Ratha Yatra | HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj | Malaysia | 14 June 2025
nama om vishnu-padaya krishna-preshthaya bhu-tale,
srimate bhaktivedanta-svamin iti namine.
namas te sarasvate deve gaura-vani-pracarine,
nirvisesha-sunyavadi-pascatya-desa-tarine
jaya sri-krishna-chaitanya prabhu nityananda
sri-adwaita gadadhara shrivasadi-gaura-bhakta-vrinda
Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare
Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma Hare Hare
So we are celebrating the Ratha yatra, Jagannath Ratha Yatra. Of course Ratha yatra’s are very common in India not only for Jagannath, that’s one rath yatra which is held in June- July like that time traditionally. If you look in India in the temples you will find each temple has a Rath [Laughs]. So if you go to Madurai there is a huge rath for their Meenakshi deity, you goto Udupi, Krishna has His rath. Even we go to Mylapore temple they have their rath [Laughs], we go to Shiva temple they have a rath. So, it’s not only pertaining to Vishnu, rath is also for Shiva and Durga devi etc they have raths also. So its also common [not audible].
Devotee : Indra, we have for Indradev as well.
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj : Also [Laughs] Pasupathi has a rath ?
Devotee : I don’t know.
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj : So, it is quite a common thing to have the rath. So, the rath is there obviously because rath is a chariot [Laughs]. The deity goes out on the chariot. So in the sense Krishna goes out on His chariot. Even if we find in Bhagavatham, the kings go out on the chariot, Pariksit goes out on his chariot, and even Puranjana goes out on his chariot [Laughs], and he goes out hunting, whatever like that. So it’s a festive occasion for the temple when the Lord leaves the temple and goes out. Usually, of course, they don’t take the main deity. They take a small deity. In the case of the Puri rātha yāthra, they take the main deity [Laughs]. So that’s quite a thing because the main deity is also very big. So in any case, the rath is a common festival. But for ISKCON, actually the Jagannath rath is the one that is celebrated the most.
Of course, now that in India, the Puri temple says you cannot have the Ratha yatra on another day. Just like you cannot have Janmastami in the middle of winter, nobody does that. So you cannot have rath yatra in the middle of winter in Australia or somewhere either [Laughs]. It’s illegal. It’s not respectful [Laughs]. But in India, of course, we have rath yatra. In Chennai, we used to have it in January [Laughs]. So India, of course, agreed, okay, we’ll have the rath yatra on what? That was what, July? No. 29th? 27th. 27th of the month, June. So now they would have it on that day. So the Jagannath ratha yatra, very famous. So the rath is famous, of course, as I said. It’s a common festival to have the Lord go out, not just for Vishnu or Krishna, but for other deities also. The other point, of course, is that the deity is also unique. Not just Jagannath, actually all deities are unique. Because all religions do not have deities. In fact, most religions don’t have deities at all. If you look at all the major religions in the world, they do not have deities. It’s forbidden in Christianity and Islam to have deities, no deities. Of course, for mayavadis, there is no deity [Laughs]. No such thing as the ultimate deity, because it’s formless. So many religions forbid to have images of a Supreme Lord anywhere. Because God has no form. And that’s also prevalent not only in other countries, but also in India. Because Upanishads also say, the Bhagavatam says the Lord is Arupa, no form. So many people will not give form to God also, even in India. And that’s a common belief even among people nowadays. So they say, well, if God has no form, why do we have forms of Shiva in the temple or Durga Devi? That’s all secondary. That’s not real. That’s not real form of God. That’s all artificial [Laughs]. So, of course, there’s that conception.
Yes, we have many forms of God in Hinduism, but they’re also false [Laughs]. So many people will say that also, even in India. Which is actually equal to what the West says, all the forms are false or in Islam, all the forms are false. Of course, they go to the extreme of destroying those forms also [Laughs]. So but of course, maybe it’s a minority. In India, we’ll say, no, the forms are real. Maybe it’s a minority, I don’t know how many of minorities are left in India, I don’t know [Laughs]. But there’s probably some percentage, maybe it’s 40% or 30%. We’ll say at least, yeah, the forms are real. But even then, there’s a little confusion. Forms of who? Forms of Devatas are real, or forms of Vishnu are real. So they’ll say all are real.
So we have another confusion about who is God actually within Vedic religion or India [Laughs]. That confusion is not there in other religions. You just want God and nothing else. There’s no such thing as a choice of God [Laughs]. In India, you’ve got all sorts of choices, who to worship. And then it becomes confusing, who is God and who is not God. They say everybody is God. But that also, if we look in the scripture, is not so. Now some scriptures will praise Shiva and Durga and Ganesha and whatever, it’s true. But if we look at Bhagavatham, we’ll see something different. Ultimately it is said in Bhagavad-Gita, what does He say? All the devatas are temporary, so they cannot be God. Worship of devatas is false worship ultimately [Laughs]. So that type of statement is also there. But then what is real? The form of Supreme Lord, who is Vishnu or Krishna, that is real. That’s the real form. So that is the conclusion of Bhagavatham and Bhagavad-Gita, all the Vaishnavas. It’s not the philosophy, of course, of followers of Shiva or Durga or Ganesha or multi-deities or whatever, Karma-kanda, etc. They don’t believe that. So they say, well, okay, let’s be tolerant. Everybody follow the Vedas according to what they believe [Laughs]. So we also say that, yes, don’t disturb the minds of the ignorant people if they want to worship them, fine. And if they want to worship something that’s in the Vedas, fine. And even Krishna also says, fine. I give them the faith by which they can worship whatever they want. So if they want to worship Durga Devi, you will find scriptures to glorify Durga Devi as Supreme. If you want to worship Shiva as Supreme, you’ll find Shiva Puranas and the Skanda Purana, etc., glorifying Shiva. So you’ll find and even Bhagavatam says, do not disturb these people [Laughs]. So that’s true also. On one level. Still, we should not think that because of this, everything is the same. And the goal is the same. No it is permitted. Doesn’t mean it’s the absolute truth.
So there is many scriptures, and of course there’s interpretation of scriptures, many rules and scriptures. But they’re there for a certain purpose. So we have scriptures that will permit animal sacrifices. And then people say, ah!, you’re saying I’m not allowed to, look the Vedas are saying, kill the animal and eat them [Laughs]. It’s there. So simply because scriptures permit certain things, you should offer the animal and sacrifice doesn’t mean that this is something obligatory that everybody does. Nor that everybody should do it, or that even some people should do it. But rather, it is there that if you really have to eat meat, then at least you only limit it to certain animals and under certain procedures of scripture. That’s all. So it’s limited under certain things. It’s not permitting meat eating, etc. So we have to be careful of our interpretation of scriptures.
Scriptures will say many things. And you can take them as absolute when actually they’re not. So then, of course, the meaning of words is also, can be interpreted. So they often use what’s called a potential case, which is like gurum evābhigacchet (Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 1.2.12). You should approach the guru for vijnana [Laughs]. ‘Abhigacchet’ is the potential case. So it could mean must go to guru to get knowledge, or you should go to the guru to get knowledge. So must means it’s obligatory, you have to go to guru. That of course for that statement, yes, it is necessary to get knowledge, you have to go to guru. But another meaning of the word, which is often used. So you should offer the animal in sacrifice [Laughs]. So that’s quite different from you must offer an animal in sacrifice, and then you must eat it [Laughs]. It’s got quite a different meaning [Laughs]. So the should and the must are quite different there. So the same words maybe used, but with a different meaning to it. One is it’s maybe permitted if you have to do it, then do it this way. The other is you must do it completely. So some of those rules are musts. For instance, you have to do your Sandhya-vandana, gayatri mantra every day three times that’s a must for Brahmanas or twice-born persons. But then so many other things are not must, they are ‘should’. You should offer this and do this or whatever. Okay, you should offer a sacrifice to so-and-so on a full moon if you want a male child or something like that. That’s not a must, it’s if you want to have children and so on and so forth, then you can do this [Laughs]. Do it this way. So we have to see the meaning of statements of the Vedas.
So yes, the Vedas permit so many things, but it may not be absolute. So it becomes a little confusing, and therefore we have to have learned people to go through the Vedic statements and come up with a proper conclusion. Even then we have problems [Laughs]. So one of the main persons to tell us how to interpret the Vedas and have different statements is Jaimini. He gives us all these different alternatives. Some are set rules.
vidhis- these you have to do. Others are you can’t do it – niyama. Others, you can do it with so many negative conditions to it. That’s called pratisankhya.. parisankhya, sorry. So you’ve got three levels of Vedic statements like that. He says all these things. So one has to be familiar with the Vedic language in order to actually come to the conclusion. And the funny thing is that even Jaimini who says all these rules, he also comes to the wrong conclusion [Laughs]. So he says, yes, offer sacrifice and you go to Svargaloka, and Svargaloka is eternal, because Vedas says that. So therefore that’s the Karma-mimamsa philosophy. We don’t have to worry about God or anything. You do your sacrifice, you go to Svargaloka, it is eternal. That’s the conclusion of Karma-mimamsa philosophy, which is one of the major interpretations of the Vedas. And it was followed quite strictly even in Sankaracharya’s philosophy, the fight against a lot of these Karma-kandis, as well as, of course, the Buddhists, the fight against the Karma-kandis as well [Laughs]. So even he can make a mistake. And he’s the one who gave all many rules for interpreting the Vedas, which even the Vaishnavas follow largely. But he can also make mistakes. So, therefore, Vedas are there, sages are there, about God, who is God, or whatever. And we have to be very, very serious about getting the conclusion. So, Sankaracharya came along and he says, reject all the Karma-mimamsa, Jaimini, that interpretation. You have to go for Jnana-kanda, Upanishad, Vedanta Sutra, and there we’ll find the conclusion. And, of course, this is called superior knowledge, Uttara-mimamsa, that portion of the Vedas which deals with the higher [Laughs] aspects. After you’ve done, satisfied your material desires with Karma kanda, you go to Jnana kanda and understand that Brahman is real. So he’s the one that kind of got people away from Karma-mimamsa into more intellectual and, let’s say [Laughs], spiritual things.
But even Sankaracharya makes a mistake [Laughs], because he made another interpretation of Vedanta. And what is it? Brahman has no form, no voice, no activities. Vishnu is illusion, everything is illusion, only Brahman is real, only oneness. So, again, a very learned person was able to defeat Jaimini and his materialistic philosophy about Svargaloka, and even he gives the wrong conclusion. Of course, we credit, he at least says that Svargaloka is not eternal [Laughs]. That much he got right [Laughs]. So, it’s the response of the Vaishnavas after Sankaracharya, like Ramanuja, and Madhva, and Lord Caitanya to give us the correct meaning of everything. So, therefore, interpretation of Vedas and Scripture in general, it requires great learning, great logic, and, you can say, inspiration of the Supreme Lord Himself to get the right meaning. Fortunately, we do have works like Bhagavatam, who will condense everything, or Bhagavad Gita, and it will condense everything and give us a nice conclusion, which is very easy to understand. For instance, what is the conclusion of Bhagavad Gita?
“sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja” [BG-18.66]
If you just know that and understand what that means, then you’ve got the conclusion. And you don’t have to go studying all the scripture, that scripture, and Karma-mimamsa, and
Sankaracharya’s Vedanta [Laughs], and even Ramanuja’s defeat of [Laughs] Sankaracharya’s Sri-bhasya, whatever. You don’t have to get into all the intellectual work of going through everything. If you could just understand the conclusion of Bhagavad Gita. Give up everything and surrender to Krishna. And that covers, that’s the conclusion of everything. So that’s like a final conclusion after we’ve gone through all these different philosophies. And then we come to the conclusion, which is the Vaishnava conclusion, which is expressed in different ways in the four different Vaishnava scriptures.
Slightly different ways, but they all come to this conclusion. Worship Supreme Lord. Supreme Lord is real. He has form, qualities, and activities. But it’s not everybody is God. Those forms which are mentioned in the scripture, that is Vishnu, Krishna, Rama, Narasimha, these are all forms of one God. That is the object of worship. And that produces the highest benefit for the individual Jiva, which we call the purusartha, the final goal for the Jiva, which will satisfy him, which is prema. We have to worship that one personality, Bhagavan. Okay, so that is established by works like Bhagavad Gita and Bhagavatham. But not only that, if you look at other scriptures, also Vishnu Purana, all the Sattvic Puranas, you’ll find that. Even if you look at Skanda Purana, you’ll find statements like that. So that’s the conclusion. It’s a little bit rare, as I said, to come to that conclusion. Even for people of India, they’re all confused about what’s what. As I said, not just people of India nowadays. Even in ancient times, they were a little confused. Even Jaimini put a complete materialistic philosophy. We have Kapila, Sankhya, Gautama, Nyaya, all these things are all confusions. Even Sankaracharya came up with wrong conclusions. So it’s very possible, even if you’re very intelligent, even if you know the Vedas, you come up with wrong conclusions. So it’s a little bit rare that you get a Vaishnava [Laughs] coming up with the right conclusion. Due to the mercy of Caitanya Mahaprabhu, then that conclusion has become more prevalent.
It was there, of course ,so we have Ramanujacharya’s movement and Madhvacharya’s movement and other movements there to some degree. But still, if you were to look around, you’d find that the majority of people were either just a little confused or they were following Sankaracharya [Laughs], largely in India. They probably didn’t have school. If you go to Indian school, probably Sankaracharya is the main one they’ll worship [Laughs]. And his followers, ultimately Ramakrishna, probably, or like that Vivekananda, were offshoots of Sankaracharya’s philosophy. So that they’ll think is Hinduism or whatever, conclusion of the Vedas. So to be a Vaishnava is a little bit rare [Laughs]. But, as I said, through the mercy of Caitanya Mahaprabhu, it becomes not so rare. So more people nowadays are reading Bhagavad Gita. Because Prabhupada has translated Bhagavad Gita into English. It has been translated into many languages and it’s been distributed around the world. So it’s become a more common thing.
Of course, Indian philosophy, Krishna and Vishnu, not really known. In 1960s, when I was going to university, yes, there was a Bhagavad Gita. I think it was Edgerton’s Bhagavad Gita was translated. That was it. I tried to read it. Couldn’t read it [Laughs]. Didn’t make much sense. And the common philosophy was, among scholars at least, was that, okay, yes, Indian philosophy is there. And it’s represented by Sankaracharya. That’s it. Indian philosophy, Indian religion means Sankara’s, Brahman, no form of God, etc., etc. That was accepted. But, as I said, due to Lord Caitanya’s mercy, Prabhupada’s translations and books and preaching, etc., devotees preaching, then that is gradually changing. So people are being more aware of Vaishnava philosophy in general and particularly Lord Caitanya’s movement, etc. So Lord Caitanya, of course, has presented the same Vaishnava philosophy. God has form, qualities and activities, etc., which in a sense is a little rare, because other religions don’t accept form of God at all.
Now, there are some religions which may accept the form of God, but we can say they’re not major religions. And the concept of God also is not very clear. It’s more like materialistic. So, for instance, we’ll have primitive, so-called primitive religions. And they will worship foxes, cats, maybe dogs also, I’m not sure [Laughs]. Like Egypt, they have a cat goddess. They have a hawk, is it a hawk, a falcon or something? God, like that. It’s the god of death, I think. Crocodiles, they have a crocodile goddess, god also. There are all sorts of gods like this, but they’re basically animal forms or whatever like that. So, the form of God is there, but that concept of God also is not really pure. It’s more materialistic. I think they call it animism [Laughs]. They worship the spirits and the animals and whatever like that, animism. So, the spirit in the animal is God. So, it’s not really a high concept where we have a spiritual form of God in the spiritual world, and to get that to realize, then you have to do a specific practice, a complete non-materialistic practice. There’s no such concept, you know. So, this refined concept of a spiritual God with the form is quite rare in that sense. But due to the mercy of Caitanya Mahaprabhu and Srila Prabhupada, then it’s become common around the world.
Now, the whole thing is, okay, God has a form. But you could not see the form with your material eye. Don’t agree with that. Not only you cannot see with your eye, you cannot hear with your material ear, or think with your mind. That’s true also. Because God is spiritual, our senses and body are material. He’s spiritual, so different. So, how do we approach God? How do we realize this God? Why God? If God has a form, what’s significance? Because we can never see Him because we’ve got material eyes. So, the whole process of bhakti is to help you develop spiritual senses and spiritual eyes, so you can see God and hear God. That’s what the process of bhakti is for, to do that. Develop your spiritual eye. Then you can see the form of God.
But then the promise is there, yes, you will see God, but what does He look like [Laughs]? And we get a little curious. We can’t see Him. So then you have to have some descriptions to help us at least worship God, if He has a form, etc. We have to have some descriptions or something there to help us out. So, that’s true. So, though it says God has no form and is beyond words and mind, etc. At the same time, we’ll find in the scriptures, descriptions of the Supreme Lord. Vishnu has four arms. He’s blue in color. So many descriptions of Krishna. And then people will say, ah now, you’re contradicting yourself [Laughs]. You cannot approach God with words. These are words, material words expressing God.
So, actually in the Bhagavatham, there’s a whole chapter dedicated to answering this question. Chapter 87 of the Tenth Canto. The question, Pariksit asks the question, well, God cannot be approached by words, mind, etc. Can’t express, but then the Vedas are trying to express God with words. So, what is this? How can you do that? How can the Vedas describe God at all? So, the final answer in that chapter is that, it is true that material words and forms, etc. cannot convey God at all. But the words of the Vedas, are not material. And of course, they think, wow, how you can prove that [Laughs]? So, the proof is the Vedas themselves, that’s all. How do we accept that? Faith. As all scriptures cannot be proved, they have to be accepted on faith. Any religion will have to accept any scripture on faith. You cannot just logically analyze it. Then you could tear it apart and you’d have to reject it. It has to be accepted on faith. There are certain statements there you could not prove by material means, obviously, because God is not material [Laughs]. So, we just have to accept the statements about God and what he looks like on faith. Which you will realize when you do the practice, that’s all.
But now, we use these words, which look like they’re material, but actually, if what is expressed in scripture is confirmed when you realize it, then the words are not material at all. They may look material to us, and we may interpret them materially, but when we actually see God with a form that’s bluish in color with four hands, then it’s not an imaginary material description at all. So, in that sense, the words of scripture are not material, they’re spiritual. They’re carrying an absolute value because it’s something which is true in the spiritual world. Of course, how that blue is expressed and when you actually realize Krishna’s blue color is completely different from this blue here, that blue there which is all material, definitely. And Krishna’s holding the flute or playing the flute or Krishna with four hands is going to be a little bit different from what we think four is and whatever like this. It’ll be a little bit different, obviously, because it’s spiritual, it’s not material.
Nevertheless, we get some idea of what that is from our present conditioned state through what scripture says. So, therefore, scripture can express form of God, activities of God, etc. But it will require our realization to see them truly, how they’re expressed truly. And that’s just a little bit, you know, saying useless to argue over the meaning of scripture or whatever like this too much because a lot of it is due to realization, not because of analysis of words by material logic, etc. Which is exactly what scripture says, you cannot approach scripture by logic ultimately and just analyze it logically, come to the conclusion. It requires realization. So faith is necessary to accept the scripture and sadhana is there with devotion so we can realize it and appreciate it.
Logic is not rejected also. We have to be a little bit intelligent to analyze scripture nicely so we don’t get the completely wrong description [Laughs]. So we do need to use logic also. So logic is not rejected. But it should be in harmony with the scripture itself and with faith and the belief and the bhakti, etc. So in Nectar of Devotion, Rupa Goswami says that we do not reject logic, but it should be in coordination with the scripture itself and with our devotion. A little bit of ruci or taste should be there. Then we can get the right meaning. So anyway, the scripture can convey the meaning of God and the form of God, etc. That’s one thing. And then, once we got that, then the people would say, OK, God has four arms, God is blue, God has a crown on His head, God is carrying a club in His hand, God’s got a lotus in His hand, or whatever. We meditate on that.
So the next thing, they want to make forms [Laughs]. And this becomes a problem for many religions also. No form of God, no idols of God, can’t have forms of God. Well, destroy them if you make forms of God [Laughs]. It’s very prevalent in the world. And then, of course, this is completely opposite of what happens in India. They like to make forms and worship forms. Of course, we can say that all countries like to make forms also, but they get forbidden by the religion, but still secretly do make forms anyway [Laughs]. They start putting pictures on the walls. People tear them down. They don’t put more pictures up there [Laughs], whatever. So we cannot escape forms in the human. We like to make forms or whatever. So if you look in the ancient caves, the cavemen, etc., they’re putting forms, they’re drawing things, you know, like 40,000 years ago or whatever. They’re just hunters or whatever. They’re drawing forms of them. Form is very attractive to the human being. And therefore, they began worshiping forms. And they may worship, the Egypts are worshiping, you know, the cat and the crocodile or whatever, different forms like that. So it’s very, very—it’s a habit of the human being to worship a form.
If we’re going to worship, we want to worship a form like that. But it can get out of hand, and that’s why many scriptures say no forms at all. So same is there. Vedas say, yeah, God has a form, but then if you’re going to make a form of God, it should also be not imaginary. It should go by scripture. So it has to do with the scriptural directions, not any form you want [Laughs]. So we have specific ways to make the deity, in fact. All scriptures are there. They’ll stop at these scriptures or whatever. Exact proportions. How long the arms should be, how long the fingers should be, how long the fingernails should be, where the nose should be placed, how big the ears should be [Laughs]. Everything is, you know, portions there are for all the different types of deities. Everything is, like, laid out so you don’t have to imagine everything and say, well, I want to make my deity with, you know, bigger arms or shorter toes. No, you can’t do that. It has to be done according to scripture [Laughs]. So that’s one way of regulating so people don’t carry away with their imaginations.
So therefore, we have forms of God, but the forms are also regulated. What type of forms etc? Narasimha or Rama or whatever, they’re all defined by scripture. And they’re, say, regulated on how they’re worshipped. It’s not that anybody can make a form of worship. Some specialized makers, so that they’re done properly, out of certain materials, by certain processes, and then installed in a certain method for purification, and then worshipped according to regular rules, not you worship anyone you want and just worship when you want and don’t worship when you don’t want, etc. Everything defined by scripture. So that makes it not just a haphazard form. It makes it particular. So therefore, we get deities with installation, and we get deity worship established. So it has to all be very regulated according to scripture.
If you don’t do that, then it is like the idols, which get rejected by many religions as being as concocted or whatever. So that’s why it has to be done very standard. And that’s why it is coming with deity worship ministry, to regulate all that worship so you don’t just go off on your own and make your own worship. We have some deities, they do have very sincere devotees, but they may get a little carried away sometimes. So then we have, you know, they’re dressing the deity up like Santa Claus or [Laughs] with reindeer in front of everything [Laughs], you know. So it gets a little bit out of hand sometimes. People use their imagination too much, and their devotion, their imagination takes control and gets beyond what is permitted by scripture, etc. So we have to be very careful how we do things.
So getting back to the form, we have forms and we have different forms like Krishna, Rama, whatever. And even there, we have great variety. So if you look at the form, our form of Krishna is very different from the Jagannath form that we have, which is maybe different from Srinath form of Krishna or Radha raman form of Krishna. They all look very different.
So how can this be the same Krishna? He looks so different [Laughs]. So one answer, of course, is that it’s all done according to tradition and scripture, whatever, like that, according to realization of great devotees who maybe accepted those worship those forms, accept those forms, etc., and it’s also for that we will realize how true they are when we get spiritual vision [Laughs]. Then you won’t see them as different anymore. So all of our so-called seeing differences due to our material conceptions at the moment. We have many different forms that may look very different, but ultimately, it’s simply because we’re using our material eye at the moment. So we shouldn’t get too carried away with such prejudices. We should actually try to understand that ultimately, we should see the spiritual vision then we’ll see the real form of God, like that.
But these forms are there, and they’re not unreal. And they’re a help for us to concentrate our worship, so that we can finally realize the truth of that form which is before us. So Jagannath is one of those forms, and He looks very different from the other form, whatever. Of course, there’s a whole story of how he came about, whatever. He has no feet, whatever, no hands [Laughs], whatever, like that. He’s got big eyes, whatever. So a very different type of form, but accepted for countless ages, worshipped with great devotion, and he gave response to all the different devotees. So many stories of Jagannath and how He responded to devotees are there. And Lord Caitanya worshipped every day, went to the temple every day to worship that form. And when He was looking at that form, He saw Krishna [Laughs]. So therefore, very, very wonderful form of the Lord, inspiring for Lord Caitanya, and through that form, He saw Krishna in Vrindavan. So a very wonderful form of the Lord.
So today is His day when He goes out on His chariot, and he allows everybody to see him. The people who see Him may not know who He is, whatever, fine. But even then, they get the advantage, and they see the form of the Lord, whether they know who He is or not, they get some [Laughs] good benefit. Of course, even more important is, if they can hear the name of the Lord, which is even more powerful, they get the benefit of the name of the Lord, even if it’s accidental, and that can destroy all their karmas and do so many things. Many advantages with the Ratha Yatra. People get to see the Lord, hear the name of the Lord, they get to take prasadam. So these are things which will help these persons who are in ignorance develop some faith in the form of Jagannath.
Q & A
1) Maharaj we understand that sankaracharya preached impersonalism, but he also wrote Jagannath astakam..
Yes. Of course, he’s not the only one that spread impersonalism. Others are there also, like the Nyayakas, Gautama, Kanada, the atom theory [Laughs]. They’re all impersonalists in one sense. But Sankaracharya is not only impersonal, but he denies reality, everything, including the material world, except Brahman is the only real thing, with no form, qualities and activities, which is this complete oneness, one and only. At least the others accept duality [Laughs]. There’s a material world, there’s a Jiva, and there is a something impersonal there. He says no Jiva, no material world, only Brahman, with no form, qualities and activities. So he’s quite unique.
Now, he, of course, it’s not really proved [Laughs] that he wrote, or whatever, it’s tradition. Some people say he wrote that Jagannathastaka. He also wrote Krishnastaka, whatever, like there’s many things. Answer of followers of Sankaracharya, yes, he also writes about Durgadevi, Shiva, whoever, because people in the material world need something to worship. So he encourages them to worship these forms of Devatas, whatever. When they are pure, they don’t need, they give up this worship, and they just go for impersonal Brahman. So it’s just like a step towards impersonal Brahman, that’s it traditional worship. Of course, we have a different answer [Laughs]. We could say ultimately Shiva, Shiva incarnated as Sankaracharya. He’s also a devotee of the Lord. So therefore, he gets very enthusiastic sometimes [Laughs]. So people also glorify the Lord, because he’s the greatest devotee. But his devotees may misunderstand that and just take that as you know conditional worship.
2) Maharaj, speaking of deity worship, regarding Saligrama Sila worship, what’s actually the Prabhupada’s instruction regarding Saligrama Maharaj? Recently, I heard one senior devotee, he said, Prabhupada did not authorize Saligrama Shila worship in the temples.
So it’s a bit confusing. Maharaj, can you clarify this?
You look at Caitanya Caritamrta, there Prabhupada mentions the Saligrama. I think there was some past time about the Saligrama. Yes, very soon in our temples, we will introduce Saligrama Sila worship [Laughs]. And within Prabhupada’s lifetime, there were people worshiping Saligrama Silas and he never objected to that also. So, we can’t say he didn’t permit.
3) I was listening to a lecture of Prabhupada, and he was explaining that why sannyasis like Caitanya Mahaprabhu didn’t eat in the Brahmanas houses.
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj: That’s a traditional sannyasa thing, actually.
Devotee : Why was that? Because Prabhupada said that the Brahmanas worshiped Saligrama Sila, so he took prasadam there.
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj: True. That’s one thing. Of course, Lord Caitanya also broke that rule [Laughs]. He ate in Mathura.
Devotee : Sanodiya brahmana.
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj: Yeah, yeah. Who was actually outcast because the Muslims sprinkled water on him, so he was considered outcast [Laughs]. So nobody wanted to go near him anymore.
Devotee : Well, in general…
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj: No, it was the Sanodiya brahmana. What’s his name?
Devotee: Subodhi Rai.
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj: Subodhi Rai, yeah, yeah.
Devotee: But some of the Sanodiya brahmanas, the sannyasis of Prabhupada.
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj: Yeah, they would go there.
Devotee : He was particularly shocked at that. I heard because someone said because those Sanodiya Brahmanas engaged in business with jewelry and stuff like that…
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj: Oh, they were considered lower [Laughs].
Devotee: But that Sanodiya Brahmana was a disciple of Madhavendra Puri. Caitanya and Madhavendra Puri had taken prasadam in his house. And that’s why Madhavendra Puri also wanted to have it in his house.
4) There’s a lecture by Srila Prabhupada [Not audible]
People are inclined to the formless. Well, actually they’re more inclined to nothing [Laughs]. No religion, no form, no God, nothing, not even a formless God. That would be a more correct statement.
Devotee : Not audible
Well, I think maybe that’s kind of a comment on Sankaracharya, monism, etc., that more people in Kali-yuga will accept Mayavada philosophy. And, of course, one reason for that also, Prabhupada explains, is it’s more like an envy of God, because you merge into God. So people don’t want to worship God. They would rather be God [Laughs]. So this becomes an opportunity to be like God by merging into Him. So that would be a more popular form of worship in Kali-yuga, that surrendering to God, because the demonic tendency of being God is more prominent.
Hare Krsna !
Devotees : HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj Ki Jai!!!