O blessed seekers, who drink the nectar of the lotus feet of the brother of Balram, Shri Krishna, the ocean of nectar, infinite beauty, sweetness, virtue and tenderness! As is customary, let us chant the divine name for a while after which the lecture will begin.
All glory to the Supreme Divine Couple! Now, please pay attention. Who am I? Who is Mine? We must solve these two questions.
Fundamentally, to solve any question, there are three types of evidence: perceptual evidence, inferential evidence and scriptural evidence. You are familiar with perceptual evidence. What does perceptual mean? That which the eyes can see. That which the ears can hear. That which the nose can smell. That which the tongue can taste and that which is touched by the skin. That’s all.
The reach of perceptual evidence is limited to the extent that we can grasp the subjects of the five senses. That’s all. For example, let us take sight. How far can you see? 200 yards? 400 yards? One kilometre? Ten kilometres? If you had the eyes of a vulture, you would see up to 50 kilometres. Even with a telescope, you can see up to a thousand, a hundred thousand or even a billion metres. However, to this day, there is no instrument with which you could see the entire universe. How much can you see with the naked eye? How distant a sound can you hear with only your ears? This means the capability of the senses is very limited. The reach of direct perception is extremely limited. Beyond this, we need to take the support of inferential evidence. 99% of the work in this world is accomplished with inferential evidence.
Notice how doctors recognise and treat so many diseases of their patients by diagnosing them through inferential evidence. Nowadays, some of the evidence is acquired scientifically through various instruments, but most of it is gathered through inference. “Are you vomiting? Do you have a cough? You can’t sleep at night?” The doctor will ask all sorts of questions. “Why are you questioning me? Just look at me and tell me what my ailment is.” – “No, it’s not like that. We try to get an idea of the illness based on your symptoms. Then we can identify the disease. This is the type of virus you are suffering from.”
Far ahead in the distance, you see smoke. “Hey! Look! Look! There is smoke rising from that direction. There’s a fire there.” Where there is smoke, there must be fire.
Scriptural Verse (Nyaya Darshan)
In this way, our various tasks are being carried out through inferential evidence. All the mothers here, when they became pregnant, came to understand that they were going to become a mother. Years ago, there was no equipment for detecting pregnancy. One knew from experience. “Yes, I am pregnant. The baby is growing. I feel it moving.” We function in the world with the help of inferential evidence. However, it also has its limitations and it can be misleading too. For example, where there is smoke, there must be fire. But can there be fire even without smoke? Yes, there can be fire even without smoke. Then? You will fail. So, the third evidence is the evidence of words.
Who could possibly prove, using perception and inferential evidence, that he is the son of his father? However, everyone accepts this. “He is my father.” – “Oh no, it could be someone else.” “What nonsense are you speaking?”
The evidence of words. My mother said, my father said, “I am your father. I am your mother.” Evidence of words are accepted right from this point until the ultimate goal. I have told you again and again that humans suffer from four defects, and what they say could be incorrect. A mother may lie to her child, “You are my son.” Even Lord Krishna Himself was misled by Mother Yashoda. She told Him, “You are my son.” He accepted this and even believed it. Yashoda had, in fact, given birth to a baby girl. Everyone knows that Thakur Ji was the son of Vasudev and Devaki. However, she lied to Him. And it was not that she knowingly lied to Him. Yashoda actually had this feeling.
Scriptural Verse Bhagavatam 10.3.53
When the baby girl was born, Shri Krishna put Yashoda into an unconscious state, with His power of yogmaya. Yashoda had the feeling that she had given birth to a child, but because she had fallen unconscious, she did not know whether the child was a girl or a boy. She did not see it. This happens to many mothers in our world. Giving birth for the first time, there is so much agony that they fall unconscious. Then after some time, when they regain consciousness, they are told whether they have given birth to a boy or a girl. But here, Mother Yashoda was made unconscious, and during that time, Vasudev Ji arrived with Shri Krishna and the infants were exchanged. Even nowadays, babies are exchanged in some hospitals. So, Mother Yashoda had no idea what had happened. When she regained consciousness and her eyes opened, she found Vasudev (Lord Krishna) lying there as Nandalal. Thakur Ji! She naturally thought, “This is the child I gave birth to.”
And the father, Nand Ji? What would he know? Yashoda told Nand Ji that this was their child and he believed it, because when Vasudev took Shri Krishna there, everyone was asleep due to the effect of God’s power. That included the guards of the prison along with all the guards at the palace of Nand in Gokul. At night, whether it’s a palace or a small home, everyone shuts their gates out of fear of thieves. So, Nand Ji’s house must also have been locked. Even those gates opened automatically, and Vasudev Ji entered that house too without any fear. In villages, whenever a woman gives birth to a child, she is normally kept in the most private room of the house. She isn’t kept outside on the veranda. However, Vasudev Ji boldly went inside. He then exchanged the babies and left to return. It was only when he reached the banks of the Yamuna that everyone woke up to find the gates locked. “Is everything alright?” – “Yes, everything is alright.” What’s right? Everyone has been made a fool of and all of you are saying, “Everything is alright.”
So, in the world, so much work is carried out based on the evidence of words. Look, all these written documents are only words after all. With just a signature, one can withdraw billions of dollars from the bank. Signatures are even being forged. Now what can you do? Someone forged another’s signature with practice, then confidently presented it to the bank and the bank gave him the money. When the actual account holder came along, he was told, “Sir, you’ve already withdrawn it.” – “Withdrawn? What are you saying?” “Yes, absolutely.” Now he is ruined. Our government banks are defrauded of tens of millions of dollars. So, the evidence of the words of humans is deceptive. However, the scriptural evidence in the Vedas and the Darshans is absolutely correct. God and God-realised Saints do not have the four defects. Therefore, the evidence of their words holds the same authority as the Vedas. The same is true of the Gita, the Bhagavat and the Ramayan, because the Saints have become equal to God.
So, I am going to explain this to you through the darshans. Darshan? What is darshan? The meaning of the word darshan is to see with the eyes. Yes, it is with the eyes, but eyes can be of many kinds. One is the eye of knowledge. It is called gyanchakshu.
Scriptural Verse
The meaning of the word darshan is that by which an accurate conclusion can be made about something. This is called darshan. So, in India, there are two kinds of darshans. One is called aastik darshan, and the other is called naastik darshan. All philosophies fall within these two categories. So, Vedic darshans are those darshans that accept the Vedas as the authority, and they speak in accordance with the Vedas. These are called aastik darshan. And those that are not in accordance with the Vedas are called avaidik. Here there are two types of darshan, which are known as naastik darshan.
And there are two categories within aastik darshans: some aastik darshans are ishwarvadi (they accept the existence of God), and some are anishwarvadi: they do not accept the existence of God. They are Vedic! They accept the Vedas, but they do not accept God. For example, we have the Mimansa Darshan and the Sankhya Darshan: they state that there is no need for God, as actions automatically produce consequences.
So, there are two divisions in Vedic dharm as well – those that accept both the Vedas and God, and those that accept the Vedas but not God. And there are two types within the non-Vedic category too. One category is ishwarvadi–avaidik (accepting God but not the Vedas) and one is anishwarvadi–avaidik (accepting neither God nor the Vedas). For example, the Muslims accept God; they believe in Allah. He is God. After all, He is the Lord. However, they do not accept the Vedas. The Christians also believe in God, don’t they? Yes. They do not believe in the Vedas, but they do believe in God. And there are some who are anishwarvadi (they do not believe in God). There are numerous such philosophies in foreign countries like atomism, naturalism and many other philosophies which claim there is no need for God. Nature. “Everything happens through nature.” In nature there is oxygen, hydrogen, electrons, protons, neutrons. All sorts of theories with various names are prevalent. For example, how was the world created? They believe that God has nothing to do with this.
Now, let us consider the darshan that accepts both God and the Vedas. This is the philosophy that concerns us. This is also of five kinds. In the Vedic philosophies that accept God, there are five revered deities. One is Vishnu, the Supreme Lord Krishna, whom you all worship. The second is Lord Shiva. The third is Surya. The fourth is Ganesh Ji and the fifth is Durga Ji or Shakti. These five deities are worshipped in our sanatan dharm. Even within each one of these, there are many variations.
Take for instance, the worshippers of Lord Vishnu. “We are worshippers of Lord Vishnu.” Non-dualism, qualified non-dualism, dual non-dualism, pure non-dualism, dualism, inconceivable difference and non-difference and so on. These philosophies are prevalent today, and new ones could be created every day in the future. All this makes me laugh. Why do the Saints do all this? When they propagate these various philosophies, it only confuses the innocent common man. Which philosophy is right, and which one should we follow? One says, “This way is right!” Another says, “That way is right!”
This creation is eternal. Even if we only look at the present creation, it is around two billion years old. It began with Brahma, didn’t it? And this trend of sectarianism began only 2,500 years ago. First came Adi Jagadguru Shankaracharya. It was he who first started the lineage known as Shankar Math. He believed in the formless Brahm without attributes and distinctions. Many followers of God with form, attributes and distinctions emerged to oppose him. The followers of non-dualism, qualified non-dualism, dual non-dualism, pure non-dualism, inconceivable oneness and difference, all came later, within the last 2,500 years. Some have been around for 1,000 years and some for 1,500 years.
I want to ask Shankaracharya one thing. “You established a sect which you named Shankar Math. Why did you? Did you not have a Guru?” Yes, he did. Shankaracharya’s Guru was Govindacharya. His Guru was Gaurpadacharya. His Guru was Shukdev Paramhans, and his Guru was Veda Vyas. Going back in the Guru lineage in this manner, you will come to Brahma, and even Brahma’s Guru is Narayan, Lord Shri Krishna. Who was His Guru? No one. So why don’t you call it the sampradaya (sect or lineage) of Shri Krishna? If you call it Shankaracharya’s sampradaya, then the growing number of the disciples of his disciples could all start sampradayas in their own names.
Didn’t Ramanujacharya have a Guru? Didn’t Nimbarkacharya have a Guru? They all had Gurus. And you will be astonished to know that the Guru of Gaurang Mahaprabhu, a descension of God, was Ishvarpuri, a devotee of Shri Radha Krishna. However, the sampradaya he belonged to was that of Madhvacharya, who was a devotee of Lakshmi Narayan. He was a dualist, and he accepted Brahma, not Shri Krishna, as the ultimate authority. He considered the gopis to be celestial damsels. He did not accept that Brahma had become deluded. Yet, all the disciples in his sampradaya were devotees of Radha Krishna. Everything is topsy-turvy.
So, apart from the soul, there are two entities. I have repeatedly explained this to you with ample evidence. So, where has a third sampradaya come from and why? Why did this sort of delusion arise? And if it did, then the Saints of the past and all those who will come in the future will start their own sampradayas. Then there will be not only thousands or millions but countless sampradayas. And everyone will say, “The others are wrong. My doctrine is correct.” What would we ignorant people do then? What decision will we make? Therefore, do not get involved in these controversies of sectarianism.
This is the reason I have not made a single disciple. When I was made Jagadguru by the Kashi Vidvat Parishad, I openly declared that I was not going to start a sampradaya, nor would I make any disciples. I accept only two sampradayas: one of Shri Krishna and one of maya. There never was a third sampradaya, nor will there ever be. When there is no third entity, then how can a third sampradaya be created?
Now, Shri Krishna has countless names. So, create a sect from every one of those names. Saints have countless names. So, go start a sampradaya in the name of each and every Saint: the sampradaya of Kabir, of Tulsi, of Sur, of Mira. After all, they are all Saints. Were Shankaracharya and Ramanujacharya the only Saints? Prior to them, there was Prahlad, Dhruv, Ambarish. There were countless Saints during Sat Yug. Why don’t you name the sampradayas after them?
So, in this way, according to the Darshan Shastras, the foremost philosophy among them all is that of the Vedant (i.e. Brahma Sutra). And many controversies have arisen in the interpretation of that Vedant. This conflict was initiated by Shankaracharya. He declared Shri Krishna to be mayic. Mayic (material). “His body is sattvaguni (made of the material mode of goodness). Mayic. It is not possible for Brahm to have a body. Brahm is only attributeless, without distinctions and form.” Pay attention to the word only! Only!
Madhvacharya stood up against this and declared that Brahm is only with a form and attributes. Look at that! The conflict began there. Don’t say only, instead say also. Also! The conflict will be over.
The Tripad-vibhuti-narayana Upanishad Veda states:
Scriptural Verse (Tripad-vibhuti-narayana Upanishad 1.1)
The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad states:
Scriptural Verse (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 2.3.1)
You may say that Shankaracharya must have been wrong. No, no! He is the descension of Lord Shiva. Don’t think like that. Be careful! However, at that time, Shri Krishna said:
Scriptural Verse (Padma Purana 71.107)
“Do not reveal Me in the world. Keep Me hidden. Reveal My other form, the impersonal, formless Brahm. Do not reveal My personal form with divine qualities. In this manner, mislead the people with your fabricated logic.” So, Shankar Ji obeyed Shri Krishna’s instructions. After all, Shankar Ji is Shri Krishna’s greatest devotee.
Scriptural Verse (Bhagavatam 12.13.16)
The Bhagavat says this, 12.13.16. However, after writing all this, Shankar Ji said, “Having obeyed Shri Krishna’s instructions, now I am going to write my own views.” Look at that! He changed his viewpoint and said:
Scriptural Verse (Shankaracharya)
Brahm has two forms. Now he agrees.
Scriptural Verse (Shankaracharya)
There are two forms.
Scriptural Verse (Shankaracharya)
Shankaracharya said this. Both aspects exist. When he wrote his commentary on the Vedant, he kept changing his stance there too.
Initially, he had to think, “How can I accept that Brahm or God has powers? If I do, I will not be able to follow Lord Shri Krishna’s instructions.” Therefore, in his commentary, he wrote that Brahm has no powers. He is devoid of all powers. Now, when he came across this mantra in the Vedas …
Scriptural Verse Shvetashvatara Upanishad 6.8
This Upanishad is one of the nine main Upanishads. He wrote his commentary on this one first. Shankaracharya thought, “What do I do now? Where do I escape to now? Shri Krishna has asked me to follow His instructions, and this mantra is clearly stating that svabhavik powers exist in Brahm.” Svabhaviki. Svabhavik means natural. Just as to burn is a natural power of fire. However, he said that the meaning of svabhaviki is imaginary. Just listen to this. Which dictionary in the world gives the meaning of svabhavik as imaginary? Even a layman knows that svabhavik means ‘nature’, ‘natural’ or ‘according to nature’. In any language, the meaning of this word will be ‘that which always remains as it is’.
Listen to another amusing thing that the Saints have done. Up to 2.3.28 in the Vedant, Shankaracharya repeated in his commentary that the soul is infinitesimal, the soul is infinitesimal, the soul is infinitesimal. However, when he reached the brahmasutra 2.3.29, he changed his view.
Scriptural Verse (Brahma Sutra 2.3.29)
You do not know Sanskrit, but just try to understand this point. Pragyavat. Vat means equal. Pragya means Brahm, being referred to as only anand instead of sat-chit-anand.
Scriptural Verse (Taittiriya Upanishad 3.6)
Similarly, the soul has been referred to as gyan. Only knowledge. The soul is also a knower.
Scriptural Verse (Prashna Upanishad 4.9)
The soul is all of this, but it has been referred to as only gyan.
Scriptural Verse Taittiriya Upanishad 2.5
Here, Shankaracharya defines vigyan as ‘intellect’. This has been refuted by Veda Vyas: shaktiviparyayaat Brahma Sutra 2.3.37, samadhyabhavaccha Brahma Sutra 2.3.38. With these two sutras, he pointed out that if you accept the intellect to be knowledge, it implies that the intellect would go into samadhi. In such a case, the soul would have no existence whatsoever. So, what about the Vedic mantra that says:
Scriptural Verse
I am separate from material nature and am a part of Brahm. What would you make of this?
Shall I tell you something else that’s amusing? There is one mantra in the Vedas:
Scriptural Verse (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.22)
There are three words here. Pay attention! sarvasyavasi, sarvasyesanah, sarvasyadhipatih. In other words, the Lord of infinite universes, the creator and ruler of the entire world is the soul? So, Shankaracharya …
Scriptural Verse (Brahma Sutra 2.3.22)
… in his commentary of this brahmasutra said – pay attention – that this mantra refers to Brahm, because it is God who is the Lord of all. It is Brahm; it cannot be the soul. And …
Scriptural Verse (Brahma Sutra 2.3.29)
… when he started commenting on the very next brahmasutra, he said that the same Vedic mantra refers to the individual soul. The soul! Hey, wait a minute! Just before this, you wrote in your commentary that this mantra relates to Brahm; now you say it relates to the soul?
Now listen to another most amusing thing. Veda Vyas! Shankaracharya’s Guru was Govindacharya, whose Guru was Gaurpadacharya, whose Guru was Shukdev, whose Guru was Veda Vyas, who was a descension of God. Shankaracharya accepted this.
Scriptural Verse (Shankaracharya)
vyaso narayanah (Vyas is a descension of Narayan). Shankaracharya said this. Veda Vyas, a descension of Lord Narayan, says that when Shri Krishna disappeared from the maharaas, then the gopis went into a state of samadhi. One of them played the part of Shri Krishna, while another acted as Putana and as Putana, she fed ‘Shri Krishna’ poison from her breast. Now, people in the world only act in movies, but here it is actually happening! Shankaracharya said this.
The same Shankaracharya … atmakriteh parinamaat (Brahma Sutra 1.4.26, 1.4.27). These are two brahmasutras; Nimbarkacharya considered them both to be one. 1.4.26 and 1.4.27. Shankaracharya started explaining the sutras. What do they mean? God Himself becomes the world. This is the brahmasutra: atmakriteh parinamaat. A quotation from the Vedas was given as an explanation.
Scriptural Verse Taittiriya Upanishad 2.7
God Himself became the world. Why? The world emanated from God. Secondly, God permeated the whole world. Thirdly, the world merged into God at the time of cosmic dissolution.
Take clay, for example. A pot is made from clay. A potter used clay to make an earthen pot. He made a jug. So, what is the pot made of? Clay. The clay became the pot. In the same way, God became the world. However, God is eternal and the clay pot is not; it will break one day. Nonetheless, the pot does exist. Therefore, the world is satyamanityancha. The world is real but temporary. God is both real and eternal, because He is the cause. The cause remains in the effect. There can be no effect without a cause. Note this! However, there can be a cause without an effect. Because God remains even when there is universal dissolution. Where will God go? The world will cease to exist. However, the world cannot exist without God. How will it manifest by itself? If God did not pervade the world, how would it function? How would cosmic dissolution take place?
Look, Veda Vyas wrote the Bhagavat. There is a small book called the Vishnusahastranaam. It contains a thousand names of God. Shankaracharya wrote a commentary on this too. However, he did not touch the Bhagavatam out of fear. Because if he did, he would have to admit that Shri Krishna was the Supreme Lord. The Bhagavat begins with this very point.
Scriptural Verse (Bhagavatam 1.1.2, 1.1.1)
The One from whom the world emanates; by whom it is protected, and into whom the world merges is Shri Krishna. The Vedant also begins with this. janmadyasa yatah (Brahma Sutra 1.1.2). The very first sutra is: athato brahmajigyasa (Brahma Sutra 1.1.1). This second sutra refers to ‘Who is Brahm?’ (Brahma Sutra 1.1.2). Shankaracharya commented on this too.
Scriptural Verse (Shankar Bhashya)
This is Shankaracharya’s commentary. However, later he declares Veda Vyas, the Guru of his own lineage of Gurus, and whom he had accepted as God, to be deluded. “Ved Vyas must have been a little crazy to say that Brahm became the world. He was crazy! Bhrantah.” Bhrantah means to become deluded. I have already explained that human beings suffer from four defects. The first defect is bhram (delusion). Like mistaking a rope for a snake. In the same way, he claims that Veda Vyas was deluded. Whereas the disciple of the disciple of the disciple of his disciple, was not deluded; he had attained true knowledge.
However, every descension of God acts according to the needs of the time. Lord Buddha was also a descension of God, but he also did not accept God, nor did he accept the Vedas. Do not use your intellect to question the actions of God and the Saints. Gaurang Mahaprabhu also forbade it. The one in whose heart God is seated …
Scriptural Verse
Mahaprabhu Ji said, “Don’t ever use your intellect to understand his words, his actions or even his gestures.” The greatest of scholars will slip. They cannot understand. You hear this being said, don’t you? “The ways of God are known to God alone.”
At present, the soul itself is beyond the intellect, and God is beyond the soul. I have explained this many times. He is beyond the material intellect. When Shankaracharya again commented further on the Vedant … – pay attention and take note of the brahmasutra 4.3.10 – smritesh cha (Brahma Sutra 4.3.10) … he wrote that there is a personal God. One should practise devotion to Him.
Secondly, 3.2.13: api caivameke (Brahma Sutra 3.2.13). Here also, Shankaracharya accepts a personal God with attributes. 3.2.15: prakashavaccavaiyarth (Brahma Sutra 3.2.15). Even here, Shankaracharya accepts a God with form and attributes. asminnasya ca tadyogam shasti Brahma Sutra 1.1.20. He accepts the personal form here again. antastaddharmopadeshat Brahma Sutra 1.1.21. Here again he accepted God with form and attributes.
Not only that, he even installed deities of God’s personal form in the four main pilgrimage sites. You visit these four pilgrimage sites, don’t you? Badrinarayan and so on? It was Jagadguru Shankaracharya who installed the murtis there. He who was a devotee of Shri Krishna in every pore of his being, wrote this and also wrote that. But you should focus only on his writings about the personal form of God, and the fact that he practised devotion himself. He instructed his own mother to practise devotion to Shri Krishna. Leave aside Brahmagyan and so on; the first stage is the purification of one’s heart. Whether one is a devotee or a gyani, this applies to everyone. It is in this context that he wrote:
Scriptural Verse (Prabodh Sudhakar)
“Without devotion to Shri Krishna, the mind will not become purified.” Shankaracharya said this.
So, God has an impersonal aspect and also a personal aspect. And this is accepted by all other Saints as well. So, the true form of the personal manifestation of that Brahm is that of the Son of Nand, Nandanandan (Shri Krishna). His form that manifests fewer powers is Paramatma, and the form that manifests even fewer powers is Brahm. That is why Lord Shri Krishna is referred to as Sajatiya Vijatiya Svagat Bhed Shunya Advayatattva. Gaurang Mahaprabhu also accepted this.
What do you mean by sajatiya? All the descensions of God are His svansh – they are expansions of Himself. They have no separate existence from Shri Krishna and are all subordinate to Him. So, they are non-different from Him. And the souls who are vibbhinansh, His separate parts, are certainly subordinate to Him. I have told you this through various Vedic mantras. Hence, the souls are also part of the sajatiya bhed shunya aspect of Brahm. In other words, Shri Krishna is non-different from both the souls and His personal expansions, and He governs both of them.
And one entity of a contrary nature is maya. God is also the governor of maya. I have repeatedly told you that poor maya is insentient. What would maya do without God?
Scriptural Verse (Bhagavatam 2.9.33)
So, without God, maya is lifeless, just like this towel. God is the ultimate cause of everything.
Scriptural Verse Brahma Samhita 5.1
Scriptural Verse Bhagavad Gita 7.7
Scriptural Verse Shvetashvatara Upanishad 3.9
Scriptural Verse Shvetashvatara Upanishad 6.7
Scriptural Verse Shvetashvatara Upanishad 6.9
Scriptural Verse Bhagavad Gita 7.6
Scriptural Verse Bhagavad Gita 10.8
We are part of that Supreme Lord Shri Krishna. We are a marginal power, and our relationship with Him is of both difference and non-difference. We are His servants. We have to know Him and attain Him. However, He is unknowable and imperceptible because our senses, mind and intellect are material. And yet, some have known Him.
Scriptural Verse (Shvetashvatara Upanishad 3.8)
The Vedas declare this. 3.8 Countless souls have known Him and attained Him. How? I will tell you next time. All glories to Shri Radha Krishna!
