Sermons of the Guardian of Devotion
Volume 3

Affectionate Krsna

Some poets can describe very beautifully anything they touch; that is called kavi. Someone may be a renowned kavi, but that does not mean he is an Acharyya. His life may be a filthy one, and what we receive from him is not acceptable. Professor Nisikanta Sanyal, the author of Sri Krsna Chaitanya, was a very strong and almost 'blind' follower of our Srila Guru Maharaj. After coming to this line of Gaudiya Math he noted in his diary, "One who does not sincerely believe in a particular creed, but goes to write about and eulogize that line of thought, is a hypocrite. We must be very careful about this: to see if a man does not actually believe what he himself says. If the man and his word are different we must not believe him, rather we should be very careful in his association. He does not believe in what he is saying. He himself does not believe it, so he is just a hypocrite who is double-dealing!" This was found in Nisikanta Sanyal's diary.

Once a doctor came to give me treatment when I was ill. He said, "You have come this far in your life and have passed so many days wearing your red cloth, what have you achieved?" He wanted to know: "You are passing so many days as a red-clad man, but have you got anything?"

I said, "Yes; and I think I have enough as to say with boldness that what is written by so many big poets who don't have the conviction given in their own writings is all false! They may hold the highest position in the 'culture' of the present day, but what they are giving is all wrong and filthy. This much I have understood!"

One of my friends from my previous life also came to see me and put to me a straight question. He asked, "What have you got, have you seen God?" I answered, "No, I have not yet seen Him as you may think He is to be 'seen'."

Then he asked, "What have you got, that for so long you have lived such a life?" Then I told him, "The great famous kavis of our land, they had nothing, and what they said is all false, this much I have understood!" He was very much depressed and went away. This kind of 'sight,' when they said that "this is God," and "I have seen God," is all false and empty. It is all saguna: it is within Maya.

There is another important example that comes to mind. I had been in the Mission perhaps only a year or so. At that time the Calcutta Math was in a hired house at Ultadingi, and on the Day of Appearance of Bhaktivinoda Thakur there was a festival. A pandal had been erected in the street, and meetings were going on there. One respectable zamindar was invited by our Godbrother, Goswami Maharaj, and he asked Prabhupada, "I want to have a very private talk with you."

It was on a dark night, and a meeting was arranged. Two chairs were placed together. Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Prabhupada came there and that gentleman sat close to him. I was thinking that Prabhupada should not be left alone, and so managed to take a position a little distance away in the darkness. I was also very curious: "What does he have to say?" Then that man, very close to our Guru Maharaj's ear, whispered, "Have you seen God?"

Srila Prabhupada's answer was, "What is the good of saying that, 'I have seen,' or, 'I have not seen'? As long as you don't know how to see or know what is necessary to see God, you cannot get any benefit by my mere statement that, 'I have seen,' or, 1 have not seen.' You are blind to both things. The first thing is that you should learn how to see God. You must get that sort of 'eye' to see God. Without that, any man may say, 'I have seen'—but what is that to you? You may be deceived! If I say, 'No, I have not seen your 'God'—what you have concocted within you as God—that will also just misguide you."

As Prabhupada tried to say this the zamindar repeatedly asked, "Have you seen, have you seen?" But Prabhupada firmly stuck to his own point: "That will be of no good to you. You should know what is God, how to see Him, and what is His nature; all of this you must study yourself, otherwise you will be deceived by anyone and everyone. A mere statement has no value." Such was the meeting I witnessed there.

On another occasion our Madhav Maharaj, who was first named Hayagriva Brahmachari, went with his cousin-brother, Narayana Mukharji, to visit Katwa in order to see Mahaprabhu's Sri-Murtti. From there they came to see Mayapur and then to Srila Prabhupada. Prabhupada saw the two young men of fair complexion approaching him, and asked, "Where have you been?" Hayagriva answered, "We went to Katwa to have darsana of Mahaprabhu's Sri Vigraha there."

I heard from Madhav Maharaj himself that Prabhupada pressed him: "Did you see? Could you see Mahaprabhu?" They said, "Yes, ordinarily we have seen." But the way he put his question and pressed, "Have you had darsana?" raised some question within their minds, "Oh, he means something else. Real sight" They then reflected, "Yes, we have seen what ordinary men see. But that is not proper seeing. If we want to see Him, then we have to get such an eye by going to Guru."

om ajnana timirandhasya jnananjana-salakaya caksur unmilitam yena tasmai sri gurave namah

"I was blind in the darkness of ignorance but my Spiritual Master applied the ointment of proper spiritual knowledge and thus opened my eyes. Unto him I offer my respectful obeisances." All these things came in Prabhupada's teaching.

Hayagriva Prabhu, who was previously Herambo Banarjee, related that he had been working in a private European company when suddenly by reading a book of Sankaracharyya he felt some intense indifference to worldly life. He then ran away to Hardvara and went far up into the hills where he stayed for three days and three nights under a tree, only eating some bael fruit. Then, as he told me, "I heard a sound: 'Leave here now, you will find a real Guru, a sad-Guru. You will find him, so now you leave.'" He came-back down, and consequently to the Gaudiya Mission. That was Herambo Banerjee, who was later called Ganesa, then Hayagriva Brahmachari, and finally Madhav Maharaj.

So the question is, "How to see?" The proper eye is necessary and that is called divya-darsana. In Srimad Bhagavad-gita, Krsna says to Arjjuna:

na tu mam sakyase drastum, anenaiva sva-caksusa divyam dadami te caksuh, pasya me yogam aisvaram

(Srimad Bhagavad-gita 11.8)

"By these present eyes of yours you will not be able to see Me. Therefore I give you supernatural eyes by which you can see My almighty, mystic power." But here we find another extraordinary consideration: Arjjuna already had the capacity of higher vision (to see the Lord in His two-handed human-like original form), so here the divya-darsana that was given to Arjjuna in order to see that Universal Form of the Lord meant he was to come down to a lower level. He had to actually come down to have that kind of darsana of the Lord, which was not the highest. Then, when Arjjuna could not tolerate that divya-darsana, he said, "I cannot bear it. You please come to my level, as I had experience of You before." Then the Lord became first catur-bhuja (four-armed form of Narayana) and then dvi-bhuja (two-armed human-like form of Krsna), and Arjjuna said,

drstvedam manusam rupam, tava saumyam janarddana

(Srimad Bhagavad-gita 11.51)

"0 Sri Krsna, seeing this charming two-armed, human-featured form of Yours, now my heart has become fulfilled and pacified. Now I have come to my normal position."

Then the Lord said:

sudurdarsam idam rupam, drstavan asi yan mama deva apy asya rupasya, nityam darsana-kanksinah

(Srimad Bhagavad-gita 11.52)

"Oh Arjjuna, the chance to see Me as you are now seeing Me before you is very, very rarely attained. Even the gods constantly aspire for a glimpse of this human-like form of truth, consciousness and beauty."

Generally it may be thought that the divya-darsana, the vision of the Universal Form, is what is very rarely to be found. But by the specific use of the words drstavan asi, in the present tense, and not drstavan which is past tense, our interpreters say that here what is being referred to is the human-like form. The Lord is saying, deva apy asya rupasya, nityam darsana-kanksinah, "At present, how you are seeing Me, that is in My two-handed figure. But the public can't understand, they generally look to My catur-bhuja-rupa, four handed form. Or they look to My divya-rupa, which contains the whole cosmic manifestation within, as the highest; but that is a troublesome form of Myself. It is not natural, but it is like My playing the part of a magician: 'Everything is in Me! See this, and this and now this!' That is not aprakrta but it is full of majesty of different types mixed together."

But the aprakrta-rupa is dvi-bhuja, the two-handed form. Krsna told Arjjuna:

sudurdarsam idam rupam, drstavan asi yan mama deva apy asya rupasya, nityam darsana-kanksinah

(Srimad Bhagavad-gita 11.52)

"This saccidananda two-armed human-like form of mine which you are seeing is very, very rarely seen. Even the demigods constantly aspire for a glimpse of this form."

Of all the Lord's Pastimes, the highest is very near to that of human type—aprakrta. It is like human life. Rather, human life has been fashioned after His highest form of Playful Life. The model is there in the original, highest form of life, and human society has been fashioned after that.

In the Bible also it is said, "God made man after His own image." And the Vrndavana-lila appears most human-like and ordinary, even to the extent where the Lord acts like a rogue and a debauchee by stealing, lying and doing anything and everything— all in the sweetest way. Without it being so arranged, those who serve the Lord in particular rasas cannot maintain their positions. Perhaps if He did not steal and make such boisterousness. Mother Yasoda would die! So such roguery and impertinence is there. Though externally Yasoda is angry, still her very constitution is such that if that impertinence were absent she could not live! An important part of vatsalya-rasa is the essential pleasure in tolerating the impertinence of the child.

Krsna is always aprakrta. Prakrta means 'mundane' and aprakrta means similar in appearance to the mundane plane but in fact just the opposite. He appears to be similar to the patient but it is not so.

krsnera yateka khela sarvottama nara-lila nara-vapu tahara svarupa
gopa-vesa venukara nava-kisora natavara nara-lila haya anurupa
krsnera madhura-rupa suna sanatana
ye rupera eka kana dubaya saba tribhuvana sarvva-prani kare akarsana

(Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya 21.101,102)

"The most supreme form of Godhead is Krsna, who plays in His eternal Divine Pastimes just like a human being. An ever-youthful cowherd boy of Vrndavana, He enacts His Pastimes, always playing His flute. His beauty is so charming and sweet that the whole universe is flooded by an atom of it, and all beings are drawn irresistibly to Him."

It has been mentioned in the Scripture that amongst all the Lord's Pastimes the human-like Pastimes are the best. His human-like behaviour has been considered to be the highest and most tasteful conception. The highest type is not the godly, grave and majestic, rather the simplicity of His apparently ordinary human-like behaviour has been considered to be the best of all and the most original. Grandeur, majesty, and awe and reverence are not liked by the devotees of higher type. These qualities imply a very distant relationship whereas the human-like relationship is very intensely intimate and close, as if equal with us; and that has been said to be the highest mercy. When He shows such merciful Pastimes, that really is His highest position. There He appears as though of the same rank as His servitors and He is so merciful, so loving, and so affectionate. Sometimes Mother Yasoda whips Him and He weeps, and sometimes He carries His father's shoes upon His head, and sometimes His friends climb on His shoulders. Through this affection He in many ways shows Himself to be very homely; so very homely. His magnanimity, love and affection is of such a high degree that He becomes so homely.

The 'aprakrta realm' must be the origin of everything. It cannot but be so. Here in India we have our Vedic culture and tradition, but the present-day pandits—the European scholars—say, "No, the first origin of civilization was from Asia Minor, or Babylon, or some other quarter." The empirical scholars are of a particular opinion, but we do not accede to that. If we can accept that the aprakrta realm is the origin of everything, then whatever is there, although appearing simple and plain, contains within it all the grandeur of Vaikuntha. In Sri Caitanya-caritamrtam there is a description of the discussion between Svarupa Damodara Goswami and Srivasa Pandit on Hera-pancami day. Srivasa Thakur was an incarnation of Narada Muni. In order that the truth be known to the public so others may understand, he pleaded on behalf of the opposition party. He spoke in favour of the supremacy Vaikuntha, with all its grandeur and splendour. In response Svarupa Damodara said, "It is not actually so, but, Srivasa, you, being in the mood and temperament of Narada Muni, can appreciate more about the majesty and grandeur of Vaikuntha. Don't you know, can't you remember that although the ratnam, the jewels etc., are all in Vrndavana in a suppressed way, the residents there do not like such things."

Those who are poor adore gold and jewels whereas those who have enough of such riches prefer flowers, trees, and all such natural, simple things. Similarly, the grandeur of Vaikuntha is suppressed in the aprakrta world where there are kalpa-vrksas—desire-fulfilling trees—and where everything is made of cintamani, touchstone. Anything can produce anything there in that original place! So. once we admit that to be the original position, by deduction we will see that everything, however gorgeous and dignified must all come from there. And that is the acme. By analysis and logic we must regulate our thoughts in that direction.