SB 1.15.35: Srila Prabhupad's Purport is Clear

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna,

 

I never said the Lord's form is material, but KS has tried to convince members

that I did so. I misquoted Gita once, but He is using that to finish off this

discussion without answering the challenges posed in earlier emails. While he

demands us to show pramanas, he himself hasn't(in this case, not in all

discussions),except for offering his usual arguments on debating on standards of

proof, and he also does not care when we submit something for more fruitful

discussions. He says, I "skimmed through"- well, I can only request you do more

justice to Caitanya Bhagavat.

 

I'm sending the purport of SB 1.15.35, where Srila Prabhupada clearly says the

demons don't have access to the Lord's transcendental form. If that is the case,

what form the demons are seeing? this is question - the pdf I sent quotes

Sridhar Swamipada (I have to admit I'm taking the translation at face value as I

don't have access to his commentary) as saying that the Lord manifested a form

visible to mundane eyes. This runs contrary to KS's position and not Srila

Prabhupada's that demons see the exactly same form as devotees during his

avatars.

 

I hope he atleast answers Sumeet's post on this.

 

in your service,

 

PURPORT

 

The Supreme Lord Personality of Godhead is neither impersonal nor formless, but

His body is nondifferent from Him, and therefore He is known as the embodiment

of eternity, knowledge and bliss. In the Br#803;had-vaishnava Tantra it is

clearly mentioned that anyone who considers the form of Lord Krishna to be made

of material energy must be ostracized by all means. And if by chance the face of

such an infidel is seen, one must clean himself by jumping in the river with his

clothing. The Lord is described as amrta, or deathless, because He has no

material body. Under the circumstances, the Lord's dying or quitting His body is

like the jugglery of a magician. The magician shows by his tricks that he is cut

to pieces, burnt to ashes or made unconscious by hypnotic influences, but all

are false shows only. Factually the magician himself is neither burnt to ashes

nor cut to pieces, nor is he dead or unconscious at any stage of his magical

demonstration. Similarly, the Lord has His eternal

forms of unlimited variety, of which the fish incarnation, as was exhibited

within this universe, is also one. Because there are innumerable universes,

somewhere or other the fish incarnation must be manifesting His pastimes without

cessation. In this verse, the particular word dhatte ("eternally accepted," and

not the word dhitv#257;, "accepted for the occasion") is used. The idea is that

the Lord does not create the fish incarnation; He eternally has such a form, and

the appearance and disappearance of such an incarnation serves particular

purposes. In the Bhagavad-gita (7.24-25) the Lord says, "The impersonalists

think that I have no form, that I am formless, but that at present I have

accepted a form to serve a purpose, and now I am manifested. But such

speculators are factually without sharp intelligence. Though they may be good

scholars in the Vedic literatures, they are practically ignorant of My

inconceivable energies and My eternal forms of personality. The reason is that I

reserve the power of not being exposed to the nondevotees by My mystic curtain.

The less intelligent fools are therefore unaware of My eternal form, which is

never to be vanquished and is unborn." In the Padma-Purana it is said that those

who are envious and always angry at the Lord are unfit to know the actual and

eternal form of the Lord. In the Bhagavatam also it is said that the Lord

appeared like a thunderbolt to those who were wrestlers. Sisupala, at the time

of being killed by the Lord, could not see Him as Krsna, being dazzled by the

glare of the brahmajyoti. Therefore, the temporary manifestation of the Lord as

a thunderbolt to the wrestlers appointed by Kamsa, or the glaring appearance of

the Lord before Sisupala, was relinquished by the Lord, but the Lord as a

magician is eternally existent and is never vanquished in any circumstance. Such

forms are temporarily shown to the asuras only, and when such exhibitions are

withdrawn, the asuras think that the Lord is no more

existent, just as the foolish audience thinks the magician to be burnt to ashes

or cut to pieces. The conclusion is that the Lord has no material body, and

therefore He is never to be killed or changed by His transcendental body

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aravind Mohanram

Ph.D. Candidate

Dept. of Mat Sci and Engg.,

Penn State University,

University Park, PA 16801

www.personal.psu.edu/aum105

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

achintya, Aravind Mohanram <psuaravind>

wrote:

>

> Hare Krishna,

>

> I never said the Lord's form is material, but KS has tried to

convince members that I did so.

>

 

These were your exact words:

 

"when the Lord appears as human, the demons think this is it - he is

also made of flesh and bones - but, this is not complete

understanding because the Lord's form is transcendental -the demons'

understanding is limited by ignorance."

 

Now, if you wish to amend this, that is fine by me. But the above

seems to indicate that you consider the idea of Lord's material form

to be "real but incomplete," thus saying that He has a material form!

 

And here again we see something similar:

 

"His form is purely trasncendental. But, for the demons, He does

accept a different dress,just like an actor does in a drama. That is

the central point of our discussion."

 

So again, the same theme - He has a spiritual form, but He has a

material form too!

 

> I misquoted Gita once, but He is using that to finish off this

discussion without answering the challenges posed in earlier emails. >

 

Begging your pardon, but I have done nothing to stop you from having

this "discussion." Feel free to have it - just without me.

 

>While he demands us to show pramanas, he himself hasn't(in this

case, not in all discussions),

>

 

No, I don't feel inspired to show pramaanas to disprove someone

else's conjecture, until such persons have provided explicit

pramaanas to support their position first. If this seems

unreasonable, then I am indeed sorry that you feel that way. I'm just

tired of the same old spiel "I heard through someone somehwere that

such and such a thing is true. Now please prove to me with explicit

pramaaanas that it is not so."

 

>except for offering his usual arguments on debating on standards of

proof, and he also does not care when we submit something for more

fruitful discussions. He says, I "skimmed through"- well, I can only

request you do more justice to Caitanya Bhagavat.

>

 

I am sorry I am not up to the task. I spend time in a discussion in

direct proportion to my perception that there is back and forth

assimilation of detail and self-examination of one's position. On the

other hand, my interest rapidly wanes when I perceive the discussion

has entered the circular patterns exemplified by behaviors discussed

in Achintya rules 6.1-3 as well as others.

 

If you feel there is something in that lengthy excerpt from Chaitanya

Bhaagavata that explicitly proves your position, I would certainly

like to see a specific, concise quote. But without any specific

pointers, I really don't see how any of this supports your position

at all.

 

> I'm sending the purport of SB 1.15.35, where Srila Prabhupada

clearly says the demons don't have access to the Lord's

transcendental form.>

 

Well, let us look at that purport and see what it actually says:

 

"The Supreme Lord Personality of Godhead is neither impersonal nor

formless, but His body is nondifferent from Him, and therefore He is

known as the embodiment of eternity, knowledge and bliss." - This

contradicts the idea that He has a material body to display

specifically to demons since such a body would not be nondifferent

from Him, and not be the embodiment of eternity, knowledge, and bliss.

 

"In the Brhad-vaisnava Tantra it is clearly mentioned that anyone who

considers the form of Lord Krsna to be made of material energy must

be ostracized by all means." - Hopefully this is self explanatory. If

someone says that the form of Lord Krishns shown to demons is not

spiritual, but instead is made of material energy, that what am I to

conclude about such a person based on this Tantra?

 

"The Lord is described as amrta, or deathless, because He has no

material body." - If the Lord Has no material body, then why is it

being argued that He has a material form which is shown to demons?

More importantly, why are we being asked to believe that this is the

Gaudiiya Vaishnava view? Either He has a material form to show or He

does not. Which is it?

 

"In the Padma Purana it is said that those who are envious and always

angry at the Lord are unfit to know the actual and eternal form of

the Lord." <-- Note here that he said such demons are unfit to KNOW

the actual form of the Lord, not that they are unfit to SEE the

actual from of the Lord.

 

Then in the next statement He mentions how the Lord appeared as a

thunderbolt to the wrestlers, or as the brahmajyoti to Sishupaala,

etc. And it is mentioned how the Lord temporarily shows such forms to

demons, and then willingly withdraws such exhibitions. This is

perhaps the strongest evidence supporting Aravind's theory that the

Lord shows temporary, material forms to the demons. However, in the

very next sentence, Prabhupada writes, "The conclusion is that the

Lord has no material body, and therefore He is never to be killed or

changed by His transcendental body."

 

If He shows a material body to the demons, that He must "have" it,

right? If He does not "have" a material body, then how can He show

a "material body" to the demons?

 

Taken together, this would seem to indicate that even the

manifestations shown to demons are also spiritual - certainly we know

that the brahmajyoti shown to Shishupaala is.

 

In conclusion, I see no evidence here that the forms shown to demons

are material in any way. In fact, look at the context of the purport -

BG 7.24-25 is quoted which criticizes those who believe the Lord is

previously unmanifest but has only now taken manifestation for some

purpose. Prabhupada, taking Krisna's position, then explains why

these people think this way: "The reason is that I reserve the power

of not being exposed to the nondevotees by My mystic curtain. The

less intelligent fools are therefore unaware of My eternal form,

which is never to be vanquished and is unborn." Taken out of context,

there are only two possible interpretations of this statement:

 

7.24-25-A: Lord hides His actual, spiritual form from nondevotees via

a mystic curtain, and shows only a material form to the nondevotees.

 

7.24-25-B: Lord hides the understanding that His actual form is

spiritual via a mystic curtain, thus allowing nondevotees to think

His spiritual form is actually material.

 

But when you plug this back into context, which says that Lord does

not have a material from, then interpretation A makes less sense.

This leaves us only with interpretation B.

 

Furthermore, if interpretation A were true, then that would imply

that non-devotees must not trust the senses, for the Lord is actively

showing them something false (a material from which He in fact does

not have). On the other hand, interpretation B acknowledges that

there is no falsehood being deliberately displayed, but rather that

the Lord is deliberately holding back certain knowledge to properly

process and understand the sensory input of the Lord's true form. Why

would Lord refrain from revealing certain knowledge about Himself?

Because He himself says in Bhagavad-giitaa:

 

teShaam satatayuktaaNaa.m bhajataa.m priitipuurvakam |

dadaami buddhiyogaM taM yena maam upayaanti te || giitaa 10.10 ||

 

In other words, He only gives this buddhi-yoga to those who are

constantly serving Him with love. Note again that it does *not* say

that He only shows His spiritual form to those people. What He gives

is the Understanding. Everyone sees His spiritual form when He

descends as avataara, but only those constantly dedicated to serving

Him with love get the buddhi to truly understand this form's

spiritual significance.

 

> If that is the case, what form the demons are seeing? this is

question - the pdf I sent quotes Sridhar Swamipada (I have to admit

I'm taking the translation at face value as I don't have access to

his commentary) as saying that the Lord manifested a form visible to

mundane eyes. This runs contrary to KS's position and not Srila

Prabhupada's that demons see the exactly same form as devotees during

his avatars.

>

 

No it doesn't. All that says is that Lord manifestead a form visible

to "mundane eyes." There is nothing there about this form being

material (i.e. made of flesh, blood, bile, stool, urine, etc).

 

Again, this is simply another unfounded assumption on your part -

that any form, even of an avataara, must necessarily be material if

it is visible to "mundane eyes." As you seem unwilling to question

this basic premise, which actually guides your entire thinking on the

matter, I have held firm to the position that nothing new will come

of this discussion.

 

But as I said before, feel free to continue discussing it amongst

yourselves. As for myself, I've said what I needed to say, and after

a long night in the ER saving lives, I don't feel compelled to repeat

myself over and over again here. Instead, I'm going to take a nap.

 

K