Srimad Bhagavatam 11.11.7 | HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj | ISKCON Chennai | 29 April 2021
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 11 Verse 7.
ŚB 11.11.7
ātmānam anyaṁ ca sa veda vidvān|
apippalādo na tu pippalādaḥ
yo ’vidyayā yuk sa tu nitya-baddho
vidyā-mayo yaḥ sa tu nitya-muktaḥ
Synonyms
ātmānam — Himself; anyam — the other; ca — also; saḥ — He; veda — knows; vidvān — being omniscient; apippala-adaḥ — not eating the fruits of the tree; na — not; tu — but; pippala-adaḥ — the one who is eating the fruits of the tree; yaḥ — who; avidyayā — with ignorance; yuk — filled; saḥ — he; tu — indeed; nitya — eternally; baddhaḥ — conditioned; vidyā-mayaḥ — full of perfect knowledge; yaḥ — who; saḥ — he; tu — indeed; nitya — eternally; muktaḥ — liberated.
Translation
The bird who does not eat the fruits of the tree is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who by His omniscience perfectly understands His own position and that of the conditioned living entity, represented by the eating bird. That living entity, on the other hand, does not understand himself or the Lord. He is covered by ignorance and is thus called eternally conditioned, whereas the Personality of Godhead, being full of perfect knowledge, is eternally liberated.
Purport
The word vidyā-maya in this verse indicates the internal potency of the Lord and not the external potency, mahā-māyā. Within the material world there is vidyā, or material science, and avidyā, or material ignorance, but in this verse vidyā means the internal spiritual knowledge by which the Personality of Godhead is fixed in omniscience. The example of two birds in a tree, which is given in many Vedic literatures, demonstrates the statement nityo nityānām: there are two categories of eternal living entities, namely the Supreme Lord and the minute jīva soul. The conditioned jīva soul, forgetting his identity as an eternal servant of the Lord, tries to enjoy the fruits of his own activities and thus comes under the spell of ignorance. This bondage of ignorance has existed since time immemorial and can be rectified only by one’s taking to the loving devotional service of the Lord, which is full of spiritual knowledge. In conditioned life the living entity is forced by the laws of nature to engage in pious and impious fruitive activities, but the liberated position of every living entity is to offer the fruits of his work to the Lord, the supreme enjoyer. It should be understood that even when the living entity is in a liberated condition, his knowledge is never equal in quantity to that of the Personality of Godhead. Even Lord Brahmā, the supreme living entity within this universe, acquires only partial knowledge of the Personality of Godhead and His potencies. In Bhagavad-gītā (4.5), the Lord explains His superior knowledge to Arjuna:
bahūni me vyatītāni
janmāni tava cārjuna
tāny ahaṁ veda sarvāṇi
na tvaṁ vettha parantapa
“The Blessed Lord said: Many, many births both you and I have passed. I can remember all of them, but you cannot, O subduer of the enemy!”
The term baddha, or “bound,” is also understood to refer to the living entity’s eternal dependence upon the Lord, either in the conditioned or liberated state. In the kingdom of māyā the living entity is bound to the cruel laws of birth and death, whereas in the spiritual sky the living entity is fixed in a bond of love to the Lord. Liberation means freedom from the miseries of life, but never freedom from one’s loving relationship with Lord Kṛṣṇa, which is the essence of one’s eternal existence. According to Śrīla Madhvācārya, the Lord is the only eternally free living entity, and all other living entities are eternally dependent and bound to the Lord, either through blissful loving service or through the bondage of māyā. The conditioned soul should give up tasting the bitter fruits of the tree of material existence and turn to his dearmost friend, Lord Kṛṣṇa, who is sitting within his heart. There is no pleasure equal to or greater than the pleasure of pure devotional service to Lord Kṛṣṇa, and by tasting the fruit of love of Kṛṣṇa, the liberated living entity enters the ocean of happiness.
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj:
So this example of the two birds in the tree is used to show the difference between the jiva and the Supreme Lord. So as this verse describes the one bird is in knowledge of himself and others. And this, as a bird he does not eat the fruit of the tree. And this is unlike the other bird who is eating. And the other bird is described here as being endowed with ignorance of avidyayā yuk. And here he’s called Nitya-baddha. And the other bird is called Nitya-mukta.
So the jiva is Nitya-baddha and he has ignorance. And the Supreme Lord is Nitya-mukta and He has knowledge. However, usually we use the term Nitya-mukta to refer to the jiva in the spiritual world. Of course, the Lord is also Nitya-mukta. He’s ever liberated. But the jiva in the spiritual world is in that same position. And the jiva in the spiritual world also has no ignorance. He is in knowledge. But even though they are similar and being Nitya-mukta and having knowledge, they also have difference. So that is expressed in another verse which talks about, as quoted in the purport here nityo nityānāṁ [Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.13]. The Lord is Nitya among all Nityas. That means He is the principal eternal entity among all eternal entities. So there is some difference. So in one sense we can explain the difference in terms of quantity. So the Lord has more knowledge than the jiva. The Lord has more power than the jiva. So in this way there is difference even though there is similarity.
The jiva of course as I mentioned previously even though he is very similar to the Lord, he is in a different category. So this emphasizes the difference. The jiva is classed as tatastha shakti. The Lord is not shakti at all of any sort. He is shaktiman, the possessor of shakti. So the shakti is always dependent upon the shaktiman. So there is the eternal dependence of all shaktis that is the external energy, the tatastha shakti and the internal energy on Supreme Lord. So this, it means there is difference. So though the jiva is similar in the spiritual world by having consciousness and knowledge and bliss etc, still that difference always remains.
By the arrangement of the Lord, things do not change into other things. One shakti does not change into another shakti. The bahiranga shakti does not become the jiva shakti. The jiva shakti does not become the cit shakti. So everything is defined with some differences. So the jiva never becomes Supreme Lord. It never becomes shaktiman. Nor does it become the cit shakti or internal energy. So this again emphasizes the difference. At the same time, in our philosophy, we also have the idea of abheda, non-difference. Though everything is different from the Lord, the Lord is very intimately related with everything. And that is expressed also by the statement of scripture that the shaktiman and the shakti, though they are different, they are also non-different. So here we get difference and non-difference. So based on this statement, we can also say that the Lord is not different from the external energy or the material universe. The Lord is not different from the jiva. The Lord is not different from His cit shakti. So in that sense, there is oneness.
Sometimes we will see statements in the scripture in which the Lord says, I am the universe. So that expresses this idea that the Lord is non-different from matter. We have the famous statement in the Upanishad, sarvam khalv idaṁ brahma [Chāndogya Upaniṣad 3.14.1]. Brahman is everything. Based on this statement, the Mayavadis say that this means, only Brahman exists. We however say that no, this means that Supreme Lord or Brahman is the universe and is the jiva, is the spiritual energy etc, but He is also [Not audible]. So we do not disagree with the statement of the Upanishads that everything is Brahman. But at the same time, we also say other statements like this verse here, so there is difference also. So we don’t minimize the value of a statement like this with the two birds in the tree, inspite of the fact that there are statements that say everything is Brahman. So we give equal strength to both statements. The Mayavadi, in order to support that only Brahman exists, will give less importance to this statement about two birds in the tree. So we could reply to that and say why should we minimize the value of this statement about two birds in the tree? The Mayavadi will say well, this is contradictory, you cannot say that everything is Brahman and at the same time say the Lord is different from the jiva, contradictory. And therefore, we have to interpret this statement about two birds in the tree, make it harmonious with everything is Brahman.
So in Caitanya Caritamrta, Caitanya Mahaprabhu in His discussion with Sarvabhauma and others, He describes how the Mayavadis will interpret the verses like this verse to minimize their strength. They will interpret all the statements of the Upanishads and other literatures that contradict the idea of only Brahman exists. So Caitanya Mahaprabhu objects and says this interpretation in most cases should not be done. We should accept the statements of scripture as they are. In other words, we won’t interpret this idea of the two birds and the tree that says the Lord and the jiva are different, we don’t interpret it. So we generally classify this interpretation or giving secondary meanings as lakshana. If something contradicts something else then we start interpreting it.
So if, we can say, for instance, there is a village on the Ganga. If we literally take the meaning of the words, then it means there is a village floating on top of the waves of the Ganga. But we have never seen that. So therefore we say, it doesn’t mean that. So there’s a village on the Ganga actually means the village on the bank of the Ganga. So that is an example of lakshana. A statement contradicts our common experience. Therefore we give another meaning. In the case of these statements here, everything is Brahman and there are two birds in a tree. We don’t have experience of either of them. We simply accept the statements of scripture. But we cannot interpret this two birds in a tree in terms of only Brahman exists. Of course other arguments may be given. So one of the arguments given by the Mayavadis is all of the statements of Puranas and Mahabharata etc, are not as strong as the statements of the Upanishads.
So if statements in Bhagavatam or Bhagavad Gita contradict sarvam khalv idaṁ brahma [Chāndogya Upaniṣad 3.14.1], then we don’t accept them. We have to give them lakshana. However, counter argument is that same statements also appear in the Upanishads themselves. So the Upanishads themselves will have this example of the two birds and the tree. So counter argument to that is, well this statement occurs in the Svetasvatara Upanishad. Shankaracharya does not accept that as strong as the ten Upanishads. So in answer to that we can say that, we should not isolate and take only certain scriptures. All the scriptures. All the Upanishads and all of the Puranas and Mahabharata should have the same conclusion. So we have to be very intelligent to see the final conclusion of all of these different scriptures. And that is why we have Acharyas to write commentaries to explain to us what is the primary meaning of the scriptures. We accept that the Puranas and the Upanishads should say the same thing. However the Puranas are written for the people of kali yuga, so the expression is simpler and easier to understand. Furthermore, to summarize all the Puranas, Vedavyasa wrote Srimad Bhagavatam.
So in Srimad Bhagavatam we will have a simpler conclusion. However even in Bhagavatam we will find contradictory statements. So then we have to use great intelligence to see what is the conclusion. Sometimes the statements are made with exaggeration. As in Bhagavad Gita when Krishna says, karma yoga is the best process. So then again, our Acharyas will have to explain, what is the real conclusion. So what do we do for statements like this where there is some contradiction, two birds in a tree, Lord and jiva are different. Then we have other statements, Lord is everything. So we say both statements are true. How could we say that looks contrary? One is not equal to two. One is equal to one. Two is equal to two. One is not equal to two. So either it is only Brahman exists or jivas and Brahman exists. It can’t be both. However, it says both things. And both are equal [Laughs]. So therefore we say, it is bheda-abheda, difference and non-difference. How is it possible? So we say acintya shakti, by the acintya shakti of the Lord, the Lord is everything. He is also different from everything.
Hare Krishna.
Q & A :
1.) Maharaj mentioned about, that there is also some contradiction even within the same scripture like Srimad Bhagavatam. However there is also a perspective that every understanding should be in alignment with the paribhasha sutra of that particular scripture Maharaj. How to appreciate that?
So therefore, though there looks like contradiction sometimes, they should all be in line with the paribhasha statement. So the, so many statements may be there. So we have a whole section on varnashrama and karma yoga. We have a section on jnana. We have a section on astanga yoga. And in these sections, these things get praised. So it looks contradictory because of that. So therefore, we do need to put all the different statements in their proper perspectives. For different types of people, different things are praised. But still, we have to see the highest goal, the highest, most valuable thing of all. But therefore, all of these other statements have to ultimately be explained in terms of Kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam [ŚB 1.3.28].
2.) In Padma Purana, lord Shiva says to Goddess Parvati that he preached Mayavada under the order of of the Supreme Lord. So kindly explain why Supreme Lord told lord Shiva to preach Mayavada and lord preached that brahma satyaṁ jagan mithyā?
So not all people are qualified for the highest truth. So therefore, we even have whole section of the vedas dedicated to karma-kanda. And then we have Buddha coming as an incarnation of the Lord to reject all this karma-kanda and yoga and everything else. So at certain times, the Lord will recommend certain things, but not always the ultimate. So at certain times, the Lord will recommend certain things, they are not always the ultimate. Jaimini is a disciple of Vedavyasa, but he is in charge of karma-kanda [Laughs]. So we have to be intelligent enough to see what is the ultimate purpose of life. So Shankaracharya, we see, had one plus point. And that is that he stopped the increase of Buddhism. And that is, that he stopped the increase of Buddhism. And what was wrong with Buddhism? They rejected the vedas. So therefore, Shankaracharya defeated the Buddhists, then, everybody began to accept the vedas again. However, it was wrong interpretation of the vedas. So therefore, after Shankaracharya, we have the Vaishnava Acharyas like Ramanujacharya, Madhva and Caitanya Mahaprabhu to give us the correct understanding of the vedas. But without first accepting the authority of the vedas, then nothing can be done. So Shankaracharya played a great role in getting the vedas accepted.
3.) Do we say that the jiva and the Lord are absolutely one in achintya bheda-abheda tattva?
They are one and different. But Jiva Goswami mentions, actually we emphasize difference a little more.
4.) Maharaj, what do the personified vedas try to establish in the 87th chapter of the 10th canto?
The original question asked there is, how is it possible to express which is beyond material words through the vedas? How do we express Brahman or the Supreme Lord through vedas which are material sound? The answer ultimately is that the sound of the vedas is not material. One can describe the Lord through words, but the words are spiritual. And how is that possible? That is possible because the Lord has shakti. Through His internal shakti, words have a spiritual meaning. Through His internal shakti, He manifests form, qualities and activities. And the form, qualities and activities of the Lord can be described by the sages and by scripture and they remain spiritual.
5.) We have heard on the previous day. It was saying that the different festivals sometimes are celebrated at different times in different parts of India itself. Like Hanuman Jayanthi was celebrated somewhere two, three days before in the North India and in the South India it was celebrated somewhere in January or so. Why should this sort of differences prevail? And can one observe some sort of fasting on this sort of festival days?
Well, it depends on your authority [Laughs]. Some people may be celebrating something without any scriptural authority at all. And then, of course, we have to see the proper calculation. We have to see how the dates are calculated. So, if it’s according to tithi, rather than a solar day, very easy to calculate. Then, we have to see that the calculation is proper.
6.) Maharaj, if there is a doubt, whom to consult, Srila Prabhupada’s teachings or sastra? As sometimes we see, Srila Prabhupada may be due to time, place and circumstances, would have explained sastra differently.
The main points will remain the same. So jiva is always jiva, Supreme Lord is always Supreme Lord. But some of the details in terms of practicing bhakti may be adjusted according to place and time.
7.) Advaitis ask, if there is one vedic statement that says, jiva–brahma is bhinna, there are numerous statements which say that they are one and statements like dvau suparṇā means jita asraya and not bhinna. They accept duality. They accept duality is naturally known in the world yad loke prasiddham pavika brahmane pratisiddham. Hence the sastra which has the only aim of teaching abheda, take the path of doing anuvada of dvaita vakhyas. This is also seen in worldly experience where in order to remove the bhrama of something, the teacher does anuvada of what is experienced by student and then teaches the actual purport.
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj: What’s the question?
Devotee: It’s not over Maharaj. Hence dvau suparṇā is merely Anuvada. Requesting if you have come across statements that explicitly say Brahma and jiva are bhinna.
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj: Oh, okay. So this is like, this is what the Mayavadi would say. Okay, this is just for a student to make him understand on a lower level or something like that. I suppose that’s what he’s saying [Laughs]. In other words, it’s interpreted and not an absolute statement.
8.) Maharaj, Bhagavad Gita 18.18 mentions about knowledge, object of knowledge and knower being the factors that motivate action. Can I request you to elaborate?
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj: There’s knowledge and a goal of knowledge and what?
Devotee: Object of knowledge and knower being the factors that motivate action.
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj: What is that?
Devotee: Knowledge, the object of knowledge and knower being the factors that motivate action. Can I request you to elaborate?
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj: Knower, knower being the what?
Devotee: Motivator of action.
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj: Knower is the motivator of action.
Devotee: Being the factors that motivate action. Being the factors that motivate action. Knowledge, object of knowledge, knower of the knowledge are the factors for action.
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj: Yeah. So obviously we have the knower that is like a jiva, he knows something. Knowledge, of course, is [Laughs] what is the jiva is conscious of. And often that jnana refers to the method of getting knowledge. And then the object of knowledge means ultimately Krishna. So of course in the material world it’s not Krishna, it’s so many material things. But if the jiva reaches perfection, the jiva is the knower, knows Supreme Lord as the ultimate goal. And what is this process of knowledge? Process of knowledge is bhakti. We have bhakti, we have bhakta and we have Krishna.
9.) Maharaj, after Buddha, Shankaracharya came and established Mayavada. Later Ramanuja, Madhvacharya and Caitanya Mahaprabhu defeated Mayavada. Still someone may argue that Caitanya’s Acintya bheda-abheda tattva may be countered by somebody in the future as well. How to understand that Caitanya’s teaching is the culmination of knowledge and is the final conclusion and the truth?
Well, the main positions have already been proposed. Nothing exists. That’s extreme Buddhism. Only material world exists. This is Charvaka’s philosophy. So, we have material world and we have jivas. This is Sankhya philosophy. We have only Brahman exists and no material world. That’s Mayavada philosophy. So, we have jiva exists, maya exists, Supreme Lord exists. This is Vaishnava philosophy. And then among the Vaishnavas, we have emphasis on oneness as in Visishta Advaita. And then we have emphasis on the difference in Advaita philosophy. And then we have combination in Achintya bheda-abheda. So, any other possibility would be somewhere either a little more oneness or a little more difference.
10.) Maharaj, Bhakti Rasamrta Sindhu says that Vishnu can take avataras and that quality is not present in jiva. But we see in Srimad Bhagavatam that Nitya siddhas do expand and simultaneously present in multiple places. Aren’t the expansions of jiva considered to be avataras of jiva?
No, no. Avataras means Supreme Lord [Laughs]. And the jiva, when he has expansions, it’s not under his control. It’s under Krishna’s control.
11.) Maharaj, does a devotee realize Acintya bheda-abheda tattva in prema?
A realization is there, but not in terms of philosophy. There’s no oneness in difference. There’s only prema. But we see there is difference because the jiva is there and he sees the Lord, he perceives the Lord. But there is oneness because there is prema..
12.) What does Omkara represent?
That is explained in Caitanya Caritamrta. And of course, we do have other explanations as well. Ultimately, it represents Vishnu. So it is a sound representation of the Lord.
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!!!