Discussion at BBT Sanskrit School

Giriraj Swami:

oṁ namo bhagavate vāsudevāya

oṁ namo bhagavate vāsudevāya

oṁ namo bhagavate vāsudevāya

We read from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Canto Two, Chapter Eight, Questions by King Parīkṣit, Text Twenty-Three.

TEXT 23

yathātma-tantro bhagavān
vikrīḍaty ātma-māyayā
visṛjya vā yathā māyām
udāste sākṣivad vibhuḥ

TRANSLATION

The independent Personality of Godhead enjoys His pastimes by His internal potency and at the time of annihilation gives them up to the external potency, and He remains a witness to it all.

PURPORT by Srila Prabhupada

Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, being the Supreme Personality of Godhead and fountainhead of all other incarnations, is the only independent person. He enjoys His pastimes by creation as He desires and gives them up to the external energy at the time of annihilation. By His internal potency only, He kills the demon Pūtanā, even though enjoying His pastimes in the lap of His mother Yaśodā. And when He desires to leave this world He creates the pastimes of killing His own family members (Yadu-kula) and remains unaffected by such annihilation. He is the witness of everything that is happening, and yet He has nothing to do with anything. He is independent in every respect. Mahārāja Parīkṣit desired to know more perfectly, for a pure devotee ought to know well.

COMMENT

This verse is one of many that highlights the mysterious nature of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, which seems to be full of contradictions. He creates His pastimes and He destroys them. He creates them in His internal potency, and then He gives them up to the external energy. He witnesses everything, but He has nothing to do with anything.

So, the subject of Krishna is inconceivable to the material mind and senses. And therefore, in the Bhagavad-gītā, Lord Krishna says bhaktyā mām abhijānāti yāvān yaś cāsmi tattvataḥ, that He can be understood in truth only by devotional service. Ataḥ śrī-kṛṣṇa-nāmādi na bhaved grāhyam indriyaiḥ, sevonmukhe hi jihvādau svayam eva sphuraty adaḥ. He reveals Himself to the devotee imbued with the mood of service. Vedeṣu durlabham adurlabham ātma-bhaktau, He is very difficult to approach or understand just by the study of the Vedas, but He is easily approached or understood by His devotee, who by definition is engaged in His service.

So, to properly understand Krishna, we must engage in devotional service, because otherwise, Krishna is unapproachable, He is actually unapproachable. So, these contradictions can be appreciated by devotees. Otherwise, the subject is mysterious and incomprehensible and seems to be full of contradictions.

When I entered the temple room here and came before the Deities, the altar, I was looking at the pictures of the paramparā and thinking what a great responsibility you all have to pass on the message of Krishna, of our previous acharyas in our line, in line with our line, in line with those acharyas; Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, our Srila Prabhupada, and in a way, Gopiparanadhana Prabhu, who was so faithful to Srila Prabhupada and the previous acharyas.

One year, Gopiparanadhana Prabhu spent some time with me at our ashram in Santa Barbara, California, and I asked him a question that I thought would have been easy enough to answer on the basis of knowledge of Sanskrit, but he didn’t want to answer without consulting the commentaries of the previous acharyas. He was so faithful to the acharyas, to the paramparā, that even though it appeared to me that with his knowledge of Sanskrit, he could have answered the question, but he didn’t want to take any chance in making mistakes, in the sense of saying something that was not supported by the previous acharyas. And that inspired in me great appreciation for him, because I felt completely confident that if I asked a question, he would not speculate. Of course, I would never have considered it to be speculation, but he wouldn’t rely just on his knowledge of Sanskrit, but he would consult the previous acharyas.

And of course, our Srila Prabhupada would always say that he was simply repeating the message of Krishna as he received it from his spiritual master. And therefore, his business was very easy; he simply repeated what he had heard. He mentioned the same point on numerous occasions, in different contexts.

One occasion that is very vivid in my mind was when he spoke at his last public preaching program, a pandal program, in downtown Bombay, in April of 1977. And he said that people approach him and say, “Swamiji! Swamiji! You have done something wonderful!” And Srila Prabhupada said that he would reply, “I have not done anything wonderful at all. If at all there is any credit to me, it is just that I have presented the message of Krishna as it is. I’ve just repeated the message as I have received it, without adding or subtracting or making any compromise with mundane ideas.”

That said, if we look at Srila Prabhupada’s purports, we will see that they are presented with his own examples, in some cases, with his own phrasing, and that is also part of the disciplic succession. Even Vedavyasa, he divided the one Veda into four, and he made adjustments so that the subject could be more comprehensible to the audience. So, that is also part of the art of preaching, or teaching. And to do that, one must have realization. Without realization, one will be bound more or less to repeat in a parrot-like way, or to, as they say, cut and paste things from here and there and put together a nice arrangement of words. But to really be able to present the subject for the understanding of the audience, in a way that both enter their hearts, one must have realization. And thus, we come back to the first point, ataḥ śrī-kṛṣṇa-nāmādi na bhaved grāhyam indriyaiḥ, that by service, Krishna reveals Himself.

His Grace Vaisesika Prabhu told me that once, Srila Prabhupada had asked Guru Kripa Prabhu what the most important verse in the Vedic literature was, and Guru Kripa Prabhu, very enthusiastically, emphatically, replied harer nāma harer nāma harer nāmaiva kevalam, and Srila Prabhupada replied, “No! Yasya deve parā bhaktir yathā deve tathā gurau.” And that was Prabhupada’s guiding principle. And it is through that process that we can understand the truths of the Vedas, and present them to others.

And of course, association. You are fortunate to have the association of each other, and of the senior devotees, who come and speak with you. Satāṁ prasaṅgān mama vīrya-saṁvido, the discussions are relishable, and they enable one to make spiritual advancement when they are discussed in the association of devotees, especially like-minded devotees. Sajātīyāśaye snigdhe sādhau saṅgaḥ svato vare, like-minded devotees, and especially devotees who are more advanced.

And I’m also thinking how in Srila Prabhupada’s last days, he was translating the Thirteenth Chapter of the Tenth Canto, and as I’m sure you know, he was lying on his bed. If you see the photos or videos, you could see that he was emaciated, he hardly had the strength to speak, and the devotees; Pradyumna Prabhu, Jayadvaita Swami, they would hold the microphone just up to Srila Prabhupada’s mouth, because he was so weak, his voice was so faint. And I happened to be there when he dictated one of the last purports, and in it, he said, “Discuss Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam daily, as much as possible.” Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam was compiled by Vyasa, mahā-muni-kṛte, in his mature state of realization. And he said, “The more you discuss, the more the subject matter becomes clarified.”

So, this is such an important principle, and one of Srila Prabhupada’s last instructions. Because the subject is very mysterious and beyond mundane logic and reason, and by discussing, the subject becomes clarified, which again, is essential for our own understanding and progress, and also for our service of presenting the information to others. In this inquisitiveness, Maharaja Parīkṣit showed his necessary qualification for a student or disciple, tadviddhi praṇipātena paripraśnena sevayā. All three; surrender, inquiry, and service. That’s also the first of the ten preliminary items of devotional service, sadharma prcchte, inquiring about eternal religious principles. That means that one is interested.

Once, we arranged a program for Srila Prabhupada at the Birla House in Bombay. The Birlas were the wealthiest family in India, the Birlas and the Tatas. And Srila Prabhupada gave a brilliant lecture, just perfect for the audience. And then, after the talk, he asked for questions, and nobody raised their hands. And afterwards, Srila Prabhupada commented that they weren’t interested, there were no questions. Of course, later, in a more informal setting, Mrs. Birla, in particular, had a lot of questions. But questions, serious questions, mean that one is interested, that one is concerned about the subject, one wants to learn the subject, and that eagerness is essential. But they should be genuine questions.

You may know that in the beginning of ISKCON, Srila Prabhupada introduced the practice of iṣṭagoṣṭhī as a regular function. Every week, the devotees in the temple would get together and discuss the philosophy. Later, the iṣṭagoṣṭhīs, or the idea of iṣṭagoṣṭhī became extended to include discussion of managerial issues, but initially, it was simply an occasion for the devotees to come together and discuss the philosophy, and ask questions. And at one stage, he said that iṣṭagoṣṭhī means to repeat what the spiritual master has said. He didn’t want it to be an occasion for speculation. But he said that the questions should be serious, they should actually have importance and relevance. And then he gave an example, “Don’t ask how many miles high was the Tṛṇavarta demon.” Things that have more significance, that type of inquiry is important.

So, this is really how we are meant to occupy our time, discussing Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and all the literature written in pursuance of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, and being steeped in it, immersed in it, and clarifying our own understanding of it, both for our own personal spiritual progress and for our service of communicating the information to others. A pure devotee ought to know well it’s our duty, it’s our responsibility.

When the Yamadutas went to take the soul of Ajamila and they confronted the Vishnudutas, and in a way, you could say they were thwarted in their effort to take Ajamila, they were defeated in their discussion. So, they returned to Yamaraja and asked, “What happened? This has never happened before.” And Srila Prabhupada comments say that the Yamadutas were representing Yamaraja, he is one of the mahājanas, and that the servant who represents the master has to understand the master. He has to be well versed in the knowledge that the master has to offer. Otherwise, when they go out into the world and meet people, they may not represent the master properly, and then they can be defeated because of having some defect in their own understanding. So, this is very much part of our responsibility as devotees, as servants, to know the subject well.

Hare Krishna.

Maharaja, would you like to add something?

Dhanurdhara Swami: Well, I do remember the   brahma-vimohana-līlā. Can you hear me outside? No. Okay. Now, this mic has to be. . . Is it working? No, no, it’s not working. Okay. I was remembering you mentioned the   brahma-vimohana-līlā, and I don’t know which part of the  brahma-vimohana-līlā that you were hearing Prabhupada, but I know there is one part after Krishna manifests to Lord Brahma His mystic potency. So first, He manifests all the cowherd boys, which was an amazing task because it was down to the psychology of each one perfectly. And Prabhupada in the purport mentions even twins are a little different, so each person has a unique individuality.

So, Krishna manifested that, and then after that, He manifested all the Vishnu forms, with helmets and jewels, and it was so beautiful. Then He manifested that in relationship with the devotees, and the best devotees who are chanting and hearing, that are putting tulasi garlands around the Lord. Then, Lord Brahma saw the incredible relationship between Krishna and those devotees, as Krishna was benedicting them and inspiring them to serve. Then he saw all moving and non-moving living entities, also serving, everyone was serving Krishna.

And then, after that, he saw every aspect of Krishna. He saw kāma, material desire, karma, kala, times, svabhava, nature, guna. Now, he has seen that actually, each of these living entities are serving Krishna. Krishna was manifesting more and more of His mystic potency, and it just becomes absolutely inconceivable, because each form has all these things surrounding, and he was kind of witnessing it. And then, as you were mentioning, then it’s very practical, Prabhupada brings the philosophy down to practice. So, it’s all inconceivable, you can’t understand God, because God, Prabhupada says, He does what He desires.

So, how do you figure God’s nature and how He manifests? There is no frame of reference, He is not under any other laws. What’s your frame of reference? Logic is usually based on cause and effect. So, from the cause, you figure out the effect. From the effect, you figure out the cause. But Krishna is causeless, it’s just His will. So, it becomes so inconceivable, and then you are reading all this, and then Prabhupada brings it down, how do we understand. And then he says by hearing the Bhāgavatam, and studying the Bhāgavatam in the association of devotees, and something happens beyond the intellect. And then Prabhupada said, “The guru puts you in electric shock,” Prabhupada said. He said it’s not just an intellectual process, but when you apply your intelligence in the service of Krishna, then something manifests beyond the intelligence, and to understand God is just way beyond our intelligence. We use our intelligence, but it’s beyond our intelligence.

And I was thinking, because I’m giving these classes, we have so much knowledge, and it’s knowledge we can actually logically understand, so many things that we’ve understood. We have this knowledge, we can talk about anything. But in the same sense, it’s not that we went into a cave with a candle and thought about it ourselves. And you even had your own story, which you tell, how you tried to figure it out by yourself, and you were very bright, right? But then you met Prabhupada, and in the second, it became clear. And what became clear was very logical, very rational, made a lot of sense, but you couldn’t approach it, the nature of Krishna.

And then, when you were speaking, I was also thinking of the Brahma-saṁhitā, Pantastu, Kothis [Unintelligible 00:41:28], that by the speed of mind for so many, so many lifetimes, how you could approach. And Īśopaniṣad states

TEXT 5

tad ejati tan naijati
tad dūre tad v antike
tad antar asya sarvasya
tad u sarvasyāsya bāhyataḥ

Walks, doesn’t walk, It’s near, it’s far. It’s Krishna’s will how things manifest. And there is a process, and that’s Krishna revealing Himself. I was also thinking about Krishna as a person. How do you understand a person? There is no way you can understand a person just intellectually. We always kind of try to figure people out, and we come to wrong conclusions. And then we have a relationship with them, and then they let us know what they are like, “Oh, it’s so much.” So, even in a mundane playfield, to understand a person requires a relationship, that person to reveal himself. So, if you want to understand God, I mean, even an ordinary person, if you capture him, you torture him, you still can’t know them. In fact, you’ll know them less, because they won’t want to show you their side. So, I was thinking this is all very technical and comprehensive stuff, and by studying it in the association of devotees, somehow or other, we get some understanding of it.

Giriraj Swami: So, would any of you like to say anything or ask anything?

Devotee: I have a question. You said that the process is all.

Giriraj Swami: Yeah, that’s a very good question. That very same question was discussed in the philosophical subcommittee of the GBC, in which Ravindra Svarupa Prabhu was the chairman. I was one of the members. This came up in relation to a certain logic that was put forward. It’s been put forward by different people in different contexts, but in that particular case, it was related to the question of the fall of the jiva.

And these two devotees had gone to some scholar outside of ISKCON, and they were learning the sandarbhas from him, and they got a certain understanding from him, and then they put forward the logic. And again, I’ve heard the same logic in another context, that Srila Prabhupada is following Jiva Gosvami or Rupa Gosvami. And therefore, because we know that Jiva Gosvami says this, then Srila Prabhupada must also believe it, because he also follows Jiva Gosvami. And if Srila Prabhupada says something any different, it’s not because he actually accepts it as siddhantha, but he said it as a preaching strategy.

Now, there are some problems with that logic. The first problem is cast in a certain framework. The first problem is that we are meant to understand Jiva Gosvami, or Rupa Gosvami, or the previous acharyas, through Srila Prabhupada. We are not meant to understand Srila Prabhupada through Rupa Gosvami or Jiva Gosvami, it’s sort of backwards. The other problem is that unless Srila Prabhupada tells us that something is a preaching strategy, then how do we know, and where do we stop? And then the idea came up of certain mahavakyas, these are the essential truths. But other things may not be true. But again, unless Srila Prabhupada tells us that, how do we know?

And so, I think these are important points. With Jiva Gosvami, we read in Srila Prabhupada’s purports that Jiva Gosvami did not really reject parakīya-rasa, but for the sake of preaching, for the sake of a particular audience, he presented it as such. That we learn from Srila Prabhupada, from Srila   Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura, from acharyas who are in a position to make that determination. People who are accepted on that level in our line. So, we can repeat what they say about Jiva Gosvami and parakīya-rasa, svakīyā-rasa, because they’ve told us. But I don’t think it would do us well to make the same determination on our own, on our level. That is something that Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura and the acharyas on that level can make.

Maharaja, would you like to. . .?

Dhanurdhara Swami: I think one of the points that Giriraj Swami is getting at is you have to protect faith, because if faith is gone, you won’t understand anything and you’ll be on your own. In other words, you’ll be interpreting Prabhupada on your own. Now, I have a personal experience in my own life. I have a fertile brain, which has some advantages and disadvantages. Through my devotional career, saying, “Why has Prabhupada done this?” And through my vision, it didn’t look right, I couldn’t understand it, I could not have a better idea. And so many times, in time, I find Srila Prabhupada was right when I matured.

And there is a very dear, and Pradyumna, he can’t be any more dear, and I had a conference-seminar, a seminar of young scholars, and one person chose the topic of Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gītā, the things he said that were so heavy; rascal, scientist, and this and that, and so many things, right? I felt a little uncomfortable, so I spoke to Pradyumna. And Pradyumna came and he said, he was so strong about whatever you try to reconcile and understand, you have to maintain the culture of faith. And Pradyumna said, “Because faith is the precursor to knowledge. If you don’t have faith, you are not going to be able to understand anything. It’ll just stop at your own intelligence. ‘Well, this doesn’t sound right.’ But there is so much that’s beyond our own intelligence that’s true, and if we don’t have faith, we won’t make the effort to figure it out.” And then Pradyumna gave two examples, that was so nice.

One was a scholar in the Gaudiya Matha called Professor Sanyal, and he was known for his faith. And it was such a nice example Pradyumna was giving just to show how this culture must be there. And then he said that one time, they brought something, Professor Sanyal brought it to the publisher, and then the publisher said, “This word is not used in the proper way.” And Professor Sanyal said, “Bhaktisiddhanta used it in that way.” He said, “Well, the dictionary says it’s this.” And he said, “Change the dictionary.”

And then, the other thing he said, great scholars go back and sometimes find a mistake in the commentaries of acharyas. Some word that’s wrong or something that’s not correct, obviously. He said they never say he is wrong, they say, “Risi uchu, the sage said.” And then they say something else, but there is a culture. So, that has to be maintained in humility.

So, in terms of the jiva issue, Gaura Govinda Maharaja said, “Well, Srila Prabhupada said this.” He just wanted to say both things. Not to say, “Prabhupada’s wrong, it’s a preaching strategy, or it’s like this.” Prabhupada said this, and Prabhupada also said this. And as Giriraj Swami was saying, really philosophical understanding is practical. I mean, these minor differences here and there, or you can entertain it says this and it says, “I can’t understand, I can’t reconcile it, I’m not going to go against my own conscience.” But I’m also going to have a lack of faith in my own absolute understanding, and give credence that maybe I’m not understanding what Prabhupada said. I can’t understand it this way, but maybe I’m not understanding what Prabhupada said. Something like that, on a particular issue. And then maybe in the future, I will understand. Or I’ll understand what Prabhupada meant, or unless it’s a core issue you have to resolve, then you in consultation with the other Vaishnavas, you will.

Giriraj Swami: And on that particular point about the fall of the jiva, I discussed with many devotees, and they believe, and I also believe, that Srila Prabhupada believed that. It came up once in Bombay, “How could we leave Krishna?” He gave the example of one of his personal servants who had left him. You can say, “Well, how could he do that? He was with Srila Prabhupada. What better position could he have been in? What could he gain by leaving?” But he left, he had his minute independence, he left. I mean, there are certainly arguments on both sides, and as Dhanurdhara Swami said, Srila Prabhupada said different things in different contexts, but the consensus is that it wasn’t a preaching strategy, but that Prabhupada actually had that conviction.

And then when they asked, “Well, in the Bhagavad-gītā, Krishna says that one who goes to His abode never returns to the material world.” And Srila Prabhupada said, “Yes, that’s true. Once you make the mistake of coming into the material world, and then you go back, you won’t likely make the same mistake again, because you’ve learned your lesson.”

I think, I mean, do you have more to your question?

Devotee: That was a very good explanation, but I didn’t want to understand [Unintelligible 00:56:54].

Giriraj Swami: Do you understand the question?

Dhanurdhara Swami: I understand the question. Well, I understand something of the question. Well, let me say what I was going to say. It’s the same thing that Prabhupada also said, that it’s not that important. And then, not only that, but the history of all traditions, right? They don’t get into this. I’ve actually discussed this with a professor of mine, a professor that I know who is a Vaishnava and a scholar. He said through all traditions, they have the same answer that Prabhupada gave, that this origin is not important, the importance is getting out. That’s really in all traditions, actually. And my friend wrote a commentary in the yoga-sutras, and this point came up, and he said, “In all traditions, they don’t really get into this.” So, the fact of the matter.

And then Bhaktivinoda Thakura also said you are trying to understand a spiritual event in temporal language, and how can you understand it through the dirt of words? So, you have a lot of problems trying to understand these issues, so I think it’s reasonable to understand that they are inconceivable, and you are not going to wrap your intelligence around it so well. And chant more, practice more, and some realizations will come of what that spiritual realm is and what its connection is here.

Giriraj Swami: On the point of svakīyā-rasa and parakīyā-rasa. When I was first coming to see Srila Prabhupada and hear Srila Prabhupada, one man asked him about Krishna having affairs with other people’s wives, and basically saying that Krishna was committing adultery. And Srila Prabhupada replied, “Actually, everything belongs to Krishna. All women belong to Krishna, and your wife also belongs to Krishna. So, you are actually the one.” So, from a certain point of view, you could say, “Well, that’s svakīyā-rasa,” but that’s tattva, not really rasa, it’s tattva. Everyone belongs to Krishna, they are all Krishna’s energy, and He is the proprietor. I think overall, as we’ve begun with the idea that Krishna reveals Himself in relation to our surrender and service, that should be our main effort.

Sometime one disciple of Prabhupada’s had a problem, a few of them had problems, with some of the statements in the Puranas, the Bhāgavatam, it just didn’t make sense logically. And Srila Prabhupada said, “Well, that’s what it says. I’m sorry, I cannot go beyond what it says.” And then there was one devotee who actually left for a while because he was so bewildered by what seemed to be unbelievable statements in the scripture, and then he wrote Prabhupada, and Prabhupada answered the questions. But he said, “Ultimately, these issues are not so important, it’s really much more important that you continue to serve Krishna and chant the holy names and don’t give up the process of chanting and serving Krishna on account of these relatively minor issues.”

I mean, I know from my own very recent experience that there is a practice in Vraja, in one of the sampradāyas. And I asked two of my esteemed godbrothers about it, and they didn’t really know. They knew of the practice, but they didn’t know why or what our position on it is. But I could tell from their mood that they were here basically to advance in Krishna consciousness and deepen their service to Srila Prabhupada and Krishna, and it just wasn’t really an issue why a particular sampradāya does things in a certain way. And so, I stopped asking. In my mind, somehow, that particular question intrigues me, but I stopped asking because I know it’s not really important in terms of our personal spiritual practices or service, and I guess to stick to the essence.

You have more? We don’t want to silence you, so if you do have more, you can. Okay.

Devotee: Thank you, Maharaja. As Dhanurdhara Maharaja says, the other traditions don’t have so much answer for this. So, I met one of the Sri sampradāya members, Sri sampradāya scholars, devotees. So, they made an allegation against ISKCON in particular. The reason is that if you are falling from the spiritual world, it brings out many faults in the philosophy, that Krishna is partial, the spiritual world is not perfect, and so on. But their philosophy that they have understanding of is that the living beings in the material world, it is going on for time, there is no origin which you can find out, so they stop theirs conveniently. They have that much, but they don’t go beyond that.

So, neither there can be a full explanation, but at the same time, they can pinpoint mistakes in the philosophy. So, one is that we should not be calling so much in this point, but as we present our sampradāya to others, then there is no way that we can convincingly satisfy them, or that kind of not believing the subject also applies to not being able to answer them fully.

Giriraj Swami: The question comes up, and there are problems with any answer, but you said they conveniently stop the discussion at a certain point. But then, if someone has that probing mood, they can also challenge that. Well, what about before that? I think we are back to the point, the two points, that it’s inconceivable.

One godbrother who goes very deep into the scripture and is also aware of other traditions made the point that the problem comes when we try to envision it as a movie scenario. Okay, one minute you are dancing with Krishna in Goloka Vrindavana, and then the next minute, you are in the material world. That leaves questions, but he said that sort of linear movie script scenario is not what we are talking about. And I’ve also heard from authorities that a conditioned soul cannot really understand the answer to the question. So, I think that’s part of the answer, that it’s beyond our comprehension in our conditioned state.

And then the other is that this is not the important question of how we got here, but the question is how to get out. I mean, when I give the example that Prabhupada gave that you are drowning in the ocean and someone comes along with a boat to save you, and you say, “Well, wait a minute, wait a minute. I don’t want to get on the boat until I find out how I got here.” So, when I give that example, even very intelligent people laugh, because it really shows how absurd that mentality is. So, I would say by and large, Srila Prabhupada has given us enough tools to preach to pretty much any audience, and we have to try to look in the toolbox and take out what’s appropriate for the work at hand.

Maharaja?

Dhanurdhara Swami: I think when you deal with the question of origins and the nature of God itself, in any way you look at it, it’s going to be a problem. Let’s say something exists eternally. Okay, so what’s reasonable? Reasonable is how things fit into our perception, how things work in this world. Do we have any experience or something without an origin? Well, then what’s the other logical thing? Well, then reality started at a particular time, there was nothing before. We don’t have an experience of something that goes back forever, our mind just explodes. And the other option is that reality started at a particular time. I’m just talking about God, we can’t understand God, it goes back forever. Just think about that logically. What about when does it start, and back, and back, there has to be an origin. But if you start that reality began at one time, there was nothing before, does that make sense either?

So, I think we just have to be humble about God and God’s energies, and how they move, especially the origin of things, it’s beyond our comprehension. And I think what Giriraj Swami says, if they poke holes, then you poke holes, you know? I mean, we’ve always been here. Well, can you explain that? How about before? When did it begin? I mean, there are problems in either one.

Giriraj Swami: That concept of eternal, something that has no beginning and no end, was difficult for me when I joined. Because in relation to Krishna, what does that mean something doesn’t have a beginning? It took a while to just get used to the idea that Krishna is sanatana, the living entity is sanatana, and Krishna’s abode is sanatana. But once, I asked. At that time, I was convinced, but I asked him because people would say to me, “You say that Krishna is the origin of everything, but what is Krishna’s origin?” So, I mentioned that question to Srila Prabhupada, and Srila Prabhupada replied, “You can tell them that as far as our information goes, Krishna is the original cause of all causes. Now, if you can find something that is the cause of Krishna, we will worship that something. But until then, you should worship Krishna.”

Any other? Okay, thank you very much, all glories to Srila Prabhupada. Hare Krishna.