Srimad Bhagavatam 10.3.24 | HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj | ISKCON Melbourne | 12 March 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 3 Verse 24.
ŚB 10.3.24
śrī-devaky uvāca
rūpaṁ yat tat prāhur avyaktam ādyaṁ
brahma jyotir nirguṇaṁ nirvikāram
sattā-mātraṁ nirviśeṣaṁ nirīhaṁ
sa tvaṁ sākṣād viṣṇur adhyātma-dīpaḥ
Synonyms
śrī-devakī uvāca — Śrī Devakī said; rūpam — form or substance; yat tat — because You are the same substance; prāhuḥ — You are sometimes called; avyaktam — not perceivable by the material senses (ataḥ śrī-kṛṣṇa-nāmādi na bhaved grāhyam indriyaiḥ); ādyam — You are the original cause; brahma — You are known as Brahman; jyotiḥ — light; nirguṇam — without material qualities; nirvikāram — without change, the same form of Viṣṇu perpetually; sattā-mātram — the original substance, the cause of everything; nirviśeṣam — You are present everywhere as the Supersoul (within the heart of a human being and within the heart of an animal, the same substance is present); nirīham — without material desires; saḥ — that Supreme Person; tvam — Your Lordship; sākṣāt — directly; viṣṇuḥ — Lord Viṣṇu; adhyātma-dīpaḥ — the light for all transcendental knowledge (knowing You, one knows everything: yasmin vijñāte sarvam evaṁ vijñātaṁ bhavati).
Translation
Śrī Devakī said: My dear Lord, there are different Vedas, some of which describe You as unperceivable through words and the mind. Yet You are the origin of the entire cosmic manifestation. You are Brahman, the greatest of everything, full of effulgence like the sun. You have no material cause, You are free from change and deviation, and You have no material desires. Thus the Vedas say that You are the substance. Therefore, my Lord, You are directly the origin of all Vedic statements, and by understanding You, one gradually understands everything. You are different from the light of Brahman and Paramātmā, yet You are not different from them. Everything emanates from You. Indeed, You are the cause of all causes, Lord Viṣṇu, the light of all transcendental knowledge.
Purport
Viṣṇu is the origin of everything, and there is no difference between Lord Viṣṇu and Lord Kṛṣṇa because both of Them are viṣṇu-tattva. From the Ṛg Veda we understand, oṁ tad viṣṇoḥ paramaṁ padam: the original substance is the all-pervading Lord Viṣṇu, who is also Paramātmā and the effulgent Brahman. The living entities are also part and parcel of Viṣṇu, who has various energies (parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate svābhāvikī jñāna-bala-kriyā ca). Viṣṇu, or Kṛṣṇa, is therefore everything. Lord Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā (10.8), ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavo mattaḥ sarvaṁ pravartate: “I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me.” Kṛṣṇa, therefore, is the original cause of everything (sarva-kāraṇa-kāraṇam). When Viṣṇu expands in His all-pervading aspect, we should understand Him to be the nirākāra-nirviśeṣa-brahmajyoti.
Although everything emanates from Kṛṣṇa, He is ultimately a person. Aham ādir hi devānām: He is the origin of Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Maheśvara, and from them many other demigods are manifested. Kṛṣṇa therefore says in Bhagavad-gītā (14.27), brahmaṇo hi pratiṣṭhāham; “Brahman rests upon Me.” The Lord also says:
ye ’py anya-devatā-bhaktā
yajante śraddhayānvitāḥ
te ’pi mām eva kaunteya
yajanty avidhi-pūrvakam
“Whatever a man may sacrifice to other gods, O son of Kuntī, is really meant for Me alone, but it is offered without true understanding.” (Bg. 9.23) There are many persons who worship different demigods, considering all of them to be separate gods, which in fact they are not. The fact is that every demigod, and every living entity, is part and parcel of Kṛṣṇa (mamaivāṁśo jīva-loke jīva-bhūtaḥ). The demigods are also in the category of living entities; they are not separate gods. But men whose knowledge is immature and contaminated by the modes of material nature worship various demigods, according to their intelligence. Therefore they are rebuked in Bhagavad-gītā (kāmais tais tair hṛta-jñānāḥ prapadyante ’nya-devatāḥ). Because they are unintelligent and not very advanced and have not properly considered the truth, they take to the worship of various demigods or speculate according to various philosophies, such as the Māyāvāda philosophy.
Kṛṣṇa, Viṣṇu, is the actual origin of everything. As stated in the Vedas, yasya bhāṣā sarvam idaṁ vibhāti. The Absolute Truth is described later in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (10.28.15) as satyaṁ jñānam anantam yad brahma-jyotiḥ sanātanam. The brahmajyoti is sanātana, eternal, yet it is dependent on Kṛṣṇa (brahmaṇo hi pratiṣṭhāham). The Brahma-saṁhitā states that the Lord is all-pervading. Aṇḍāntara-stha-paramāṇu-cayāntara-stham: He is within this universe, and He is within the atom as Paramātmā. Yasya prabhā prabhavato jagad-aṇḍa-koṭi-koṭiṣv aśeṣa-vasudhādi-vibhu-ti-bhinnam: Brahman is also not independent of Him. Therefore whatever a philosopher may describe is ultimately Kṛṣṇa, or Lord Viṣṇu (sarvaṁ khalv idaṁ brahma, paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān). According to different phases of understanding, Lord Viṣṇu is differently described, but in fact He is the origin of everything.
Because Devakī was an unalloyed devotee, she could understand that the same Lord Viṣṇu had appeared as her son. Therefore, after the prayers of Vasudeva, Devakī offered her prayers. She was very frightened because of her brother’s atrocities. Devakī said, “My dear Lord, Your eternal forms, like Nārāyaṇa, Lord Rāma, Śeṣa, Varāha, Nṛsiṁha, Vāmana, Baladeva, and millions of similar incarnations emanating from Viṣṇu, are described in the Vedic literature as original. You are original because all Your forms as incarnations are outside of this material creation. Your form was existing before this cosmic manifestation was created. Your forms are eternal and all-pervading. They are self-effulgent, changeless and uncontaminated by the material qualities. Such eternal forms are ever-cognizant and full of bliss; they are situated in transcendental goodness and are always engaged in different pastimes. You are not limited to a particular form only; all such transcendental, eternal forms are self-sufficient. I can understand that You are the Supreme Lord Viṣṇu.” We may conclude, therefore, that Lord Viṣṇu is everything, although He is also different from everything. This is the acintya-bhedābheda-tattva philosophy.
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj:
So here we get a nice philosophical verse [Laughs] uttered by Devakī. If we look at these words except for the first word and the last line, everything looks very impersonal. avyaktam ādhyam brahmajyoti nirgunaṁ nirvikāraṁ sattva-mātraṁ nirviśeṣaṁ nirīhaṁ [Laughs]. Negative, no activities, no change, no qualities, imperceptible, unmanifested, Existence alone, sattva-mātra [Laughs]. So these are common words found in the Vedic literature such as the Upanishads and of course we’ll find them in the Puranas as well and in Bhagavatam and even in Bhagavad Gita. And, of course, different sages will interpret them or give different meanings to these words. Broadly, it ends up, we have two categories of persons, impersonalists and personalists. Among the impersonalists we have the Māyāvādīs. Among the others, that is the personalists, we’ll have various Vaishnava groups such as followers of Ramanuja, Madhva, Nimbarka, etc. And we’ll find that these words will mean different things to these two groups.
So, in this way we can interpret them either impersonally or personally. Of course, if we take the direct meaning, they appear to be impersonal. And normally, even Lord Caitanya says, we should take the direct meaning. And that’s, of course, the mode of interpretation even followed by Jaimini in his karma-mimamsa philosophy. As much as possible we take the direct meaning of everything. When there is contradiction, then we start to interpret the meaning. It’s called lakshana, indirect meaning. Why we do that, is because we should have no contradiction. We cannot have contradictory statements in a scripture. That will make it imperfect. It won’t be sensible [Laughs]. So any scripture should also be sensible. It shall make a rational statements that are completely beyond our sense of logic. Of course, we also say that, yes, the Supreme Lord and the scripture is actually beyond mind and words. You cannot describe the Lord ultimately. You cannot even conceive of Him. Nevertheless, we do have scripture which describe the Lord. So we do have to accept these descriptions. But if the descriptions have opposite meanings and are also opposite statements, again, they don’t make sense. So then we have to explain why it’s like that, why we have two different meanings.
So we can say God is a person, God has a form. And then we can also say God is not a person, He has no form. And then if we make both statements it looks meaningless because it’s either one or the other, it cannot be both [Laughs]. So therefore we have to start interpreting. What does form mean? What does person mean? And then we can get one unified meaning out of that. So that’s how our Acharyas and all sages try to explain the scripture by taking out the contradictions, by explanation of words which look contradictory. But because of this then we get different interpretations and different meanings. And that’s why we have a big division in interpretation of scripture between personalists and impersonalists. Why because scripture says both things [Laughs].
So we’ll see all these words, avyakta, nirvisesha, nirvikara, nirguna, all this quite often stated in the scriptures, which literally means no change, no qualities, no particulars, no activity, unmanifest. So this gives impersonal, direct interpretation would be impersonal, direct meaning, okay? But then we’ll find other statements like the last statement, Vishnu, you are Vishnu and this is not a person because Devaki is seeing the form of the Lord with four hands [Laughs]. You are Vishnu [Laughs] and you are nirvikara, nirvisesha, nirguna. But then Vishnu is there and He does have qualities. He has four arms. He’s wearing a yellow dhoti. He’s got ornaments on His head. So He’s not impersonal. He’s not nirvisesha, not nirgunam. He has a form, rupam. So then the same words are describing Vishnu. But then we can’t give it the same meaning [Laughs]. If there is Vishnu there, who is blue and He has four arms and He’s got ornaments on His body and He’s got a crown on His head, how can He be nirgunam and nirvisesham and without form? He has to have a form. He has to have qualities, etc.
So therefore we have to, in this case, we see that the contradiction must be resolved by giving other meanings to these words. So one way of doing it, simple way, nirgunam, no qualities. So we say no material qualities but He could have spiritual qualities. So of course even that is, we can say, not beyond literal meaning, nirguna, no material qualities, but has spiritual qualities. That resolves the issue. And the same with nirvisesha. Nirvisesham is no particulars. So no material particulars. But spiritually, yes, He can have hands and feet and whatever. So this is how the Vaishnavas will give the meaning of these words. And we see that’s what Prabhupada does also when he translates the verse [Laughs]. So he doesn’t say it’s completely impersonal or whatever.
Then we get to words like Brahman and jyoti, which are usually used to describe the impersonal Brahman as light. And even in Brahma Samhita, Brahma describes the Brahma jyoti as light, etc. But then he says this is an expansion from Supreme Lord from Govinda [Laughs]. So it’s quite different from the conception of Brahma jyoti for the impersonalists. So for the impersonalists, the Brahma jyoti is the final, it’s the source of everything. There’s nothing superior to that and it is mere light. And there’s no form at all. So again we get impersonal there. But here in this verse, Devaki says no, you have a form, first word, but you are also Brahma jyoti. So this is very similar to the Brahma Samhita verse, where it says I worship Govinda from whom we have this expansion of the Brahma jyoti.
So Brahma jyoti is a product of Supreme Lord. Of course, then people will say well, we don’t accept Brahma Samhita, where did that come from? It’s not in our list of bona fide scriptures. Lord Caitanya found the scripture in the Adi-Kesava temple and no one else knows it exists. So how we can accept that as an authority. But if we look in Bhagavad Gita, then what does Krishna say? Brahmaṇo hi pratiṣṭhāham [Bg. 14.27]. I am the basis of the Brahman. So there is Supreme Lord Krishna and there is Brahman. And higher is Krishna. He says pratiṣṭhāham. I am the basis of the Brahman. So Krishna is higher than the Brahman.
If we go to Bhagavatam and the first canto, then we will find that it is said there that there is Bhagavan, there is Paramatma and there is Brahman. They are all aspects of Supreme Lord. So again we understand that Brahman is also a secondary aspect of Bhagavan. So this is how we can explain it here.
So yes, Devaki says you have a form, you are Vishnu, you are also the Brahman, Brahma jyoti. Why? Because Brahman is also an aspect of Supreme Lord. Brahman, Paramatma, Bhagavan are advaya jnanam, they are one entity. So in this way we can explain all of these different words here. And it is not contradictory to the fact that Vishnu does have form, qualities, activities, He is a person. So in this way we can resolve that contradiction. So this verse itself by Devaki is a very nice way of resolving that contradiction. And if people argue for the impersonal Brahman, then we can just quote, well Devaki says this [Laughs], yes, Lord is Brahma jyoti, nirvikara, nirgunam, nirvisesha, etc, but He also is Vishnu [Laughs], both things. Now of course, some people will again argue that well, that is contradictory, how can he have form and no form, etc. But of course then we do have Bhagavatam that says the Lord is Brahman, Paramatma, Bhagavan. We have this verse here also that says that.
But then of course, the question is how can the Lord do that? How can He be both things, impersonal and personal simultaneously? How can He have form and have no form simultaneously as Brahman and as Bhagavan? Ultimately then we come to contradiction again. How can He be both things? Of course, the answer is that acintya. The Lord has inconceivable power, beyond what we can conceive of in the material world and therefore the Lord can be opposite things simultaneously without contradiction. In the material world it cannot exist. If the object has form, it can also, we can’t say it’s formless. If there’s no form there, then we cannot say there’s a form there. Things are meaningless if we speak in contradictions. So the Lord can have form, the Lord cannot have form. In the material world, yes, that is contradictory. In the spiritual world, for the Lord, it is not contradictory. He can be Brahman, He can be Bhagavan simultaneously, no form and form. Why? Because He has this inconceivable power. So opposites can exist in the Lord. They may look contradictory to us, but they can exist in the Lord. So therefore Prabhupada mentions at the end of this verse that this is the acintya-bhedābheda-tattva, which means that bhedābheda of course, means difference and non-difference. Difference means variety, form, qualities, etc. Abheda means completely impersonal, one, one Brahman. Bheda means Brahman, Paramatma, Bhagavan. Bhagavan will have form, qualities, activities. That is bheda. Plus, bheda will mean there is Supreme Lord, there are jivas, and there is prakriti, matter. Abheda will mean everything is Brahman [Laughs]. So there can be the abheda, only Brahman, plus there can also be Bhagavan, matter, and jivas. Co-existing, bhedābheda. How? Acintya. Inconceivable power of the Lord to be simultaneously one and different. One Brahman, only Brahman exists, only Supreme Lord exists. Plus, Lord exists, jivas exist, matter exists, variety exists, Lord with form exists. This is bheda. So, Lord can manifest Himself in both ways without difficulty because of His inconceivable powers. So that is the solution given by Caitanya Mahprabhu.
The other Acharyas will explain this in a different way, usually by explaining these words. So what does nirguna mean? Nirguna means no material qualities. So this is the, I think Ramanuja gives that explanation. It means no material qualities, but the Lord has spiritual qualities like that. We can also accept that, but also we can say the Lord is nirguna without any qualities at all because He is Brahman [Laughs] and Brahman has no qualities, form, activities, etc. Plus, He is Bhagavan simultaneously. So, with Ramanuja’s explanation, we do have to kind of interpret the words a little bit. With Lord Caitanya’s explanation, we don’t have to interpret. The Lord is Brahman and He is also Paramatma and He is Bhagavan and this is all His acintya shakti. He can be both things simultaneously, no contradiction. So this is how we can approach the scripture. We can start using interpretation to resolve the contradictions or we can just say Lord is both by acintya shakti.
The problem of course, with interpretation is that Sankaracharya can also use the same means [Laughs]. Then he can explain, he can say, okay, nirguna means absolutely no qualities spiritually even. What to speak of materially, of course, He doesn’t have, but even spiritually no qualities. So that’s a very absolute literal definition of the word. So they say, yes, we’re going to interpret this very literally, abhidha meaning. And when we come to the words rupam and Vishnu and all that, ah, we can interpret that [Laughs]. So it doesn’t actually mean [Laughs] what it’s supposed to mean. Normal, normal interpretation of everything. And similarly with Bhagavad Gita. Sankaracharya comments on the Bhagavad Gita. Krishna says, Bhagavan uvaca, etc, surrender unto me, mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja [Bg.18.66], which looks very dualistic. There is Supreme Lord, there is jiva, and the jiva surrenders to the Supreme Lord, etc. So, and then he says, well, that’s true. But this is because we’re speaking of material world, where there is jivas and there is Krishna and Arjuna speaking to each other, whatever, which is all material, and ultimately it’s illusion, because only Brahman exists. So this is only there to give us some nice teaching and get us advanced to a certain stage [Laughs]. So, in other words, he has, he gives a big interpretation of the whole Bhagavad Gita this way, by saying the whole thing is an illusory conversation ultimately [Laughs]. So that’s, of course, more prone to criticism because we’re using a lot of interpretation to come up with a meaning like nirguna, nirvisesha, etc, completely impersonal. But in any case, we find that interpretation itself gives rise to criticism. So that’s why Lord Caitanya says, we don’t have to interpret the words at all. The Lord is both things, finished [Laughs]. And that’s also in agreement with Bhagavatam, where Lord is Brahman, Paramatma, Bhagavan, etc. So this is why we consider that the philosophy enunciated by Lord Caitanya, acintya-bhedābheda is the ultimate philosophy, because we don’t have to interpret at all. We resolve that issue where you can attack the other person for interpreting words. Both are true, and both can coexist in one Supreme Lord by the acintya-shakti. So that gives a nice resolution to everything. And that, of course, is the basis of Devaki speaking here, where it says you have a form, you are Vishnu, plus you are nirvisesha, nirguna, nirvikara, etc. You’re Brahma jyoti, you’re also Supreme Lord with a personality.
Okay, any question there?
Of course, people will say, well why we need all this philosophy, dualism, monism, all this. One, because we have to take our basis on scripture. And then secondly, scripture says both things [Laughs]. And then we have to start resolving the issue. And therefore we have arguments and therefore we have Sankaracharya on one side and Vaishnavas on the other side, and they’re writing all these arguments and counter-arguments in scripture or whatever like that. So it’s because of scripture itself, and we have to give the meaning of scripture, so therefore we do this.
Q & A :
1.) Thank you, Maharaj. When we are discussing this topic of Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan in three features, we often give the example of, like a mountain, seeing it from the distance, like a lump of stone, and then as we go closer, the perspective changes, and that we get more clarity. So it’s the three features kind of more in terms of our level of perspective opposed to the mountain actually having the three features. So it’s more about the perception. Yeah. So but whereas you mentioned in the in the class how it’s not just Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan, it’s not just the level of perspective of a practitioner, but it’s also an actual feature of the Lord.
So we could take it that way in terms of perception, seeing a mountain from a distance, a medium, and then close up, so we get more and more details of the Supreme Lord. Another example is given by our Acharyas, and that is taken from scripture also. Narada Muni is there, and then he looks in the sky, and he sees this bright light, and then he waits a little while, the light gets a little closer, and then he sees that’s the light, but looks like there’s some form in the light [Laughs]. Then he comes very close, and he says, oh this is Vishnu, and he sees Vishnu, and then he sees all this light, radiating light, and he’s talking to Vishnu, etc. So it is Vishnu, and he sees Him at a distance, and there’s light, then he gets a little closer, he sees some form in there, then when he gets close, then he sees all the details. So that’s one way of explaining it. And then if you do jnana, then you end up with this distant realization of the Lord, without expectation even of wanting to get in more personal details, etc. If you do bhakti, then you realize details, Bhagavan, etc, with personal relationship, because the whole sadhana is one of developing relationship. So you get all the details of Bhagavan. So according to your sadhana, then you get a certain type of realization, either a distant realization with minimum of qualities, etc, or one with lots of qualities, that is Bhagavan. So that’s one way of describing it, according to perception. At the same time, we do have descriptions, like in Brahma Samhita where it is called light [Laughs], and we have famous descriptions that Brahma jyoti is the light from the form of the Lord, so actually being like a substance itself. So therefore, it’s not just a way of seeing the Lord from far or close up, it actually is an aspect of the Supreme Lord, a substance of the Supreme Lord. But then, of course, we can also say, yes, it is the Supreme Lord and He is a substance, but it is a undifferentiated substance. So then it ends up kind of like the same thing. We can perceive the Lord in a very general way with a particular process, jnana yoga, and then we see the Lord in a very general way as a general substance. So we can say it’s not just a perception, we say it’s also real, that it’s a real realization of the Lord, which is also, we can say, justified because the Lord is absolute, whether we realize Him at a distance or close up [Laughs], it is still the Lord [Laughs]. So this is just another form of the Lord, and we can say it as light or whatever. So it’s like the substance of the Lord when He does not manifest His shaktis, such as Samvit and Hladini shaktis, and even Samvit is minimally manifested because, I mean, Sandhini, because with the Sandhini shakti, the Lord begins to manifest His form, qualities, and activities. When that stops to function, then the Lord is there with no manifestation of form, qualities, and activities, but still the Lord [Laughs]. So it’s still the substance of the Lord, but no active manifestation of His Sandhini shakti. So we can say it’s both perceptual and it is substance itself, the Brahman. Particularly when we come to Paramatma, then obviously it’s not just a perception of the Lord, He actually is that form [Laughs], Paramatma, who is Maha Vishnu, Garbhodakasayi Vishnu, Kshirodakasayi Vishnu, who is distinct from Bhagavan in the spiritual world, so that He is an actual form [Laughs].
Devotee: So Maharaj, all the three features are absolute truth, is it right to say that?
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj: Yeah.
Devotee: But then there’s only one feature that’s manifest in the spiritual world, whereas the Brahman and Paramatma are not quite in the spiritual world?
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj: Well, yeah. Well, at least they’re not perceived by the devotees in the spiritual world, definitely not [Laughs], because they perceive Bhagavan. So the others are, let’s say, functional aspects of the Lord for certain purposes, and thus inferior [Laughs].
Devotee: Thank you.
2.) Maharaj, you were mentioning that depending on our sadhana, we get different realizations. So, we might be chanting for a long time, but we might not have the realization that Krishna is actually present in the Holy Name, and then it can take lifetimes to get the realization, and at the same time, in coexisting in the material life and doing sadhana can become difficult. So how do we, you know, keep continuing our sadhana without getting the realization or taste in chanting the Holy Names?
Yeah. So, how do we continue without that realization? So, the process of bhakti itself, even at the beginning stages, and the Holy Name are absolute. So they are, the name is non-different from Krishna. Bhakti is non-different from Krishna, whether it is in prema or in sadhana bhakti. So the Lord is present in any case in these forms. But, when we’re doing sadhana, we do not have spiritual vision, etc. That’s the only difference. And therefore, through sadhana, gradually we do develop spiritual vision so we can see Krishna, and we develop spiritual form so we can serve Him. So, how do we continue from that first state? Obviously, the first state can only exist if we have first faith. If the faith is not strong, we will not continue. If we say, may be, may be the scriptures are true, may be they’re false, we don’t know, and may be Krishna exists, may be He doesn’t exist. So that’s not a very good basis for beginning the process [Laughs] of bhakti [Laughs]. Of course, it’s better than nothing. So that would be weak faith. Stronger faith would be, okay, I do accept what scripture says, and therefore we can practice in a more steady way. If we’re at the state where may be it’s true, may be it’s untrue, but I’ll try it anyway, okay, then we can do it, but it’s a little bit, the bhakti is not going to be so steady. Even if we do the unsteady bhakti with unsteady faith, if we advance in bhakti, that faith will become stronger, and as we go on further, then it will be stronger and stronger, and the bhakti becomes stronger and stronger. So the motivation, in any case, behind all of this is that bhakti does give some direct result. We cannot say that it means you realize Krishna directly, so that’s only going to come in bhava. So before that we do not see Krishna directly. But there must be something there, otherwise what motivates us to continue? In other words, what keeps us believing that what scripture says is true? So the answer, of course, is that there is a development of some experience of bhakti. So that’s described in Nectar of Devotion as a happiness that comes from bhakti, not from Brahman, or impersonal liberation, or from swarga-loka, or whatever. So not material happiness, not the happiness of liberation. So there is a happiness that is produced by bhakti itself before the realization of Krishna in bhava and prema, which we call ananda at that stage. So there is some experience of the jiva, of some happiness from the process of bhakti itself. So that will keep us inspired to continue the process until we get to the realization and experience ananda.
3.) Thank you, Maharaj. Here in the purport, there is a statement about self-sufficiency and like you mentioned in your discourse as well, so if I were to take the position of the vivartavadis brahma-satya jagat-mithya, they accuse that your Bhagavan, His atmaramatva is compromised. He’s not self-sufficient. He’s longing to be nursed by His mother. He wants to play with His friends. He’s longing to see the Sri Gopi ganas. So He’s not self-satisfied. He has a need for all these things, whereas our Brahman is unchanging, stable, equilibrium state. So how do we respond to that?
Of course, we can say this dependency on mother Yasoda etc, is spiritual, not material dependence. But we can answer, if you prefer God without, who’s completely self-sufficient, etc, okay, you realize Brahman, it is also part of God, it’s spiritual, fine, do it [Laughs]. If you prefer to develop a realization where God has a form, qualities, activities and we have personal relationship with God and the jiva does not disappear, he is a servant of God, then it’s an equally valid realization. And in that realization, then, God interacts with the devotee, so to say, there is some sort of dependency, mutual dependency is there. But, as I say, this is spiritual, not material, and ultimately, of course, God is independent, so that His position is never compromised, so to speak. But, because the definition of God will include affection for the devotee, that will mean, in some sense, there is a dependence on the devotee. But, that dependence on the devotee is never to be considered a bad quality. So we have words like bhakta vatsala, very affectionate towards devotee. So, yes, the impersonalists say, Brahman cannot be dependent on anything. Answer of the devotee will be that Brahman, of course, no qualities. Bhagavan is full of all wonderful qualities manifested in relation to devotees. And of all those qualities, His affection for the devotee is the strongest of all, the number one quality. So, if the Lord has affection for the devotee, and out of affection does things for the devotee, and it looks like He’s dependent, that is not a bad quality. It’s a good quality. So, therefore, that type, that’s a spiritual dependence. It’s not a bad quality. It’s a good quality in the Lord. If we say the Lord has no compassion, He’s not affectionate, should not react to any devotee when the devotee does anything for the Lord, what kind of Lord is that [Laughs]? Then, of course, it is impersonal, yeah, okay, impersonal, good [Laughs]. If we don’t prefer that form of the Lord, we want the Bhagavan, then all these qualities should manifest. And so the mutual interaction, dependence of the Lord and His devotee should manifest. And it’s not a bad quality. It’s a good quality.
4.) Hare Krishna Maharaj. Thank you for the nice class. My question is that Lord is only Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan. It is not a secondary aspect. So, why then is merging into the Brahman considered as an incomplete realization?
Yeah, yeah. So, in one sense, we can say, no, it is absolute. It’s not incomplete because Brahman, Paramatma, Bhagavan are one. We cannot really separate them. So, just as we could say, okay, I realize Rama, he realizes Krishna. And then we’ll say, well, realization of Rama is not so nice, better to have Krishna. So, we cannot really say that [Laughs] because they’re one [Laughs]. Bhagavan is one ultimately. So, whether you realize Krishna or Narasimha or Rama or whatever, they’re all one. So, we cannot in that way analyze and separate out. However, we also say, according to Bhagavatam, Kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam [SB 1.3.28], Krishna is the ultimate form. He manifests all the qualities in full. Other forms are there. They don’t manifest. The qualities are there because one Bhagavan. But in these particular forms, they don’t show or manifest all of those qualities. But in Krishna, all the qualities are manifested. Therefore, we put Him in topmost position. So, therefore, we have some hierarchy inspite of the fact that there shouldn’t be any hierarchy because they’re all one [Laughs]. So, similarly, with Brahman, Paramatma, Bhagavan, it’s all one Lord. All the Bhagavan forms are there and they’re all one, not different from each other ultimately, but we say, you know, Krishna is supreme. So, similarly, we have Bhagavan, Paramatma, and Brahman. All one, advaya jnana, non-different. But according to the manifestation of qualities, then we’ll put Bhagavan as superior to Brahman. So, this is also in relation to the experience. So, if you experience Brahman, then you have some experience of non-material peace [Laughs], liberation, eternal existence, which we can say is a type of bliss. But then if we compare the bliss of realizing Bhagavan and getting prema, it is quite a lot different. It’s much more intense. And it all arises because we do differentiate between jiva and Supreme Lord and we establish a relationship. That relationship is rasa. Rasa gives bliss. So, in terms of bliss, then we could say that Bhagavan is a more blissful manifestation of God than Brahman. So, in that sense, superior [Laughs]. So, the devotees prefer Bhagavan and they will criticize or reject the Brahman. And the reason for that not only is in terms of the bliss, but also because if you realize the Brahman, there’s no form, qualities, activities. So, it is a negation of Bhagavan in a sense. So, therefore, they don’t want that and they criticize.
Devotee: And what happens to a person who has merged into the Brahma jyoti but still continues to have material desires? Does he come back to this material world?
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj: Well, technically, if you get liberated in Brahman, you cannot come back from that because there’s no more karma and there’s no desires, there’s no differentiation of matter and spirit, whatever. It’s all oneness kind of thing. So, in that position, then you don’t, you get stuck in Brahman eternally [Laughs]. The only chance is if you realize Brahman when you still have the body, that’s the jivan mukta. So, that person, he can fall from that state and go back to the material world.
Devotee: Thank you.
5.) Maharaj, I just wanted to understand what kind of liberation has Bhishma dev attained? As far as I understand, his prayers, after he leaves his body, he merges into the body of the Lord. And if I’m not wrong, in the same case of Sisupala, when he was killed, how we can understand it’s merging in the body of the Lord with Brahman?
So, sometimes we’ll see these descriptions of merging in the body even, I think, Aghasura also, to merge in the body of the Lord. But then, our Acharyas say, okay, Sisupala and Aghasura merge in the body of the Lord, but actually, after that [Laughs], then they attain spiritual forms in the spiritual world. So, they may temporarily merge into body of Krishna, whatever, when He kills them, and then they get situated in the spiritual world. So, that’s one way of doing it. Others are not so fortunate [Laughs], and they just merge in the body of the Lord or merge in Paramatma or merge in Brahman or whatever, and they just stay there, finished. So, that will depend on the mercy of the Lord if He wants to take them beyond that and put them in the spiritual world, as in the case of Sisupala or Aghasura. Other cases, Krishna kills demons, they just end up in the Brahman, that’s finished [Laughs]. So, it could go either way. And for Bhishma, of course, he’s a devotee, so obviously, he’s not going to get stuck in Brahman at all. So, he may go there, but then he ends up in spiritual world, and he has eternal body there, associating with Krishna.
Devotee: And also, Maharaj, we hear that, well, it’s the way how I’ve been taught, because the living entity, the spiritual soul is very active, it cannot remain eternally in the Brahman. If they get, like you mentioned, you get stuck in the Brahman eternally, but if the living entity, the soul is active, how that can be then?
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj: Well, the thing is that, it is difficult, and that is why the process of jnana is very difficult to get liberation with, because [Laughs] you do have to stop your activities, stop your senses, stop your mind, etc. Meanwhile, you know, senses are restless and the jiva itself wants to do something. However, with that practice of jnana, eventually, after thousands of years, you can do that, and then, because you eliminate all mental and sensual functions, etc, you destroy the ahankara, then, and there’s no more perceiving objects at all, then the atma goes into the state of Brahman, where he’s also inactive in one sense, he’s just conscious, may be that’s what we say, his activity is consciousness [Laughs], and then he’s just in that particular state. Why in that state? Because that’s what he wanted, he wanted to get rid of his form, quality, activities, everything, so the Lord gives him that state, and then he’s just stuck in that state of, it says, sattva-matram [Laughs], conscious existence alone, just existing [Laughs].
6.) Hare Krishna Maharaj, I have two questions, Maharaj. First one is about demigods, so in the purport, there’s a reference about demigods, so we hear that, in some cases we hear that Shiva is non-different from Krishna, or I mean, non-different from Vishnu, so we also hear about many forms of Lord Shiva, so Rudra, Shambhu, Shiva, Sadashiva and all, and we hear that Ganesh is the son of Shiva, so just wanted to understand, what is the, I mean, whose father is Ganesh? Is it Sadashiva, Rudra or Shambhu?
So, Shiva himself usually is simply another form of Vishnu, but he manifests five qualities less than the Vishnu form, so he’s put in a special category. At the same time, he’s not considered a jiva, because the jivas are minuscule particles, completely different from Supreme Lord, and Shiva has an eternal spiritual body, jivas can be stuck in the material world with material bodies, etc, so there’s a distinction there. Sometimes, in some universes, by the will of the Lord, he may appoint a jiva to take up that role instead of Shiva, who is actually Vishnu. Just as Brahma is usually a jiva, sometimes the Lord Himself takes that position in some universe also, so sometimes a jiva will take the role of a Shiva as well. So other forms are not really described what they are, like, you know, Ganesh and Kartikeya or whatever, but we can assume that they are probably jivas who have, are playing a particular pastime with Shiva, so just as Krishna also has sons and whatever in Dwaraka [Laughs], so Shiva can also have his sons, you know, with him, like Ganesh and Kartikeya, etc, with jivas taking up those roles.
Devotee: So the personality with 55 qualities or 5 qualities less than Vishnu, is that Sadashiva or is that?
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj: Yeah, that’s the Shiva. Well, the Sadashiva can refer to Vishnu Himself in Vaikuntha, he can be called Sadashiva, or it can refer to the Shiva who has 5 less qualities, it can refer to him also.
Devotee: Okay. The second question was about the Pancha-tattva mantra Maharaj. So, we hear that before the time of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur, the Pancha-tattva mantra was slightly different, and so I just wanted to understand what was the reason that Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur introduced this form of the Pancha-tattva mantra that we chant here?
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj: Oh, well, I don’t really know about that. Pancha-tattva itself is mentioned in the Caitanya Caritamrta, so there’s no problem with that, because he goes through each of the Pancha-tattva and describes their particular position, who they are, etc. So, there’s no quarrel about their identity and who they are, they do exist as 5 entities. The particular mantra of that I don’t know whether Bhaktisiddhanta did that, but I think I’ve seen it in other places as well, not just with Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati, I think there’s other places also that the mantra is used.
Devotee: Thank you.
7.) Maharaj, this verse in Bhagavatam, in the previous chapter, which is ye ’nye ’ravindākṣa vimukta-māninas [ŚB 10.2.32], so this vimukta-māninas, those who consider themselves liberated, is it referring to those who have attained the Brahma jyoti or is it just mayavadis who think themselves liberated?
Well, Vishwanath Chakravarti, I think Jiva also says it refers to the persons who offend the Lord, obviously, because the last line says that they reject the Lord, etc, so they are offenders, so that the impersonalists, mayavadi or whatever, if they reject the form of Vishnu and say He’s material, while they’re, even if they get to the jivan-mukta stage, then they can fall from that position. If a person attains liberation, the only way he can do that is he doesn’t offend the Lord [Laughs], and then when he leaves his body, he can merge in Brahman, and then he stays there, he doesn’t fall.
8.) Maharaj, you mentioned that the jiva who attains the Brahma jyoti never falls from there, but sometimes we hear, I think, am I mistaken in saying that Prabhupada also said that sometimes the living entity can attain Brahman, but because of the desire to act, that they come back to material world?
Yeah. So I think that you should take it from that verse you just quoted [Laughs], that they think they’re liberated but then they fall from that position, whatever, so, and then that’s the meaning given by Vishwanath Chakravarti is that this refers to the jivan-mukta, one who’s still in the material world, so he’s kind of approaching that eternal state, but he offends the Lord, so he can’t get liberation at all, and then he falls from that position, and if he really gets liberation, then he has to accept the form of the Lord, and then he won’t fall from that position. The reason he takes that position is probably because repeatedly in the Upanishads, it says that one gets that liberation, he never falls [Laughs], just as we say, when you attain Goloka, you don’t fall from that position, so similarly, you get to Brahman, you don’t fall from that position if you’ve actually got the, you know, give up your body and enter Brahman.
Devotee: So Maharaj, if someone accepts the lotus feet of the Lord, then how is it possible for him to be attracted to Brahma jyoti?
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj: Well, it’s like their goal is Brahma jyoti, to do that they will accept the Lord [Laughs], so there is a little bhakti, but it is very secondary and useful for their liberation, just as even to get to swargaloka, you also have to, you can’t offend the Lord, and you have to do a little bhakti, but then they don’t attain Goloka [Laughs], they get to swargaloka because that was their goal, and they use their worship of Vishnu to get there.
9.) Maharaj, sorry, last question, how is the, because in Bhagavad Gita, Krishna explains how living entity cannot abstain from doing anything, not even for a moment, so then in the Brahma jyoti, how is the living entity able to just not do anything?
Well, as I said, that’s the mercy of the Lord in one sense [Laughs], He allows them to, if they want peace, He gives them peace, because if they have activity, if they are in a Brahman state with non-duality, why would you do activity at all, because there is nothing to do activity for, because there is no object of anything perceived, so there wouldn’t be any activity at all [Laughs].
10.) Hare Krishna Maharaj, Maharaj, it is said that, Lord Kapila said that, there is no service in Vaikuntha, vinā mat-sevanaṁ janāḥ [ŚB 3.29.13], so pure devotee doesn’t go to, doesn’t like to go to Vaikuntha, because there is no service.
If there is no service.
Devotee: Okay. If there is no service?
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj: Yeah, he won’t accept Vaikuntha, sarupya, salokya, if there is no service.
Devotee: So which means there is service in Vaikuntha.
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj: So therefore, the Lord, He will accept on that condition, having a spiritual form, being in Vaikuntha etc, because he is serving the Lord, so what that verse is showing is that, the service is more important than salokya, saristi, samipya, all of this.
Devotee: But if it is salokya, for example, how will, we will be able to serve if we have a salokya, same loka, as well?
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj: Well, yeah, you serve, if you want to serve the Lord, you serve Him directly, you will be in the same place, so you will be in salokya, same place, you will be in Vaikuntha, if you want to serve Vishnu, because He is in Vaikuntha, so then you are granted same planet, salokya.
Devotee: Okay.
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj : And then you get a form, similar to Vishnu’s, with four arms, and you serve Him, so that’s sarupya.
Devotee: So we can only serve in one form, which is dasya rasa?
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj: Yeah.
Devotee: That’s the only way.
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj: Yeah.
Devotee: Alright, thank you Maharaj.
11.) Just one final confirmation, Maharaj, so in this impersonal liberation state, my understanding now is that the jiva loses his concept of his personal identity. Is that a correct understanding? It doesn’t have?
It’s minimized, it can’t be lost, because of the nature of the jiva to have a sense of I, but it is minimal, because he is not relating to anything, obviously, so that will only be activated if you do have other forms to relate to, so I see that form, but you don’t see anything, so [Laughs] the I itself is in a minimal state.
Devotee : And because of this minimal self-awareness, there is no, therefore there is no hankering to serve.
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj: Yeah.
Devotee: Thank you Maharaj.
12.) Hare Krishna Maharaj, Maharaj, is there a connection between the demigods in the Vaikuntha, the nation of the Vaikuntha, Lord’s associates, and the demigods in the swarga.
What’s the relationship? What’s the relationship?
Devotee: What’s the relationship? Is there any relationship at all?
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj: Well, they’re all jivas [Laughs], so in that sense it’s common. In Vaikuntha, they’re acting as servants of the Lord in some degree, so it’s described that around Vaikuntha, in the different directions, we have the dikdevatas, those devatas, Indra in the east and whatever, so they are serving the Lord in that capacity, so they’re like just servants, dasya, adikrta dasya, I think they call them, servants who have a particular, what, post to serve as devata of the eastern direction, guardian of the eastern direction, etc. So that’s how they serve, and they have spiritual bodies there. Differences in the material world, we have jivas who have material bodies, but they’re also servants of the Lord, so these are called vibhutis. They are jivas with material bodies, giving a temporary position to serve the Lord like Indra, etc, but it’s temporary, so, and of course, it’s different than those jivas in the spiritual world.
13.) Hare Krishna Maharaj. My question is lined with Brahmakunda prabhu. You mentioned that faith is an impetus to continue our sadhana or devotional practice, but sometimes Maharaj, what happens when people are, you know, they’ve started their journey in Krishna Consciousness and they go through trials and tribulations of life, their faith is shaken, but in the nine stages of bhakti, the sraddha or faith is the first stage and then comes sadhu-sanga, so where is that faith coming from? Because that faith is required to have further, stronger faith in the scriptures.
So faith also is spiritual, it is distinguished from bhakti because it’s the qualification to perform bhakti, so it is a conviction of the existence of the Supreme Lord, a willingness to accept the statements of scripture, so this is our initial faith, and it’s also spiritual. So it cannot be caused by anything material, like punyas, etc, pious activities, fasting or whatever. So when we think about it, the only way you can get faith is to get mercy of devotees. But then, normally, you don’t, if you don’t have faith, you don’t approach devotees [Laughs]. May be you avoid devotees like something instead [Laughs]. So how are you going to get mercy of devotees? So therefore, it’s only accidental mercy. Without knowing it, you get the mercy of a devotee. You may see a devotee, you may hear the Holy Name, you may take prasadam, not because you have faith, but accidentally. So that accidental exposure to bhakti influences the atma a little bit. And then if it builds up over many lifetimes of accidental mercy, then that turns into faith. And so from that conviction, then, when you hear Bhagavad Gita, then you accept it [Laughs]. So it’s depending on the mercy. And that mercy of course, is coming from devotees, coming from Krishna ultimately.
Devotee: Thank you.
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj: Okay. Hare Krishna.
Devotees: Grantharaj Srimad Bhagavatam ki jai!!! HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj ki jai!!! Srila Prabhupada ki jai!!! Nitai Gaura Premanande Hari Haribol!!!