A New Class of Leaders
In the Srimad Bhagavatam the great emperor, Rishabadeva, who is also an incarnation of God clearly spells out the qualification for being a leader. He describes that unless someone can deliver us from the cycle of repeated birth and death they should not become our leader. Sadly, in the modern day society it will be very difficult to find even one person who is qualified to be our leader. The entire world civilization is suffering from the misguidance of persons who have not even the slightest qualification to deliver us from the cycle of repeated birth and death. It is no wonder then why things have run so far amuck. Therefore there is no greater need in the human society than training an entire new class of enlightened men and women for occupying all of the leadership posts throughout all the strata of society.
Sankarshan Das Adhikari
You stated in "Thought for the Day" that it is offense against chanting the holy names of God to consider the names of demigods like Lord Siva or Lord Brahma to be equal to, or independent of, the name of Lord Vishnu. But isn't it the mind which differentiates between a God and a demigod? The sole purpose of any sadhana is to transcend the mind and know our pure nature, by keeping the mind and senses in check.
I remember one of your posts where you say no matter what you name it "God, Bhagavan, Allah or otherwise" but the Supreme is One without a second. Even the Upanishads do not say the word God or demigod but refer to it as 'That'. So if referring to 'That' - the Supreme Personality, the one without a second, if I consider some other name as for example Shiva or Brahma, how can it be an offense?
When the Supreme is One, who is greater than the other ? and who is the other? Apart from the words chanted - if the feelings from the heart are pointed to that One - 'That' - The causeless cause of everything - then? Are not the feelings more important than words. Words give a chance to the mind to divide as a God and a demigod. Is the name more important or the feelings?
Kindly enlighten me,
Ashutosh Divecha
Of course, I do not consider that I have to power to enlighten you. I am just a humble messenger of the great acharyas of the Vedic civilization who have so perfectly presented the Vedic wisdom. It is only by their blessings and divine potency that we can clearly and perfectly understand the Vedic wisdom. So I will carefully present to you the answers to your questions based on that knowledge which has been revealed by the great spiritual authorities, not according to my opinion.
Your first question is, "Isn't it the mind which differentiates between God and a demigod?"
Kindly try to understand that it is the material mind which blindly lumps them together and the enlightened mind makes this distinction because the Vedic wisdom clearly makes this distinction. This is confirmed in the Rig Veda 1.22.20 as follows:
Om tad visnoh paramam padam sada pasyanti surayah
"The demigods are always seeing Lord Vishnu as the Supreme."
And then you say, "And our sole purpose of any sadhana is to transcend the mind and know our pure nature, by keeping the mind and senses in check. "
This is a fact, but one must understand what is one's true nature beyond the mind. In this connection it is stated as follows in the Vedic literature:
jivera 'svarupa' haya -- krsnera 'nitya-dasa'
"It is the living entity's constitutional position to be an eternal servant of Krishna."
--Sri Caitanya Caritamrita, Madhya Lila 20.108
You mention, "I remember one of your posts where you say no matter what you name it, 'God, Bhagavan, Allah or otherwise', but the Supreme in One without a second."
But in this connection it must be clearly understood that even though there are hundreds and millions of names given in the revealed scriptures for the Supreme Person, it is not that any and all names are names for the Supreme Person. He has certain names which are given in the revealed scriptures.
You then point out, "Even the Upanishads do not say the word God or demigod but refer to it as 'That'."
But you must properly understand the Vedic mantras and not take them out of context. The "that" ("tat" in Sanskrit) you are referring to is mentioned in a very popular verse in the Chandogya Upanisad (6.8.7), "tat tvam asmi", which translates as "you are of the same nature as that." Instead of speculating we should seek the authoritative guidance of the Vedic wisdom to properly understand what "that" or "tat" refers to. Lord Krishna also uses "tat" in the Bhagavad-gita:
om tat sad iti nirdeso
brahmanas tri-vidhah smrtah
brahmanas tena vedas ca
yajnas ca vihitah pura
"From the beginning of creation, the three words om tat sat were used to indicate the Supreme Absolute Truth. These three symbolic representations were used by brahmanas while chanting the hymns of the Vedas and during sacrifices for the satisfaction of the Supreme."
--Bhagavad-gita 17.23
In "om tat sat" "tat" refers to the "tat tvam asmi" mantra. "Tat tvam asmi" is a secondary mantra coming after and pointing to the primary mantra, which precedes it, "om". Krishna declares in the Bhagavad-gita that He is "om". Therefore the "that" referred to in Chandogya Upanisad is Krishna. And the "tat tvam asmi" mantra means that we are of the same nature as Krishna. Krishna is eternal, full of bliss, and knowledge, and we are also eternal, full of bliss and knowledge.
You have asked, "So if referring to 'That' - the supreme personality, the one without a second, if I consider some other name as for eg. Shiva or Brahma How can it be an offense?"
The answer to your question is given by Shiva and Brahma, who have both clearly stated in the Vedic wisdom that they are not the Supreme Person. They are both highly elevated servants of the Supreme Person, but they are not the Supreme Person.
You have then asked, "When the Supreme is One, who is greater than the other, and who is the other?"
The answer is since there is only Supreme Person, it is not that everybody can be the Supreme Person. How many supreme courts are there in a given country? There can only be one. If there is more than one then we are not talking about the supreme court.
You are wondering, "Apart from the words chanted, if the feelings from the heart are pointed to that One - 'That' - The causeless cause of everything - then?"
How strong can one's loving feelings be for something or someone that is vague and unknown? When we know someone intimately that's when our love for him can become solid and steady, not otherwise. Therefore, if we want to develop for God, it is wise to find out who He is.
You have concluded with these two questions, "Are not the feelings more important than words. Words give a chance to the mind to divide as a God and a demigod ? Is the name more important or the feelings?"
With great feeling someone may foolishly put their money in the wrong back account for their entire life eagerly anticipating cashing out at retirement. But when they go to withdraw their savings at the time of retirement they will be in for a big disappointment. Feelings are very nice, but they should properly channeled in the light of transcendental knowledge so that in the end we will actually become liberated from the cycle of birth and death. The demigods cannot deliver us from the cycle of birth and death. Only Krishna, Narayana, or Vishnu can do that. Therefore we should chant His names and not the names of the demigods.
In conclusion I present for your kind consideration the fourth mantra of the Sri Isopanisad:
anejad ekam manaso javiyo
nainad deva apnuvan purvam arsat
tad dhavato 'nyan atyeti tisthat
tasminn apo matarisva dadhati
"The Personality of Godhead, although fixed in His abode, is more swift than the mind, and can overcome all others running. The powerful demigods cannot approach Him. Although in one place, He has control over those who supply the air and rain. He surpasses all in excellence."
--Sri Isopanisad, Mantra 4
Sankarshan Das Adhikari
Sankarshan Das Adhikari
Answers According to the Vedic Version:
Question: Name or Feelings are More Important?
Hari Aum,You stated in "Thought for the Day" that it is offense against chanting the holy names of God to consider the names of demigods like Lord Siva or Lord Brahma to be equal to, or independent of, the name of Lord Vishnu. But isn't it the mind which differentiates between a God and a demigod? The sole purpose of any sadhana is to transcend the mind and know our pure nature, by keeping the mind and senses in check.
I remember one of your posts where you say no matter what you name it "God, Bhagavan, Allah or otherwise" but the Supreme is One without a second. Even the Upanishads do not say the word God or demigod but refer to it as 'That'. So if referring to 'That' - the Supreme Personality, the one without a second, if I consider some other name as for example Shiva or Brahma, how can it be an offense?
When the Supreme is One, who is greater than the other ? and who is the other? Apart from the words chanted - if the feelings from the heart are pointed to that One - 'That' - The causeless cause of everything - then? Are not the feelings more important than words. Words give a chance to the mind to divide as a God and a demigod. Is the name more important or the feelings?
Kindly enlighten me,
Ashutosh Divecha
Answer: Know to Whom to Channel Your Feelings
Our quote from the Padma Purana that one should not consider God and the demigods to be on the same level has confused you. I appreciate very much how even though you are confused you have requested, "Kindly enlighten me." This the proper mood for the student or disciple to approach the spiritual master when he does not clearly understand. With this proper humble approach the student or disciple will make steady progress on the path to proper understanding and eventual spiritual perfection.Of course, I do not consider that I have to power to enlighten you. I am just a humble messenger of the great acharyas of the Vedic civilization who have so perfectly presented the Vedic wisdom. It is only by their blessings and divine potency that we can clearly and perfectly understand the Vedic wisdom. So I will carefully present to you the answers to your questions based on that knowledge which has been revealed by the great spiritual authorities, not according to my opinion.
Your first question is, "Isn't it the mind which differentiates between God and a demigod?"
Kindly try to understand that it is the material mind which blindly lumps them together and the enlightened mind makes this distinction because the Vedic wisdom clearly makes this distinction. This is confirmed in the Rig Veda 1.22.20 as follows:
Om tad visnoh paramam padam sada pasyanti surayah
"The demigods are always seeing Lord Vishnu as the Supreme."
And then you say, "And our sole purpose of any sadhana is to transcend the mind and know our pure nature, by keeping the mind and senses in check. "
This is a fact, but one must understand what is one's true nature beyond the mind. In this connection it is stated as follows in the Vedic literature:
jivera 'svarupa' haya -- krsnera 'nitya-dasa'
"It is the living entity's constitutional position to be an eternal servant of Krishna."
--Sri Caitanya Caritamrita, Madhya Lila 20.108
You mention, "I remember one of your posts where you say no matter what you name it, 'God, Bhagavan, Allah or otherwise', but the Supreme in One without a second."
But in this connection it must be clearly understood that even though there are hundreds and millions of names given in the revealed scriptures for the Supreme Person, it is not that any and all names are names for the Supreme Person. He has certain names which are given in the revealed scriptures.
You then point out, "Even the Upanishads do not say the word God or demigod but refer to it as 'That'."
But you must properly understand the Vedic mantras and not take them out of context. The "that" ("tat" in Sanskrit) you are referring to is mentioned in a very popular verse in the Chandogya Upanisad (6.8.7), "tat tvam asmi", which translates as "you are of the same nature as that." Instead of speculating we should seek the authoritative guidance of the Vedic wisdom to properly understand what "that" or "tat" refers to. Lord Krishna also uses "tat" in the Bhagavad-gita:
om tat sad iti nirdeso
brahmanas tri-vidhah smrtah
brahmanas tena vedas ca
yajnas ca vihitah pura
"From the beginning of creation, the three words om tat sat were used to indicate the Supreme Absolute Truth. These three symbolic representations were used by brahmanas while chanting the hymns of the Vedas and during sacrifices for the satisfaction of the Supreme."
--Bhagavad-gita 17.23
In "om tat sat" "tat" refers to the "tat tvam asmi" mantra. "Tat tvam asmi" is a secondary mantra coming after and pointing to the primary mantra, which precedes it, "om". Krishna declares in the Bhagavad-gita that He is "om". Therefore the "that" referred to in Chandogya Upanisad is Krishna. And the "tat tvam asmi" mantra means that we are of the same nature as Krishna. Krishna is eternal, full of bliss, and knowledge, and we are also eternal, full of bliss and knowledge.
You have asked, "So if referring to 'That' - the supreme personality, the one without a second, if I consider some other name as for eg. Shiva or Brahma How can it be an offense?"
The answer to your question is given by Shiva and Brahma, who have both clearly stated in the Vedic wisdom that they are not the Supreme Person. They are both highly elevated servants of the Supreme Person, but they are not the Supreme Person.
You have then asked, "When the Supreme is One, who is greater than the other, and who is the other?"
The answer is since there is only Supreme Person, it is not that everybody can be the Supreme Person. How many supreme courts are there in a given country? There can only be one. If there is more than one then we are not talking about the supreme court.
You are wondering, "Apart from the words chanted, if the feelings from the heart are pointed to that One - 'That' - The causeless cause of everything - then?"
How strong can one's loving feelings be for something or someone that is vague and unknown? When we know someone intimately that's when our love for him can become solid and steady, not otherwise. Therefore, if we want to develop for God, it is wise to find out who He is.
You have concluded with these two questions, "Are not the feelings more important than words. Words give a chance to the mind to divide as a God and a demigod ? Is the name more important or the feelings?"
With great feeling someone may foolishly put their money in the wrong back account for their entire life eagerly anticipating cashing out at retirement. But when they go to withdraw their savings at the time of retirement they will be in for a big disappointment. Feelings are very nice, but they should properly channeled in the light of transcendental knowledge so that in the end we will actually become liberated from the cycle of birth and death. The demigods cannot deliver us from the cycle of birth and death. Only Krishna, Narayana, or Vishnu can do that. Therefore we should chant His names and not the names of the demigods.
In conclusion I present for your kind consideration the fourth mantra of the Sri Isopanisad:
anejad ekam manaso javiyo
nainad deva apnuvan purvam arsat
tad dhavato 'nyan atyeti tisthat
tasminn apo matarisva dadhati
"The Personality of Godhead, although fixed in His abode, is more swift than the mind, and can overcome all others running. The powerful demigods cannot approach Him. Although in one place, He has control over those who supply the air and rain. He surpasses all in excellence."
--Sri Isopanisad, Mantra 4
Sankarshan Das Adhikari
Comments
Post a Comment