my dear Lord, I have experienced your beauty, then I feel that whatever I wrote earlier was an insult. It is like glorifying the emperor of the world as the landlord of a small village. So, the glorification actually becomes a minimization.
So, when I say that you are like a lotus flower or you are like this, you are like that, you are so much richer than that, that actually the glorification is an insult. And that's why a great devotee of Lord Ram, he is glorifying Lord Ram and he says, Lord Ram's eyes are as beautiful as, looks around in creation, thinks around and he feels nothing is adequate and he says, Lord Ram's eyes are as beautiful as Lord Ram's eyes. There is no other comparison itself.
Still, there is no precise material comparison, but we need some kind of understanding and that's why we are given some material objects as a reference for our inspiration and for the direction of our thought. So, we have to understand that the fullness of Krishna's beauty is not experienced with our material senses. It is experienced with spiritual senses.
Even when Krishna was present, there were many people who saw Krishna, but they did not see him, in the sense that they did not understand his position, they did not become attracted to him. There was Duryodhana who tried to arrest Krishna and there were demons who tried to kill Krishna. So, now in this particular conversation, Srila Prabhupada is discussing at a particular level and that level is the level of first-person testimony.
So, vidusha-pratyaksha. So, our pratyaksha, our sensory perception is fallible and finite. We can see only so much and whatever we see also, we commit mistakes within that.
So, vidusha means unwise. So, whereas, when by the process of devotional service one becomes purified entirely and one's spiritual vision awakens, then there is vidusha-pratyaksha, then one within the heart and then without also if Krishna so desires, then one sees Krishna. So, that perception with the spiritual senses is the actual perception of Krishna and that perception is so infinitely rich and deep that no material metaphors can describe that experience nor can any material words describe that experience fully.
Still to give us some idea, the acharyas use different metaphors and words and eventually based on those descriptions, those experiences, the painters paint Krishna. So, now when we say that we can have a photo of a person today, a film star or any famous person, why can't we have a photo of Krishna? Now, we are actually assuming as material something that is transcendental. So, it's not a limitation of technology.
Even if we had the most sophisticated camera at the time of Krishna, what we would have perceived through the image of the camera would have to be depended on our consciousness. Certainly, Krishna's beauty was manifest to some extent, to a large extent at the material level also. But that alone is not the revelation of Krishna's supreme all-attractiveness.
So, the point, the emphasis on seeing is problematic for several reasons. First of all, as I said, the first reason is we cannot see Krishna with our material senses and get an indication of the depth and the glory of his beauty and attractiveness. Secondly, even if we get some imperfect vision also through some technology or whatever, still it is our consciousness that will determine whether we will become attracted or not become attracted to Krishna.
So, now going deeper, the essential question that is there here is how do we know that the depictions that we see of Krishna in the various paintings are authentic. So, the authenticity of these paintings is not based on the exact precision of the replication of the depiction of Krishna in the paintings. Precise depiction can be done by Xerox machines.
But that doesn't mean that Krishna's presence is invoked by every photocopy of a picture that is made. Actually, certainly, when the deities are decorated beautifully and then those photos are replicated by some technology, not necessarily Xerox copy, whatever, some technology might also be there. But when that is done, yes, to some extent we can see Krishna and seeing him will definitely purify us.
But the attractiveness will manifest depending on our devotion. And even when there is devotion, actually the perception will be limited by our material senses. So, how do we know the authenticity of the particular picture of Krishna? Now, if you see there are certain defining features that don't change.
Krishna has a peacock feather. Krishna stands in a threefold bending form normally and Krishna has an extremely beautiful face. So, in general, beyond that, now Krishna's form is described as bluish black, but sometimes the deities are made in different colors.
That is because the scriptures also tell us that the deities can be made by certain elements and certain elements are best when they are colored and certain elements are best when they are not colored. So, when the scriptures describe, for example, the Gita describes that the deities be made of this particular element, say marble, then marble, generally it is never colored and sometimes when the deity is made of dark stone, for example, Shaligram and other deities also, then that is also not colored. So, the point here is that we have to understand very clearly that the Chitra, that the depiction through images, photos or paintings is not one of the Pramanas.
It can help us to get some visual glimpse and Shri Prabhupada considered it important because the audience of the message that he was giving was so radically disconnected from the original culture that without some visual representations, they would not be able to understand what was being talked about. So, he considered the paintings in his books, the windows to the spiritual world, but actually he wanted them, the paintings to be along with the books and the books will explain what the paintings are. The paintings are attractive definitely to the eyes, but the full depth and breadth of that attractiveness will be manifested through the study of the books that he has given and the practice of the devotional service.
So, therefore, we shouldn't overemphasize the visually depictable forms as Pramanas. So, especially paintings that are made, the deities that are made are significant because Krishna's presence has been invoked over there. So, now depending on whether those deities are in proper Pranapratishta has been done or not.
So, it's not that every image that we see of Krishna is an accurate depiction of what Krishna is. But even if when the Pranapratishta is done properly, when the deities are made according to devotee guidance and according to proper adherence to scripture, to the Shilpa Shastra by the Shilpi, by the sculptor, still whatever is depicted is never a complete description of Krishna's beauty. So, it's not that we can get, even if we had one photo, this photo is the final depiction of Krishna.
That wouldn't be enough for us because no photo could give us a complete depiction of Krishna. And why are the differences there? The differences can be for various reasons. They can be because of the imperfection of the Shilpins, they can be because many Shilpins actually make, many sculptors make it for commercial purposes.
The differences could be because Krishna is in different Rasas. The differences could be because the devotees who make those particular deities are worshipping Krishna in a particular flavor, particular Rasa and accordingly they dress and decorate and envision Krishna in a particular way. So, the process of Bhakti is focusing not on precision.
Now, we do have to have some level of precision in terms of the deity has to be made according to broad scriptural description and the Pranapratishta has to be performed. But beyond that we can't have precision at the material level because Krishna's form is spiritual and breadth and the depth of spiritual beauty can be never manifested at the material level. So, rather than trying to seek some precise material depiction of Krishna, what we should focus on is the process of purification by which we will ourselves eventually get the precise revelation of Krishna in our heart.
And that way when we purify our heart and perceive Krishna, then there will be no doubt and then we will understand how that one Supreme Lord can manifest himself in various deity forms. And then we will see the Achintya Bheda Abhed that there is simultaneous oneness and difference in the various forms in which Krishna has taken. So, even in the spiritual world it is not that there is just one form of Krishna.
Krishna manifests multiple forms. He manifests a child form for performing pastimes with his mother and other devotees in Vatsalya Rasa. That's his baby form practically speaking.
Then he forms a young boy's form or manifests that form, the Bala Rupa, the Pauganda Rupa for performing Sakhira's pastimes. And then he manifests Kaishore Rupa for performing Madhura's pastimes. So, even in the spiritual world Krishna manifests various forms.
So, those forms are different in terms of the Rasas that are most supported, most stimulated by those forms. At the same time, they are same because it is the same person. So, this difference in the various forms of Krishna, we should understand that it is a manifestation of Achintya Bheda Abhed.
Simultaneous, inconceivable oneness and difference. So, in Tattva, in philosophical principle, wherever the deity is being worshipped properly, that Krishna is indeed manifesting over there. But because Krishna himself manifests different forms in the spiritual world as per Rasas, similarly in the material world also, as per the Rasas in which the devotees are worshipping him in a particular place, he manifests different forms.
And this difference is not just because of material factors, but also there are deeper devotional factors involved. And that's why rather than focusing on photographic precision, which does not take into account the reality of Krishna's reciprocation, we should focus on purification, not precision, but recognizing reciprocation, we should focus on purification. And then we will ourselves have the revelation of Krishna's all attractive form.
And then we will understand the principle of Achintya Bheda Abhed. How Krishna is one and different from all these forms. Sorry, is one and is manifested simultaneously in all these different forms.
Thank you.