19891030 Caitanya-caritamrita Ādi-līlā 2.9-10

The following is the class given by His Holiness Jayapatākā Swami on October 30 1989 at Atlanta, Georgia. The class begins with a reading from Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta Adi Līlā Chapter 2, verse 9 and 10.

 

vande 'haṁ śrī-guroḥ śrī-yuta-pada-kamalaṁ śrī-gurūn vaiṣṇavāṁś ca

śrī-rūpaṁ sāgrajātaṁ saha-gaṇa-raghunāthānvitaṁ tam sa-jīvam

sādvaitaṁ sāvadhūtaṁ parijana-sahitaṁ kṛṣṇa-caitanya-devaṁ

śrī-rādhā-kṛṣṇa-pādān saha-gaṇa-lalitā-śrī-viśākhānvitāṁś ca

 

Adi Līlā chapter 2 text 9

 

Translation:

 

He whom Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam describes as the son of Nanda Mahārāja has descended to earth as Lord Caitanya.

 

Purport:

 

According to the rules of rhetorical arrangement for efficient composition in literature, a subject should be mentioned before its predicate. The Vedic literature frequently mentions Brahman, Paramātmā and Bhagavān, and therefore these three terms are widely known as the subjects of transcendental understanding. But it is not widely known that what is approached as the impersonal Brahman is the effulgence of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu’s transcendental body. Nor is it widely known that the Supersoul, or Paramātmā, is only a partial representation of Lord Caitanya, who is identical with Bhagavān Himself. Therefore the descriptions of Brahman as the effulgence of Lord Caitanya, the Paramātmā as His partial representation, and the Supreme Personality of Godhead Kṛṣṇa as identical with Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu must be verified by evidence from authoritative Vedic literatures.

The author wants to establish first that the essence of the Vedas is the viṣṇu-tattva, the Absolute Truth, Viṣṇu, the all-pervading Godhead. The viṣṇu-tattva has different categories, of which the highest is Lord Kṛṣṇa, the ultimate viṣṇu-tattva, as confirmed in the Bhagavad-gītā and throughout the Vedic literature. In Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam the same Supreme Personality of Godhead Kṛṣṇa is described as Nanda-suta, the son of King Nanda. Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī says that Nandasuta has again appeared as Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya Mahāprabhu, and he bases this statement on his understanding that the Vedic literature concludes there is no difference between Lord Kṛṣṇa and Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu. This the author will prove. If it is thus proved that Śrī Kṛṣṇa is the origin of all tattvas (truths), namely Brahman, Paramātmā and Bhagavān, and that there is no difference between Śrī Kṛṣṇa and Lord Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, it will not be difficult to understand that Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu is also the same origin of all tattvas. The same Absolute Truth, as He is revealed to students of different realizations, is called Brahman, Paramātmā and Bhagavān.

His Holiness Jayapatākā Swami: So it is said in the Veda’s to understand the transcendental knowledge or the philosophical knowledge of the absolute truth, one has to use the Veda’s as well and reason and logic to understand, simply reason and logic without the Veda’s can never bring one to understand the absolute truth because its beyond our power of speculation or our ordinary mundane reasoning and at the same time to understand the scripture you have to use reason and logic as an aid to bringing the different argue to understanding what the arguments which are being made by the Veda’s what are the truth that is being revealed.

So, here it’s very systematic, it’s very logical what is being presented. Yes. Veda’s are absolute taking that Veda’s are absolute so what the Veda’s are stating that is evidence, the only way of knowing the absolute truth is through Veda’s. Because absolute truth by definition is under perception of mundane senses, it’s beyond the empirical or the normal kind of scientific modern scientific research ability because the absolute truth is the origin beyond material world.

So we cannot bring it under a microscope or the telescope vision, absolute truth can only be known by only by absolute truth otherwise you will know a partial aspects of the absolute truth but even if you know so many partial aspects but you can never see the whole, your never sure whether you got the complete picture just to express this the great thinkers have given an example how 5 blind men are trying to understand what an elephant is. Each grabbing different part of the elephant and they’re comparing notes, one just grabbed the leg he saying elephant is like a tree trunk, another one grabbed the tail and said no elephant is like snake with hair, and someone else grabbed the belly said no it’s a really big really big thing, it’s not like a little tree trunk it’s like a huge tree.

Someone else grabbed the ears and said no it’s like kind of  a flat banana leaf or plate or something, someone else grabbed the nose said that no its completely like a big serpent not like a little snake a big kind of moving, then they tried to compare nose you know what’s an elephant, still there’s forget it never they can never in spite of all the feeling it was very difficult for them to, because they haven’t seen the whole picture.

So how can small individual souls can see the whole picture of the absolute truth which is the origin of all universe?

Unless the absolute truth reveals or explains himself what is the actual picture. He, Kṛṣṇa alone knows his own limited extent, no one else can know everything about Kṛṣṇa because we have limited knowledge unless he wants to reveal it to us and even then we only have a limited capacity to understand subjectively we can never understand everything Kṛṣṇa’s understanding because we don’t have the brain that Kṛṣṇa has to understand it but up to our capacity we can understand about Kṛṣṇa, He can give us different visions.

Just like he gave Vyāsa deva gave the vision of whole spiritual world, material world, all the universes, absolute truth, everything.

So, the first thing is that these revelations from Kṛṣṇa revealed through the Vedas so it is said here must be verified the evidence from the authoritative literatures regarding absolute truth we don’t accept anything as absolute evidence except for the Veda’s, this is the first point, the second point is that in the Vedas it established that essence is Viṣṇu tattva and bhagavān is the essence of everything, he expands as Paramātmā, his effulgence, his brahman so the tree aspects of the absolute truth bhagavān, Paramātmā and brahman and out of 3 bhagavān Is the origin, so bhagavān is Viṣṇu or Viṣṇu tattva.

So, in India you have different Vaiṣṇava’s or worshipers of Viṣṇu, they all accept that Viṣṇu is the supreme the Viṣṇu tattva is the supreme. Within Viṣṇu tattva there are different categories then there’s Kṛṣṇa, there’s Rāma, there’s Nārāyaṇa, Paramātmā just an expansion accompanying his different pastimes of form.

So Rāmānuja Ācārya’s followers Śrī Sampradāya they tend to give more importance to the Nārāyaṇa form say that He is the expansion of Ananta deva, His Ananta deva comes as an Ācārya. Ananta deva from Vaikunta serving Nārāyaṇa therefore is focusing on Nārāyaṇa. They respect that Kṛṣṇa Rāma these are all forms of Viṣṇu, they think well Nārāyaṇa must be the supreme for, there’s a difference, we accept that there’s no difference between Viṣṇu forms, it’s just which categories is the supreme and all other forms are different forms of the same person. Just like we change our clothes someone…right now you see parampara dressed before us appears as pure Vaiṣṇava but sometimes you see during the day working dressed as a business man and farmers seems dressed as lumberjack there’s a Tennessee farmer so he has this different Rūpa’s (devotees laugh)  his different aspects but he just achieves it by changing his clothes but Kṛṣṇa being the supreme personality of Godhead he can…he changes his form to śuite the need which is more, I mean if people can do that right ( devotees laugh)

If a 80 year old lady wanted to go the ball she can turn herself into a 25 year old you know debutant or something you know, how much, everyone would want to do that or if they want to go to a big business convention maybe want to look like a 50 year old you know well established person change of form according to the need, if you can do that there be a bit confusing of course you got identity crises.

But Kṛṣṇa he doesn’t suffer any identity crises because he’s the same person in all the different forms and he just adapts even his outlook and everything according to that particular form although not losing the consciousness that he’s the same person and this is kind of a [Not Clear – 00:10:15] but it’s trying to bring it down to level where it’s easier to understand, it’s not like sometimes people how can God have so many forms or what does it mean, I mean it’s not so far out as people like to present it that…maybe gets confusing for someone not accustomed in thinking in that way and constantly thinking about God the supreme personality of Godhead is a person at all, it’s kind of just God you know they in a general way.

In the Veda’s they become much more specific, they understand supreme lord as a person he has different aspects and different forms so they get to the point where they start discussing that well he takes on all these different forms which form is really the original form the top form which is the form which is more like his original personality his original nature which is something just kind of took for the moment it’s not like the completes form in terms of all aspects off. That’s where you get you know it’s getting down to the fine points so once you get to the understanding that there’s one supreme Lord and he can assume different forms and these forms are all his forms ok we consider all of them to be Vaiṣṇavas and we take their prashadam, we go their temples even if you want to get to the fine points someone more attractive to Rāma or someone’s more attracted to Nārāyaṇa or Kṛṣṇa!

Even once Prabhupāda I remember in a lecture he said actually from one you know like a broad point of view even if Christians, and Muslims are Vaiṣṇava’s because they believe in one God which is the bottom line for the Vaiṣṇava’s  for believing in one supreme Lord.

Although they don’t really know much about God in a direct way just few things they talk about God, they don’t know the details like we discussing here but they do believe in one God so from that point of view we have that in common with them could be developed.

So anyway, then author here is stating How Viṣṇu tattva is the supreme? Is the essence of the absolute truth. Ok then they take the next step that really Kṛṣṇa amongst all the different forms of Viṣṇu tattva, Kṛṣṇa is the supreme and there are he can…I’m sure his going to establish this here there’s a lot of quotes in the Veda’s do establish it, he’s just telling you at a time that it’s going to happen now that… otherwise everything his developing is subject matter very logically very systematically then the next point ok.

So, then he establishes that Kṛṣṇa, when he establishes Kṛṣṇa is the supreme Lord the Kṛṣṇa that is the supreme Lord, Kṛṣṇa in Vrindavan and then that Kṛṣṇa is not different from Caitanya Mahāprabhu.

Caitanya Mahāprabhu is identical with that Kṛṣṇa except that He’s taken a mood of a devotee but it’s the same Kṛṣṇa with a mood of a devotee. So then if two things equal to the same thing then it equals to each other, just that type of Logic so if Kṛṣṇa is equal to Lord Caitanya and Lord Kṛṣṇa is the origin of the Paramātmā and the brahman effulgence that means Lord Caitanya is the origin of Brahman and Paramātmā.

Just like what he is saying here that Lord Caitanya is the origin of the impersonal effulgence that the effulgence is coming from the spiritual world, its actually coming from the body of Lord Caitanya, it is actually no difference between Lord Caitanya and Kṛṣṇa, they are identical no difference, we can use it in a broader sense being identical is very specific. So here is saying identical in some place its mentioned. Identical with the bhagavān himself, Lord Caitanya is the bhagavān but mood is different, Kṛṣṇa with a different mood.

So, you can how everything here is being developed here in a very logical way using the Veda’s as the…as the basis, his mentioning the subject matter before he is giving the explanation so you already know what’s…otherwise according to the Vedic system, first you make your presentation, this is what I’m going to proof, this is the truth, then you go and prove it. So that way everyone knows what your proposition is and then how you prove it. And then there’s also a whole system of how debate subject matter, when there’s a debate how first you have to have the common definition you see the biggest problem why we can’t, we have so much trouble discussing you know like Talavan puts me on spot last night and Sunday feast with Islam or why we have difficulty discussing Christianism. It only because lack of common definition and establish any kind of Vedic argument but debate while you trying to establish some philosophical point.

First thing is to establish is definition, when you go in the court the first thing they do is when they make a law in the government, they have a whole page in the beginning with definitions. What do these words do mean like when you make a society registration you begin with society, society means International Society for Kṛṣṇa Consciousness, you know members, members means this so like this you get a page of definition so then they use those definitions so then they use those particular words who knows what it means.

Similarly, when ones discussing Bhagavān what do you mean when you say Bhagavān, what do you mean when you say Paramātmā, what do you mean when you say…so then you know we have our terminology Paramātmā, bhagavān, brahman, but then you know they’re using you know Islam is using Allah, someone using God, holy ghost, the son of god but even if. But then we could come to a common definition of what these means ok so holy ghosts means Paramātmā you know like that so then you can start discussing and coming to a conclusion but if you don’t have a common definition then it’s like your talking apples and I’m talking oranges then we you know there’s a compute. Within the Veda’s even there’s a little confusion sometimes whose bhagavān, whose this, so his first of up there find the definitions then developing the point.

prakāśa-viśeṣe teṅha dhare tina nāma

brahma, paramātmā āra svayaṁ-bhagavān

 

In terms of His various manifestations, He is known in three features, called the impersonal Brahman, the localized Paramātmā and the original Personality of Godhead. Of course, obviously, the next verse after this is

 

vadanti tat tattva-vidas

tattvaṁ yaj jñānam advayam

brahmeti paramātmeti

bhagavān iti śabdyate

 

from the Bhagavatam but here first it’s like this is a Bengali verse next one is a Sanskrit quote. So, the purport is

Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī has explained the word bhagavān in his Bhagavat-sandarbha. The Personality of Godhead, being full of all conceivable and inconceivable potencies, is the absolute Supreme Whole.

His Holiness Jayapatākā Swami: It’s interesting how personality of God head is all conceivable and inconceivable potencies then only full of potency we can see rather than the universe his filled with potency’s which are beyond our conception that’s why he’s greater than we are, because he has thing that we can’t even conceive off, we can conceive of something meaning it’s conceivable, so there like catogary of thing inconceivable things.

 

So Prabhupāda continues Impersonal Brahman is a partial manifestation of the Absolute Truth realized in the absence of such complete potencies. The first syllable of the word bhagavān is bha, which means “sustainer” and “protector.”  You can also note that the name Viswambhar is one of the names of Lord Caitanya, Viswa: is the universe and Bhar mean bha of sustainer, protector of the universe. Viswambhar so bhar which is the first syllable in the bhagavān means sustainer and protector.

The next letter, ga, means “leader,” “pusher” and “creator.” Va means “dwelling” (all living beings’ dwell in the Supreme Lord, and the Supreme Lord dwells within the heart of every living being).  So Prabhupāda continue Combining all these concepts, the word bhagavān carries the import of inconceivable potency in knowledge, energy, strength, opulence, power and influence, devoid of all varieties of inferiority. Without such inconceivable potencies, one cannot fully sustain or protect. Our modern civilization is sustained by scientific arrangements devised by many great scientific brains. We can just imagine, therefore, the gigantic brain whose arrangements sustain the gravity of the unlimited number of planets and satellites and who creates the unlimited space in which they float. If one considers the intelligence needed to orbit man-made satellites, one cannot be fooled into thinking that there is not a gigantic intelligence responsible for the arrangements of the various planetary systems.

His Holiness Jayapatākā Swami: Prove to me there’s a God! Right some people just you know just to get a challenger, that’s the one that blew up right, the challenger?

Up into the air of the other similar orbiting space craft whatever they’re called takes so much intelligence little bit of clouds in the sky or this and that then you know delayed few more days storm coming up so difficult so then they finally get it up then it’s come down 5 years early when you walk in the street and you look up in case there’s a satellite part hits you on the head, they keep coming back into the atmosphere sometime they fall on peoples field and things, so this a very small chance of hitting somebody but (devotees laugh)

Insurance companies don’t cover either (devotees laugh)

They call it an active God (devotees laugh)

But you can get special insurance policy’s now covering acts of God till your payments start (devotees laugh).

So the point is that it requires so much intelligence to put up a satellite little bit of difficulty they have to think again , reprogram the you know computers and things and I hear so many planets, and the astrologers are studying how different planets are working and it’s everything is working in a very systematic way, it’s not like its accidental, they can predict ahead when there’s going to be a lunar eclipses when…because everything is working in a particular way it’s not sporadic, it’s a very systematic orbiting system.

There’s tides, so many effect yet there’s someone no its all accidental, and everything is accidental but they can’t put up the satellite accidentally, they have to out up so much energy, I mean if someone is really intelligent and understands how much rain is required just even have something that orbit so that it doesn’t hit  the other satellite just to figure out now there’s so many things up there so that one doesn’t hit the other that in itself requires you know so much…here you got all the planet you don’t have like you know brrruf! Planets smashing into each other, they are all going around in a particular orbit very nicely because somebodies used their brains and put it altogether.

Simply the point that Prabhupāda is making here if one considers intelligence needed to orbit man made satellites one cannot be fooled in the thinking that there is not a gigantic intelligence responsible for the arrangements of the various planetary systems, He continues; There is no reason to believe that all the gigantic planets float in space without the superior arrangement of a superior intelligence. They cannot prove that there no intelligence, they cannot prove that this accidental, there is no evidence that anything accidental has happened our planet of that magnitude, of that complexity, they always say that its accidental but there’s no proof of that, it’s not scientific to say its accidental, it is scientific to say it is done by some intelligence.

So Prabhupāda boldly makes his point that there is no reason to believe all the gigantic planets float in space without the superior arrangement of the superior intelligent. This subject is clearly dealt with in the Bhagavad-gītā (15.13), where the Personality of Godhead says, “I enter into each planet, and by My energy they stay in orbit.” Bhagavad-gītā (15.13)

Were the planets not held in the grip of the Personality of Godhead, they would all scatter like dust in the air. Modern scientists can only impractically explain this inconceivable strength of the Personality of Godhead. Prabhupāda continues that the potencies of the syllables bha, ga and va apply in terms of many different meanings. Through His different potential agents, the Lord protects and sustains everything, but He Himself personally protects and sustains only His devotees, just as a king personally sustains and protects his own children, while entrusting the protection and sustenance of the state to various administrative agents. The Lord is the leader of His devotees, as we learn from the Bhagavad-gītā, which mentions that the Personality of Godhead personally instructs His loving devotees how to make certain progress on the path of devotion and thus surely approach the kingdom of God. The Lord is also the recipient of all the adoration offered by His devotees, for whom He is the objective and the goal. For His devotees the Lord creates a favorable condition for developing a sense of transcendental love of Godhead. Sometimes He does this by taking away a devotee’s material attachments by force and baffling all his material protective agents, for thus the devotee must completely depend on the Lord’s protection. In this way the Lord proves Himself the leader of His devotees.

His Holiness Jayapatākā Swami: Someone may say I simply depend on God but obviously there are so many material things that they’re are really depending on. Sometime the Lord shows it all these material things are really dependent on me so ultimately has to depend on me and forces the devotees to fully depend on Kṛṣṇa actually not just say it or give it a lip service to real dependent. The Lord is not directly attached to the creation, maintenance and destruction of the material world, for He is eternally busy in the enjoyment of transcendental bliss with His internal potential paraphernalia.

So, this I mean you could see that Śrīmad bhagavat…Caitanya Caritāmṛta is the post graduate study you know it’s pretty heavy language even for someone what does this all mean you know, it’s actually meant for, it is…meant for study of all the other information that has been given before, Bhagavat Gītā, Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, now it’s being analyzed and studied in great detail and depth therefore its considered a post graduate study. The Lord is responsible of the creation, maintenance and destruction of the material world but his not directly attached to because he’s directly engaging in transcendental pastimes with his loving devotees who are described here as his internal potential paraphernalia because he has potencies that actually Kṛṣṇa expands himself into potency which are actual persons but in another sense they’re personal energies and they’re not material, there not external energies, they’re internal, so the internal potential paraphernalia they are connected with him, they’re not separate from him, they’re always connected with him and they’re variegated in so many different types of energies but if you were you know this sense would probably baffle most people if they didn’t know about you know the Kṛṣṇa consciousness, eternally busy with enjoyment if transcendental bliss for the eternal potential paraphernalia.

Yet as the initiator of the material energy as well as the marginal potency (the living beings), He expands Himself as the puruṣa-avatāras, who are invested with potencies similar to His. The puruṣa-avatāras are also in the category of bhagavat-tattva because each and every one of them is identical with the original form of the Personality of Godhead. The puruṣa avatar is the Paramātmā , super soul the all-pervasive, I mean the Christians consider that the holy ghost, say we don’t have like the definition compared to enough to really know what they’re talking about but it seems something like same concept more or less but here in the Veda’s its explaining ok the all-pervasive super soul that’s in everyone’s heart that’s in every atom and every planets the same non different from  Kṛṣṇa the same bhagavat tattva but because he has a specific function connected with the material world therefore he is being considered here as separately although he is the same Lord with non-different qualities, potency’s because the original form the bhagavān is engaging in pleasant spiritual pastime of loving exchange in the spiritual world, his completely independent acting on in unlimited varieties of activities where here he is expanding a part of form a non-different form with identical potencies for a specific function which you can identify or you can see oh he is doing this function, he’s in the heart of the living entity he’s guiding, he’s keeping the planet in orbit, so it’s more functional form of the Lord, a function which is can be realized if you realize this is Lord doing that function you might think that well this is the Lord but he has other aspects which are beyond that particular function.

So we realize the Lord is only fulfilling their function as a super soul that’s also considered as a partial realization it’s not that’s completed actually realize you know Lord in his aspect as supreme personality of Godhead, bhagavān.

 

But the Lord he starts the material world, that’s also coming from him, we’re expansions of him that marginal potency and then internal potency this is always in the spiritual world, he’s in 3 different categories how they’re inter relating is also being explained.

 

The purusha avatar is also in the category bhagavat tattva because each and every one of them is identical with the personality of Godhead. The living entities are His infinitesimal particles and are qualitatively one with Him. They are sent into this material world for material enjoyment, to fulfill their desires to be independent individuals, but still, they are subject to the supreme will of the Lord. We want to be independent individuals where liberation means to be dependent individual, dependent on Kṛṣṇa, we want to be independent individuals so we come in the material world and think now we’re independent, this is an illusion, we’re never independent totally because being a part of Kṛṣṇa how can we be totally independent?

 

We’re always…how can sunlight be independent of the sun you can think I’m independent but it’s actually coming from the sun so it’s not fully independent. So to have that illusion of independence he has to create a material world where we can feel now I’m independent I can do this Karma, I will get the reaction later on but it’s my desire, I’m want to kill this person, I can do it!

 

Later on I’ll be also killed by the reaction that’s another thing but if I want I can give this person my money I can spend it on anyway I want, I’m independent but actually the idea of independence is due to the ignorance on how dependent were on in the material world actually we’re depending on the material energy in so many ways but that’s in a way which we can realize unless we become more spiritually elevated then we can see actually in the material world there’s no real independence. but that minute independence is also being affected by the material environment we’re in. the most independence situation we’re going to have is depending on Kṛṣṇa who is totally independent.

 

If you are depending on someone who is totally independent, we’re depending on the material nature just like people are depending on the earth in san Francisco when the whole earth was shaking and trembling and the earth quacking you know then were do you take shelter?

 

So, the whole material energy is depending on Kṛṣṇa, so indirectly we’re depending on this material nature for our desire for happiness or whatever we want to do but then material natures depending on Kṛṣṇa, so it’s obviously better to be depend directly on Kṛṣṇa and give up this false idea of artificial independence which are manifesting by depending on the material world which is itself not independent. But they are still subject to the supreme will of Lord.

 

The Lord deputes Himself in the state of Super soul to supervise the arrangements for such material enjoyment. The example of a temporary fair is quite appropriate in this connection.

 

If the citizens of a state assemble in a fair to enjoy for a short period, the government deputes a special officer to supervise it. Such an officers is invested with all governmental power, and therefore he is identical with the government. When the fair is over, there is no need for such an officer, and he returns home. Such an officer is compared to the Paramātmā. The living beings are not all in all. They are undoubtedly parts of the Supreme Lord and are qualitatively one with Him, yet they are subject to His control. Thus they are never equal to the Lord or one with Him. The Lord who associates with the living being is the Paramātmā, or supreme living being. No one, therefore, should view the tiny living beings and supreme living being to be on an equal level. The all-pervading truth which exists eternally during the creation, maintenance and annihilation of the material world and in which the living beings rest in trance is called the impersonal Brahman. Thus ends verse text 10 translation and purport.

Devotee: [Not Clear – 00:33:20]

 

His Holiness Jayapatākā Swami: There’s a difference there, there’s a oneness between the son and the father. But son doesn’t necessarily develop up to the same level as the father, father might be you know multi-millionaire magnet and the son may not develop that expertise in business management and administration, someone might become a president.

 

So far  I think America I don’t know if there’s any history of president of America whose son also became a president, this father and son, there you got one, one father and his son also became the president, but that’s one exception that establishes the rule but it doesn’t mean that you develop even in material life so, there’s oneness but we had to see the definition of son, that’s what I mean the whole problem in discussing is that they’re making up their definition off as they go along.

 

Even amongst Christians they don’t have a common definition. If you want to establish a definition in the Veda’s, they would quote different Vedic verses which defines that particular concept then you would have to define what does it means son of God?

 

What did Jesus explain?

 

What is a son of God in his own words?

 

Since that’s the evidence and they use that, that’s there scripture, that’s there basis, did he say that I am the creator of everything or did he say that I have all the power of my father? He didn’t so then you know they’re obviously kind of pushing the point, you had to define it according to their scripture and then hopefully you could come to a point, it has to be done systematically to really get into any kind of a final conclusion that can be acceptable by anybody.

 

Next time maybe I should write on Satyarāja doing all these things (devotees laugh) but that’s the basic problem is in definitions. Obviously if the question was permanent well Jesus was manifesting that all that power then how did he get crucified ok obviously that’s a pastime he was crucified but then while he was crucified, he was manifesting doubts so I mean he was definitely playing a part as a son which was not on absolute level,

 

Devotee: [Not Clear – 00:36:00]

 

His Holiness Jayapatākā Swami: Kṛṣṇa gets into the pastimes for the second he thinks how to solve this one then, but then he solves it makes second later, so this is a particular pastime, that’s the kind of you have to define like we know that ok

 

When Kṛṣṇa’s playing his pastimes that he loves himself that he gets completely absorbed in the pastime to act in that just like the Damodar Līlā he’s crying, shaking in fear of his mother you know like as if he is a little boy, he loves himself to get into the whole play but then there’s song we’re singing you know the whole universe is coming from your abdomen , brahmā’s born from your abdomen, it’s the same abdomen that your mothers tied up with you know your bigger than the whole universe, the universe is a little stem coming from the abdomen and it’s the same abdomen the mother ties up and he’s shaking in fear.

 

So I want to know the childhood pastimes, these are, that supreme Lord is able to come down to this kind of a familiar loving level, that’s what the author of the Damodarastakam is expressing that how much how exalted is it to have his pastimes, not the Kṛṣṇa knows, it’s like a part of his greatness that he can accept.

 

If you want to try to say that that was what’s happening and in the life of Jesus the you have to say that what is the definition, whether that’s really true, is that a…it has to be done in a kind of very scientific systematic way to prove that if that’s what your trying to…they don’t say that, they say suffer, he suffered, he really suffered for our sins that’s why I mean that’s why it gets very complicated when you’re trying to discuss theology specially with somebody on the street  who really doesn’t want to hear what you’re saying without really trying to understand you know what is the absolute truth from any kind of…he just trying to you know trying to shove something down your through and call you a name and get ready to you know turn them brown or something like that, you know it could be has to be done in very you know very cool headed, you know with theologians or something could be worked out to actually find out but the real comparative exercise, that’s something like and on the street someone is going around yelling convert or dies go to hell, doesn’t really want to hear what you’re saying, if they are willing to hear and give it that kind of a pirogues study and understand something philosophically sit together with the bible and the Bhagavat gītā and the Bhāgavatam, then why not?

 

Just like Bir Kṛṣṇa Maharaj, he sat with the priest and discussed it with satyarāja different kinds off, that kind of exchanges is very interesting and useful you know unless there’s a willingness to hear and understand, unless there’s a willingness to accept you know on the basic skill and effort ok you have a religious scripture, which you consider as absolute truth, I have read the scriptures, I can say who’s absolute now, alright definitions on this absolute truth really similar or are they different?

 

Into what extent are they similar?

 

And so on then you can then you can start to understand that there’s actually not that much difference on the basic definitions, when you get down to it maybe the rituals little different maybe there some fine points that you, so I think when someone’s really into it like that rather than waste a lot of time in the book distribution getting into all discussion on the street, you say look why don’t you comeback with me?

 

After my period then we’ll sit down together have lunch together and we get into it and discuss it you pull out the bible and I put out the Bhāgavatam and we’ll go through everything and we’ll discuss and we’ll see you know how you know what it’s all about. Otherwise, you know, we can’t think you talking about now I don’t think you know you’re going get much headway on the street.

Devotee: [Not Clear – 00:40:00]

 

His Holiness Jayapatākā Swami: Any questions?

 

Devotee: [Not Clear – 00:41:41]

 

His Holiness Jayapatākā Swami: There’s no difference here, it just said, its written in such technical way that when I read it it went…it can easily go over somebodies’ head, that’s why I started stopping and just explaining each sentence because, but then one of these purports or two of these purports is more than you can cover in one class. When he mentions here Bha, Gha and Va then next sentence he is saying he’s combining all these concepts, the word bhagavān carries the import of the inconceivable potency’s and knowledge, energy, strength opulence power and influence so you got 6, the 6 opulence but you know but not just like Zzzzp! That is all…then later he says here that you can start combining these different words in different ways and different syllables the potencies are in the syllables Bha Gha and Va apply in terms of many different meanings. So if you put Bhagha it means opulence, and van meaning one who possesses opulence’s so there not a lot of different, it’s just that here it’s taken bha , bhagha , van even divide it in to further individual syllables which brings up a whole other discussion that how names in Sanskrit are formed that each syllable has God it’s not like an accidental thing where people just start using like in America you know you start to call something crack or calling someone a this or a that and then after that it becomes part of the language but it’s not like scientific it could be just be a funny thing that somebody said and after the usage of it becomes included in the language.

 

But in the Sanskrit each syllables got definition, each sound in the alphabet o, a, oo, ooo, ee, eee, ba bha, ga, gha, whatever it is each one has got a different meaning and then you combine different syllables to produce different words and combination of syllables like bha means sustainer and protector, and Ga means leader push to creator but bhaga together two syllables that means, combine those to it means opulence’s somebody’s a leader as sustainer put them together is opulent, or there are two word or syllable bhaga. So they got it, it’s all like really detailed just like the most developed language of any language in the world and then, so that each of the words means something it’s not like it’s an accident, shisya, your disciple comes from the word shason which is to, which means discipline or control, that the disciple is under the discipline of the Guru.

 

In this case the English disciple and discipline match up, in English it’s not all accidental now because English comes partially from Latin which originally comes from Sanskrit so there’s lot of you know you can find a lot of systematic, just now the new words are coming, mean it’s much more like, it seems accidental almost, I don’t think that we have a contradiction here it’s just that they’ve taken it up and divided it more that’s why it’s like post graduate.

 

Caitanya Caritamrita going into a such a great depth more deeper than…ok like bhagavān in the Bhāgavatam…right here its dividing up more bha ga va and what does that mean, it gets much more into the detail of it that’s why it’s considered post graduate and post graduate study of anything is the same it’s the same basics are there but it’s getting more and more into detail post graduate study in English literature, when they start you know it’s the same book your still studying Shakespeare and this and that but then they go into how did he use the language and literature and it gets into like really fine little parts of it.

 

Like we hear Hridayānanda mahārāja discussing philosophy and he goes into all the technical aspect, the philosophical expression and usage and argument and sometimes you know (devotees laugh) this is like discussing philosophy on a post graduate level or something much more at least the university level for sure, very technical. So some point you want to get really technical because it’s a…when somebody knows it very technically very in great depth they get a better, more accurate understanding, it’s like bringing further and further into focus so you can get a…you buy a $10 tape recorder you know made in Taiwan you know with a little radio on it you know, you can kind of focus into it the new stations on the radio but you know it’s not obvious then you got like little better radio which digital has the you know fine tuning and the you got the super radio which got the LCD thing on it you know $200 radio with fine tuning you get short wave radio or something, take it down to each hertz- 10 hertz, you know the wavelengths moving in them it’s incredible how fine you can tune it by one wave length or 10 wavelengths or 100 wave lengths, there’s a thing you know 100 wavelengths move up and hear you moving up shhh its moving up you know pulse’s or hertz’s or wavelength just with a stroke you know.

 

So here we’re getting into a little fine understanding what is the difference how its applied but that’s why you’re going to have to back up to a little higher view, it’s not, it’s alright, it’s the same thing.

 

Prabhupāda gave the whole purport on meaning of bhagavān in one sentence here and went onto the next point you know. OK, more questions? Or Pull the plug.

 

-----END-----

 

Transcribed By: Dipadatri Gaurangi dd

Transcribed On: 29-may-2020

 

Proof Reading By: Amrita Padma Devi Dasi

On: 02/10/2020