KEY TAKEAWAYS FROM HH HARIVILAS MAHARAJ’S MORNING BHAGAVATAM CLASS ON SB 2.7.27 – Part 6 TODAY (10/16/21):
- BG 11.54 – My dear Arjuna, only by undivided devotional service can I be understood as I am, standing before you, and can thus be seen directly. Only in this way can you enter into the mysteries of My understanding.
- The Personality of Godhead is addressing Lord Brahmā and specifying with great emphasis Himself, pointing out that it is He, the Personality of Godhead, who existed before the creation, it is He only who maintains the creation, and it is He only who remains after the annihilation of the creation. Brahmā is also a creation of the Supreme Lord.
- Before the creation there was none except Vāsudeva. There was neither Brahmā nor Śaṅkara. Only Nārāyaṇa was there and no one else, neither Brahmā nor Īśāna.
- The form of the Lord exists in all circumstances of creation, maintenance and annihilation. The existence of the Personality of Godhead implies the existence of the Vaikuṇṭhalokas, as the existence of a king implies the existence of a kingdom.
- The existence of the Personality of Godhead implies the existence of the Vaikuṇṭhalokas, as the existence of a king implies the existence of a kingdom.
- The kingdom of Godhead is not void as conceived by the impersonalists.
- The creator I and the created I are both accepted in the Vedas as qualitatively one because both of them are nityas and cetanas.
- The lord also performs activities – BG 3.24 – If I did not perform prescribed duties, all these worlds would be put to ruination. I would be the cause of creating unwanted population, and I would thereby destroy the peace of all living beings.
- The activities of Brahmā and other demigods during the maintenance of the creation are to be understood as the activities of the Lord.
- The Personality of Godhead is never formless. In the material world He may not be visible in His personal form to the less intelligent class of men, and therefore He may sometimes be called formless. But actually He is always in His eternal form in His Vaikuṇṭha planets as well as in other planets of the universes as different incarnations
- The difference between the created and the creator is always there, although both the creator and created are of the same quality.
- As blind men guided by another blind man miss the right path and fall into a ditch, materially attached men led by another materially attached man are bound by the ropes of fruitive labor, which are made of very strong cords, and they continue again and again in materialistic life, suffering the threefold miseries.
- They will never understand the mysteries of Lord’s understanding and will never believe it and act with that belief.
10/16/21 – SB 2.7.27 TRANSLATION:
There is no doubt about Lord Kṛṣṇa’s being the Supreme Lord. Otherwise, how was it possible for Him to kill a giant demon like Pūtanā when He was just on the lap of His mother, to overturn a cart with His leg when He was only three months old, or to uproot a pair of arjuna trees so high that they touched the sky, when He was only crawling? All these activities are impossible for anyone other than the Lord Himself.
Materialistic people who are completely confused about the purpose of life,. They cannot understand anything about Krsna. Hence they waste their entire life. Very few people, even amongst devotees people understand Krsna.. “Manushyanaam sahasresu… “
It s a rare thing to understand Krsna and believe in the infinite potencies.. Understanding is not enough, believing it and acting in that belief is very rare.
BG 11.54
My dear Arjuna, only by undivided devotional service can I be understood as I am, standing before you, and can thus be seen directly. Only in this way can you enter into the mysteries of My understanding.
There is great mystery about understanding Krsna.. Guhyam means mystery..
BG 4 th Chapter – Bhakta sakh cheti.. Rahasyam.. Mystery cannot be understood one who is in sense gratification.. Then Maharaj read the Homeworks submitted by kids [Sreshta & Shanmukh].
SB 7.5.31
Persons who are strongly entrapped by the consciousness of enjoying material life, and who have therefore accepted as their leader or guru a similar blind man attached to external sense objects, cannot understand that the goal of life is to return home, back to Godhead, and engage in the service of Lord Viṣṇu. As blind men guided by another blind man miss the right path and fall into a ditch, materially attached men led by another materially attached man are bound by the ropes of fruitive labor, which are made of very strong cords, and they continue again and again in materialistic life, suffering the threefold miseries.
SB 2.9.33
Brahmā, it is I, the Personality of Godhead, who was existing before the creation, when there was nothing but Myself. Nor was there the material nature, the cause of this creation. That which you see now is also I, the Personality of Godhead, and after annihilation what remains will also be I, the Personality of Godhead.
One of the 4 nutshell verses of SB .. the whole SB is based on these 4 verses SB 2.9.31 – 34. Krishna is the cause and the effect. Lot of things are said in this verse.
We should note very carefully that the Personality of Godhead is addressing Lord Brahmā and specifying with great emphasis Himself, pointing out that it is He, the Personality of Godhead, who existed before the creation, it is He only who maintains the creation, and it is He only who remains after the annihilation of the creation. Brahmā is also a creation of the Supreme Lord.
IMPERSONALIST THEORY OF ONENESS
The impersonalist puts forth the theory of oneness in the sense that Brahmā — also being the same principle of “I,” because he is an emanation from the I, the Absolute Truth — is identical with the Lord, the principle of I, and that there is thus nothing more than the principle of I, as explained in this verse. Accepting the argument of the impersonalist, it is to be admitted that the Lord is the creator I and that the Brahmā is the created I. Therefore there is a difference between the two I’s, namely the predominator I and the predominated I. Therefore there are still two I’s, even accepting the argument of the impersonalist. But we must note carefully that these two I’s are accepted in the Vedic literature (Kaṭhopaniṣad) in the sense of quality. The Kaṭhopaniṣad says:
Understanding is not enough.. You might have a false understanding like Mayavadis.. BG 15.7, we are parts and parcels of Krsna. Krishna is Sat chit ananda vigraha. We are exactly same as Krsna as far as eternity goes.. some knowledge, we also have limited ananda without Krsna.. Even, ananda with Krsna there is a competition between measurement and increment.. We have the same qualities of Krsna.. But not complete like Krsna…
nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām
eko bahūnāṁ yo vidadhāti kāmān
The creator I and the creatded I are both accepted in the Vedas as qualitatively one because both of them are nityas and cetanas. But the singular I is the creator I, and the created I’s are of plural number because there are many I’s like Brahmā and those generated by Brahmā. It is the simple truth. The father creates or begets a son, and the son also creates many other sons, and all of them may be one as human beings, but, at the same time from the father, the son and the grandsons are all different. The son cannot take the place of the father, nor can the grandsons. Simultaneously the father, the son and the grandson are one and different also. As human beings they are one, but as relativities they are different. Therefore the relativities of the creator and the created or the predominator and the predominated have been differentiated in the Vedas by saying that the predominator I is the feeder of the predominated I’s, and thus there is a vast difference between the two principles of I.
In another feature of this verse, no one can deny the personalities of both the Lord and Brahmā. Therefore in the ultimate issue both the predominator and predominated are persons. This conclusion refutes the conclusion of the impersonalist that in the ultimate issue everything is impersonal. This impersonal feature stressed by the less intelligent impersonalist school is refuted by pointing out that the predominator I is the Absolute Truth and that He is a person. The predominated I, Brahmā, is also a person, but he is not the Absolute. For realization of one’s self in spiritual psychology it may be convenient to assume oneself to be the same principle as the Absolute Truth, but there is always the difference of the predominated and the predominator, as clearly pointed out here in this verse, which is grossly misused by the impersonalists. Brahmā is factually seeing face to face his predominator Lord, who exists in His transcendental eternal form, even after the annihilation of the material creation. The form of the Lord, as seen by Brahmā, existed before the creation of Brahmā, and the material manifestation with all the ingredients and agents of material creation are also energetic expansions of the Lord, and after the exhibition of the Lord’s energy comes to a close, what remains is the same Personality of Godhead. Therefore the form of the Lord exists in all circumstances of creation, maintenance and annihilation. The Vedic hymns confirm this fact in the statement vāsudevo vā idam agra āsīn na brahmā na ca śaṅkara eko nārāyaṇa āsīn na brahmā neśāna, etc. Before the creation there was none except Vāsudeva. There was neither Brahmā nor Śaṅkara. Only Nārāyaṇa was there and no one else, neither Brahmā nor Īśāna. Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya also confirms in his comments on the Bhagavad-gītā that Nārāyaṇa, or the Personality of Godhead, is transcendental to all creation, but that the whole creation is the product of avyakta. Therefore the difference between the created and the creator is always there, although both the creator and created are of the same quality.
KINGDOM OF SUPREME LORD
The other feature of the statement is that the supreme truth is Bhagavān, or the Personality of Godhead. The Personality of Godhead and His kingdom have already been explained. The kingdom of Godhead is not void as conceived by the impersonalists. The Vaikuṇṭha planets are full of transcendental variegatedness, including the four-handed residents of those planets, with great opulence of wealth and prosperity, and there are even airplanes and other amenities required for high-grade personalities. Therefore the Personality of Godhead exists before the creation, and He exists with all transcendental variegatedness in the Vaikuṇṭhalokas. The Vaikuṇṭhalokas, also accepted in the Bhagavad-gītā as being of the sanātana nature, are not annihilated even after the annihilation of the manifested cosmos. Those transcendental planets are of a different nature altogether, and that nature is not subjected to the rules and regulations of material creation, maintenance or annihilation. The existence of the Personality of Godhead implies the existence of the Vaikuṇṭhalokas, as the existence of a king implies the existence of a kingdom.
ACTIVITIES OF THE SUPREME PERSONALITY OF GODHEAD
The impersonalist adduces no activity in the Supreme, but in this discussion between Brahmā and the Supreme Personality of Godhead the Lord is said to have activities also, as He has His form and quality. The activities of Brahmā and other demigods during the maintenance of the creation are to be understood as the activities of the Lord. The king, or the head executive of a state, may not be seen in the government offices, for he may be engaged in royal comforts. Yet it should be understood that everything is being done under his direction and everything is at his
command.
BG 3.23 & 24 (Even Krsna performs His duties /work)
He performs the duties of ideal householder when in Dwaraka..
THE PERSONALITY OF GODHEAD IS NEVER FORMLESS.
In the material world He may not be visible in His personal form to the less intelligent class of men, and therefore He may sometimes be called formless. But actually He is always in His eternal form in His Vaikuṇṭha planets as well as in other planets of the universes as different incarnations. The example of the sun is very appropriate in this connection. The sun in the night may not be visible to the eyes of men in the darkness, but the sun is visible wherever it has risen. That the sun is not visible to the eyes of the inhabitants of a particular part of the earth does not mean that the sun has no form.
In the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad (1.4.1) there is the hymn ātmaivedam agra āsīt puruṣa-vidhaḥ. This mantra indicates the Supreme Personality of Godhead (Kṛṣṇa) even before the appearance of the puruṣa incarnation. In the Bhagavad-gītā (15.18) it is said that Lord Kṛṣṇa is Puruṣottama because He is the supreme puruṣa, transcendental even to the puruṣa-akṣara and the puruṣa-kṣara. The akṣara-puruṣa, or the Mahā-Viṣṇu, throws His glance over prakṛti, or material nature, but the Puruṣottama existed even before that. The Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad therefore confirms the statement of the Bhagavad-gītā that Lord Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Person (Puruṣottama).
If you do not understand this you cannot remain as a devotee. We are faced with so much misinformation, basically lies,, how do we wave through this ocean of misinformation.. To hear every day.. Sthane stuta..
Lord caiatanya received from Ramananda Rai = regularly sit and hear SB from the great souls. Radharani can sing 16000 ragas. Greatest musicians in the world can only sing 2oo notes.. Atheists reject spiritual world.. Mayavadis; give a misinterpretation ofthe spiritual world..
Homework for next week:
Explain from SB 1.1.1 the following phrase “Nirasta Kuhakam.. “
“Which is forever free from the illusory representations of the material world” What are those illusory representations of material world that dont exist in spiritual world but exist in the material world.