Srimad Bhagavatam – 11.12.18| HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj| ISKCON Chennai| 18 June 2021
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 11 Chapter 12 Verse 18.
ŚB 11.12.18
यथानल: खेऽनिलबन्धुरुष्मा
बलेन दारुण्यधिमथ्यमान: ।
अणु: प्रजातो हविषा समेधते
तथैव मे व्यक्तिरियं हि वाणी ॥ १८ ॥
yathānalaḥ khe ’nila-bandhur uṣmā
balena dāruṇy adhimathyamānaḥ
aṇuḥ prajāto haviṣā samedhate
tathaiva me vyaktir iyaṁ hi vāṇī
Synonyms
yathā — just as; analaḥ — fire; khe — in the space within wood; anila — air; bandhuḥ — whose help; uṣmā — heat; balena — strongly; dāruṇi — within the wood; adhimathyamānaḥ — being kindled by friction; aṇuḥ — very tiny; prajātaḥ — is born; haviṣā — with ghee (clarified butter); samedhate — it increases; tathā — similarly; eva — indeed; me — My; vyaktiḥ — manifestation; iyam — this; hi — certainly; vāṇī — the Vedic sounds.
Translation
When sticks of kindling wood are vigorously rubbed together, heat is produced by contact with air, and a spark of fire appears. Once the fire is kindled, ghee is added and the fire blazes. Similarly, I become manifest in the sound vibration of the Vedas.
Purport
Lord Kṛṣṇa here explains the most confidential meaning of Vedic knowledge. The Vedas first regulate ordinary material work and channel the fruits into ritualistic sacrifices, which ostensibly reward the performer with future benefits. The real purpose of these sacrifices, however, is to accustom a materialistic worker to offering the fruits of his work to a superior Vedic authority. An expert fruitive worker gradually exhausts the possibilities of material enjoyment and naturally gravitates toward the superior stage of philosophical speculation on his existential situation. By increased knowledge, one becomes aware of the unlimited glories of the Supreme and gradually takes to the process of loving devotional service to the transcendental Absolute Truth. Lord Kṛṣṇa is the goal of Vedic knowledge, as the Lord states in Bhagavad-gītā: vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyaḥ. The Lord gradually becomes manifest in the progression of Vedic rituals, just as fire is gradually manifest by the rubbing of firewood. The words haviṣā samedhate (“the fire increases by addition of ghee”) indicate that by the progressive advancement of Vedic sacrifice, the fire of spiritual knowledge gradually blazes, illuminating everything and destroying the chain of fruitive work.
Lord Kṛṣṇa considered Uddhava to be the most qualified person to hear this elaborate transcendental knowledge; therefore the Lord mercifully instructs Uddhava so that he may enlighten the sages at Badarikāśrama, thus fulfilling the purpose of the sages’ lives.
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj:
So here we have an analogy to illustrate how the knowledge of the Vedas manifests. So of course the Vedas say that Brahman or the Lord cannot be expressed through the mind or through words. And the Vedas consist of words, so how can the Vedas express the Supreme Lord and reveal Him? So this is a basic question which is also asked by Parikshit Maharaj in the 10th Canto in the 87th Chapter. Of course, one factor is that usually when people speak of Brahman, they speak of impersonal Brahman with no qualities, no form. So therefore, one cannot express that by words because there is no qualities to describe. However, the devotees accept that the Supreme Lord or Parabrahman has form and qualities which are spirit. And therefore, we could express the form of the Lord or the qualities of the Lord through words. But still there is a problem because when we use words, we express material thoughts. So this of course is material logic.
So in answer to that we say that the words, actually the words of the Vedas are not material. And therefore, they can express the spiritual form and qualities of the Lord. However, we also know that one needs qualification to even speak the Vedas or hear the Vedas. And therefore, to realize the Lord through the Vedas also is a little bit difficult. So nevertheless, through the Vedas if the process is followed properly, the Vedic process, then by knowing the Vedas we can know the Supreme Lord. So that is expressed in this verse through the example of fire. So fire is in the wood but it is not really manifest. But by rubbing the sticks together then eventually we get fire coming out of the wood; same way through the Vedas, if the Vedas are pronounced properly and understood properly, then they will also manifest the Supreme Lord.
The previous verse discussed how the Lord is very subtle and spiritual but then eventually is manifested through sound. Or we can say that the spiritual sound gradually manifests so that we can actually hear in this world. So once that sound is manifested, then we have to use that sound in a certain way to manifest the Lord. If the Lord is not in those words originally, no matter what you do with those words, the Lord is not going to manifest. So therefore, the very words themselves are considered non-different from the Lord but it requires some method in order to reveal the Lord.
So in this example here, at the beginning stage we do not see the fire. Yet the fire is hidden within that wood. And by a certain method then it becomes visible. So in the same way, the Lord is within the Vedic literature but hidden. And by using the Vedas in a certain way then we can realize the Lord.
So, the Vedas themselves are considered to be non-different from the Lord and eternal. And they are never really created. In other words, in every day of Brahma, the same Vedas manifest from the mouth of Brahma. So it looks like the Vedas are created each day of Brahma. But it is the same Veda each day so it is not really a creation. And in past and present and future universes, when Brahma was first born, he manifested the Vedas, also exactly the same Veda.
So like the Lord, the Vedas have no birth. Therefore, they are given a very special status called Shruti. And many Acharyas like Shankaracharya, they emphasize that Shruti is the most powerful proof. Other works like Puranas have a beginning. Vedavyasa does not write the Vedas; he just divides them into four parts. But he writes Mahabharata and Puranas. The meaning is eternal. It is the same meaning as the Vedas. But the particular words that manifest whenever Vedavyasa writes the Puranas or Mahabharata are slightly different from previous days of Brahma. In that sense it is not eternal. Sometimes the history changes. So according to the changing history, the details of the Puranas or Mahabharata will change. So because the words change and there is a beginning with Vedavyasa writing them, they are not classed as Shruti. They are classed as Smriti.
So Acharyas like Shankaracharya put them in a secondary category and not so powerful as the Shruti. And within the Shruti, the Karma kanda is considered inferior and the Jnana kanda is superior. And therefore, he takes the Upanishads and Jnana kanda as the ultimate proof. And Puranic statements should agree with it. If they don’t, we have to get proof.
However, the Vaishnava Acharyas don’t agree with that. And Jiva Goswami points out that in Tattva Sandarbha that the Puranas and Mahabharata are considered to be 5th Veda. So they are classed as Vedas because of the same message. The words may be different in each cycle of Brahma’s day or whatever, but the meaning is ultimately the same. And of course, Vedavyasa wrote the Puranas and Mahabharat to explain the Vedas. Therefore, we cannot consider the explanation of the Vedas to be inferior to the Vedas, especially if the author is Vedavyasa, who is the incarnation of the Lord. Therefore, we do not consider the Puranas and Srimad Bhagavatam or Bhagavad Gita and Mahabharata to be less powerful or less of an authority than the Vedas.
So just as in this verse the Vedas by cultivating, reveal the Lord to the sound, so the Smriti also, Bhagavad Gita and Bhagavatam will reveal the Lord. There is a slight difference in the revelation however. The Vedas need qualification, you have to be Dvija in order to understand the Vedas. The Mahabharata and the Puranas do not need that qualification. Anybody can hear, anybody can study and anybody can realize. So that makes the access to the knowledge easier. But it does not make the knowledge inferior. It is just like if we have water and we have some water in a store and you have to buy it. Somebody else has water also, comes from the same company or whatever same source, but it is free. It is the same water in any case. So the same with the Vedas and Puranas. It is the same knowledge. However, it is easier to access the Puranas and Mahabharat.
Furthermore, particularly the Bhagavatam speaks more directly. Krishna is in the Vedas but it is more or less hidden. We see that there are occasional references to the name Krishna and a few references to His pastimes, but by and large it is very little. But we see in Srimad Bhagavatam that Krishna is the main character. And His pastimes are described in detail. And furthermore, it is stated in Bhagavatam that Krishna is Bhagavan Swayam, the complete form of the Lord. And therefore, He is the highest goal.
So in this way the Puranas and particularly Bhagavatam are in any way not less than the Vedas. Like the Vedas they reveal the Lord. However, the Puranas reveal the Lord to more people. And furthermore, Bhagavatam reveals Swayam Bhagavan Krishna most directly. So in this way the Bhagavatam reveals the fire at its brightest. Of course, we also know that even Bhagavatam requires qualification of some sort. One should have faith; one should have no envy of the Lord. And if one is qualified then one can access [Not clear] to the Bhagavatam. So it does not depend on being a Dvija. It does not depend on having to recite the Vedas perfectly. But in any case, Krishna reveals himself. So therefore, Bhagavatam is non-different from Krishna. As the Vedas are spiritual sound, non-different from the Lord, Bhagavatam is also spiritual form, non-different from Krishna.
Q & A:
1.) Hare Krishna Maharaj. Why do we consider Bhagavat Purana which is not eternal, changing every day of Brahma, is considered higher than the Vedas which are eternal?
Well, the only superior aspect of the Vedas is that the words never change. So that aspect of eternal is there which makes it superior. However, if the words change then that does not make it inferior. Krishna speaks words but He does not say the same words all the time. In fact, when He speaks it is always ever fresh and ever new.
Krishna has an eternal form but He is never the same all the time. He is always ever beautiful, ever fresh. The rasa with Krishna is eternal but it is always changing. So within eternal there can also be some change. Since the subject matter is the Supreme Lord, in any case that is eternal. And if the words change that does not make it inferior. In fact we can say it makes it superior. Because this way one gets more and more bliss from the changing nature of the [Laughs] Puranas [Laughs].
2.) Hare Krishna Maharaj. Maharaj mentioned that Jnana kanda is superior to Karma kanda section of the Vedas. If Jnana kanda is superior to Karma, please explain whether Upasana kanda is still more superior to Jnana kanda?
Usually Jnana kanda is explained by, Jiva Goswami as having two sections. One section of Jnana kanda explains Jnana Yoga. The other section explains Bhakti. So Jnana kanda has Upanishads. Some of the Upanishads are Jnana Upanishad. Some are Vaishnava Upanishad. The Upasana kanda which means worship, there is a lot of Devata worship there. In that sense it is something like Karma kanda, but the Karma kanda emphasizes upon the performance of sacrifices. However, in both cases, whether it is Karma kanda or Upasana kanda with mention of Devatas, the devotees take these worship of Devatas in a different way. One way is to take all the Devatas as servants of the Lord, and therefore we don’t worship them independently, but we worship them as Vaishnavas. And the other way is to think of all the names mentioned of the Devatas and understand that primarily they are names of the Supreme Lord. So there are many verses praising Indra. But Indra means King, so therefore ultimately the Supreme King is Supreme Lord. Agni means leader, so ultimate leader is Lord Krishna. So therefore the primary meaning of all the verses of the Vedas is to worship the Lord, secondarily worship of Devatas.
3.) This is regarding the commentary of Jiva Goswami on this verse where Jiva Goswami is saying that this is an example of partial appearance of the Lord showing the gradual stages, if you could kindly explain on the commentary of Jiva Goswami, Maharaj.
Well, I don’t have the commentary in front of me, so it’s going to be a little difficult.
4.) Guru Maharaj, the last part of the purport of this verse gives an impression that a parampara system is being established through Uddhava. Is this line part of our parampara and do we have any differences in philosophy?
Well, as it says here, Uddhava was there to enlighten the sages of Badrikashram. In that sense it’s a parampara of sorts. However, we don’t historically have a line of teaching coming from those sages. Whereas we do have the line from Brahma downwards. Similarly, Krishna [Not audible] Arjuna. Someone said there’s a parampara there. But then Arjuna wasn’t the guru for others, so we don’t have any Vaishnava line.
5.) Maharaj, can we then say that Shruti and Smriti are both equal in validity? Did only Sanskrit created this difference?
This is the conclusion given by Jiva Goswami in Tattva sandharbha that the Smriti is equal to Shruti. Of course, we see our Vaishnava Acharyas and other sampradayas also they quote Upanishads and Vedas. But we see there is also a heavy reliance on quotations from Bhagavatam, Vishnu Purana, Padma Purana etc. And they should not be given lesser strength than the quotes from the Vedas. Of course, even the Vedas themselves with the Upanishads, the Vaishnava Acharyas take the impersonal statements and interpret them personally.
6.) Srila Prabhupada says Krishna can convert one energy into another. So does Krishna also convert external energy into marginal energy?
Usually the transformation is just within the Shakti itself so the external energy can transform from one form to the other. But we never see the Jiva Shakti turning into Bahiranga Shakti or the Bahiranga Shakti turning into Antaranga Shakti.
7.) How is Sankhya Yoga different from Jnana Yoga and how does it produce Bhakti?
Sankhya is often equated with Jnana. And particularly it refers to the atheistic Kapila’s Sankhya. But there are other varieties of impersonal jnana also. So we can say that the Yoga philosophy of Patanjali or the Vaisheshika philosophy also are considered to be impersonal. So they can all be considered with its jnana. However, we also have in Bhagavatam there is Sankhya of the other Kapila that is Bhakti.
8.) Hare Krishna Maharaj, Advaitis don’t give weightage to Srimad Bhagavatam. Being that case refuting their Shruti based points using Srimad Bhagavatam will be an apple-to-apple comparison?
Usually the Vaishnava Acharya is countering the Mayavada arguments. They won’t just quote Bhagavad Gita as the proof because they won’t be acceptable by the other side. So they quote from Upanishads itself and then they argue based on interpretation of the meaning of the words.
Devotees: Grantharaj Srimad Bhagavatam ki jai!!! HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj ki jai!!! His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada ki jai!!! Nitai Gaura premanande Hari Haribol!!!