Srimad Bhagavatam – 11.11.19 | HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj | ISKCON Chennai | May 11 2021
Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya
Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya
Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya
nama om vishnu-padaya krishna-preshthaya bhu-tale
srimate bhaktivedanta-svamin iti namine
namas te sarasvate deve gaura-vani-pracharine
nirvishesha-shunyavadi-pashchatya-desha-tarine
Jaya Śrī-Kṛṣṇa-Caitanya Prabhu Nityānanda
Śrī-Advaita Gadādhara Śrīvāsādi-Gaura-Bhakta-Vṛnda
Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare
Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare.
Reading from Srimad Bhagavatham 11th canto, 11th chapter verse 19
SB_11.11.19
gāṁ dugdha-dohām asatīṁ ca bhāryāṁ
dehaṁ parādhīnam asat-prajāṁ ca
vittaṁ tv atīrthī-kṛtam aṅga vācaṁ
hīnāṁ mayā rakṣati duḥkha-duḥkhī
Translation
My dear Uddhava, that man is certainly most miserable who takes care of a cow that gives no milk, an unchaste wife, a body totally dependent on others, useless children or wealth not utilized for the right purpose. Similarly, one who studies Vedic knowledge devoid of My glories is also most miserable.
Purport
A human being is actually learned or expert when he understands that all material objects perceived through the various senses are expansions of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and that nothing exists without the support of the Supreme Lord. In this verse, through various examples, it is concluded that the power of speech is useless if not engaged for the Supreme Lord. According to Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura, this verse implies that all of the functions of the various senses are useless if they are not engaged in the glorification of God. Indeed, the avadhūta brāhmaṇa previously stated to King Yadu that if the tongue is not controlled, one’s entire program of sense control is a failure. One cannot control the tongue unless he vibrates the glories of the Lord.
The example of the milkless cow is significant. A gentleman never kills a cow, and therefore when a cow becomes sterile and no longer gives milk, one must engage in the laborious task of protecting her, since no one will purchase a useless cow. For some time, the greedy owner of a sterile cow may continue thinking, “I have already invested so much money in taking care of this cow, and certainly in the near future she will again become pregnant and give milk.” But when this hope is proven futile, he becomes neglectful and indifferent to the health and safety of the animal. Because of such sinful neglect, he must suffer in the next life, after having already suffered because of the sterile cow in the present life.
Similarly, although a man may discover that his wife is neither chaste nor affectionate, he may be so eager to get children that he goes on taking care of such a useless wife, thinking, “I will teach my wife the religious duties of a chaste woman. By hearing historical examples of great women surely her heart will change, and she will become a wonderful wife to me.” Unfortunately, the unchaste wife in many cases does not change and also gives a man many useless children who are just as foolish and irreligious as she. Such children never give any happiness to the father, yet the father tediously labors to take care of them.
Also, one who has accumulated wealth by the mercy of God must be vigilant to give in charity to the right person and for the right cause. If such a right person or cause appears and one hesitates and selfishly does not give in charity, one loses his reputation, and in the next life he will be poverty-stricken. One who fails to give properly in charity spends his life anxiously protecting his wealth, which ultimately brings him no fame or happiness.
The previous examples are given to illustrate the uselessness of laboriously studying Vedic knowledge that does not glorify the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī comments that the spiritual vibration of the Vedas is meant to bring one to the lotus feet of the Supreme Lord, Kṛṣṇa. Many processes for achieving the Supreme Truth are recommended in the Upaniṣads and other Vedic literatures, but because of their innumerable and seemingly contradictory explanations, commentaries and injunctions, one cannot achieve the Absolute Truth, the Personality of Godhead, merely by reading such literature. If, however, one understands Śrī Kṛṣṇa to be the ultimate cause of all causes and reads the Upaniṣads and other Vedic literature as glorification of the Supreme Lord, then one can actually become fixed at the Lord’s lotus feet. For example, His Divine Grace Śrīla Prabhupāda translated and commented upon Śrī Īśopaniṣad in such a way that it brings the reader closer to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Undoubtedly, the lotus feet of Lord Kṛṣṇa are the only reliable boat by which to cross the turbulent ocean of material existence. Even Lord Brahmā has stated in the Tenth Canto of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam that if one gives up the auspicious path of bhakti and takes to the fruitless labor of Vedic speculation, one is just like a fool who beats empty husks in hopes of getting rice. Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī recommends that one completely ignore dry Vedic speculation because it does not bring one to the point of devotional service to the Absolute Truth, Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa.
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj:
So the subject continues from the previous verse, which had the example of how the cow that gives no milk. So the ultimate goal of the Vedic literature is to worship the Supreme Lord, and if that is not accomplished by reading the Vedic literature, it’s all useless. So the example was given of the cow, you take care of the cows, you spend all the money but no milk is there, so it’s also useless.
So to emphasize the uselessness then, he just gives some other examples. So the cow is useless, it gives no milk, the wife is useless if she is not faithful to the husband. If the body is dependent on other people, then it cannot act for your own self. If one raises children but the children turn out to be useless people, it’s also a big disappointment. If one uses wealth in the wrong way, then one simply gets bad karma. So we have to use things in the proper way. And if those things are not used properly, then they become useless. Of course, once the cow doesn’t give milk, there’s nothing one can do to fix the cow.
However, the Vedic literature is not like that. If we take the Vedic literature and we get the right meaning, then it is like the cow that gives milk. But if we get the wrong meaning out of the Vedas, then it is like the cow with no milk. So the whole trick with the Vedas is to get the right meaning. So the meaning is there, but we have to get access to it. So it is just like a treasure that one is unaware of. So the example is given of a treasure that is under the earth. But no one knows it’s there. So everyday people are walking over that big treasure. Oh, it is useless. But again, if a person knows the treasure is there, then he can dig it up and he can utilize that wealth.
In Caitanya Caritamrita another example is given. There is a man who also knows there is a treasure somewhere but he doesn’t know where it is. He digs it in one place and unfortunately he digs in wrong place where there is some ghost and it’s going to cast a lot of problems. So in this way, he digs in various areas, and each time he ends up with probably one place he picks up, he gets snakes. The snakes bite him. So somehow or other, he has to find out where the treasure is. So similarly, the Vedas are a good treasure, but it’s hidden. And therefore, we’ll have to find out how to get the proper meaning. So that is why we emphasize a parampara, a system and a tradition of gaining knowledge. If we try on our own, we can just end up with a lot of useless labor.
And for that reason, there were restrictions put upon the Vedas. Sudras were not allowed to hear or utter the Vedas. So the reason is that an unqualified person will get no benefit from reading or hearing the Vedas. But even one is a higher caste, if he does not go through the proper sources, also not get the proper meaning. And for this reason, people have great misconceptions about the meaning of the Vedas.
The Vedas are very vast. There are not just one Veda, there are four Vedas. And each Veda has four distinct parts to it. Usually we think of the Vedas as those verses like Purusha Sukta etc. but that’s one part of the Vedas coming down. There is another portion called Upanishad. Also called the Jñāna Khanda. And then there’s two portions, the Brahmanas, Aranyakas. They are called the Karma Khandas. So each Veda, the Rig Veda will have these four parts. The Sama Veda will have these parts. The Atharva Veda will have these parts. And this way, we have four Vedas and four parts each of them. Sixteen different distinct parts. So if we start studying that, we are bound to get confused. We will often find opposite statements. And based on that, we have different great sages advocating completely different philosophies.
So, Jaimini has produced the Karma mimamsa philosophy, which is very atheistic. And that is because he puts greater emphasis upon the Karma Khanda activities. And some others have an opposite philosophy everything is maya only Brahman is real. So they take certain statements and certain Upanishads as the proof. And all other statements they will ignore. So in this way, they also come to the wrong conclusion. So we do have to have a proper method of studying those words and coming to the proper conclusion.
And therefore, we have the four Vaishnava Sampradayas that give us the proper meaning. So with the aid of the Sampradaya and the Acharyas who explain this work, then we come up with a proper meaning. So then, the Vedas carry out their real function. So this is like the cow that gives milk. In this way, the devotee relies on scripture, but he also has to use the proper method to get the proper meaning.
Sometimes, we divide everyone up into Astika and Nastika. Astika generally means they believe in God. Nastika means they are atheists. But the technical use of the word is that the Astika is a person who accepts the Vedas and the Nastika does not accept the Vedas. So therefore, Buddhists and Jains and Christians and Muslims, even if they believe in God, they are called Nastikas. And if they accept the vedas but don’t believe in god like Jaimini, still they are called Nastika. So you may think accepting the Vedas is very good, but if you come up with wrong meaning its equivalent to not accepting it. So, it’s important that we get the proper meaning.
So, of course we can often wonder why Vedavyas wrote down this Vedas but it is so difficult to get the meaning out of these Vedas. It is not difficult, if one has the proper intelligence. But unfortunately, in Kali Yuga, there are very few people who have intelligence. And therefore, everyone will get the wrong meaning. So Vedavyasa realized this. And he made some arrangements, so that there would be a simpler method than the Vedas. So of course, he wrote the Brahma Sutras to explain the Upanishads. And he wrote the Puranas to explain the Vedas. He wrote the Mahabharata to explain the Vedas. And then he thought, everything is finished, I have done my work. But then, he was not feeling satisfied.
So then, Narada Muni came to him and said, Yes, it is true that you are not satisfied. Because even after writing so much, the people who learn this will be confused. When they read Mahabharat or some other puranas, they started worshipping devatas instead of the Supreme Lord. Therefore, all these scriptures even though it is supposed to be easier than vedas still people will make mistakes. So therefore, Narada muni advised Vedavyas to write clearly Krishna is designated as the final object of vedas. Then He wrote Srimad Bhagavatham. But of course, even the Bhagavatam is subject to interpretation. But even though Bhagavatam is written much more clearly than the other works to bring out the real conclusion, like kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam, still people can make mistakes. So even though the Lord makes things very simple, still, because of the nature of the human being, we will still get the wrong meaning.
Still, Srimad Bhagavatam is the simplest presentation of the final truth. But to get the proper meaning, then again we go through the proper Sampradaya. And in fact, we’ll find that most of our Acharyas have spent most of their time explaining the Bhagavatam. Sanatana Goswami, Jiva Goswami, Baladeva Vidyabhusana, Vishwanath Chakravarthi Thakur, all of them have given explanations for the Srimad Bhagavatam. So by this method, we are not likely to become confused. So therefore, we get the milk from the cow.
Hare Krishna !
Q&A
1.) Hare Krsna Maharaj, Dandavat Pranams. We see that Advaita philosophy have taken their content from the abheda Sruti section of the upanisad, similarly dvaita have taken from bheda Sruti, visistadvaitam take from the kataka sruti. How about our acintya beda-abedha Maharaj ? which section of upanisad is that taken or it is a synergy of these?
Shankaracharya mainly took his proofs from the principle Upanishads or what he said are the principles of Upanishads. So largely from Mundaka, Chandogya and Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. And maybe a little bit from Taittiriya Upanishad.
The Vaishnava acharyas don’t deny that these are major Upanishads, but they take the same upanisads and they gave different meaning. In fact, Shankaracharya takes certain statements from those works only and emphasizes those particular statements like aham Brahmasmi or Tattvamasi. So the Vaishnava acharyas have taken those same Upanishads and the same statements and explained them in a Vaishnav way.
Of course, Shankaracharya also argues that Shruti or the Upanishads will be stronger evidence than Puranas or Mahabharata or Bhagavad Gita. The Vaishnavas in particular, the Gaudiyas will say no, the Puranas, Mahabharata have equal authority.
2.) We see that Srimad Bhagavatam has been compiled by Srila Vyasadeva in his matured stage of bhakti and it is being considered as essence of all Vedic scriptures. Yet Sri Sampradaya people doesn’t seem to accept Krishna as Svayam Bhagavan and they consider him as avatar of Vishnu. How to understand this?
That is a matter of taste. Some people prefer to worship Vishnu, some prefer Rama, some like Krishna. So depending on one’s preference there, one will worship that form and emphasize that particular form.
As a matter of convenience, it is easier to argue about Narayana or Vishnu when talking about Upanishads and Vedas. So of course Vishnu is very prominent in the Vedas. But if we look at the Sampradayas, yes Madhava and Sri Sampradaya worshiped Vishnu as Supreme. But then if we look at Nimbarka and Vallabha, they worshiped Krishna as Supreme.
So ultimately Vishnu and Krishna are one, they are not different. But we distinguish Krishna from Vishnu by saying that He manifests on special qualities that do not manifest in Vishnu. So, in that sense He is the avatari, He is the source of all the avatars. Not that He is an avatar. He manifests everything that Vishnu manifests, plus He manifests extra.
3.) What is the actual difference between demigods and devotees?
Devatas are devotees. But they have been given particular powers to do certain things, like Agni is in charge of fire and Indra is in charge of rain.
4.) Regarding ‘Krishnastu Bhagavan Swayam’ – how Sri Sampradaya is interpreting this statement of Srimad Bhagavatam?
Well, I don’t know if they have written a long commentary on that. But I would suspect that they don’t distinguish that statement as being very special. So we take that statement as special because it says “tu”, after listing all the different avatars. But Krishna is special. Like other scriptures, you can also give different meanings to the statements of the Bhagavatam. So we give that particular statement a special meaning.
5.) Maharaj, can the four bona fide Sampradayas have further branches?
Well, yes for instance in the Sri sampardhaya we got two divisions the vadakalai and the thenkalai. So there is a slight difference there. But in others we don’t see those branches, such a distinct branch.
6.) We see that Gaudiya Vaishnavas take the worship of Srimati Radharani. Whereas the other Vaishnava Sampradayas, they do not. Is there any specific reason for that?
Well, no, that’s not correct. Because Nimbarka is also worshipped Radharani. Of course, one reason is that worship of Madhurya Rasa is quite elevated. Therefore, it takes a qualified person to understand that and to carry out that worship.
7.) When we say Krishna and Vishnu are same, why Vishnu wants to see Krishna – By taking away the Brahmanas from the field of pastime. How to understand this Maharaj?
They are the same, but there is also a different manifestation. Like Purnima and Triodasi or Dvadasi, the moon is the same moon. At the same time, the light on the Purnima is more than on the Dvadasi. So, Krishna manifests more qualities, so He is very attractive. So, even Vishnu wants to see him. And even Lakshmi gets attracted to him. And even Krishna gets attracted to His own form.
8.) Regarding the verse in Padma Purana- Sampradāya-vihīnā ye mantrās te niṣphalā matāḥ. What is the meaning of Mantra?
As far as I know there is no commentary on that of course, we can take the Mantra in general any verse or scripture becomes useless unless we get it through Sampradaya. Or we can take it as the Diksha Mantra. So, you have to get your Diksha Mantra from a Guru in a Sampradaya.
9.) We see that when the wife is unfaithful she is useless similarly is there any reference to the husband in our scriptures?
Well, we can say everybody is useless, if they don’t worship Krishna [Laughs].
Devotees: Grantharaj Srimad Bhagavatham Ki Jai!!! HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj Ki Jai!!!