710212 - Lecture CC Madhya 06.149-50 - Gorakhpur
Devotee: Caitanya-caritāmṛta lecture, evening, 12th January, '71. (break)
- aho bhāgyam aho bhāgyaṁ
- yan-mitraṁ paramānandaṁ
- pūrṇaṁ brahma sanātanam
- (SB 10.14.32)
I think I shall speak in Hindi. (indistinct comments by others) What is that? I shall speak in English? Then they will take advantage of. That is . . . (indistinct comments) Why you have gone?
Yamunā: . . . (indistinct)
Prabhupāda: Oh, I see. So this was a part of the prayer offered by Brahmājī when he offended on the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa. The incident . . . perhaps you know that Kṛṣṇa was a cowherd boy in Vṛndāvana.
(Hindi with Indians)
Why you are back side? You can come this side. So Brahmājī is praising the fortune of the residents of Vṛndāvana, vrajaukasām, headed by . . .
Vrajaukasām means the residents of the Vrajabhūmi, headed by Nanda Mahārāja. Aho bhāgyam aho bhāgyaṁ nanda-gopa-vrajaukasām, yan mitraṁ paramānandaṁ brahma. Kṛṣṇa was there. So Brahmā is admitting that this Kṛṣṇa is parabrahman sanātanam.
So we have to take evidence from the authorities. There are twelve authorities according to śāstra. Brahmā is one of the authorities. Twelve authorities means:
- svayambhūr nāradaḥ śambhuḥ
- kapilaḥ kumāro manuḥ
- prahlādo janako bhīṣmo
- (balir) vaiyāsakir vayam
- (SB 6.3.20)
Svayambhūr nāradaḥ. Svayambhūḥ is Brahmā; Nārada; then Śambhu, Lord Śiva. Svayambhūr nāradaḥ śambhuḥ kapilaḥ. Kapila. Kapila is incarnation of God, Kapiladeva, the propounder of the Sāṅkhya philosophy. Kumāra, the four Kumāras, ever brahmacārī. And Manu, Vaivasvata Manu, the father of Mahārāja Ikṣvāku.
And Prahlāda, the son of Hiraṇyakaśipu. The father was atheist and the son was a devotee, great devotee of Lord Kṛṣṇa. Then Janaka Mahārāja, the father of Sītādevī. And Bhīṣma, the grandfather of the Pāṇḍavas. Prahlādo janako bhīṣmaḥ. Then Vaiyāsaki, Śukadeva Gosvāmī; and Yamarāja, they are authorities.
Now, here the Brahmā, the first authority, he is admitting Kṛṣṇa as Brahman, pūrṇa-brahma sanātanam. Pūrṇa-brahma. Bhagavān. Brahman realization, there are stages, three stages of Brahman realization: first, impersonal Brahman, then localized Brahman, then full Brahman. Localized Brahman is Paramātmā, who is situated in everyone's heart. The example is given, just like the sun. The sun is one, and the sun is the abode of the sun-god, Vaivasvata. In the Bhagavad-gītā you have to admit:
- imaṁ vivasvate yogaṁ
- proktavān aham avyayam
- vivasvān manave prāha
- manu ikṣvākave 'bravīt
- (BG 4.1)
So this Vivasvān, the sun-god, he heard from Kṛṣṇa for the first time about the yoga system stated in the Bhagavad-gītā. Therefore Kṛṣṇa spoke, and the sun-god heard, therefore he is a person. And the sun-god's abode is the sun planet. And from the sun planet, the effulgence, the sunshine, is coming. By this example one can understand what is Brahman, Paramātmā and Bhagavān—tattva-vastu, the Absolute Truth. That is stated in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. The Absolute Truth . . .
(aside) Not like that. Don't sit . . . not like that. Why don't you tell him?
The Absolute Truth is realized in three phases. The first realization is impersonal Brahman, the next, higher realization is the Paramātmā, antaryāmī, and the ultimate realization is the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
- vadanti tat tattva-vidas
- tattvaṁ yaj jñānam advayam
- brahmeti paramātmeti
- bhagavān iti śabdyate
- (SB 1.2.11)
This is Absolute Truth in three phases.
So here the Absolute Truth, when He is realized as the Supreme Person, as Brahmā is realizing, yan-mitram . . . he is realizing that Kṛṣṇa, who is playing as a cowherd boy in Vṛndāvana, and He has become the most intimate friend of the residents of Vṛndāvana, headed by Nanda Mahārāja . . . Nanda Mahārāja was the zamindar rāja. He was vaiśya. He had 900,000's of cows, and he was the head of Vṛndāvana. All other cowherds men were his tenants or friends or family members. So Kṛṣṇa automatically became their very, very dear friend.
That is the significance of the residents of Vṛndāvana. They . . . their love for Kṛṣṇa was so ecstatic that they did not know anything except Kṛṣṇa. Therefore Brahmā says, aho bhāgyam aho bhāgyam: "How fortunate these residents of Vṛndāvana are that Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, has become their friend." And Kṛṣṇa is pūrṇa-brahma sanātanam. Not that He has assumed a body like a human being and He is imperson. No.
Just like Māyāvādī philosophers, they take it, they concoct like that, that "Ultimately the Absolute Truth is impersonal, but when He descends . . ." I do not know how the impersonal can be "He." So that theory is refuted hereby, because it is the statement of Brahmā, and he says that Kṛṣṇa is pūrṇa-brahma sanātanam. Then Caitanya Mahāprabhu says:
- apāṇi-pāda-śruti varje prākṛta pāṇi-caraṇa
- punaḥ kahe śīghra cale kare sarva grahaṇa
- (CC Madhya 6.150)
This is the process of describing a spiritual understanding, with reference to the Vedic injunction. Now, Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya Mahāprabhu is giving Vedic reference. He says, apāṇi-pāda. This is a reference from the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad. In the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad there is statement, impersonally, but referring to the person, transcendental person. The mantra is like this:
- apāṇi-pādo javano grahītā
- paśyaty acakṣuḥ sa śṛnoty akarṇaḥ
- sa vetti vedyaṁ na ca tasyāsti vettā
- tam āhur agryaṁ puruṣaṁ mahāntam
- (Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 3.19)
Puruṣam. Puruṣam means person, but the Vedic mantra begins, apāṇi-pāda: "Person, but has no leg and no hand." There are two kinds of statements: that He is person, puruṣa, mahānta, the greatest person, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, He is a person; but apāṇi-pāda, but He has no legs and no hands. So how is that? A person has no legs and no hands, and still He accepts whatever we offer?
Just like Kṛṣṇa says, tad aham aśnāmi, bhaktyā upahṛtam aśnāmi: "Anyone who offers Me anything," patraṁ puṣpaṁ phalaṁ toyam (BG 9.26), "with devotion," bhaktyā . . . The very word is bhaktyā. That means Kṛṣṇa is transcendental person, and the Vedic mantra confirms. When the Vedic mantra says apāṇi-pāda, "no hands, no legs," that is not imperson. "Person, but His hands and legs are not like us," that is apāṇi-pāda.
Caitanya Mahāprabhu explains that. Apāṇi-pāda śruti varje prākṛta pāṇi-caraṇa (CC Madhya 6.150): "When the Vedic mantra says that 'The Absolute Truth has no legs and no hands,' that means that the Personality of Godhead's hands and legs are not material." That is Caitanya Mahāprabhu's explanation.
- apāṇi-pāda śruti, veda-mantra
- varje prakṛta pāṇi-caraṇa
- na kahe śīghra cale kare sarva grahaṇa
- (CC Madhya 6.150)
"And although the Vedic mantra says that 'The Absolute Truth has no legs, no hands,' still, it confirms that 'He can accept whatever you offer, and He can walk more speedily than anyone.' Then He walks; at the same time, He has no legs. And He accepts your offering; He has no hands." What does it mean?
Apparently it is contradictory. If He has no leg, then how He can walk more speedily than anyone? These are Vedic mantra. "Nobody can capture Him, He is walking so speedily." But if He has no leg, how He is walking? But that, Caitanya Mahāprabhu explains that varje prākṛta pāṇi-caraṇa: "This means that the Supreme Personality of Godhead has no material body."
In the Kūrma Purāṇa it is said that the Supreme Personality, the Para-brahman, has no distinction between His body and self. There is no . . . absolute means there is no duality, as we have got duality—"I am," the soul, and this body, they are different. Therefore śāstra says, yasyātma-buddhiḥ kuṇape tri-dhātu ke (SB 10.84.13): "If anyone accepts this body as self . . ." This body is made of three dhātus: kapha, pitta, vāyu. I am not this. And Bhagavad-gītā also says:
- dehino 'smin yathā dehe
- kaumāraṁ yauvanaṁ jarā
- tathā dehāntara-prāptiḥ . . .
- (BG 2.13)
So dehi. Dehi means possessor of this body, the owner of this body. So owner of this body is different from this body. But in case of Kṛṣṇa or viṣṇu-tattva, there is no such difference. The self and the body, no difference. That is confirmed in the Kūrma Purāṇa.
Unfortunately the Māyāvādīs, they, either due to their poor fund of knowledge of the śāstras or by their whims, they say that "Kṛṣṇa or Viṣṇu, when comes, or the Absolute Truth when He descends, He assumes, He accepts, a material body." That is not a fact. Kṛṣṇa says, sambhavāmy ātma-māyayā (BG 4.6). It is not that Kṛṣṇa accepts a material body. No. Kṛṣṇa has no such distinction, material . . . (indistinct) . . . Therefore Kṛṣṇa says, avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritam (BG 9.11): "Because I present Myself, descend Myself as a human being, the mūḍhas, or the rascals, they think of Me or deride at Me."
The Māyāvādīs, they will never worship the transcendental form of the Lord. They'll not worship. They will worship the imperson. And Kṛṣṇa has said, kleśo adhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām (BG 12.5). Of course, impersonal, personal is the same Absolute Truth. But if you try to reach the Absolute Truth through His impersonal attachment, then it will be more troublesome.
The jñānīs, those who want to understand the Absolute Truth by their material, imperfect knowledge, how . . . ataḥ śrī-kṛṣṇa-nāmādi na bhaved grāhyam indriyaiḥ (CC Madhya 17.136). Our manipulation of the senses is not possible to understand what is Kṛṣṇa.
The Vedic mantra also it is said, nayam ātmā pravacanena labhyaḥ (Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 3.2.3): "You cannot realize the ātmā, you cannot be self-realized, simply by talking. You may be very big speaker, nice speaker, but that is not the process—simply by speaking very nicely you can understand the Absolute Truth." Nayam ātmā pravacanena labhya na medhayā: "Neither you can understand the Absolute Truth because you have got a very nice brain, a great scientist." Then Sir Isaac Newton would have discovered what is God, or Professor Einstein or Sir Jagadish Chandra Bose, they could have understand. No, they cannot. Because they have very nice, finer tissues of the brain, it does not mean.
It is a different process. It is a . . . to understand God, or Kṛṣṇa, it is not material process. Therefore Kṛṣṇa said, bhaktyā mām abhijānāti yāvān yaś cāsmi tattvataḥ (BG 18.55): only through devotional service He can be known. Nāhaṁ prakāśaḥ sarvasya yogamāyā-samāvṛtaḥ (BG 7.25). Kṛṣṇa is covered by the curtain drawn by yogamāyā. Therefore Kṛṣṇa cannot be understood by everyone, neither His teaching, Bhagavad-gītā, can be understood without becoming a devotee of Kṛṣṇa. This is not possible.
Therefore Kṛṣṇa says to Arjuna that bhakto 'si priyo 'si me (BG 4.3): "Because you are My very dear friend, therefore I shall speak to you." Rahasyaṁ hy etad uttamam: "Without you, nobody can understand." Kṛṣṇa (Arjuna) was a military man. He was not a brāhmin, neither a Vedāntist. You cannot expect a military man, a kṣatriya, to be highly learned in Vedic scriptures. That is not possible.
They hear from the brāhmins. The brāhmins, they are expected to be highly learned scholars in Vedas, because that is their department. Jñānaṁ vijñānam āstikyaṁ brahma-karma svabhāva-jam (BG 18.42). Brahma jānātīti brāhmaṇaḥ. Brāhmaṇa . . . therefore we call brāhmaṇa, "paṇḍita," "paṇḍitajī." Paṇḍitajī has never seen the pages of Vedas, but still, he is going on under the name of paṇḍitajī.
So that kind of paṇḍitajī not wanted. Actually a brāhmaṇa means he is truthful. And one of the greatest commentator of Bhagavad-gītā, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, he says truthful means one should be truthful even to his enemies. Sometimes we have to hide something from the enemies. That is diplomacy. But Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa says: "A brāhmaṇa should be so truthful that he will disclose everything to his enemy also." Satyam. Titikṣa ārjavam śuci śama dama—these are the qualification. Jñānaṁ vijñānam āstikyaṁ brahma-karma svabhāva-jam (BG 18.42).
So without this brahminical qualification one cannot understand the Vedic knowledge. Therefore it is stated sometimes that a śūdra is prohibited from reading Vedas. That does not mean that reading of Vedic culture or Vedic knowledge is monopolized by a certain class of men. Not that. The idea is . . . just like in our ordinary educational system, there is some prohibition that unless one is graduate, he cannot be admitted in the law college. That is not a prohibition, that is the necessary qualification to understand.
Similarly, to understand the Vedas, the necessary qualification is that one must be a qualified brāhmin. Not that Mr. Max Muller, he has got little knowledge of Sanskrit and he translates. That kind of translation is no use, just like so many commentaries on the Bhagavad-gītā without becoming a devotee of Kṛṣṇa is useless. It has no meaning, because Kṛṣṇa says that bhaktyā mām abhijānāti (BG 18.55): "Only through devotional service one can understand Me." And how a nondevotee can understand Him? He has no scope to enter into the knowledge of Bhagavad-gītā. So first qualification is that he must be a pure devotee of Kṛṣṇa. Then it will be revealed. In the Śrīmad-Bhāgavata there is a verse:
- athāpi te deva padāmbuja-dvayam-
- prasāda-leśānugṛhīta eva hi
- jānāti tattvaṁ (bhagavan-mahimno)
- na cānya eko 'pi ciraṁ vicinvan
- (SB 10.14.29)
"My dear Lord, one who has a little," I mean to say, "favorable connection with Your lotus feet, he can understand You." Athāpi te deva padāmbuja-dvaya-prasāda: "One who has got a little prasāda from Your lotus feet, such person can understand You." Prasāda-leśānu . . . jānāti tattvam: "He can understand what You are." Kṛṣṇa says that:
- manuṣyāṇāṁ sahasreṣu
- kaścid yatati siddhaye
- yatatām api siddhānāṁ
- kaścid vetti māṁ tattvataḥ
- (BG 7.3)
To understand Kṛṣṇa is not very easy job. Kṛṣṇa says: "Out of many millions of men, one is trying to become perfect in this human form of life." Not everyone is trying. First of all one has to become brāhmin or acquire the brahminical qualification. That is the platform of sattva-guṇa. Unless one comes to the platform of sattva-guṇa, there is no question of perfection.
Nobody can understand, nobody can achieve perfection on the platform of rajo-guṇa and tamo-guṇa, because one who is addicted with rajo-guṇa and tamo-guṇa, he is always very greedy and lusty. Tato rajas-tamo-bhāvāḥ kāma-lobhādayaś ca ye (SB 1.2.19). One who is infected with the material qualities of ignorance and passion, he is lusty and greedy. That's all.
Therefore you will see, generally, people are very much lusty and greedy. They are accumulating money, crores and crores; still, they are not satisfied. In Western country we see very usually. There are many, many workers, working very hard from very poor state. Just like Henry Ford, Mr. Rockefeller, they started life from a very humble state, but they accumulated immense wealth, and still, they were not satisfied.
In our country also there are many Birlas and such, accumulating money, money, money. They are greedy because infected with the quality, modes of nature, ignorance and passion. Vaiśya means passion and ignorance, kṣatriya means passion and brāhmins means goodness. These are the different qualities.
So one has to come to the platform of goodness. Then he has to transcend the platform of goodness, come to the pure transcendental platform, vasudeva, sattvaṁ-viśuddham, sattva-guṇa. In this material world, sattva-guṇa is also sometimes mixed with rajo-guṇa and tamo-guṇa. That is the nature. So one has to transcend the platform of sattva-guṇa. Śuddha-sattva. Sattvaṁ viśuddhaṁ vasudeva-śabditam. That is the vasudeva platform, when Kṛṣṇa appears.
So manuṣyāṇāṁ sahasreṣu (BG 7.3). So generally people are addicted, infected with the qualities of ignorance and passion. How he can understand Kṛṣṇa? It is not possible. So one has to engage himself this devotional service. Then you can . . . you may argue that "How these Europeans and Americans . . .? They are supposed to be in ignorance and passion. How they are coming to the platform of transcendental platform of pure goodness?" That is possible. That is possible by the execution of bhāgavata-dharma. Nityaṁ bhāgavata-sevayā (SB 1.2.18). Tato rajas-tamo bhāvāḥ.
There is a . . . there are verses in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam that śṛṇvatāṁ sva-kathāḥ kṛṣṇaḥ puṇya-śravaṇa-kīrtanaḥ (SB 1.2.17). One has to hear. Therefore śravaṇa and kīrtana, hearing and chanting, is very important. Śṛṇvatāṁ sva-kathāḥ kṛṣṇaḥ, especially hearing and chanting of Kṛṣṇa. Kīrtanād eva kṛṣṇasya mukta-saṅgaḥ paraṁ vrajet (SB 12.3.51). Simply by discussing and hearing and reciting Bhagavad-gītā purely, not by interpreting wrongly . . . as it is. As Kṛṣṇa says, man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī mām (BG 18.65), you have to accept that. You cannot change that. You cannot say, "It is not to Kṛṣṇa; it is the Kṛṣṇa's self and this and that."
So śṛṇvatāṁ sva-kathāḥ kṛṣṇaḥ. One who hears Bhagavad-gītā as it is or Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam from devotees . . . Śṛṇvatāṁ sva-kathāḥ kṛṣṇaḥ puṇya-śravaṇa-kīrtanaḥ. Because simply by hearing he achieves the result of pious activities . . . and Kṛṣṇa says also in the Bhagavad-gītā that, "One can be engaged in My service, in devotional service, who is freed from all contamination of sinful life."
- yeṣāṁ anta-gataṁ pāpaṁ
- janānāṁ puṇya-karmāṇam
- te dvanda-moha-nirmuktā
- bhajante māṁ dṛḍha-vratāḥ
- (BG 7.28)
Unless one is freed from all contamination of sinful life, one cannot concentrate in the devotional service of Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa says.
So the process is, as it is recommended in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, śṛṇvatāṁ sva-kathāḥ: simply you sit down and hear what Kṛṣṇa says. Don't comment wrongly, whimsically. Don't gratify your senses. Submissively, namanta . . . as Caitanya Mahāprabhu also recommends from Bhāgavata, jñāne prayāsam udapāsya namanta eva (SB 10.14.3). Just be submissive, bhavadīya-vārtām, and try to hear Kṛṣṇa submissively. Then you'll benefit. If you make your own commentation, then you will be wrongly directed. You have to . . . therefore Kṛṣṇa said:
- evaṁ paramparā-prāptam
- imaṁ rājarṣayo viduḥ
- sa kālena
- yogo naṣṭaḥ parantapa
- (BG 4.2)
Because the paramparā system was lost, therefore Kṛṣṇa said that "The system recommended in the Bhagavad . . . is lost off. Therefore I am speaking again to you the same yoga system." So one has to receive the knowledge of Bhagavad-gītā by the paramparā system. Just like Arjuna. Arjuna heard Bhagavad-gītā. And how he understood Bhagavad-gītā? He understood Kṛṣṇa as a person. Paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān, puruṣaṁ śāśvatam ādyam (BG 10.12). That is real Bhagavad-gītā understanding.
And Arjuna said, sarvam etam ṛtaṁ manye yan māṁ vadasi keśava (BG 10.14). As Kṛṣṇa says that sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja (BG 18.66), so he accepted that. That is Bhagavad-gītā reading, not that, "It is not to person Kṛṣṇa; it is to His self," and this and that. No. Therefore we are presenting Bhagavad-gītā as it is.
So it is very unfortunate that the Supreme Personality of Godhead, accepted by all the ācāryas—not only at the present age; previously also—Vyāsadeva, Nārada, Asita, Devala, they are all great ācāryas. And in the recent years, Śaṅkarācārya, he also admitted. Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, Viṣṇu Svāmī, Lord Caitanya—all these authorities, they are accepting Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Then how is that—a less intelligent class of men, they are commenting differently? That is not good. They may comment, they go on talking all nonsense, but no sane man will accept them. That is a different thing.
But those who are sane, they should judge over this, that "Why we should deny that, 'God is imperson'? God is person." Kṛṣṇa came. Kṛṣṇa exhibited His godly potencies, energies, when He was present. There is no . . . in the history you won't find another second person like Kṛṣṇa in the whole history of the world. Apart from other points of view, Bhagavad-gītā, that is admitted, spoken by Kṛṣṇa, such deep, profound knowledge—there is no second imitation or second copy like Bhagavad-gītā in the whole world. That is admitted by all scholars, all religionists.
Therefore He is pūrṇa-jñāna, pūrṇa-brahma. Bhagavad-gītā is pūrṇa-jñāna. The Bhagavān's one qualification: He is fully wise. Nobody is wiser than Him. That is one of the qualification. Nobody is richer than Him, nobody is powerful than Him, nobody is influential than Him, nobody is beautiful than Him, and nobody is renouncer than Him. Ṣaḍ-aiśvarya. That will be explained.
So Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, admitted by all ācāryas. And on the basis of that authority, we are preaching all over the world that "You are searching after God? Here is God: kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam." Kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam. In the Bhāgavata has given different list of different incarnation of God, but ultimately concludes that ete cāṁśa-kalāḥ puṁsaḥ kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam (SB 1.3.28): "All the incarnations, they are parts or parts of the parts." Aṁśa means part, and kalāḥ means part of the part. "But svayaṁ pūrṇa-bhagavān, ṣoḍaśa-kala pūrṇa, ṣaḍ-aiśvarya-pūrṇa-bhagavān is Kṛṣṇa." That is the verdict all Vedas, all śāstras.
So we should also accept in that light, kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam. Īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ (Bs. 5.1). And Kṛṣṇa also says personally, ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavaḥ (BG 10.8): "I am the origin of even Brahma, Śiva and Viṣṇu also." Ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavaḥ mattaḥ sarvaṁ pravartate.
So from any . . . now, here Caitanya Mahāprabhu says that Kṛṣṇa is person, the Supreme Personality of Godhead is person, but He is not a person like us. That is difference. But less intelligent persons, they think Kṛṣṇa, as soon as He is a person, "He is a person like us." That is a mistake. He is not a person like any one of us. Therefore He is confirmed by the Vedas, apāṇi-pāda javano grahītā (Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 3.19): "This Absolute Truth has no leg or hand; still, He can walk very swiftly and He can accept anything you offer." That means His hands and legs are not like ours. That is transcendental.
So Caitanya Mahāprabhu is trying to explain before Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya that the Absolute Truth is a person, a person like you and me. Cetana . . . nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.13). He is the Supreme Person, the chief person. We are all also individuals, Kṛṣṇa is also individual, but He is the chief and we are subordinate. That is the difference.
Thank you very much. Hare Kṛṣṇa.
(break) God is not poor man, but you are mismanaging. (Hindi) . . . (indistinct) . . . (break) (end)