Srimad Bhagavatam – 11.5.34 | HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj | 13 March 2025 | Australia
SB_11.5.34
त्यक्त्वा सुदुस्त्यजसुरेप्सितराज्यलक्ष्मीं
धर्मिष्ठ आर्यवचसा यदगादरण्यम् ।
मायामृगं दयितयेप्सितमन्वधावद्
वन्दे महापुरुष ते चरणारविन्दम् ॥ ३४ ॥
tyaktvā su-dustyaja-surepsita-rājya-lakṣmīṁ
dharmiṣṭha ārya-vacasā yad agād araṇyam
māyā-mṛgaṁ dayitayepsitam anvadhāvad
vande mahā-puruṣa te caraṇāravindam
Translation
O Mahā-puruṣa, I worship Your lotus feet. You gave up the association of the goddess of fortune and all her opulence, which is most difficult to renounce and is hankered after by even the great demigods. Being the most faithful follower of the path of religion, You thus left for the forest in obedience to a brāhmaṇa’s curse. Out of sheer mercifulness You chased after the fallen conditioned souls, who are always in pursuit of the false enjoyment of illusion, and at the same time engaged in searching out Your own desired object, Lord Śyāmasundara.
Purport
According to the Vaiṣṇava ācāryas, this important verse of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is understood to describe Caitanya Mahāprabhu, Lord Kṛṣṇa and also Lord Śrī Rāmacandra. This verse appears within the discussion by the sage Karabhājana of the yugāvatāras, or the different incarnations of the Personality of Godhead who deliver the conditioned souls of each age. The prayers ending with the words vande mahā-puruṣa te caraṇāravindam are understood to glorify the incarnation of Lord Kṛṣṇa in Kali-yuga known as Caitanya Mahāprabhu. Caitanya Mahāprabhu lived for twenty-four years in Navadvīpa as a householder and enjoyed immense popularity among both scholars and ordinary persons. His saṅkīrtana movement was completely supported by the local government, even though it was Muslim. And Caitanya Mahāprabhu had the pleasure of marrying the goddess of fortune. No ordinary woman of the material world, no matter how gorgeous she may be, can in any way compare with the beautiful goddess of fortune. Everyone in the universe, including Lord Brahmā, is searching after the goddess of fortune. Therefore it is stated here, surepsita.
However, Caitanya Mahāprabhu is Lord Kṛṣṇa appearing as a brāhmaṇa, and therefore He is certainly dharmiṣṭhaḥ, or the most religious. Actually the Supreme Personality of Godhead is always dharmiṣṭhaḥ, whether He appears as a cowherd boy, a great king or a brāhmaṇa, because the Lord Himself is the original source and personification of all religious principles. However, in the pastimes of Caitanya Mahāprabhu there are very few political or economic activities. Caitanya Mahāprabhu appeared as a great philosopher-brāhmaṇa, and thus He is certainly dharmiṣṭhaḥ. In Caitanya-caritāmṛta, in the Seventeenth Chapter of the Ādi-līlā, it is described that a certain brāhmaṇa, who was well known for being harsh and cursing others, could not enter the kīrtana hall where Caitanya Mahāprabhu was performing kīrtana because the door was locked. Being very agitated and breaking his brāhmaṇa’s thread, he cursed Caitanya Mahāprabhu the next day on the bank of the Ganges, saying, “I shall now curse You, for Your behavior has greatly aggrieved me. You shall be bereft of all material happiness.” However, Caitanya Mahāprabhu felt great jubilation within Himself, since His mission was vairāgya-vidyā-nija-bhakti-yoga — to give up the illusion of material sense gratification and staunchly engage twenty-four hours a day in the devotional service of the Lord. Therefore, Caitanya Mahāprabhu took this curse as a blessing, and soon after, the Lord took sannyāsa. Thus it is stated in this verse that by the words of the Āryan, the brāhmaṇa (ārya-vacasā), Caitanya Mahāprabhu took sannyāsa (yad agād araṇyam) and went traveling through the different forests of India on the way to Vṛndāvana, and later South India. Caitanya Mahāprabhu wanted especially to preserve the prestige of the brāhmaṇa class, and therefore He decided to keep the brāhmaṇa’s curse intact.
Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura has explained the word māyā-mṛgam as follows. Māyā means one’s so-called wife, children and bank account, which keep one firmly bound up in the material bodily concept of life. The word mṛgam indicates mṛgyati, or “to search out.” Thus, māyā-mṛgam indicates the conditioned living entity, who is always frantically searching for the latest up-to-the-minute sense gratification in the material bodily concept of society, friendship and love. Anvadhāvat indicates that Caitanya Mahāprabhu was always visibly going here and there, searching after the fallen conditioned souls. Caitanya Mahāprabhu would sometimes embrace the conditioned souls on the pretext of religious friendship or ecstasy. But actually, the Lord was touching the bodies of the conditioned souls to pull them out of the ocean of material existence and hurl them into the ocean of ecstatic love of Godhead. Thus Caitanya Mahāprabhu was the most merciful and munificent incarnation of the Lord, whose mercy surpassed the bounds of mundane discrimination in the matter of caste, color and creed.
The word dayitayā can be explained as follows. The Sanskrit word dayā means “mercy.” Thus, by grammatical derivation, the word used in this verse, dayitayā, indicates that because of being the most merciful, Caitanya Mahāprabhu was busily engaged in rescuing the fallen conditioned souls, who are completely distracted and bewildered by the external illusory energy of the Lord. The quality of being the most merciful is part and parcel of the character of the mahā-puruṣa, or the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
According to Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī, this verse also describes the incarnation of Lord Kṛṣṇa Himself in His original blackish form. Thus the words surepsita-rājya-lakṣmīm indicate śrī-mathurā-sampattim, or the opulence of Mathurā. Mathurā is described in Vedic literature as the reservoir of all opulence because of the touch of the Lord’s lotus feet in that precinct. But Kṛṣṇa, although taking birth in the opulent city of Mathurā, transferred Himself to the forest village of Vṛndāvana. In this case the word ārya-vacasā indicates the order of Lord Kṛṣṇa’s original parents, Vasudeva and Devakī. In Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (10.3.22, 29) both Vasudeva and Devakī express their fear at the threat of Kaṁsa, who had already killed all of Kṛṣṇa’s elder brothers. The word ārya-vacasā thus indicates that with great love they requested Kṛṣṇa to kindly make some arrangement to avoid Kaṁsa. And Kṛṣṇa, to obey their order, transferred Himself to the forest village of Vṛndāvana (yad agād araṇyam).
In this context, the words māyā-mṛgam indicate the special, exalted relationship between Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī and Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Māyā also indicates the internal potency of Kṛṣṇa, yoga-māyā. The original form of Kṛṣṇa’s internal potency is Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī. Due to the inconceivable love of Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī, Lord Kṛṣṇa becomes easily controlled by Her. Thus, mṛgam, or “animal,” in this case indicates krīḍā-mṛgam, or “a toy animal.” Just as a beautiful young girl may play with so many dolls or stuffed animals, similarly Lord Kṛṣṇa becomes just like a doll in the hands of the most beautiful young girl, Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī. According to Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī, Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī performed innumerable types of worship in order to bind Kṛṣṇa more and more to Her because Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī cannot live without Kṛṣṇa. Thus, due to Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī’s ārādhana, or worship, Kṛṣṇa can never leave Vṛndāvana. He runs here and there in Vṛndāvana, protecting the cows, playing with His friends and engaging in countless intrigues of love with Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī and the gopīs. Thus the word anvadhāvat indicates Kṛṣṇa’s boyish activities, His running throughout the transcendental land of Vṛndāvana, tightly under the control of the love of Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī.
Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmī has explained how this verse also describes the incarnation of Lord Śrī Rāmacandra. Although the Lord is completely independent and detached from everything, He becomes attached to His pure devotees due to their love for Him. In the great capital of Ayodhyā all of the citizens loved Rāmacandra more than can be described. In this context ārya-vacasā means that by the order of His father, who was just like His guru, Rāmacandra gave up everything and went to the forest. There He exhibited His great affection for mother Sītā and chased after māyā-mṛgam, or the illusory deer that had been created by the trick of Rāvaṇa. That this golden deer was especially desired by Śrīmatī Sītādevī is indicated by the word dayitayepsitam.
All of the limbs of the Lord’s transcendental body are nondifferent and interchangeable, as stated in Brahma-saṁhitā (5.32):
aṅgāni yasya sakalendriya-vṛttimanti
paśyanti pānti kalayanti ciraṁ jaganti
ānanda-cinmaya-sad-ujjvala-vigrahasya
govindam ādi-puruṣaṁ tam ahaṁ bhajāmi
All of the limbs (aṅgāni) of the Supreme Lord are sakalendriya-vṛttimanti, or possessing all of the functions of all of the other limbs. Thus the two lotus feet of the Personality of Godhead are a plenary representation of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and worshiping the Lord’s lotus feet immediately places the worshiper in the ocean of transcendental bliss. There is no factual difference in spiritual quality between the incarnations of Caitanya Mahāprabhu, Lord Kṛṣṇa and Lord Śrī Rāmacandra. As stated in Vedic literatures, advaitam acyutam anādim ananta-rūpam. Therefore there is no contradiction in the opinions of the ācāryas that this verse wonderfully glorifies three different manifestations of the one Absolute Truth. Caitanya Mahāprabhu is undoubtedly the Supreme Personality of Godhead. His transcendental attributes fulfill in every sense of the term the descriptions of the Absolute Truth as given in Vedic literature. In Caitanya-caritāmṛta, in the Third Chapter of the Ādi-līlā, Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī and Śrīla Prabhupāda have given elaborate explanations of the transcendental status of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, which the reader can refer to for further information.
Everyone should follow the example of the sage Karabhājana and worship the lotus feet of the Mahāprabhu, the mahā-puruṣa, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. One should not rot on the platform of mental speculation and whimsical interpretation but should actually revive his lost relationship with the Absolute Truth by surrendering to Caitanya Mahāprabhu. Those who are worshiping Caitanya Mahāprabhu are deriving wonderful spiritual results and are tasting the fruit of love of Kṛṣṇa. Therefore, vande mahā-puruṣa te caraṇāravindam: let us humbly bow down at the lotus feet of the original Personality of Godhead, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, who is the mahā-puruṣa glorified within Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.
Corroborating the explanation of this verse, the followers of Caitanya Mahāprabhu also worship Him in His six-armed form of ṣaḍ-bhuja. Two arms carry the waterpot and daṇḍa of the sannyāsī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, two arms carry the flute of Lord Kṛṣṇa, and two arms carry the bow and arrow of Śrī Rāmacandra. This ṣaḍ-bhuja form is the actual purport of this verse of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj:
So here we have a verse again describing the Kali-yuga avatar. If we take the literal meaning of the words, of course, we can get different meanings from it. So as the purport suggests, we can take Caitanya Mahāprabhu as Kṛṣṇa and Rāmachandra. So this is the nature of Sanskrit. Sometimes you can get many, many different meanings to the words. Sometimes it is intentional to give many meanings. Sometimes it may be accidental, and we can derive some meaning forcibly [Laughs]. Actually, it doesn’t make too much sense. So we have to use our judgement in trying to interpret scripture.
I mentioned the other day that Kṛṣṇa Himself says that, the sages prefer paroksavāda, or indirect expression. So the meaning may not be directly evident, so you have to search for it. But that doesn’t mean that therefore we can take every verse and get a new meaning of it. So there’s a limit on how far we can do that. It’s possible, but then it defeats the whole purpose of scripture itself, because we’re going to end up with different meanings.
We find that there are people who accept the Vedic literature, but they have opposite conclusions. And therefore we get sat-dārśanas, or saṅkhya, which is atheistic, no God, the Jīva and matter. And they claim we are following śruti, Vedas. But then we get other philosophers who say, no, there is prakṛti, there is Jīva, and there is a Supreme entity, but it’s impersonal. So then we have others who say, no, there is prakṛti, there is Jīva, and there is Supreme Lord. And there are others who say, there is only a Supreme Brahman, and there is no prakṛti, and there is no Jīva, which is Sankara’s philosophy [Laughs]. So we get all sorts of ideas, no God at all, a God who is impersonal, with material energy and Jīva, and a God with nothing else, no Jīva, no prakṛti, nothing. So we get extremely different ideas, but everyone says we are following Vedas.
Because you can get so many interpretations from the same works. So you can take Brahma Sutras and you can get all these different meanings, if you want [Laughs]. So, this is problematic. Of course we shouldn’t attack Sanskrit language and say, this is the nature of that language, you can do that. But you can do it with any language and any interpretation you want. You can always twist the words and give another meaning if you want to. So, there has to be some principles upon which we base our interpretation or our meaning [Laughs]. So the basic principle is, that, in general, we try to follow the literal meaning, the superficial meaning, until it no longer makes sense. It does not coincide with the conclusion. When it doesn’t coincide, then we have to give it another meaning. So that’s what we can interpret, which is called Lakṣaṇa, or indirect meaning. So that’s the basic principle.
Now the only problem is that, different people will argue about what is the conclusion [Laughs], and then according to that they will start interpreting everything [Laughs]. So this is the problem we have. Of course, the conclusion may be obvious to many people. To some people, it may not. So we can take a whole work, and then we’ll have to interpret that, that conclusion of that, in terms of another work. Which is more risky, because we have to actually discard the meaning of the whole work, in favour of some meaning of another work. That’s basically what Śaṅkarācārya does in his commentary on Bhagavad-gītā. So yeah, he agrees with everything we’ve interpreted. But ultimately, Kṛṣṇa doesn’t exist [Laughs]. Because it does not coincide with his conclusion of the Brahma-sūtras and the Upaniṣads, which says impersonal Brahmān only exists. So with his conclusion already there, he’ll interpret Bhagavad-gītā completely in another way.
So this is what Prabhupāda attacks. He says, we have ‘Bhagavad-gītā – As it is’, not as he wanted it to be, and then he’ll twist it around to come to a different conclusion. So, therefore, all of our Vaiṣṇava-acāryas, they attack this idea of reinterpreting everything. So in the Caitanya-caritāmṛta, there Lord Caitanya clearly says that, as much as possible, we follow the direct meaning. So if Kṛṣṇa says, surrender unto me, it means surrender unto Kṛṣṇa. It doesn’t mean that Kṛṣṇa means something else, because it’s never mentioned like that in Bhagavad-gītā. But of course, if you go to Upaniṣads, okay, there is no form of Brahman, no qualities, no activities. So therefore, ultimately, whatever Kṛṣṇa says in Bhagavad-gītā doesn’t really mean that [Laughs]. Because nobody can speak, Brahman cannot speak, or whatever. So, if we want to take Bhagavad-gītā as it is, we take the conclusion of Bhagavad-gītā and give the meaning there. That’s the simplest explanation. That’s what all the Vaiṣṇava-acāryas do in their commentaries. So, these are the basic principles.
So yes, we can interpret also, and give different meanings, as long as they don’t contradict the main conclusion. So, this is often done in the Bhagavatam. Here we have three different meanings for one verse. Basically, it is interpreting it as Caitanya Mahāprabhu, Ramacandra, and Kṛṣṇa. And we can take all the words and explain them in terms of each avatar. And it’s not incorrect, because they’re all Supreme Lord [Laughs]. However, as we know, this verse is actually applied to Kali-yuga avatar. So, Rama is not the Kali-yuga avatar. Kṛṣṇa is not the Kali-yuga avatar. So, we’re left with Caitanya Mahāprabhu, ultimately. But, it can also be justified, because Caitanya Mahāprabhu includes within Him all the other forms of the Lord. So, it’s not a problem. So, no real contradiction there.
Similarly, we can get different interpretations of verses. For instance, the first verse of the Bhāgavatam – “Janamadi asya yatah..” etc. So, we have the general translation, meaning, which Prabhupāda gives in his Bhāgavatam purport. But, then our ācāryas say, well, that’s the very general meaning. And the whole Bhāgavatam is actually about Kṛṣṇa. So, it looks a little strange [Laughs]. So, not just one, but many of our ācāryas will start giving many meanings to the verse. So, I think, Vishwanatha Chakrawarthy will give six meanings to the verse. One is the general meaning. Another is Kṛṣṇa in general. Another is Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa in their pastimes. So, in this way, he gives… And one is for bhakti, explaining the process of bhakti yoga. So, he gives us six different interpretations.
Similarly, Jiva Goswami, long before him 200 years before him, he also starts analysing the verse. He gives different meanings to the verse. He does that, make five or six meanings also. So, it’s not uncommon to do such things. Why? The justification is that, it’s the first verse of the Bhāgavatam. And therefore, it should ultimately glorify Kṛṣṇa and the process of bhakti. And, of course, Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa. So, therefore, it’s justified to give all these different meanings to the same verse.
So, on the other hand, we’ll find other verses in the Bhāgavatam, which, of course, if we take the literal meaning, it makes sense. But if we take the general context, it doesn’t make sense. So, one instance of that is.. two instances, actually. When Kṛṣṇa sends a message to the gopīs, the letter, through Uddhava. Another one, Kṛṣṇa speaks to the gopīs in Kuruksetra.
So, if you notice, in those messages, Kṛṣṇa is talking about Paramātmā. And that the gopīs should meditate on Paramātmā, because Paramātmā is everywhere, so you have never separated from me. That sounds a little strange, because gopīs got nothing to do with yoga, nothing to do with Paramātmā. They don’t care about Paramātmā. Kṛṣṇa chose Paramātmā, they don’t care about it. So, how? It doesn’t seem reasonable [Laughs]. But if we take the literal meaning, that’s what it is. So, that’s why Vishwanatha Chakrawarthy says, that’s not the real meaning. And gopīs could never be satisfied with that meaning also. But yet, after the Uddhava spoke, they accepted and were peaceful. How is it possible? So, therefore, it’s not the real meaning. There’s another meaning underneath it. Because it’s contradictory. It’s contradictory to what Kṛṣṇa would say to the gopīs. It’s also contradictory to the gopīs’ reaction. How could they be satisfied with doing yoga? They wanted Kṛṣṇa. So, therefore, it gives a whole other meaning of the verse [Laughs], in terms of something which would be satisfying to the gopīs. So, that’s an example where the context doesn’t quite fit if we take the external meaning or the superficial meaning. So, we have to go deeper and find another meaning. So, that’s an example of Paroksavāda, the superficial meaning may not be the real meaning. There may be some deeper meaning there.
So, that’s why we have to be careful in reading scripture to really get the proper meaning. So, it’s difficult for most people to do that. And, therefore, we rely on the ācāryas who have much greater knowledge in terms of language and they can see the deeper meaning and they can see whether there’s contradiction or no contradiction and thus they can give us explanations. So, that’s why we rely on previous ācāryas’ commentaries.
So, yes, we can give interpretation, but we’ll do that interpretation according to the ācāryas, not according to our new interpretation of things. So, that’s how we prevent ourselves from deviating and getting completely wrong meaning which is contrary to the text and contrary to the Sampradāya. So, we always have to be faithful to the ideas of the ācāryas. So, here we find that the ācāryas are giving us different meanings to them. So, we accept that. In other cases, they may not give different meanings. They give one meaning only. This is not the real meaning. The meaning is something else. We follow their ideas in this way. We preserve the Sampradāya.
In terms of Caitanya Mahāprabhu, of course, this verse is talking about how he lived in Navadvīpa as a householder. Then he renounced that and took sannyāsa. So, it says, āgātāraṇyam. He went to the forest. So, he didn’t literally go to the forest but going to the forest means renouncing. So, therefore, at a certain point, he renounced household life and his wife and he took sannyāsa. It was mentioned, I think, in the previous verse quoting from the Viṣṇu-sahashra-nāma that the Lord is the one who takes sannyāsa. So, that’s kind of rare for avatara, the Lord. But nevertheless, the Lord is described as being a sannyāsī taking sannyasa [Laughs]. So, that actually applies here, where he went to the forest. So, in that way, it’s applicable to Caitanya Mahāprabhu more than anyone else.
Of course, who goes to the forest? Ramachandra is famous for going to the forest and, of course, he was attracted by the Māyā deer, maricha who took the form of a golden deer and he chased it, because Sita wanted the deer. So, very superficially, we can say that’s Ramachandra but then that doesn’t fit into the context of the verses talking about the avatar for Kali-yuga. It’s different. So, that’s why we take the first interpretation as Caitanya Mahāprabhu not going to the forest and chasing a deer, but renouncing and taking sannyāsa. So, therefore, the interpretation of Lord Caitanya is a very fitting version of this.
Okay. Any questions?
Q & A
1) Maharaj, we see a lot of commentaries from Srila Vishwanath Chakravarti Thakura talking and Jiva Goswami.. we have lot of commentaries. Which one would be from Sridhar Swami that we have from the Vaishnava Ācāryas? Like we have the Sārārtha Darshini. So, we don’t seem to have the explanations or commentaries from Sridhar Swami.
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj: Okay. Well, it’s there. I’m translating it right now, actually.
Devotees: Oh !! [Laughs].
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj: I’m incapable to do that.
Devotees: Oh !!
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj: So, this is quite interesting, because it’s the first commentary and therefore there’s a publication of all the different commentaries of different ācāryas including from Madhva Sampardaya, Sri Sampardaya, other sampradaya, all those commentaries are there. Jiva Goswami’s commentary is there. Vishwanath’s is there. So, all the different… Sanathana Goswami’s commentary, and some commentaries I don’t even know about are there. So, like a thousand different commentaries particularly in the Tenth Canto.
But always, the first one is Sridhar Swami. So, he’s given the first place, the number one commentary. And then it goes into the other chronologically, I believe. But he’s the first one because he’s the first commentator on the whole Bhagavatam, not just the Tenth Canto, but the whole Bhagavatam. So, he’s given some special regard. And that’s also mentioned in Caitanya Caritamrita when Vallabachrya says, well, “I’m making a commentary on Bhagavatam to, you know, correct [Laughs] Sridhar Swami”. And then Lord Caitanya got a little angry and said, “no, Sridhar Swami.. you have to respect him properly”. So, it’s given regard.
So, in general, what he does is, he takes the most obvious meaning to the things. And where there is some unclarity or grammatical problem, he explains what the words mean, how the words are missing, and all that. Takes the general meaning. Sometimes, of course, even the Bhagavatam will tell it’s just Brahman, Paramatma, things like that. So, then he just takes it like that also [Laughs].
So, Jiva Goswami says, yes, we follow Sridhar Swami in his commentary, but in some places we don’t follow [Laughs]. Because it is more, you know, impersonal. And that becomes very obvious when we see the commentary of Visvanatha Chakravarti, where he’ll take every impersonal word and then he’ll make completely opposite meaning [Laughs]. He’ll make it very, very, you know, Krishna’ised [Laughs]. I don’t know, quite a lot. To the extreme, we’ll say. So, therefore, our Acharyas respect it, but at the same time, they don’t agree with all of his interpretations of that because some are a little more impersonal.
But, nevertheless, in general, we’ll find that Vishwanath or Jiva will quote him. Okay, Sridhar Swami says this, we don’t have any disagreement with that interpretation. It’s also a brief commentary. It’s not so expansive. Vishwanath is quite expansive. Much, much detail on his commentary.
Devotee: Thank you so much.
2) Maharaj, what is the limit to which we need to use intelligence in bhakti? Because it looks like all the verses are interpreted with human intelligence. And on one side we say bhakti is purely faith-based and, you know, you have to follow the scriptures. But even to understand the scriptures, we use the human intelligence and logic. So, to what extent do we need to do or what extent we should not do? How do we… Where does that line lie Maharaj?
Of course, in Nectar of Devotion, in the beginning, Rupa Goswami says that you can understand this work by ruchi, not by logic [Laughs]. But then he also says that in order to understand scripture itself, even bhakti scripture, you need intelligence. So you cannot disregard logical processes and intelligence even in scripture. But it’s just how you apply your intelligence.
So, we do have to have faith in the scripture and with that faith, we will accept the words as much as possible as they are directly, and then, using our intelligence, if it looks like contradiction, then we have to interpret. So, in other words, with that faith in the scripture, we can use our intelligence in certain ways to get the proper meaning. So intelligence is useful also. But if we only use intelligence, then it becomes a problem [Laughs].
Because, then we can just get rid of all the subtleties and whatever and come up with our own meaning. So, Rupa Goswami says tarka, or logic, or whatever, in itself is insubstantial – anavastha, which means it can never come to a proper conclusion. Because you can argue very intelligently and come to a conclusion. Next year, a person who is more intelligent will look at that argument, he’ll tear it apart, and he’ll come up with a new conclusion. And then five years later, a more intelligent person will come, he’ll tear up that logic and he’ll come up with a new theory and he’ll come up with a new conclusion [Laughs]. So that’s anavastha. It’s, let’s say, unendingly. We can come up with conclusions to replace another conclusion.
Like in science. So we have a scientific conclusion, and then a hundred years later they come up and say, no, that’s wrong, we come up with a new theory. And then a hundred years later they come up with a new theory. So it goes on endlessly like that. So, there’s no final conclusion. So that’s what logic can do to us. Simply based on intelligence.
But it’s still useful to give the meaning of words to, you know, obviously, if you want to learn the Bhagavatam, then you have to know the Sanskrit language, and you need your intelligence to do that, because you have to know the grammar of the words. Yes, we do need intelligence, but it’s not limited to intelligence, or getting the meaning of that scripture. It’s balanced.
In Nectar of Devotion, in describing sadhana bhakti, Rupa Goswami says, that there is the kanistha in faith. He has komala sraddha, or weak faith. And little knowledge of scripture. And thus, he can be kanistha or something else. We have the madhyama, little knowledge of scripture, so that people cannot convince him otherwise. Even if he cannot defeat them or argue back. But the uttama, this is in Vaidhi Bhakti, Vaidhi Sadhana Bhakti, the uttama has deep knowledge of scripture, plus logic [Laughs]. So therefore, he gets the real meaning of the scripture, not just memorising some verses or whatever, to counter some other. But he knows the real principles behind everything due to intelligence. And therefore, he’s considered the best. And he can present things nicely, but he can also convince people. So he’s considered the best. He’s using also logic.
So it is useful to us, but it’s not like the only thing we rely on.
3) Hare Krsna Maharaj, how do these two things coexist? If someone is referring to Bhagavad Gita and also getting the impersonal meaning out of it and calling the Lord as impersonal. Where Bhagavad Gita itself is the song of the Lord. Which means the song has been sung by a person. So the meaning of the word itself says it’s a person, but how could the Lord be considered impersonal by somebody?
Oh ! Yeah, Technically, by just taking Bhagavad Gita you could not. It doesn’t work.
But if you go to Upanishads, they say ultimately, Brahman is supreme. And Brahman has no form and no qualities. So then, if we have Bhagavad Gita talking about Krishna has a form, Krishna has qualities, etc. It’s contradictory. So therefore, if we take Shruti as absolute and Smriti and Puranas and Bhagavad Gita as secondary, then we should interpret Bhagavad Gita in terms of Upanishads and Brahman. So we have to somehow explain Bhagavad Gita in terms of impersonal Brahman [Laughs].
So [Laughs], therefore, ok, yes, this is conditional speaking material or whole Mahabaratha speaking about people and stuff, actually it’s all illusory. Battles are illusory. Everything is illusion [Laughs]. It doesn’t really exist. And so Krishna’s teachings are also illusory [Laughs]. In fact, all scripture is illusion, ultimately. Even Vedas is ultimately illusion, because it is words, etc. It’s all illusion, ultimately of Shankaracharya.
Of course, it’s quite unreasonable, that type of stance. And so, one of those arguments is that Shruti is stronger. Of course, Shruti means Upanishads, and Upanishads means Chandogya, Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad, who largely present this idea of Brahman with no form. So that is the main thing. But we don’t agree with that. We say that Shruti, Smriti, Purana – all equal. And we can’t just say that because Shruti says this, we have to reinterpret the Puranas and Mahabharata in terms of impersonalism. No. So we don’t accept that argument.
Now that is, of course, in terms of what we said, Mimasa. Jaimini laid out the rules for interpretation. So then he gives a whole list of stronger Pramana. Strongest Pramana is Shruti. So he kind of says like that, and then sometimes we have to interpret, so that’s a weaker type of proof or whatever like that. So, that’s one thing.
But then our argument is that Shruti doesn’t mean just the Vedas. So Puranas, etc., are equal to the Vedas. That’s Jiva Goswami’s argument. Purana means to complete. So the Puranas and the Mahabharata are considered to be fifth Veda. So they’re not inferior. They’re equal. So they’re like Shruti. So they’re also the final authority.
4) Maharaj, what is the meaning of ‘Acharyavan puruso veda’ who comes later?
HH Bhanu Swmai Maharaj: Acharyavan ? Yeah, So, One who has an Acharya, can know Brahman or the Supreme Lord or whatever. So in other words, you have to have a guru of some sort, a teacher. So that’s the general meaning.
Devotee: What happens if you end up with Shankaracharya?
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj: Yeah. So it’s a very general statement. Because you’re going to have… To learn Karmakanda, you need a teacher. So all young boys go to the gurukula and they learn Karmakanda or whatever. They have to treat the teacher as God and whatever like that. And they learn Karmakanda too. So not just for spiritual things, even for more material things, you have to give respect to the Acharya or the teacher. And that’s not to say diksha guru. It could be any teacher. And it can be Shiksha Guru also.
5) Hare Krsna Maharaj, why do the scriptures leave the room for interpretation?
Oh! Krishna says, he like that! Rishis prefer this and I like it also.
So in other words, even if we say everything directly, people will misunderstand anyway if they want to [Laughs]. And the highest truths are in the secret. So not everyone should access to that because they will also misuse that. So as in the Western, I think Alexander Pope says a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Drink deep or drink from the well of knowledge or whatever. Something like that he says. If we get a little knowledge of something then we kind of misinterpret or misuse it or whatever. So we have to really advance to get the real knowledge.
So therefore, some things are not directly stated in scripture. And that’s exactly what the Upanishads are. Because they are a little bit ambiguous. Vedavyas wrote the Brahma sutras to explain them. Because people get confused by the words because they are so ambiguous. And sometimes contradictory. So we see even in Isopanishad, “The Lord walks, but he does not walk”, like this. What does that mean [Laughs] ? He has no feet or whatever like that. And then other places, “He does have feet. He has no hands. He has no head. He has a head.” So what? Confusing. So there is always a purpose in that. The purpose is to frustrate people who are only into material logic [Laughs].
What does this mean? We don’t know what it means or whatever like that. And confuse them. So Bhagavatam also even though it is considered the conclusion of scriptures, you know the final word finally. God is Bhagavan. Bhagavan is ultimately Krishna. That’s the conclusion. Still, it also uses Parksovad. As I said with the talking about Krishna giving the letter and telling the gopis to be yogis etc. It doesn’t make sense. That’s the superficial meaning.
So why? To hide the real meaning. Why hide the real meaning? Because Bhagavatam also wants the jnanis and the yogis and even those in the Karma kanda to get their own meaning and be satisfied with that. So the people who have seen Karma Yoga can read Third Canto and all the descriptions of Varnashrama system or Eleventh Canto. Again, very elaborate descriptions of that. Or the descriptions of Yoga and Eleventh Canto. Well, yogis can be satisfied. And then they are not going to bother with talking about Krishna in past times and Rasalila or whatever.
So Bhagavatam is said to be Mohini. It deceives the materialists and unqualified people as Mohini Avatar took the nectar from the demons and gave it to the devatas. So Bhagavatam hides the real meaning from jnanis, karmis and yogis and materialists and gives the real nectar to the yogis. So it covers it a little bit. So that’s why, it is Paroksavad [Laughs].
Devotee: So does that mean that, let’s say somebody is a follower of Shankaracharya, they will find the nectar with Shankaracharya’s explanation?
HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj: Yeah, they will find everything you can take impersonal, they will find that in Bhagavatam and say, yeah, ultimate conclusion of Bhagavatam is impersonal Brahman and everyone should merge in Brahman. That’s their conclusion. You will find it in Kerala particularly [Laughs]. People, they read Bhagavatam like this, whatever, and then they’ll say conclusion is Brahman, merge in Brahman. In spite of the fact that, the whole idea is to present Krishna, they’ll find another meaning.
And then they’ll support that reasonably, with different statements from Bhagavatam including at the end where Sukadeva Goswami tells Parikshit in Canto 12, now you’ve heard everything, conclusion is merge in Brahman. That’s what he says. So then they’ll say, this is the conclusion, merge in Brahman. In spite of the fact that all Krishna is described in a different way. Higher than that is merge in Brahman because Sukadeva Goswami is saying at the end of the Bhagavatam [Laughs]. So that’s their argument.
6) Just a follow up question on that. He says, is that the reason we call it revealed scriptures? Is that the reason we call it revealed scriptures because the scriptures should be according to the intent of the person? Or is there a different reason?
Well, revealed scripture, actually I think that term comes from Svaprakasha or Siddha, which means that it is not produced by human intelligence. It’s self manifested, like the Lord is Svaprakasha. He doesn’t get manifested by something else. He manifests himself or the sun produces its own light. It doesn’t have to be revealed by another light. So it’s kind of independent. So scripture is in essence revealed scripture. It’s not just produced by human intelligence. It manifests itself. I think that’s what it means, revealed scripture.
7) Hare Krishna Maharaj, Dandavat Pranams. Thank you for a wonderful class. I have a question regarding the explanation that you gave last evening regarding the symptoms that Mahaprabhu exhibited, such as Mahaprabhu sweating blood. Is it described as atyuki – exaggeration to emphasise on the bhakti? or should we understand it as a real symptom? I’m asking this question based on today’s class where you mentioned about the various interpretations of a particular subject matter.
So, of course, some things in the scripture are exaggeration, because it’s contradicted by something else. For instance, the example that was often given by our Acharyas says in the scripture that attaining Svargaloka is eternal and therefore you should strive for Svargaloka. This is the verses used by the Karma kandis to say that ultimately all you have to do is to go to Svargaloka and you live there eternally. But we do know from Chandogya Upanishad, etc. and Bhagavad Gita, that you fall from Svargaloka [Laughs]. So, there’s a contradiction there. So, why the statement is there in the Karmakanda section? It’s exaggeration.
Why exaggeration in scripture? To give faith to those people. Similarly, if you look in the Linga Purana or Shiva Purana or Skanda Purana, so many verses will say Shiva is Bhagavan to give faith to the people in Tamo Guna to worship Shiva. But it’s not true. It’s exaggeration. So, we’ll find statements like that in scripture which are actually exaggeration.
But, all statements in reference to the Lord or Bhakti or the Holy Name are not exaggeration because they include everything, the most powerful. So, therefore, we of course, it’s an offense to think that glorification of the name is exaggeration. Therefore, when we read the statement as once you chant all your karmas are extinguished, and if we think it’s exaggeration, then that’s considered as aparadh, because the name can do that. It’s very powerful, like the Supreme Lord.
So, if we see the descriptions of Caitanya Mahaprabhu and his symptoms, we should not think of them as exaggeration. Actually, they’re describing historical events or whatever like that, actual events that they saw. So, when he was in front of the rock, he had these symptoms, like he loose blood or he shot tears out of his eyes. There’s no place where it says it was exaggeration. So, therefore, we take them for those statements.
If we wanted to do that, then we could say, oh, all of Krishna’s pastimes are exaggeration. He lived on a little rock, then they exaggerated and made it a big mountain or whatever like that. We could say so many things. Or Kaliya, it was not a real big snake, it was a little snake and Krishna stepped on it or something [Laughs]. Take all the pastimes and put them down into a more realistic scenario.
8) Just curious to know, I’m a highly unintelligent person, so should I always seek guidance from a guru before reading any scripture just to avoid any aparadh?
Well, if we have a scripture with no commentary, no purport, then, of course, it’s a little bit risky sometimes. Like you say Bhagavad Gita without any commentary at all. But the problem, of course, even now, the translations themselves may be subject to you know [Laughs], some distortion by the different translators.
So, we can read scripture with proper purports or commentaries by authorized acharayas, and we’re safe. Not completely safe, because we can read the purport and we can make our own interpretation of that also. So, if we do have a problem like that, then we have to go through some devotees who understand the real meaning so we get the correct meaning. But, in general, we can read with the proper purport, no problem.
9) Maharaj, if Bhakti Yoga is simple and gives the highest bliss, is that the material desire that motivates most people to take Karma Yoga and Jnana Yoga?
Why would they take? Well, one thing is, of course, people are individuals, and they have their own interests, and they have their own qualifications. And, sometimes, we cannot interfere with that [Laughs]. So, because of that, Krishna gives alternative methods. People who, whatever you say logically or whatever, they won’t accept. They don’t have any faith. They want to live in the material world. So, at least, do it in such a way that you minimise the violence and you gradually progress and you have minimum of suffering. Do Karma Yoga. You don’t have to believe in God or whatever [Laughs]. You follow the rules at least [Laughs].
So, the other people interested in liberation, not interested in Bhagavan, interested in liberation. So, they follow the path of Jnana. Different people have different interests. Therefore, different processes are given.
But, it doesn’t make them all equal. So, therefore, Krishna says, Bhakti is the highest. Realisation of Bhagavan is the highest. So, if you’re most intelligent, you will choose the topmost process. Otherwise, you go through gradual process.
Devotee: Thank you.
Devotees: HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj Ki.. Jai !!