Srimad Bhagavatam 10.87.1 | HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj | ISKCON Japan | 30 April 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 10 Chapter 87 Verse 1.
ŚB 10.87.1
śrī-parīkṣid uvāca
brahman brahmaṇy anirdeśye
nirguṇe guṇa-vṛttayaḥ
kathaṁ caranti śrutayaḥ
sākṣāt sad-asataḥ pare
Synonyms
śrī-parīkṣit uvāca — Śrī Parīkṣit said; brahman — O brāhmaṇa (Śukadeva); brahmaṇi — in the Absolute Truth; anirdeśye — which cannot be described in words; nirguṇe — which has no qualities; guṇa — the qualities of material nature; vṛttayaḥ — whose scope of action; katham — how; caranti — function (by referring); śrutayaḥ — the Vedas; sākṣāt — directly; sat — to material substance; asataḥ — and its subtle causes; pare — in that which is transcendental.
Translation
Śrī Parīkṣit said: O brāhmaṇa, how can the Vedas directly describe the Supreme Absolute Truth, who cannot be described in words? The Vedas are limited to describing the qualities of material nature, but the Supreme is devoid of these qualities, being transcendental to all material manifestations and their causes.
Purport
Before beginning his commentary on this chapter, Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmī prays:
vāg-īśā yasya vadane
lakṣmīr yasya ca vakṣasi
yasyāste hṛdaye saṁvit
taṁ nṛṣiṁham ahaṁ bhaje
“I worship Lord Nṛsiṁha, within whose mouth reside the great masters of eloquence, upon whose chest resides the goddess of fortune, and within whose heart resides the divine potency of consciousness.”
sampradāya-viśuddhy-arthaṁ
svīya-nirbandha-yantritaḥ
śruti-stuti-mita-vyākhyāṁ
kariṣyāmi yathā-mati
“Desiring to purify my sampradāya and being bound by duty, I will briefly comment on the prayers of the personified Vedas, to the best of my realization.”
“In as much as Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam has already been perfectly honored by my predecessors’ explanations, I can only gather together the remnants of what they have honored.”
Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī offers his own invocation:
mama ratna-vaṇig-bhāvaṁ
ratnāny aparicinvataḥ
hasantu santo jihremi
na sva-svānta-vinoda-kṛt
“The saintly devotees may laugh at me for becoming a jewel merchant though I know nothing about precious jewels. But I feel no shame, for at least I may entertain them.”
na me ’sti vaiduṣy api nāpi bhaktir
virakti-raktir na tathāpi laulyāt
su-durgamād eva bhavāmi veda-
stuty-artha-cintāmaṇi-rāśi-gṛdhnuḥ
“Though I have no wisdom, devotion or detachment, I am still greedy to take the philosopher’s stone of the Vedas’ prayers from the fortress in which it is being kept.”
māṁ nīcatāyām aviveka-vāyuḥ
pravartate pātayituṁ balāc cet
likhāmy ataḥ svāmī-sanātana-śrī-
kṛṣṇāṅghri-bhā-stambha-kṛtāvalambaḥ
“If the wind of indiscretion — my failure to acknowledge my lowly position — threatens to knock me down, then while writing this commentary I must hold on to the effulgent pillars of the feet of Śrīdhara Svāmī, Sanātana Gosvāmī and Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa.”
praṇamya śrī-guruṁ bhūyaḥ
śrī-kṛṣṇaṁ karuṇārṇavam
loka-nāthaṁ jagac-cakṣuḥ
śrī-śukaṁ tam upāśraye
“Repeatedly bowing down to my divine spiritual master and to Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the ocean of mercy, I take shelter of Śrī Śukadeva Gosvāmī, the protector of the world and its universal eye.”
At the end of the preceding chapter, Śukadeva Gosvāmī told Parīkṣit Mahārāja:
evaṁ sva-bhaktayo rājan
bhagavān bhakta-bhaktimān
uṣitvādiśya san-mārgaṁ
punar dvāravatīm agāt
“Thus, O King, the Personality of Godhead, who is the devotee of His own devotees, stayed for some time with His two great devotees, teaching them how perfect saints behave. Then He returned to Dvārakā.” In this verse the word san-mārgam can be understood in at least three ways. In the first, sat is taken to mean “devotee of the Supreme Lord,” and thus san-mārgam means “the path of bhakti-yoga, devotional service.” In the second, with sat meaning “a seeker of transcendental knowledge,” san-mārgam means “the philosophical path of knowledge,” which has impersonal Brahman as its object. And in the third, with sat referring to the transcendental sound of the Vedas, san-mārgam means “the process of following Vedic injunctions.” Both the second and the third of these interpretations of san-mārgam lead to the question of how the Vedas can describe the Absolute Truth.
Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmī elaborately analyzes this problem in terms of the traditional discipline of Sanskrit poetics: We should consider that words have three kinds of expressive capacities, called śabda-vṛttis. These are the different ways a word refers to its meaning, distinguished as mukhya-vṛtti, lakṣaṇā-vṛtti and gauṇa-vṛtti. The śabda-vṛtti termed mukhya is the primary, literal meaning of a word; this is also known as abhidhā, a word’s “denotation,” or dictionary meaning. Mukhya-vṛtti is further divided into two subcategories, namely rūḍhi and yoga. A primary meaning is called rūḍhi when it is based on conventional usage, and yoga when it is derived from another word’s meaning by regular etymological rules.
For example, the word go (“cow”) is an example of rūḍhi, since its relation with its literal meaning is purely conventional. The denotation of the word pācaka (“chef”), on the other hand, is a yoga-vṛtti, through the word’s derivation from the root pac (“to cook”) by addition of the agent suffix ka.
Beside its mukhya-vṛtti, or primary meaning, a word can also be used in a secondary, metaphorical sense. This usage is called lakṣaṇā. The rule is that a word should not be understood metaphorically if its mukhya-vṛtti makes sense in the given context; only after the mukhya-vṛtti fails to convey a word’s meaning may lakṣaṇā-vṛtti be justifiably presumed. The function of lakṣaṇā is technically explained in the kāvya-śāstras as an extended reference, pointing to something in some way related to the object of the literal meaning. Thus, the phrase gaṅgāyāṁ ghoṣaḥ literally means “the cowherd village in the Ganges.” But that idea is absurd, so here gaṅgāyām should rather be understood by its lakṣaṇā to mean “on the bank of the Ganges,” the bank being something related to the river. Gauṇa-vṛtti is a special kind of lakṣaṇā, where the meaning is extended to some idea of similarity. For example, in the statement siṁho devadattaḥ (“Devadatta is a lion”), heroic Devadatta is metaphorically called a lion because of his lionlike qualities. In contrast, the example of the general kind of lakṣaṇā, namely gaṅgāyāṁ ghoṣaḥ, involves a relationship not of similarity but of location.
In this first verse of the Eighty-seventh Chapter, Parīkṣit Mahārāja expresses doubt as to how the words of the Vedas can refer to the Absolute Truth by any of the valid kinds of śabda-vṛtti. He asks, kathaṁ sākṣāt caranti: How can the Vedas directly describe Brahman by rūḍha-mukhya-vṛtti, literal meaning based on convention? After all, the Absolute is anirdeśya, inaccessible to designation. And how can the Vedas even describe Brahman by gauṇa-vṛtti, metaphor based on similar qualities?
The Vedas are guṇa-vṛttayaḥ, full of qualitative descriptions, but Brahman is nirguṇa, without qualities. Obviously, a metaphor based on similar qualities cannot apply in the case of something that has no qualities. Furthermore, Parīkṣit Mahārāja points out that Brahman is sad-asataḥ param, beyond all causes and effects. Having no connection with any manifest existence, subtle or gross, the Absolute cannot be expressed by either yoga-vṛtti, a meaning derived etymologically, or lakṣaṇā, metaphor, since both require some relationship of Brahman to other entities.
Thus King Parīkṣit is puzzled as to how the words of the Vedas can directly describe the Absolute Truth.
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj:
Hare Krishna!
So at the end of the last chapter, as described here, it was said that Krishna taught Srutadeva and the king san-marga, the path of sat. Now the word sat can mean devotees, so the path of the devotees which means bhakti, so Krishna taught about bhakti, so that’s the way we would interpret it [Laughs]. However, the word sat also may refer to Brahman, so it’s the path of impersonalism and Brahman. So Parikshit in this first verse is asking, how can you speak about Brahman? Because Brahman is anirdesya, it cannot be described. This is what Veda is saying. It cannot be described.
So how can we use words to talk about Brahman even in the Vedas [Laughs]? And Brahman has no qualities. So we can’t even describe Brahman using metaphors that involve similarity of qualities. So the example is given in the purport, so and so person is a lion. So it means this person is like a lion because he fights very courageously. So we can make that statement because of similiarity of quality. The lion has courage and this certain person has courage. But in speaking about Brahman, we cannot do that because there’s no similarity of quality, it says Brahman has no qualities.
So we cannot compare Brahman to anything. So either literally taking words or metaphorically taking words, we cannot talk about Brahman [Laughs]. So therefore, the Vedas actually become meaningless to discuss Brahman. So that of course, is a very important question. And ultimately, if you know, personalist is, one accepts impersonalism, this is true. Nothing can describe Brahman, even the Vedas [Laughs]. And thus, the impersonalists say, followers of Shankaracharya says, if you realize Brahman, you also reject the Vedas.
So then the question comes, then why do, why do the [Laughs] followers of Shankara even study the Vedas. So that of course, is a complicated question and they have difficulty answering. But then, I think someone of their writers [Laughs] gives an example. So world is like a dream. And in that dream of course, we all are just having illusory experiences. But then a tiger, it may come along in the dream and roar. So the tiger is also illusory. But because of the roar of tiger, tiger, we wake up [Laughs]. So part of the illusion is useful for getting us out of the illusion [Laughs].
So even though Vedas are part of the illusion, they serve like the lion or the tiger roaring and they stimulate us to get out of the illusion [Laughs]. Of course, the Vaishnavas do not have this problem. And the prayers of the personified Vedas are there to answer this in terms of Vaishnava philosophy [Laughs]. So ultimately, Brahman refers to Bhagavan. And Bhagavan has qualities. Of course, they are spiritual qualities. So, we can describe those qualities if we have spiritual words [Laughs]. So, the Vedas are spiritual words, so therefore the Vedas can describe Bhagavan [Laughs].
Devotee: Spiritual words? In the spiritual words, you mean?
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj: No, the Vedas consist of words which are spiritual, not material. So those words can describe Bhagavan. Of course, then the next objection will be, well, Vedas are made up of spiritual words, but they look like they are material words, because they are the same words we use [Laughs] in the material world [Laughs]. So, how can the same word be material and spiritual [Laughs]? So, of course, in the material world we have the five elements, we have the sense objects, we have sound, etc. We have words, all of this is arising from prakrti, so it’s material.
So, normally, yes, the words we use in the material world are material words [Laughs]. At the same time, we also know that the Vedas are eternal, they are never created and destroyed, so they are quite different from normal words [Laughs]. So, how do these spiritual words arise? They don’t arise from prakrti. So, these words arise from the spiritual shakti of the Lord, the internal energy of the Lord. Material sound arises from bahiranga shakti, external energy, and Vedas arise from antaranga shakti, internal energy of the Lord.
So therefore, Vedas and Puranas, etc, are not material sound, they are spiritual sound. If Vedas are spiritual sound, how can a person in the material world will hear spiritual sound with a material ear? Impossible [Laughs]. For that reason, the Vedas are restricted. If you are a sudra, you cannot hear the Vedas, you cannot say the Vedas. Why? Because you will take them as material. And, of course, we do the same with the Bhagavatam. The Bhagavatam and Bhagavad Gita are for people with faith, devotees, not for materialists, not for the envious.
Of course, when we begin devotional service, we have a little bhakti, so our understanding of the spiritual nature of those words is quite limited. But, the more we advance in bhakti, then the more we can realize the spiritual import of those words. So, a more advanced devotee, when he hears the descriptions of Krishna’s form, qualities, and pastimes, he becomes very inspired. And a person who is just beginning devotional service will be less inspired.
So, by our devotion, we can access the spiritual nature of the words. So, therefore, the spiritual literature, Vedas and Puranas, etc, can describe the Supreme Brahman, Bhagavan. Because Supreme Lord has form, qualities, and activities. So definitely, that Supreme Brahman is anirdesya, or indescribable, by material words. And Bhagavan is nirguna, without qualities in the sense that He has no material qualities. However, the Lord can be described because He has spiritual qualities. And, spiritual words can indicate Supreme Lord.
In this purport, there is a discussion about capacity of words, or sabda-vritti. That is, what is the capacity, or the potency of words. So words are distinguished from sound because the words have meaning. So, the normal meaning of words is the direct meaning of it. So, if you say dog, it means this animal on four legs with fur and waggy tail [Laughs]. So, we have commonly accepted meanings of words. That’s how we communicate [Laughs]. So, this we call the mukhya-vritti, or the main way, the principal, primary meaning. In Caitanya Caritamrta, Lord Caitanya calls this the abhidha-vritti, the direct meaning of the words, literal meaning of the words.
So, when we put words together, we get sentences. When we put sentences together, we get paragraphs. When we put paragraphs together, we get a chapter. So, in this way, we generally take the mukhya-vritti, or abhidha, as the way of getting the meaning. So in this way, we will get the correct meaning of thd scriptures. But sometimes we cannot take the direct meaning of words. Because it doesn’t make sense [Laughs]. So, if we take the literal meaning, there is a river on the Ganga, there is a village on the Ganga, it means there is a village floating on top of the river. But that’s not, we don’t see that [Laughs]. So we say, no, it’s not a river floating on the Ganga, a village floating on the Ganga, there’s a village on the bank of the Ganga. But we say a village on the Ganga. So, we interpret the phrase village on the Ganga to mean village on the bank of the Ganga. That’s our interpretation [Laughs].
So this, taking the interpreted meaning is called lakshana. So it is acceptable and not always, but under circumstances where the direct meaning does not make sense. So, that’s this one example. Then of course, then we have these other examples of so-and-so person as a lion. So, he’s not literally a lion. So, we say okay, he’s like a lion. So this is also lakshana but it’s called gauna-vritti or a function of similarity of qualities [Laughs]. So, in any case, this lakshana or secondary meaning of words by interpretation is useful, but we can’t use it all the time [Laughs].
So, we use words in the scriptures, but then we should try to take the direct meaning as much as possible. And the direct meaning will describe the form and qualities and activities of Bhagavan. So, if the scriptures say Krishna is blue, then we accept, okay, He is blue. But if we say, well, okay, Brahman has no qualities and form, so therefore Krishna is blue, it doesn’t really mean that. It means something else [Laughs]. So, we can say Krishna means black, and black means unknowable.
Devotee: Unknowable means?
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj: Cannot be known. And blue in Shyama, in Sanskrit, and Shyama also means dark and unknown [Laughs]. And therefore, we say Krishna is blue, it also means Brahman cannot be described [Laughs]. So, that is the use of lakshana to support our philosophical idea rather than to just take the direct meaning [Laughs]. So, our Acharyas, when they comment on scriptures, then they try to explain things mainly using the direct meaning of words and not the abhidha and they try to avoid the lakshana as much as possible.
Okay. Hare Krishna!
Q & A :
1.) If Bhagavad Gita and Bhagavatam is only for people with faith, but in book distribution we give it to anyone. Considering that when they read one line also, they will start progressing. How to understand this?
So actually in distributing books, we look for favourable people. Of course, sometimes, we don’t, appearances fool us but generally, we look for those people who may be more favourable and we approach and we talk and then we find if they’re interested. Then we try to say, okay, here’s the book and whatever. So by talking to people, we can see if they have some slight interest at least. So it is said we avoid the demons [Laughs]. So we don’t try to approach those people who are obviously hostile. And it says we approach the balisha, the innocent. So they are not, let’s say, inimical. They’re not negative. They may not be positive, but at least they’re not demons [Laughs]. But among those innocent people, not all are going to become interested and take a book even [Laughs]. So therefore, ultimately, in distributing books, those people who do take, do have some interest and must have a little faith. Of course, in the early days of book distribution, in enthusiasm, people would, devotees would trick people into taking books, but then they found people just took the books and put them in the garbage-can [Laughs] later on [Laughs]. So what’s the use of that [Laughs]?
2.) Hare Krishna Maharaj. Thank you for the wonderful class. I have two questions. First one is, Maharaj, what is the difference between Brahmavadi and Mayavadi? And my second question is that, we, ISKCON devotees, we do not focus much on Vedas. Is this because that Srimad Bhagavatam is the fruit of Veda? Is that the reason? I mean, we do not have much knowledge on Veda, and our gurus, our senior devotees, they also don’t encourage us to study Veda. This is because everything is contained in Srimad Bhagavatam. Is that the reason? Hare Krishna.
So there are many types of impersonalists. Among those impersonalists, we have the mayavadis. We have the six darshanas which include nyaya or logic and patanjali’s yoga and what is it? The vaiseshika philosophy. So these are all impersonal. Ultimately, they believe there is something up there which is different from prakriti.
Devotee: You said prakriti and then?
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj: What’s that?
Devotee: What did you explain? Those philosophies?
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj: Logic, logic, and what was it, yoga, patanjali yoga, and vaiseshika philosophy about the atoms and we even have the kapila sankhya, also impersonal [Laughs]. So, one of the Sad-darsanas is also Vedanta. And in Vedanta, we have Shankara’s philosophy. So, based upon Vedanta sutras and Upanishads, Shankaracharya concludes in impersonal Brahman. But, then he also says, prakriti or material nature does not exist. Jiva does not exist. So, that’s why it’s mayavada, they say everything is maya except Brahman. So, these other philosophies like yoga or nyaya, they will have an impersonal Brahman, but they don’t say that prakriti, material world is illusion. It’s not maya. So, philosophy is somewhat different, but the final experience is experience the impersonal Brahman in these cases [Laughs]. So, as for the Vedas, our Acharyas accept the Vedas as sacred and absolute and spiritual.
Devotee: Sacred and spiritual and?
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj: Yeah, and also eternal. However, Jiva Goswami explains in Tattva Sandarbha that this is true, but the Vedas are at the present time difficult to understand, not complete. So, Veda Vyasa wrote Puranas so that the same Vedic message would be easier to understand. So the Puranas are easier for the people of kali yuga to understand. But they are equal to the Vedas, and therefore they are called the 5th Veda.
Devotee: It’s Srimad Bhagavatam and Bhagavad Gita you mean, right?
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj: Among the Puranas, as described in the first canto, Srimad Bhagavatam is the concluding, or the conclusion of all the Puranas. So, rather than study the Vedas, which are very difficult to understand, it’s better to study Srimad Bhagavatam and we get the final conclusion.
3.) Sometimes the scripture is very difficult to understand for me, and even if the Acharya explained by using the examples, or the interpretation of the example, and still I don’t understand what it means, and so sometimes I use my, you know, a kind of maybe speculation, I use my experience or my understanding what the word is, something like that, and then I’m using my experience to help to understand the scripture. Is that a wrong attitude to read scripture?
Okay. So, when we hear or study or read scriptures, obviously we are also getting the meaning according to our own experience [Laughs]. For instance, we read something and we will say, oh, I agree with that, yeah, because I also experienced it [Laughs]. So to some degree we can firm the scripture by our own experience. So this increases our faith. But of course, some things are beyond our experience. So they may be more difficult to understand [Laughs]. And we can try to fit it into our experience, but we can only speculate sometimes. So this will become dangerous if we take some statements and we don’t understand and then we try to change them, alter them to make it fit into our experience [Laughs]. And that’s exactly what impersonalists do when they read Bhagavad Gita or Bhagavatam, they interpret it according to their impersonalist experience and start distorting the meaning [Laughs]. So therefore, we do have to read carefully. And that’s why we do have the commentaries of Acharyas so that we don’t speculate too much.
Devotee: Thank you very much.
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj: Hare Krishna!
4.) Hare Krishna. I have a question. Krishna emphasizes about importance of brahmana and respect to the devotees. So He said Srutadeva and Bahulasva to respect the brahmanas, means for us, we should respect the devotees. So it means if we respect Krishna or Krishna philosophy, sastra, authority, but at the same time if we don’t respect to the devotees, even like equal devotees or make like friendship, like equal devotees not so much respect, then that is wrong way? It will be corrected or it will be not correct [Laughs]?
So in the last chapter Krishna explained that we respect the brahmana, Vaishnava because they deliver the message of Krishna [Laughs]. So only the devotee can understand Bhagavatam. And we have to go to scripture like Bhagavatam because we rely on that as our pramana, that’s our proof [Laughs]. So if we don’t respect the devotees, then we don’t get the message properly. And thus we cannot advance in bhakti. So we respect all living entities, among all the living entities of course, we do respect the devotees the most. But among equals, then we act in a friendly way and we can exchange knowledge. For superior devotee we receive the knowledge. And in relating to a lesser devotee, then we give knowledge. So by interacting with these various devotees in different ways, we progress in our bhakti.
Devotee: Thank you so much.
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj: Hare Krishna!
Devotees: Grantharaj Srimad Bhagavatam ki jai!!! HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj ki jai!!! Srila Prabhupada ki jai!!! Nitai Gaura Premanande Hari Haribol!!!