Universal Forms

[Guest guest]

There is an interesting discussion going on right now on VAST regarding the

Lord's Viraat-Purusha. One devotee asked if the Purusha of the Purusha-sukta

was in fact the Universal Form, and how this form can be imaginary when the

demigods are described as using it for the creation. Someone else points out

that there are actually several, "different" universal forms. It is pointed

out the Lord Krishna says to Arjuna (after the latter has seen His Universal

Form), that this form that Arjuna was seeing was seen by no one else before.

Thus, when the Lord displayed His universal form to Duryodhana, Yashoda, etc

these are considered to be different universal forms. Among the different

Universal Forms are also the Purusha of the Purusha Sukta, as well as the

form that the impersonalists are asked to imagine.

 

I asked the question -- are all of these Universal forms considered

"imaginary." Drutakarma answers in the affirmative, quoting SB 1.3.30 and

its purport. However, he qualifies "imaginary" by saying that just as it is

imagination to think that the material body is the same as the conditioned

living entity, so too it is imagination to think the Universal Form is the

Lord Himself. Thus, he seems to argue that the Universal Form is in fact

real, albeit different from Lord Krishna.

 

I actually thought that the Universal Form was literally imagination, but

the matter making up the material universe and hence the universal form was

real. I had read the verses describing this as meaning that the "Universal

Form" was a type of conception superimposed on the material universe. I

wonder how you all read it?

 

It's also interesting to note -- The Purusha in the Purusha-sukta is

described as being dismembered by the demigods for the purposes of creation.

Previously, the Maadhvas made a big fuss about our interpretation of the

Universal Form being imaginary. I wonder how they justify saying that this

form is in fact transcendental when the Rig Veda describes the demigods

taking it apart?

 

 

etadruupa.m bhagavato hyaruupasya chidaatmanaH |

maayaaguNirvirachita.m mahadaadibhiraatmani || bhaa 1.3.30 ||

 

etat - all these; ruupam - forms; bhagavataH - of the Lord; hi - certainly;

aruupasya - of one who has no material form; chit-aatmanaH - of the

Transcendence; maayaa - material energy; guNaiH - by the qualities;

virachitam - manufactured; mahat-aadibhiH - with the ingredients of matter;

aatmani - in the self.

 

The conception of the viraat universal form of the Lord, as appearing in the

material world, is imaginary. It is to enable the less intelligent [and

neophytes] to adjust to the idea of the Lord's having form. But factually

the Lord has no material form (bhaagavata puraaNa 1.3.30).

 

 

 

 

S. HariKrishna

Cleveland, OH

Achintya List URL:

achintya

[Guest guest]

On Sun, 15 Apr 2001, S. HariKrishna wrote:

> It's also interesting to note -- The Purusha in the Purusha-sukta is

> described as being dismembered by the demigods for the purposes of creation.

> Previously, the Maadhvas made a big fuss about our interpretation of the

> Universal Form being imaginary. I wonder how they justify saying that this

> form is in fact transcendental when the Rig Veda describes the demigods

> taking it apart?

 

And this was done to create a world they assert as both

material and real.

 

 

 

> etadruupa.m bhagavato hyaruupasya chidaatmanaH |

> maayaaguNirvirachita.m mahadaadibhiraatmani || bhaa 1.3.30 ||

> etat - all these; ruupam - forms; bhagavataH - of the Lord; hi - certainly;

> aruupasya - of one who has no material form; chit-aatmanaH - of the

> Transcendence; maayaa - material energy; guNaiH - by the qualities;

> virachitam - manufactured; mahat-aadibhiH - with the ingredients of matter;

> aatmani - in the self.

> The conception of the viraat universal form of the Lord, as appearing in the

> material world, is imaginary. It is to enable the less intelligent [and

> neophytes] to adjust to the idea of the Lord's having form. But factually

> the Lord has no material form (bhaagavata puraaNa 1.3.30).

 

"Etat" is both singular and proximate. I see here no reason to

assume that this statement applies across the board to all the virad-rupas.

I don't know why Prabhupada translates these (first two words) as plural,

if indeed he did. Does he give any other indications in the purport?

 

Mukunda Datta dasa

[Guest guest]

Srila Prabhupada writes (Srimad-Bhagavatam 2-5-39 purport) :

"...The varat universal form of the Lord is an imagination for

the material world. It has nothing to do with the spiritual world, or the

kingdom of God."

He also writes ( Bhagavad-gita 11-55 purport- "The Universal Form")

: "...the universal form of Krsna, which is a temporary manifestation,

and the form of time which devours everything, and even the form of Vishnu,

the four handed, have all been exhibited by Krsna. Thus Krsna is the origin

of all these manifestations. It is not that Krsna is a manifestation of

the original vishva-rupa, or Vishnu. Krsna is the origin of all

forms. There are hundreds and thousands of Vishnus, but for a devotee,

no form of Krsna is important but the original form, two-handed Shymasundara...."

Srila Prabhupada further writes in the text earlier posted

(Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.3.30 purport) that "...The material conception of

the Lord is not counted in the list of His factual forms. As Paramatma,

or Supersoul, the Lord is within each and every material form, even within

the atoms, but the outward material form is but an imagination, both for

the Lord and the living being. The present forms of the conditioned souls

are also not factual. The conclusion is that the material conception of

of the body of the Lord as virat is imaginary. Both the Lord and

the living beings are living spirits and have original spiritual bodies."

To this I submit that Srila Prabhupada's use of "neophyte"

as in the quote below, also from S.B. 1.3.30 ("...material world, is imaginary.

It is to enable the less intelligent [and neophytes] to adjust to the idea

of the Lord's having form...") refers not to "a new convert", as the first

definition of "neophyte" is in the dictionary... but rather to "a beginner",

one just awakening to a spiritual understanding of there being something

greater than oneself. Certainly we are all neophyte devotees, but Srila

Prabhupada never instructed us to concentrate our minds on the universal

form of the Lord. Rather, he instructed us to concentrate our minds one

"the lotus feet of Krsna " and that such concentration awakens our eternal

self to our constitutional nature as servants of the Lord. He has made

it clear to us that one does not "convert" to devotional service, but rather

awakens to it. He also instructed that even when we see the glorious material

creation around us, we must see the Supreme Artist behind the material

manifestation.

 

Sincerely,

Bhuvana Pavani d.d.

"S. HariKrishna" wrote:

There is an interesting discussion going on right

now on VAST regarding the

Lord's Viraat-Purusha. One devotee asked if the Purusha of the Purusha-sukta

was in fact the Universal Form, and how this form can be imaginary

when the

demigods are described as using it for the creation. Someone else points

out

that there are actually several, "different" universal forms. It is

pointed

out the Lord Krishna says to Arjuna (after the latter has seen His

Universal

Form), that this form that Arjuna was seeing was seen by no one else

before.

Thus, when the Lord displayed His universal form to Duryodhana, Yashoda,

etc

these are considered to be different universal forms. Among the different

Universal Forms are also the Purusha of the Purusha Sukta, as well

as the

form that the impersonalists are asked to imagine.

I asked the question -- are all of these Universal forms considered

"imaginary." Drutakarma answers in the affirmative, quoting SB 1.3.30

and

its purport. However, he qualifies "imaginary" by saying that just

as it is

imagination to think that the material body is the same as the conditioned

living entity, so too it is imagination to think the Universal Form

is the

Lord Himself. Thus, he seems to argue that the Universal Form is in

fact

real, albeit different from Lord Krishna.

I actually thought that the Universal Form was literally imagination,

but

the matter making up the material universe and hence the universal

form was

real. I had read the verses describing this as meaning that the "Universal

Form" was a type of conception superimposed on the material universe.

I

wonder how you all read it?

It's also interesting to note -- The Purusha in the Purusha-sukta is

described as being dismembered by the demigods for the purposes of

creation.

Previously, the Maadhvas made a big fuss about our interpretation of

the

Universal Form being imaginary. I wonder how they justify saying that

this

form is in fact transcendental when the Rig Veda describes the demigods

taking it apart?

etadruupa.m bhagavato hyaruupasya chidaatmanaH |

maayaaguNirvirachita.m mahadaadibhiraatmani || bhaa 1.3.30 ||

etat - all these; ruupam - forms; bhagavataH - of the Lord; hi - certainly;

aruupasya - of one who has no material form; chit-aatmanaH - of the

Transcendence; maayaa - material energy; guNaiH - by the qualities;

virachitam - manufactured; mahat-aadibhiH - with the ingredients of

matter;

aatmani - in the self.

The conception of the viraat universal form of the Lord, as appearing

in the

material world, is imaginary. It is to enable the less intelligent

[and

neophytes] to adjust to the idea of the Lord's having form. But factually

the Lord has no material form (bhaagavata puraaNa 1.3.30).

S. HariKrishna

Cleveland, OH

Achintya List URL:

achintya

 

achintya

Achintya Homepage: achintya

Your use of is subject to

[Guest guest]

> And this was done to create a world they assert as both

> material and real.

 

I was also going to point out that Bhaagavatam 2.1.26-28 describes the

various planetary systems as different body parts of the Universal Form:

 

aNDakoshe shariire'smin saptaavaraNasa.myute |

vairaajaH puruSho yo'sau bhagavaan dhaaraNaashrayaH || bhaa 2.1.25 ||

 

aNDa-koshe - within the universal shell; shariire - in the body of; asmin -

this; sapta - sevenfold; saavaraNa - coverings; sa.myute - having so done;

vairaajaH - the gigantic universal; puruShaH - form of the Lord; yaH - that;

asau - He; bhagavaan - the Personality of Godhead; dhaaraNaa - conception;

aashrayaH - object of.

 

The gigantic universal form of the Personality of Godhead, within the body

of the universal shell, which is covered by seven-fold material elements, is

the subject for the viraaT conception (bhaagavata puraaNa 2.1.25).

 

paataalametasya hi paadamuula.m paThanti paarShNiprapade rasaatalam |

mahaatala.m vishvasR^ijo'tha gulphau talaatala.m vai puruShasya ja.nghe ||

bhaa 2.1.26 ||

 

paataalam - the planets at the bottom of the universe; etasya - of His; hi -

exactly; paada-muulam - soles of the feet; paThanti - they study it;

paarShNi - the heels; prapade - the toes; rasaatalam - the planets named

Rasaatala; mahaatalam - the planets named Mahaatala; vishva-sR^ijaH - of the

creator of the universe; atha - thus; gulphau - the ankles; talaatalam - the

planets named Talaatala; vai - as they are; puruShasya - of the gigantic

person; ja.nghe - the shanks.

 

Persons who have realized it have studied that the planets known as Paataala

constitute the bottoms of the feet of universal Lord, and the heels and the

toes are the Rasaatala planets. The ankles are the Mahaatala planets, and

His shanks constitute the Talaatala planets (bhaagavata puraaNa 2.1.26).

 

dve jaanunii sutala.m vishvamuurteruurudvaya.m vitala.m chaatala.m cha |

mahiitala.m tajjaghana.m mahiipate nabhastala.m naabhisaro gR^iNanti || bhaa

2.1.27 ||

 

dve - two; jaanunii - two knees; sutalam - the planetary system named

Sutala; vishva-muurteH - of the universal form; uuru-dvayam - the two

thighs; vitalam - the planetary system named Vitala; cha - also; atalam -

the planets named Atala; cha - and; mahiitalam - the planetary system named

Mahiitala; tat - of that; jaghanam - the hips; mahiipate - O King;

nabhastalam - outer space; naabhi-saraH - the depression of the navel;

gR^iNanti - they take it so.

The knees of the universal form are the planetary system of the name Sutala,

and the two thighs are the Vitala and Atala planetary systems. The hips are

Mahiitala, and outer space is the depression of His navel (bhaagavata

puraaNa 2.1.27).

 

uraHsthala.m jyotiraniikamasya griivaa maharvadana.m vai jano'sya |

tapo varaaTii.m viduraadipu.msaH satya.m tu shiirShaaNi sahasrashiirShNaH ||

bhaa 2.1.28 ||

 

uraH - high; sthalam - place (the chest); jyotiH-aniikam - the luminary

planets; asya - of Him; griivaa - the neck; mahaH - the planetary system

above the luminaries; vadanam - mouth; vai - exactly; janaH - the planetary

system above Mahar; asya - of Him; tapaH - the planetary system above the

Janas; varaaTiim - forehead; viduH - is known; aadi - the original;

pu.msaH - personality; satyam - the topmost planetary system; tu - but;

shiirShaaNi - the head; sahasra - one thousand; shirrShNaH - one with heads.

 

The chest of the Original Personality of the gigantic form is the luminary

planetary system, His neck is the Mahar planets, His mouth is the Janas

planets, and His forehead is the Tapas planetary system. The topmost

planetary system, known as Satyaloka, is the head of He who has one thousand

heads (bhaagavata puraaNa 2.1.28).

 

I don't think anyone is going to disagree that the fourteen planetary

systems are made of prakriti. That being the case, when those manifestations

of prakriti are alleged to be various body parts of the Supreme Lord in His

viraat-ruupa feature, then this viraat-ruupa has to be different from His

transcendental forms. I don't see how the Maadhvas can argue that the

viraat-ruupa is actually transcendental like the other Vishnu-forms.

 

> > etadruupa.m bhagavato hyaruupasya chidaatmanaH |

> > maayaaguNirvirachita.m mahadaadibhiraatmani || bhaa 1.3.30 ||

> > etat - all these; ruupam - forms; bhagavataH - of the Lord; hi -

certainly;

> > aruupasya - of one who has no material form; chit-aatmanaH - of the

> > Transcendence; maayaa - material energy; guNaiH - by the qualities;

> > virachitam - manufactured; mahat-aadibhiH - with the ingredients of

matter;

> > aatmani - in the self.

> > The conception of the viraat universal form of the Lord, as appearing in

the

> > material world, is imaginary. It is to enable the less intelligent [and

> > neophytes] to adjust to the idea of the Lord's having form. But

factually

> > the Lord has no material form (bhaagavata puraaNa 1.3.30).

>

> "Etat" is both singular and proximate. I see here no reason to

> assume that this statement applies across the board to all the

virad-rupas.

> I don't know why Prabhupada translates these (first two words) as plural,

> if indeed he did. Does he give any other indications in the purport?

>

> Mukunda Datta dasa

 

Even though the word-for-word has it plural, the actual translation itself

seems to be singular -- "The conception of the viraat universal form of the

Lord...." Could the word-for-word just be a publication error? Or could it

be that Srila Prabhupada translated it as plural in the word-for-word

because there is (supposedly) more than one universal form? In any case, I

don't recall reading anything from the purport that would say one way or

another.

 

- K

[Guest guest]

To this I submit that Srila Prabhupada's use of "neophyte" as in the quote

below, also from S.B. 1.3.30 ("...material world, is imaginary. It is to enable

the less intelligent [and neophytes] to adjust to the idea of the Lord's having

form...") refers not to "a new convert", as the first definition of "neophyte"

is in the dictionary... but rather to "a beginner", one just awakening to a

spiritual understanding of there being something greater than oneself.

Certainly we are all neophyte devotees, but Srila Prabhupada never instructed

us to concentrate our minds on the universal form of the Lord. Rather, he

instructed us to concentrate our minds one "the lotus feet

 

True, neophytes are not asked to meditate on the viraat-purusha. This usage of

the word "neophyte" might refer to a kind of impersonalist. That was something

Drutakarma pointed out, and although I also recalled reading somewhere the idea

that this form was presented for the impersonalists, I don't recall exactly

where.

 

regards,

 

- K