Srimad Bhagavatam 2.2.32 | HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj | ISKCON Chennai | 18 May 2026
jaya rādhā-mādhava kuñja-vihārī
gopījana-vallabha giri-vara-dhārī
yaśodā-nandana vraja-jana-rañjana
yamunā-tīra-vana-cārī
Hare Kṛṣṇa Hare Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa Hare Hare
Hare Rāma Hare Rāma Rāma Rāma Hare Hare
Jaya Prabhupāda Jaya Prabhupāda
Prabhupāda Jaya Prabhupāda
Oṁ namo bhagavate vāsudevāya
Oṁ namo bhagavate vāsudevāya
Oṁ namo bhagavate vāsudevāya
nama oṁ viṣṇu-pādāya kṛṣṇa-preṣṭhāya bhū-tale
śrīmate bhaktivedānta-svāmin iti nāmine
namas te sārasvate deve gaura-vāṇī-pracāriṇe
nirviśeṣa-śūnyavādi-pāścātya-deśa-tāriṇe
jaya śrī-kṛṣṇa-caitanya prabhu-nityānanda
śrī-advaita gadādhara śrīvāsādi-gaura-bhakta-vṛnda
Hare Kṛṣṇa Hare Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa Hare Hare
Hare Rāma Hare Rāma Rāma Rāma Hare Hare
Reading from Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 2 Chapter 2 Verse 32.
ŚB 2.2.32
ete sṛtī te nṛpa veda-gīte
tvayābhipṛṣṭe ca sanātane ca
ye vai purā brahmaṇa āha tuṣṭa
ārādhito bhagavān vāsudevaḥ
Synonyms
ete — all that is described; sṛtī — way; te — unto you; nṛpa — O Mahārāja Parīkṣit; veda-gīte — according to the version of the Vedas; tvayā — by Your Majesty; abhipṛṣṭe — being properly inquired; ca — also; sanātane — in the matter of eternal truth; ca — verily; ye — which; vai — certainly; purā — before; brahmaṇe — unto Lord Brahmā; āha — said; tuṣṭaḥ — being satisfied; ārādhitaḥ — being worshiped; bhagavān — the Personality of Godhead; vāsudevaḥ — Lord Kṛṣṇa.
Translation
Your Majesty Mahārāja Parīkṣit, know that all that I have described in reply to your proper inquiry is just according to the version of the Vedas, and it is eternal truth. This was described personally by Lord Kṛṣṇa unto Brahmā, with whom the Lord was satisfied upon being properly worshiped.
Purport
The two different ways of reaching the spiritual sky and thereby getting emancipation from all material bondage, namely either the direct process of reaching the kingdom of God or the gradual process through the other higher planets of the universe, are set forth exactly according to the version of the Vedas. The Vedic versions in this connection are, yadā sarve pramucyante kāmā ye ’sya hṛdi śritāḥ/ atha martyo ’mṛto bhavaty atra brahma samaśnute (Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.4.7) and te ’rcir abhisambhavanti (Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 6.2.15): “Those who are free from all material desires, which are diseases of the heart, are able to conquer death and enter the kingdom of God through the Arci planets.” These Vedic versions corroborate the version of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, and the latter is further confirmed by Śukadeva Gosvāmī, who affirms that the truth was disclosed by the Supreme Personality of Godhead Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, Vāsudeva, to Brahmā, the first authority on the Vedas. The disciplic succession holds that the Vedas were uttered by Lord Kṛṣṇa to Brahmā, by Brahmā to Nārada, and by Nārada to Vyāsadeva, and then by Vyāsadeva to Śukadeva Gosvāmī and so on. So there is no difference between the versions of all the authorities. The truth is eternal, and as such there cannot be any new opinion about the truth. That is the way of knowing the knowledge contained in the Vedas. It is not a thing to be understood by one’s erudite scholarship or by the fashionable interpretations of mundane scholars. There is nothing to be added and nothing to be subtracted, because the truth is the truth. One has to accept, after all, some authority. The modern scientists are also authorities for the common man for some scientific truths. The common man follows the version of the scientist. This means that the common man follows the authority. The Vedic knowledge is also received in that way. The common man cannot argue about what is beyond the sky or beyond the universe; he must accept the versions of the Vedas as they are understood by the authorized disciplic succession. In the Bhagavad-gītā also the same process of understanding the Gītā is stated in the Fourth Chapter. If one does not follow the authoritative version of the ācāryas, he will vainly search after the truth mentioned in the Vedas.
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj:
In this verse Sukadeva is directly speaking to Pariksit Maharaj and giving us some information. This is very early in his talk to Pariksit, the second chapter of the second canto and Sukadeva begins speaking actually in the first chapter. And this conversation takes place as a series of questions and answers. And in this verse Sukadeva Goswami says, I have answered according to the Vedas. And of course that is the veda gite here and then that is also modified by sanatane which means eternal. So the information given in Sukadeva Goswami’s answer is eternal. That means it does not change.
In the material world we have knowledge and we hope it doesn’t change but it changes. So this is the nature of material knowledge, it’s changeable. What we think is correct at one time becomes incorrect at another time. And the way we correct that is by using our senses and intelligence. So scientists come to a conclusion, later on they investigate further and then they have to change. So our Acharyas describe that such knowledge which is due to sense perception and anumana, influence or logic is insubstantial. It is not fixed. So that is what is said here. So Vedic knowledge is fixed, it is sanatana.
So the nature of knowledge in the material world is we come to a conclusion. That is intelligent people examine and they come to some conclusion. Later on someone else, more intelligent comes along and says that’s wrong and they make a new conclusion. And because he is more intelligent than everybody else, everybody accepts. Then later on another intelligent person comes and says no you are wrong and he establishes new conclusion, then everybody accepts again. So in the material world this system goes on forever. And thus it is not satisfying. This knowledge of course is concerning material things. So even materially speaking we don’t have perfect knowledge. So what can our senses and intelligence conclude about something spiritual? Nothing. So therefore, it’s better that a scientist does not speak about God at all. So what do people do? They want to believe in God. You cannot go to a scientist. We cannot use our senses, we cannot use our logic. Of course people may try. But the ultimate answer is you have to go to scripture. And thus the scripture is the source of spiritual knowledge. That is knowledge about atma, knowledge about Supreme Lord. So we have no choice. And of course that is the choice that many people make.
However people will choose different scriptures. Some will choose Bible, some choose Koran, some choose Vedas. But in all cases they are accepting that scripture as authoritative and eternal. So we cannot criticize that acceptance of a perfect authority. However what we can do is examine all of these authorities and see which has more knowledge, better knowledge. So some people conclude Vedas have more perfect knowledge. However even if we accept the Vedas, then we have different types of knowledge. And thus we have arguments about what is the conclusion of the Vedas. And many intelligent scholars and sages, they come to different conclusions. And thus we get karma mimamsa, and sankhya and vaiseshika and nyaya and patanjali yoga, and vedanta, all different. They come to completely different conclusions. Some say no God at all. Others say impersonal God. And then in Vedanta the Vaishnavas say personal God. But even in Vedanta Sankaracharya says no, impersonal God. So even if we do accept the authority of the Vedas, we get so many different ideas about what is the conclusion. Of course, if we understand correctly, we understand that, in one sense, all of those philosophies have some truth in them. Some are following the Brahman aspect, some are following Bhagavan aspect. However, we do have to understand what is the final conclusion.
Are all conclusions highest or is one the highest? So, to make the matter simpler, we can just go to Srimad Bhagavatam. Vedavyasa compiled the Vedas, gave them to his disciples to carry on in parampara. He wrote a commentary on the Upanishads, which are part of the Veda to give the correct meaning, that is Brahma Sutras. Then he wrote other works like Mahabharata and the Puranas to make it easier for people to understand the same Vedas. And he wrote Srimad Bhagavatam among the Puranas to give the final conclusion. So Vedavyasa is connected with the Vedas, Upanishads, Brahma Sutras, Mahabharata, Puranas and finally Bhagavatam. So if we study Srimad Bhagavatam, we should get the final conclusion. So therefore, though there are, if we accept the Vedas, there are many different opinions, if we go to Bhagavatam, then, we will get the highest conclusion of all. So not only is Bhagavan the conclusion, but Krishna is the highest form of Bhagavan. That’s the conclusion. And thus we mainly concentrate on study of Srimad Bhagavatam.
But where did Srimad Bhagavatam come from? So of course, Vedavyasa wrote it. But here in the second canto, there is a description on how it actually was first delivered. And where did it come from? It came from Vasudeva. He spoke it to Brahma. And Brahma spoke it to others like Narada. Narada spoke to Vyasa. Vyasa spoke to Sukadeva Goswami. And Sukadeva spoke to Pariksit Maharaj. So in this way we see the highest truth was, it originated in Supreme Lord Krishna and it was passed down until manifested in the Bhagavatam. So throughout the Bhagavatam, this idea of passing on the knowledge is emphasized. And the reason is, it is emphasizing the fact that, we have to accept authority. Of course the Vedic knowledge in general is the authority. But then the final authority is Bhagavatam. In Sanskrit we call this authority pramana. Pramanam also means proof. So if we want to find a correct answer, we go to Bhagavatam. That is the proof. However that proof also has to be undistorted. Unfortunately if we simply read scriptures, we are bound to produce our own conclusions. So to prevent that, then we have one person passing it on to another. So we get a parampara. So what is the guarantee that the knowledge is correct? One authorized person takes that scripture, he passes it on to another person and makes him qualified, he becomes an authority, he passes it on to another. So what is the importance of passing on this knowledge? This is the knowledge that contains information about Supreme Lord, jivas, etc. In other words, sambandha, abhidheya and prayojana.
So that knowledge has to be passed on from one to another authority with no change. And thus we emphasize the fact that you have to learn the knowledge from a Guru. So when we talk about Guru or spiritual master, ultimately it means the person who gives you knowledge. And to get the knowledge, then we have to give proper respect to that authority. And why do we respect him? Because he is giving us the authorized knowledge. In this particular case, we see that the Lord spoke the Bhagavatam in a condensed version of four verses to Brahma. And later on, that knowledge was expanded to become Bhagavatam. But in any case, we get a succession of people who pass on this knowledge in a correct way. So that is why we emphasize parampara. If we are in a parampara, we have the authorized knowledge intact. So that is the purpose of accepting Guru, to get in that parampara. Of course, when we say Guru here, it does not necessarily mean Diksha Guru. It could be in most cases Siksha Guru. But the important thing is that the knowledge is passed on intact. So the conclusions are correct with no distortion.
Hare Krishna!
Q & A :
1.) Knowledge is passed through authorities. So here it is very clear that Krishna to Brahma, Brahma to Narada, Narada to Vyasa, then Sukadeva, then Parikshit. But after that we find a lot of broken chains. This list is not mentioned. This list contains the direct. After Sukadeva Goswami gives the knowledge to Parikshit Maharaj, after that, of course, Suta Goswami gives to Saunaka. But after that we do not see the list. There is a big gap.
So, tracing Bhagavatam, yes, we don’t find after Sukadeva, we do not find an apparent line. And, of course, we do trace a parampara, but that goes through Madhva, who is not taking Bhagavatam as his main authority. And in that line we have Veda Vyasa directly teaching Madhvacharya, who teaches his disciples, and then we get a parampara that way. And then, of course, we have a line traced up and then we come to, in that line we come to Caitanya Mahaprabhu. However, there are people who object and say, well, that’s not really parampara because Lord Caitanya’s philosophy is completely different [Laughs]. So, they will claim that actually Lord Caitanya has His own parampara. He started that parampara with the Goswamis and Bhagavatam that way [Laughs]. So, there we have no difficulty tracing a parampara of teachings of Bhagavatam [Laughs]. So, we have Caitanya Mahaprabhu teaching the Goswamis, the Goswamis writing commentaries, and then they pass that on to others. However, there also we can see that what are we tracing here? We are tracing knowledge. But some devotees will trace a diksha line instead, which is not tracing knowledge, it’s tracing mantra. However, ultimately we want to stress the line of teaching more than the line of diksha. And for that reason, Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur did not attempt to trace a diksha line at all.
2.) In Bhagavad Gita introduction, this 32 parampara Guru’s names are mentioned. It ends with Prabhupada. Last name is Prabhupada. But devotees may ask, who will be the next?
So, of course, then the first question is, next what? Diksha Guru or Siksha Guru? It could be either way. And we have a mixed line because Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur gave diksha to Prabhupada and also gave siksha. So therefore, some people will or in general probably people want to trace a diksha line but it is equally valid to trace that siksha line. So, in other words, someone still has to take all of the scriptures that Prabhupada has made commentary on and transmit that to somebody else. So, that would be a Siksha Guru. A Diksha Guru may also do that. In some cases, a person may not be a Diksha Guru and may do the same thing. But, we will see that then there is going to be many lines. Of course, that is the, even with Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur, he had many Diksha disciples and we have many different lines coming out there as well.
3.) Hare Krishna Maharaj. Maharaj as you mentioned like pratyaksha. Pratyaksha is the knowledge received by the senses and sabda pramana is what we are apparently doing, we are taking but like the bonafide way of receiving knowledge, though it is bonafide way of receiving knowledge, we are receiving it from a bonafide person, but we are receiving it, we have improper senses. And when we pass it to someone else, we may pollute the knowledge. Or even if we are not polluting the knowledge, whoever is receiving it may misunderstand it. Then how can it be a bonafide thing Maharaj?
So, we have the knowledge and we need someone to deliver the knowledge. But the person to deliver it should be qualified. And qualification for Bhagavatam is Bhakti [Laughs]. And of course, the Bhakti could be on so many levels. The higher the Bhakti, the better the qualification. So, to guarantee that another person who receives the knowledge is not going to distort it, there has to be some qualification, judging. So, of course, in Bhagavad Gita it says, don’t give this knowledge to a faithless, envious person. So [Laughs], we have to judge a person, see if he has devotion. So, because one person who has some qualification is judging whether another person has qualification, we have some safeguard that the knowledge does not get distorted. It’s not perfect because we see that the devotees could be on so many levels and there is a chance that they can distort something [Laughs]. And atleast we have some sort of system to minimize the distortion.
4.) Maharaj, one more question, like this is based on yesterday’s class Maharaj. So, we know our emphasis is more on pure devotional service. So, this purity is based on the desire, whatever we ask Krishna or whatever the anarthas we have. What is this purity based on?
Well, in sadhana, then that purity has two components. In prema, there is only one component [Laughs]. In prema, there are no anarthas, there is only Bhakti. In sadhana, we are doing Bhakti in practice and there are anarthas. Yet we call the process pure Bhakti because at least our intentions in performance of Bhakti are not mixed with material desires or desires for liberation. Now, of course, subconsciously or whatever, we do have anarthas. So that pure Bhakti in sadhana goes through different stages. And we can measure that by rate of destruction of anarthas. In other words, at sraddha, we may have 90% anarthas. At nistha, we will have 40% anarthas. At asakti, we have 2% anarthas. In bhava, we have 1% anartha [Laughs] like this. In prema, zero anartha. However, that cannot be separated from the opposite, that is measuring the increase in Bhakti. So Bhakti again is measured in the beginning, we have a little percent. And nistha, we may have 55%. At ruchi, we have 70%. At asakti, we have 85%. In bhava, we have 95% like that [Laughs]. So that’s our attachment to Krishna. So in the beginning of devotional service in sadhana, we can measure, we should measure both. Because this destruction of anarthas can lead to liberation, but not necessarily prema [Laughs].
5.) Maharaj continuation question. So, if, so, say for example, we are praying to the Lord to get rid of situational problem. So that may be the obstacle for performing the pure devotional service. But the objective is, I wanted to do pure devotional service. That’s why I’m asking the Lord to clear this obstacle. Is it pure devotion?
So these are all prayers for advancement in devotion. They are not prayers for material enjoyment or liberation. So they’re, they’re beyond that.
6.) Maharaj in this verse, ārādhito the word came. In tenth canto also, there is ārādhito nunam. It is Radha’s name. No where written directly. It is written indirectly like that. Acharyas also saying, here also ārādhito. How can I understand this Maharaj?
So ārādhita means worshiped. Of course, all devotees worship the Lord [Laughs]. But the highest devotee is Radha. In this case, it’s not Radha, it is Brahma. He is the devotee here [Laughs].
7.) Hare Krishna Maharaj. Dandavat pranam. Maharaj, we talked about Diksha Parampara and Siksha Parampara. So when we trace the Diksha Parampara, is there the risk of personality cult developing around people? Is personality cult that my Guru is superior, that kind of a concept, can it arise? And also in the case of Siksha Parampara, can it become impersonal that one doesn’t have attachment to a person, rather it is attachment to a philosophy? So I want your comments on both.
So if we look in scriptures, in Vedic scriptures, if we look in the followers of Lord Caitanya, Narottama Das and others, then we find this idea of surrender and worship of Guru is very strong. But often it is not even about Diksha. It is about a Siksha Guru. So most of the verses that we quote, come from Upanishads, like Mundaka Upanishad, Svetasvatara Upanishad, etc. And they are not talking about a Diksha Guru. They are talking about the person in the ashram who gives you the teachings. And of course, here in Bhagavatam most of it is Siksha, not Diksha. And the emphasis of course, is on transmitting knowledge, not mantras. So when the scriptures talk about Guru, accepting Guru, etc., whether Siksha or Diksha, then they also talk about worship and devotion. And they also talk about complete surrender to Guru and his instructions. However we should not misinterpret this. Because if we look at the conduct of the great devotees, they did not exclusively worship one person. And the devotion is definitely there for Guru or Gurus, but it is internal rather than external. And of course, in Krishna Bhajanamrta there, Narahari describes that just as you have a father and you worship him, you also worship father’s brothers equally.
Of course, scripture will talk about worship father and mother as God, deva, etc, etc., but it also includes the uncles and whatever. But then what about the grandfather? So he says you worship double [Laughs]. So definitely, yes you have your absolute devotion to the father as Supreme Lord, etc., but also to the brothers. And you have more devotion to the grandfather as Supreme Lord also. So even that devotion has many aspects, many people and various levels according to the qualification of the devotee. So therefore, in ISKCON, we have some particular problems. Because unlike many movements, we have many Diksha Gurus. And secondly, Diksha Guru is identified with being the only Guru. And therefore, devotion is only to that particular devotee and to no others. But this creates, of course, even we can say scripturally it is wrong, but within ISKCON, it creates more problems. So we get different Gurus, we get different groups of devotees following different Gurus. So we got organization based on devotion to Guru, rather than the structural organization that Srila Prabhupada gave. So this creates problems. So of course, part of the problem can be solved if one takes that exclusive devotion and transfers that to Srila Prabhupada [Laughs]. And of course, people will say, that’s Ritvikism [Laughs]. But no, that is not. That is simply recognizing Srila Prabhupada as the prominent Siksha Guru for ISKCON. Ritvikism is Prabhupada giving you the Diksha Mantras, that is different.
Devotees: Grantharaj Srimad Bhagavatam ki jai!!! HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj ki jai!!! Srila Prabhupada ki jai!!! Nitai Gaura Premanande Hari Haribol!!!