This is confirmed in all Vedic literature. Nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.13). So, as we are also persons, individual living beings, we are persons, we have got our individuality, we are all individual, similarly the Supreme Truth, the Supreme Absolute, He is also, at the ultimate issue He is a person. But realization of the Personality of Godhead is realization of all the transcendental features like sat, cit, and ānanda, in complete vigraha. Vigraha means form. Therefore the complete whole is not formless. If He is formless or if He is less in any other thing, He cannot be complete whole. The complete whole must have everything within our experience and beyond our experience. Otherwise He cannot be complete. The complete whole Personality of Godhead has immense potencies. Parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate (Cc. Madhya 13.65, purport). That is also explained in Bhagavad-gītā, how He is acting in different potencies.
Formless (Lectures)
Lectures
Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures
Therefore a certain class of philosophers, they are astonished simply by seeing the great magnitude of the Lord, but there is smaller, smallest, aṇor aṇīyān. These are much smaller than the atom, but that is beyond our experience. Therefore we say, nirākāra. Nirākāra means we cannot calculate the ākāra, the actual form. Nirākāra does not mean that it has no form. It has form. Just see. That they say, that the point has no length and breadth. Similarly, the soul has everything, length and... Within that point it has got his head, leg, everything, consciousness, everything there. And because it is beyond the calculation of our human knowledge, therefore they are disappointed: "Nirākāra, nirākāra, nirākāra." Not nirākāra. It has ākāra. But we are so, our senses are so blunt that we cannot calculate.
There is form. Just like this body is compared with the dress. Now, just like in your present material form you have got hand; therefore your coat has got hand. If you have got... You have got leg; therefore your pant has got leg. Therefore it is to be assumed that the spirit soul has got form, and it has developed into hands, legs, heads, everything. It is not formless; it has got form. But with our material eyes at the present, gross eyes, we cannot find it; therefore we say it has no form.
Dehī, the living entity, simply changing the dress. It is the dress. This body is dress. Now the question is... Just like there was some discussion that the spirit has no form. How it can be? If this is, this body is my dress, how I have no form? How the dress has got form? My coat or shirt has got a form because my body has got a form. I have got two hands. Therefore my dress, my coat, has also two hands. My shirt has also two hands. So if this is dress, this body, as it is described in the Bhagavad-gītā—vāsāṁsi jīrṇāni yathā vihāya (BG 2.22)—so if it is dress, then I must have a form. Otherwise how this dress is made? It is very logical conclusion and very easy to understand. Unless I have got my own form, how the dress has got form? What is the answer? Anyone can say? How the original living entity can be without hands and legs?
Vihāya means give it up. Navāni, new garment. Naraḥ aparāṇi gṛhṇāti. Now the body has been compared herein as the garment. Just like coat and shirt. The tailor cuts the coat according to the body. Similarly, this material body, if it is shirt and coat, then this is cut according to the spiritual body. The spiritual body is not nirākāra, without form. If it is without form, then how the garment, the coat and shirt, has got hands and legs? It is common sense. The coat has got hand or the pant has got legs because the person who is using the coat, he has got hands and legs.
So this proves that the spiritual body is not impersonal. It is not a zero, it is, it has got form. But the form is so minute, aṇor aṇīyān mahato mahīyān: one form is lesser than the atom. Aṇor aṇīyān mahato mahīyān. Two forms are there spiritual. One is the Supreme Lord's form, virāḍ-rūpa, mahato mahīyān, and our form, aṇor aṇīyān, lesser than the atom. That is stated in the Kaṭha Upaniṣad. Aṇor aṇīyān mahato mahīyān ātmāsya jantor nihito guhāyām. Nihito guhāyām, guhāyām means in the heart.
We have already noted, īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ sac-cid-ānanda... Sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ (Bs. 5.1). Sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ means His body is full—full of bliss, full of knowledge, and it is eternal. That is completely distinct from this body. So when there is description of the Lord that He is formless, He is formless means He is not of this form. He has got a sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ (Bs. 5.1), a different element. Therefore He's called pavitra. And paramaṁ bhavān: "You are the Supreme Original." Puruṣaṁ śāśvataṁ divyam ādi-devam ajaṁ vibhum. So "You are Puruṣa." Puruṣa means enjoyer. "In the Vedic literature, about Yourself...," āhus tvām ṛṣayaḥ sarve, "all the great sages accept You, the Supreme Lord." Āhus tvām ṛṣayaḥ sarve devarṣir nāradaḥ. Devarṣir nārada. I have already spoken to you about Nārada. He has also accepted Him. That means authorities. He's quoting authorities. Not that "I am personally accepting you as such, but there are many authorities, many authorities."
Similarly, all these manifestations are coming and going and coming and going and, packed within this coming and going, there is the actual spirit soul, which na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre (BG 2.20), which exists, and we are that permanent existent. We are that permanent form, not that we are formless. We have got form, but it is very minute. We cannot see with these eyes. Our eyes is..., eyes are always imperfect. What we can see? We cannot see very, which is situated in very long, distant place. We cannot see even our eyelid. So these eyes are very conditional. So how we can see what is our, what is my constitution? These things are to be considered. One should take account of the spiritual. Now begins from that consciousness, that "What I am? I am this consciousness. I am not this body." That education begins from there. And the whole practice, whole idea, should be to detach myself from this misconception of life.
Indian (2): If I understand Bhagavad-gītā and also you (?), Kṛṣṇa has given different type of methods for different type of people of different advantages (?). He's talking about (Sanskrit), all these things. Arjuna questioned Kṛṣṇa. He asked the difference between the two kinds of worship. One is the worshiping the form; other is worshiping the guṇas (?). And actually we find it difficult to understand. What can you enlighten us on this point, that why Kṛṣṇa has given a different type of (?) and these two different type worships? One is the form worship; another is the formless worship, which He explains to Arjuna.
Prabhupāda: The personal form and impersonal form, there are two conception. But Kṛṣṇa explains this that mayā tatam idaṁ sarvaṁ jagad avyakta-mūrtinā (BG 9.4). Avyaktam, impersonal. That is another form of Kṛṣṇa. He says, mayā: "By Me." "I am all-pervading." Mayā tatam idaṁ sarvam. That is sarvaṁ khalv idaṁ brahma. Because He is expanded everywhere, that is impersonal. And... But as māyā, He says, "by Me." Then He's person. So the whole creation is Kṛṣṇa's expansion of energy.
We cannot imagine the dimension of the atom, or you can imagine, but still God is smaller than that. This is the position of God. So He has got His form, as the atom has got form. Similarly, within the atom, God has got form, and as this whole universe has got form, that God has also got form. When there is a statement in the Vedic language that God has no form, it does not mean God has no form, but He has form which you cannot imagine. That is called formless. Actually God is not formless, but what is that form, you cannot imagine. Because He is greater than the greatest and smaller than the smallest.
So, you can imagine great, the great, this universe, the sky, millions and millions of miles spreading. The scientists say that to go the topmost planet of this universe, it will take forty thousands of years in the light year speed. But you can see there are so many planets. Just like you are trying to go to the moon planet, similarly there are other planets, but you cannot go. It is so big, beyond your reach.
Surabhīr abhipālayantam. Lakṣmī-sahasra-śata-sambhrama-sevyamānaṁ govindam ādi-puruṣaṁ tam aham... Veṇuṁ kvaṇantam. He's very fond of playing on flute. Aravinda-dalāyatākṣam. His eyes are just like petals of the lotus flower. These are described in the Vedic literature.
So Kṛṣṇa is not formless. It is not that the devotees of Kṛṣṇa, by imagination, they have... As the Māyāvādī rascals say, that Kr..., "They have made a form by imagination." No. This is, this is described in the Vedas. So... And Kṛṣṇa, when appeared on this planet, the same thing was visible. Those who have seen, authorities... Just like Vyāsadeva, Arjuna. He has seen personally. He has described in the Bhagavad-gītā: paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān: (BG 10.12) "Your personality is unknown to the so-called scholars. But authorities like Vyāsa, Devala, Nārada, Asita, they accept Your this form." It is very difficult... These things are there. You'll find in the Tenth Chapter.
So Kṛṣṇa is not formless, but His... What kind of form He has got, He is describing Himself. Prakṛtiṁ svām adhiṣṭhāya. How we are... We are forced to take birth by the manipulation of the external, material energy.
- prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni
- guṇaiḥ karmāṇi sarvaśaḥ
- ahaṅkāra-vimūḍhātmā
- kartāham iti manyate
- (BG 3.27)
Ahaṅkāra... We are under the clutches of the external energy, or material energy. Kṛṣṇa has got multi-energies. Parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate (Cc. Madhya 13.65, purport).
Our original position is sac-cid-ānanda, means eternity, knowledge, and blissfulness. The Supreme Being, Kṛṣṇa, or God, is also sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha (Bs. 5.1). He has His transcendental form of eternity, knowledge and blissfulness. So the Supreme Lord or Supreme Being is also vigraha. Vigraha means form. As you are form, I am form, similarly, God is also form. He is not formless. So that is described in the Vedic literatures.
This is very common sense question. If God is not a person, then how His sons become persons? If your father is not a person, how you can become a person? This is very common question. If my father has not a form, wherefrom I get this form?But people imagine, because when they are frustrated, when they see that this form is troublesome, therefore God must be formless. That is an opposite conception of this form. But Brahma-saṁhitā says no. God has form, but He is sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ. Īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ (Bs. 5.1). Sat, cit, ānanda. Sat means eternal. Sat means eternal, cit means knowledge and ānanda means pleasure. So God has form, but He has got a form which is full of pleasure, full of knowledge, and eternal. Now compare your body. Your body is neither eternal nor full of pleasure nor full of knowledge.
Therefore God has form, but He has got a different form. But as soon as we speak of form, we think the form must be like this. Therefore the opposite, no form. That's no knowledge. That is not knowledge. Therefore in the Padma Purāṇa it is said that you cannot understand about the form, name, quality, paraphernalia of God with these material senses. Ataḥ śrī-kṛṣṇa-nāmādi na bhaved grāhyam indriyaiḥ (CC Madhya 17.136). By your sense speculation, because your senses are imperfect, how you can speculate on the supreme perfect? That is not possible. Then how it is possible? Sevonmukhe hi jihvādau. If you train your senses, if you purify your senses, that purified sense will help you to see God.
Question: Prabhupāda, you said that Kṛṣṇa has no limbs, no eyes, no form that we can comprehend. How then are we to understand the form of Kṛṣṇa that's given to us in the pictures and the mūrtis?
Prabhupāda: Yes, that I have explained. That you are to simply serve Him, then He will reveal. You cannot understand Kṛṣṇa by your ascending process. You have to serve Kṛṣṇa and Kṛṣṇa will reveal to you. That is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā you'll find in the Tenth Chapter.
- teṣām evānukampārtham
- aham ajñāna-jaṁ tamaḥ
- nāśayāmy ātma-bhāva-stho
- jñāna-dīpena bhāsvatā
- (BG 10.11)
"Those who are always engaged in My service, just to show them a special favor," teṣām evānukampārtham, aham ajñāna-jaṁ tamaḥ nāśayāmi. "I vanquish all kinds of darkness of ignorance by the light of knowledge." So Kṛṣṇa is within you. And when you are sincerely searching after Kṛṣṇa by the devotional process, as it is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā, you'll find in Eighteenth Chapter, bhaktyā mām abhijānāti (BG 18.55). "One can understand Me simply by this devotional process." Bhaktyā. And what is bhakti? Bhakti is this: śravaṇaṁ kīrtanaṁ viṣṇoḥ (SB 7.5.23). Simply hearing and chanting about Viṣṇu. This is the beginning of bhakti.
Either any yoga system, any spiritual life is called yoga. Yoga means to link. We are part and parcel of the supreme absolute, Brahman or Bhagavān, whatever you call, Paramātmā, it doesn't matter. But yoga means linking. So the linking, either you link with impersonal formless, the Supreme Brahman, that is also linking. And if you by meditation you link up with the Supersoul within yourself that is also transcendental activity. Or you directly worship as a devotee, Kṛṣṇa. Anything you adopt, that is spiritual life. But to become Kṛṣṇa conscious or a devotee of Kṛṣṇa, that is the ultimate goal. That we have in the Bhagavad-gītā:
Cetanaś cetanānām. He is the supreme living entity of all living entities. He is also living entity. So if I am a living entity, I have got a form, so why the supreme living entity will not have a form? This is poor fund of knowledge. He is not nirākāra. But we cannot estimate His ākāra. That is nirākāra. Nirākāra means to estimate. We cannot estimate how big He is. That means nirā... Nirākāra does not mean formless. When there is in the śāstra, nirākāra, this word is used, nirākāra means He has no prakṛta-ākāra, material form. That is nirākāra, not that he has no form. That is poor fund of knowledge. He is sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha (Bs. 5.1). Therefore Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā, avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritam: (BG 9.11) "My original form is like human being." And the Bible also it is said, "Man is made after the form of God."
Prabhupāda: Here is the picture of Kṛṣṇa. You don't believe? You have not seen picture of Kṛṣṇa?
Indian guest (1): Yes, I have.
Prabhupāda: Then why do you say there is no form of Kṛṣṇa? When you see a photograph of a person, how do you know that he has no form?
Indian guest (1): I do not understand that.
Prabhupāda: If you see the photograph of your father, how do you say that is he impersonal, he has no form? How do you conclude? First of all answer me. I have seen form of Kṛṣṇa. You have seen also form of Kṛṣṇa. There are hundreds and thousands of temples in India. Do you think they are all fools? And they were established by big ācāryas, by Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, Viṣṇu Svāmī, Lord Caitanya. There is Jagannātha temple. Jagannātha temple, every day hundreds and thousands of people are going to see. In Vṛndāvana there are five thousand temples, Kṛṣṇa. Five thousand, ten thousand people are going. You know. In India there are so many pilgrimages. So do you think all these temples established by our predecessor, they are all fools?
If you want to know me, you can imagine so many things: "Swamiji may be this. Swamiji may be that, like that, like this, like that." They are all imperfect. But if I tell you about myself openly that "I am like this," then your knowledge is perfect. Everyone says, "There is no God." Somebody says, "God is there, but He has no form," and somebody says, "He has any form you like. Imagine any form." In this way speculation is going on all over the world. Actually they are not interested in God. That is the plain simple thing. They do not want to know God, and they think there is no need of understanding. But that is the only need, to understand God. That they do not know. Therefore they are called fools and rascals, mūḍha. Mūḍho nābhijānāti mām ebhyaḥ param avyayam. So Kṛṣṇa therefore left His instruction behind Him that "These mūḍhas, rascals, after studying Bhagavad-gītā they may understand Me. I am keeping behind Me."
This voidness is an imagination, voidness. Actually God or Paramātmā or Kṛṣṇa, They are all sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ, transcendental forms. They are not material forms. Transcendental forms. Īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ (Bs. 5.1). Vigraha means form. If we, part and parcel of Kṛṣṇa, we have got individuality, forms, how we can say that the Supreme has no form, no individuality? He has got complete individuality. And that is confirmed in the Vedas: nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.13). He is the supreme living entity of all living entities. Just like we are living entities, but He is the Supreme. That's all. He is also living entity. Nityo nityā cetanaś cetanānām. The difference is eko bahūnāṁ vidadhāti kāmān. That one single There are plural number and singular number. That singular number one is providing the necessities of other singular number, plural number living entities. That is the difference.
The controversy about the Absolute Truth, whether the Absolute Truth is form or formless... There are many philosophers. They, some of them are impersonalists, and some of them are personalists. They... In India the impersonalists are known as Māyāvādī, and the personalists, they are known as Vaiṣṇavas.
So here the decision is given by Kṛṣṇa Himself, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Kṛṣṇa means Bhagavān. Kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam (SB 1.3.28). This is the conclusion of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. And in the Ṛg Veda also it is said, tad viṣṇoḥ paramaṁ padam: "Viṣṇu is the Supreme"; sadā paśyanti sūrayaḥ, "Those who are demigods, or advanced in spiritual knowledge, they always look after the lotus feet of Viṣṇu." But the demons, they do not know that the Viṣṇu is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Absolute Truth. They cannot. Because they have taken the atheistic attitude, they cannot understand the Absolute Truth as the Supreme Person.
There is no liberation. Mukti is... Simply by changing body, we are not mukta. Mukta means we change this body not to accept any more material body, but we remain in our own spiritual body. Just like if you are diseased, you are suffering from fever, so when there is no more fever, but you remain in your original healthy body, that is called mukti. It is not that mukti means to become formless. No. The same example: You are suffering from fever. To become free from fever does not mean that you become formless. Why I shall become formless? My form is there, but my form is no more disturbed by the fever, feverish condition. That is called mukti. Roga-mukta, free from disease. Therefore it is called muktvā kalevaram. Just like the snake. They sometimes give up the outer covering of the body. Have you seen?
I can give it up, but I remain in my original body. Similarly, mukti means I have got my original body already. It is covered by this material coating. So when there is no more material coating, that is called mukti. That can be achieved when you go to Kṛṣṇa, back to home, back to Godhead. At that time, you do not become formless. Form remains. As I am individual form, similarly, when I go to Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa has also His individual form, I have also my individual form... Nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.13). He's the chief of all living entities. So that is called mukti.
So that mukti you can have if you can remember Kṛṣṇa at the time of your death. So this is possible. If we are practiced to think of Kṛṣṇa always, naturally, at the time of death, at the time of end of this body, if we are so fortunate to think of Kṛṣṇa, His form, then we become materially free, no more this material body.
"At the time of death, one who remembers Me..." Anta-kāle ca mām eva. Mām eva. Mām eva means... Eva means "certainly," and me means..., mām means "me." "Certainly Me." The Supreme Personality of Godhead says, "Certainly Me." That means Kṛṣṇa, or Kṛṣṇa's expansion, the form—not formless. Mām. Formless... This is explained in the Twelfth Chapter, that kleśo 'dhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām (BG 12.5). One who is attached to the impersonal Brahman, then his business is troublesome. Kleśa. Kleśa means troublesome. Avyaktā hi gatir duḥkhaṁ dehavadbhir avāpyate. Dehavat. Because we are in this material body and our senses are not able to understand except something form. So if by artificial way I want to think of formless, it becomes a troublesome business.
Actually, God is not formless, but His form is different. Everything has form. Without form, there is nothing. Even the smallest atom, it has got form. Just like in geometry, they describe a point has no length, no breadth—because the point is so small that our instrument, measuring instrument, fails to measure what is its length or breadth. Therefore they give it up, that "It has no length and no breadth." But actually, it is not a fact. It has got length and breadth, but we have no instrument, we have no power to see.
That is not conceivable with our limited sense. But if we believe, then you get the perfect knowledge. There is no doubt. If you don't believe, there is no other way. You cannot understand what is God, or what is His length, what is His breadth.
So whenever in the scripture it is said that God is without form, that means He has no form which we have got experience. But He has got form. Just the same example. When you cannot measure, you say a point has no length, no breadth. But actually, it is not a fact. The point has length and breadth. We have no instrument to measure it, that's all. Similarly, when as soon as we say "form," we understand this form. Just like I am seeing your form, you are seeing my form. So we understand that God may be a form, and because God also comes in this form also. Just like in Bhagavad-gītā it is said, avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritam: (BG 9.11) "Because I have come in the form of an ordinary human being, they are deriding: 'How He can be God?'
Now you have no instrument. You cannot measure even the tip of your hair, and what to speak of ten-thousandth part of it. Impossible. Therefore because you cannot find out by dissecting this body where is that spirit spark... There is, but your present eyes cannot find it out. Therefore you say nirākāra, or no form. But actually, it has form.
We get information from the śāstras. Just like we get complete information of the sun globe from geography or from authoritative sources, scientist, astrologer, astronomer, mathematician, so similarly, you can get information what is the form of individual soul, what is the form of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. They are there. But His form is not like your form or my form. The Brahma-saṁhitā says, sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha (Bs. 5.1). His form is full of bliss, and full of knowledge, and eternal. But this body, this body, our body, is neither eternal, neither full of knowledge, neither blissful. So we can distinguish what is the form of God.
So this body is neither blissful, neither eternal, nor full of knowledge. It is full of ignorance and full of miseries and not permanent; temporary. So God hasn't got such body. Therefore sometimes it is said in the Vedic literature: formless. Formless means the form which you can conceive at the present moment, God hasn't got that form. But when He descends like you and me, that is His mercy. Paritrāṇāya sādhūnāṁ vināśāya ca duṣkṛtām (BG 4.8). He comes just to..., being visible to our eyes. Just like this picture. This picture is not... It is not to be taken that He's not God, He is picture. The picture of God is also God. Picture of Kṛṣṇa is Kṛṣṇa. The sound, name Kṛṣṇa, that is also Kṛṣṇa. But just to give us facility to understand... You do not think that this picture of Kṛṣṇa is painted by some artist's imagination. No. It is not imagination. There is description in the scripture what is the form of Kṛṣṇa.
The Māyāvāda philosophers, impersonalists, they answer the Bhagavad-gītā's word that kleśo 'dhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām... (BG 12.5). One who is attached to impersonal views, their process of meditation or execution of spiritual activities is very troublesome. Now, therefore Māyāvāda philosopher, they say that "God has no form. But because you cannot meditate upon the formless, so you just imagine any form you like." So God is not subjected to your imagination. That is not God's form. If we imagine something... And that has been degraded. Śaṅkarācārya limited such imaginative forms to five only. Five. What is that five? Viṣṇu, Lord Śiva, and Sun, and Gaṇeśa, and Devī, Durgā. He limited, that "Any of these five forms you can meditate upon, you worship. And ultimately, it is formless." But at the present moment, unauthorized person has degraded in such a way that "You can imagine any form. You can imagine even stool." They say like that. You see.
Actually, there cannot be any impersonal idea. Here, Kṛṣṇa says avyakta-mūrtinā. Even avyakta, nonmanifested, it has also a mūrti, a form. Generally we conceive impersonalism, voidism, voidism, compared with the sky. Sky is called zero, void, but sky has also a form. We see daily, a big round form. So there cannot be anything without form. That is not possible. Therefore Kṛṣṇa particularly says avyakta-mūrtinā. Although it is nonmanifested, but it has got a form. But one who does not take to the real form and takes to the imaginary form, that has been explained in the Bhagavad-gītā, kleśaḥ adhika-taras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām. Those who are attached to the impersonal form, they unnecessarily take some trouble, kleśaḥ adhika-taraḥ.
Another meaning of this verse is that if He has got, sarvataḥ pāṇi-pādam, He has got His legs and hands, eyes, head, then how He becomes impersonal, void? Where is this conception comes from Bhagavad-gītā? The rascals say that "God is impersonal, no form." How it is possible, if He has got hands and legs, head and ears, how He has become formless? Tell me. Who is there? How He becomes formless? He is not formless. But the difference is His form is different from our form. Our hands and legs are limited, but He has got His hands and legs... That is not limited, that is unlimited. That is difference. When we say, when there is such thing as formless, formless means He hasn't got a form like us which is limited.
That is spiritual form, that is not this material, limited form, but He has got His form. One who does not understand His unlimited form, Brahman form, sarvataḥ... Everywhere He can go, everywhere He can see, everywhere He can accept whatever you offer. Everywhere He can walk. That is His form, but He is not formless.
Therefore He is called omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent. These are the adjectives given to God. Omnipresent. He is present everywhere. That's a fact. Īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānāṁ hṛd-deśe arjuna tiṣṭhati (BG 18.61). He's sitting within your heart, He's seeing everything, what you are acting. Īśvaraḥ sarva... Sarvasya cāhaṁ hṛdi sanniviṣṭo mattaḥ smṛtir jñānam apohanaṁ ca (BG 15.15). This is knowledge. This is knowledge. Not that to make Kṛṣṇa formless, "He does not eat. He does not speak. He does not walk. He has no hand. He has no head." That is not knowledge.
Similarly, if you are taken from land and put into the water, you'll die. So everything requires special hands, legs. Why don't you understand it? Similarly, to live in the spiritual world, you require spiritual hands and legs.
So Kṛṣṇa is supreme spiritual being. He has got his spiritual hands and legs and eyes. Why you accuse that He has no form? It is nonsense. It is less intelligent. He has got form. But the different things which you cannot, your poor intelligence cannot accommodate... Therefore Kṛṣṇa says... This is jñāna. One has to learn this. Sarvendriya-guṇābhāsaṁ sarvendriya-vivarjitam. Sarvendriya-vivarjitam means He has no spiritual senses or spiritual hands and legs, er, material hands and legs. So we have also spiritual hands and legs, but now it is covered by these material things. Therefore we cannot understand our own position also. That we cannot... Ahaṁ brahmāsmi: "I am also spirit soul." Therefore because it is materially covered... But Kṛṣṇa's body is not materially covered.
That is puruṣa-para. And apara. As there are aparā-prakṛti and parā-prakṛti. This material world is aparā-prakṛti, but there is spiritual world also. That is called parā-prakṛti.
When there is such a statement in the Vedas that "The Supreme Spirit is nirākāra, or without form," that does not mean He has no form. He has His form, but that is spiritual form, sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ (Bs. 5.1). When it is negativated, that means the negative idea is of this inferior energy. So these things we should know. And if you know, then the result will be sarvathā vartamāno 'pi, wherever you stay, Sarvathā vartamāno 'pi, you are mukta. As it is stated by Rūpa Gosvāmī, īhā yasya harer dāsye... (aside:) Stop that talking.
Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures
He is pulling the wire. Just like the doll dancing, there is a man pulling the wire. These are the descriptions in the śāstras, or Vedic literatures. So we should not equalize or we should not place the demigods on the same level with God. That is offense. The Māyāvādīs, because they think that "God is formless, impersonal, but I cannot meditate upon anything which is formless. So let me imagine something." That is their theory. They say, "Let me imagine a form of God." Sādhakānāṁ hitārthāya brahmaṇo rūpa-kalpanaḥ. Kalpana, "imagine." The Māyāvādī philosophy is that, that "You imagine a form of God. Actually, there is no form of God." That is then theory. And we say, "No. Īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ (Bs. 5.1). He has got form, but not a form like me." That we know. It is a different type of form. Different material. Or we don't say material: different ingredient, spirit, complete spirit.
God is a person like you and me. As we are sitting together; you are seeing me, I am seeing you. Similarly, if you become elevated to the perfection of devotional service, you'll go to God and you'll see Him as you are seeing me, I am seeing you. You'll see Kṛṣṇa. Try to understand. Therefore there are so many religious systems which say, "God has no form. There is no God. Let us imagine." These are, this kind of religion is cheating religion. Therefore it is said here, dharmaḥ projjhita-kaitavo 'tra (SB 1.1.2). Cheating. Because there is no real information. Real information is īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ (Bs. 5.1), the Supreme Lord has got His spiritual body, and He is... In the Christian Bible also, it is said, "Man is made after God." Is it not? So unless God has got form, two hands, two legs, like that, how man has got two hands, two legs? If we are imitation of God, then God must be person. This is natural conclusion.
"Let there be creation," He is not within the creation. Because He, God, is speaking, "Let there be creation" means He is existing before creation.
So God is not within the creation. In the Vedic literature, therefore, description of God's body is given as sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ. Vigraha means form. Sac-cid-ānanda vigrahaḥ. Isvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ (Bs. 5.1). He is not formless. He has got His form, but it is a different form. How we can understand? Because we have got experience of this material world. We cannot see anything subtle. Gross things we can see. Therefore we can understand by our thoughts what kind of form God has got. Sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ (Bs. 5.1). Sat means eternal, cit means knowledge, and ānanda means blissful. So if we compare with our body, then we can understand what is sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ (Bs. 5.1). Sat means eternal. So if we compare with our body, this body is not eternal; it is destructible.
Here in this material world we can possess a body which may exist for millions of years, but that does not mean it is eternal. It is not eternal. But God's body is eternal. Therefore, in the Vedic language, when it is said, nirākāra-nirākāra means "who has no form"—it does not mean that God has no form. He has got form, but His form is different from this form upon which you have got experience. Our experience is whatever form we can think of, even Brahma's form, that is liable to be annihilated. But God's form is not like that. So when in the Vedic language it is said, nirākāra—means nir, nir means "not," and ākāra means "form"—that means "God's form is not like ours." It is not that He has no form. He has form, but His form is different from ours.
You can say, "I am very perfectly executing the ritualistic ceremonies, and the tenets described in my scripture, Bible or Veda or Koran." That's very good. But what is the result? The result is that you must develop or increase your tendency to hear about God. But if your ultimate truth is impersonal Mostly they consider God has no form. Then if God has no form then what he'll hear about Him. Simply formless, formless, formless. How can you, how long you can go thinking like this, "God is formless"? If God is formless, then your idea of hearing about Him is finished, because formless, there is nothing, activities.
God is not formless. Several times I have explained. God has got His form. (aside:) What is that sound? He is person. He has got His activities. Therefore in the Bhagavad-gītā it is said, janma karma, ajo 'pi sann avyayātmā bhūtānām īśvaro 'pi san. Although He is aja, nobody has to die, aja. Aja means birth. Nobody takes birth. Either the living entity or God, na jāyate na mriyate. In the Bhagavad-gītā it is said that the living entities, we are all living entities, na jāyate, they do not take birth, neither they do die. Na jāyate na mriyate vā kadācit, at any time. Then what is this death and birth? The death and birth is simply change of the body. The subtle body and the gross body.
Just like every night we die. The gross body remains inactive on the bed, and the subtle body takes me away. I dream, I go in the dreamland. I have gone to some friend, I am talking with somebody, I am working in a different way. That is our daily experience. This means that we have got two kinds of body. One body is this gross body, and the other body is subtle body, made of mind, intelligence, and ego.
That is the statement of the Vedic literature: the supreme controller, the supreme leader, is Kṛṣṇa. Sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ. Kṛṣṇa is not formless. When Kṛṣṇa was present on this planet, He is not formless. He has His form. And what is that form? Sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha (Bs. 5.1). Ānandamaya-rasa-vigraha. Ānanda-cinmaya-rasa. That is not this vigraha. That we have to understand. Our vigraha, our form, at the present moment, material form, that is not sac-cid-ānanda. Sat means eternal, cit means full of knowledge, and ānanda means full of blissfulness.
The Vedānta-sūtra says that ānandamayo 'bhyāsāt (Vedānta-sūtra 1.1.12). Because we are spirit soul, our position is ānandamāyā. Ānandamāyā means always blissful. Because we are part and parcel of God... God is blissful, all-good, sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ. Īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ (Bs. 5.1). His form... He has got form. He is not formless. But His form is different. That form is sat-cit-ānanda. Sat means eternal, and cit means full of knowledge, and ānanda means full of bliss. So we are part and parcel of God. Kṛṣṇa says, mamaivāṁśo jīva bhūtaḥ: (BG 15.7) "All these living entities, they are My part and parcel." So if Kṛṣṇa is sat-cit-ānanda, then we are also sat-cit-ānanda, because we are part. Just like gold and a gold, small particle. That is also gold. You cannot say it is something else. No. So part or whole, it may be. That is difference. Part is never equal to the whole. But quality is the same.
Rūpa Gosvāmī has given this formula that in order to attain to the perfectional stage of life, how to love God,... Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement means that we are try, teaching people how to love God. This is the sum and substance. Unfortunately, people have no idea of God, who is God, what is His form... Generally, they think God has no form. If anyone has advanced little in spiritual life, they come to the point of nirākāra, or nirviśeṣa-brahman, formless. That is the first step in Brahman realization. We have already described this. But beyond that they don't want to proceed. They think this is fac..., this is final, to realize the impersonal feature of the Absolute Truth, that is final. That is Māyāvāda philosophy. No, that is not final. Still you have to advance, realize Paramātmā. Still you have to advance, realize God, the Supreme Personality of God.
So we are teaching people how to love the Supreme Personality of Godhead. That means one who has surpassed the realm of Brahman and Paramātmā, they can realize, they can understand what is the process of loving God. If they have no idea of God, then whom to love? You cannot love air or sky. You must have form. But they have no idea what is the form of God. Therefore śāstra says, "Here is form." Īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ (Bs. 5.1). Vigraha means form. Without form, how we can love? So to come to that perfectional stage, how to love God, this is our philosophy. How to love God. Sa vai puṁsāṁ paro dharmo yato bhaktir adhokṣaje (SB 1.2.6). That is first-class religious system which helps the followers to come to the point to love God. That is first-class religion.
Just like Devakī got Kṛṣṇa as his (her) son; Mother Yaśodā got God as his (her) son; Śacī-mātā, (s)he also got Caitanya Mahāprabhu as son. So this is better philosophy than to accept God as father. That is especially in the Vaiṣṇava philosophy. Others, the impersonalist, voidists, they have no conception of God. Voidists—"Ultimately everything is zero," and the impersonalists, "God has no form." Both are the same thing, in a different language. The voidists, they say, "Ultimately there is nothing but zero," and the impersonalists statement that "Maybe something, but it is not person, it is imperson."
That is Buddha philosophy.
The Śaṅkara philosophy is "No, simply breaking is not the solution. There is soul within this." Dehino 'smi yathā dehe. Śaṅkara gives him that "Wherefrom this living cognizance come? There is soul." That is Śaṅkara philosophy. But he is nirviśeṣa-vādī, nirākāra. That consciousness has no form, he says. Then farther development is this Vaiṣṇava philosophy, that as soon as there is consciousness, that is a person. These are the gradual development. Actually, they are not contradictory. But according to the time, circumstances, different types of philosophies are there. Just like Jesus Christ. He is advising, "Thou shalt not killing." That means the people were so much accustomed to kill. Very first-class gentlemen. Simply wanted to kill. So what advice can be given there? First is that "Thou shalt not kill."
So this is very important verse. Form and formless. When we speak of formless, we speak that God or even living entity, all of us, we have no material form. Just like we have got this form, but this form is temporary and it will never come again. As soon as this form is finished, I will have to take another form. That form may not be exactly like this. So this is the formula for everyone. But for Kṛṣṇa, He has no material form. He has got spiritual form. Therefore His form is eternal. We do not remember our past lives, incidences, because the form has changed. But Kṛṣṇa remembers because His form does not change. The evidence is the Bhagavad-gītā. Kṛṣṇa says... When He was questioned by Arjuna, "How can I believe that You spoke this philosophy of Bhagavad-gītā 400,000,000's of years ago to the sun-god?" So Kṛṣṇa says that "Yes, you were also present there, because you are My constant companion. But you have forgotten; I remember."
The impersonalists' view is that if everything is Kṛṣṇa... That is the... That is their material way of thinking. Just like if you take a big paper and, I mean to say, cut into pieces and the pieces are distributed, strewn over, then the original paper is lost. So their theory is, "If Kṛṣṇa is everything—Kṛṣṇa has expanded in this world, in cosmic manifestation—then Kṛṣṇa has no form, separate form." That is their theory. But the Vedic injunction is: "No, it is not like that." Pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya pūrṇam evāvaśiṣyate: (Īśo Invocation) Kṛṣṇa is so full that even Kṛṣṇa expands million times, still, He's the same thing, Kṛṣṇa. That is Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa is person. And even He expands, Kṛṣṇa, in many ways... Parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate (Cc. Madhya 13.65, purport). This is the fine philosophy. One has to understand how Kṛṣṇa, in spite of His being a person—He's person, without any doubt—He has expanded in so many universes, so many manifestations. Yes.
This will be finished. As soon as one is able to see the padāmbujam, lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa, then immediately bhava-pravāha.
So who can see unless he is advanced spiritually? First of all, everyone is under the impression there is no God. And another way of denying God: "Yes, there is God, but He has no form. He has no head, He has no tail, He has no leg, He has no... He has no, no, no..." It is another way of denying God, definition by negation. I... One says directly, "There is no God," and another man says, "Yes, there is God, but He has no leg. He has no hand. He has no mouth. He has no this. He has no that." Then where is God? It is another way of denying God. This Māyāvādī philosophy... (aside:) What is that? Crows? No.
Or from example you can understand how things can go on nicely without a nice brain behind these things? It is conclusion. Mayādhyakṣeṇa. And Kṛṣṇa says further, mayā tatam idaṁ sarvam avyakta-mūrtinā (BG 9.4). Avyakta, avyakta is also mūrti, a form. Just like the sky. The sky is avyakta, not manifest, but it has also a form, a round form, the universe. Without form there is nothing. Everything has form. The so-called impersonal, that is also form. Just like you go to the ocean, you will find a form, a big circle. That is also form. How you can say there is no form?
So this formless, nirviśeṣa... You offer your prayers: nirviśeṣa-śūnyavādi. This is all foolishness. "Zero, impersonal" is all foolishness. Behind this impersonal feature and so-called zero, there is the supreme form. That is Kṛṣṇa. Īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ (Bs. 5.1). Īśvara means controller.
It is very simple thing. Not that by becoming brahma-bhūtaḥ, one gets four legs and one dozen hands. No. The hand is there, the leg is there, the mouth is there, everything is there. When it is purified, that "These hands, legs, are meant for serving Kṛṣṇa," that is called brahma-bhūtaḥ. That is brahma-bhūtaḥ. Not that brahma-bhūtaḥ means I become nirākāra, no form. The Māyāvādī philosophers, they think like that, something different. Because this is not Brahman. This is asat. Brahma satyaṁ jagan mithyā. "This world is false. Therefore Brahman realization means that something opposite must be there. In the māyā, everything is variety. So Brahman must be without variety." This is also material conception, because he is thinking like that. But my thinking, if I am in māyā, so whatever I am thinking, that is also māyā. But these rascals they do not understand that. They do not understand that. I am thinking that "Brahman must be opposite of this variety. Therefore Brahman must be impersonal." But what is their conclusion?
Prabhupāda: Yes.
Devotee (2): Otherwise, how is the material body grown to accommodate the spirit soul? Just like a shirt has no form, but when it's put on the body, it takes the shapes of the body. Does that mean that the spirit soul has the shape of the body that is accommodating it?
Prabhupāda: Yes. You have got body, shape, very minute shape. That we cannot see, we cannot measure. Therefore in the Bhagavad-gītā it is said, anumeyam, or... What is that? You cannot measure. What is that word used? Aprameyam. Aprameyam. You cannot measure. But it has a form. How, what is the length and breadth of that form, that is not in your power. In your power, but not materially. That is... If you have got spiritual power, then you can measure it. And that measurement is also given in the śāstra. What is that? One ten-thousandth part of the tip of the hair. Hair is a very small point. And divide it into ten thousand parts. That one part is the measure, magnitude of the soul.
Yes. Spirit soul, he has got hands and legs and everything. That is body. Form means hands and legs, not without form. The same example. Because I have got my form, therefore my dress... This body is described as dress. The dress has got two hands, just like your coat has got two hands; actually, coat, the cloth has no hands, legs. That is impossible. But because you have got your hands, your coat has assumed the hands. So this material dress... These hands and legs are there because originally we are spirit soul, we have got hands and legs. This is the proof that we are not formless. With form. Because this body has been described as dress, outward dress, different dress. Just like we are, somebody white, somebody yellow, somebody black, somebody... This is dress. But actually, we spirit soul, we are one. It is by dress we are fighting. "You are Englishman," "I am German," "I am this," "I am Indian," "I am that," "I am man," "I am woman." So many fighting on account of this dress. So when you become dressless, that is the spiritual platform. When you become dressless.
Then here it is said that śrotavyaḥ bhagavān hariḥ. If you do not know who is Bhagavān, if you do not know who is Hari, if you do not know who is Īśvara, then what you will hear about Him? That is the problem. Those who are after God, they make God nirākāra. "There is no ākāra. There is no form." God is the origin of all forms, but the poor God has no form. Just see. This is the conclusion. He is the origin of all forms, yato vā imāni bhūtāni jāyante, from whom everything is coming out. Janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1). Everything... We have also come from God. We are also claimed as sons of God. Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā, sarva-yoniṣu kaunteya sambhavanti mūrtayo yāḥ (BG 14.4). There are 8,400,000 species of life, and they have got forms. They are sons of God. So where is our experience that a son who has got a form, his father is impersonal, no form? Where you have got this experience? If the son has got form and the father is formless, how it can be?
Where you have got this experience? If the son has got form and the father is formless, how it can be? What is the reason? Where is the argument? But they are concluding like that. I am the son of my father, so my father has got a form. I have got a form. His father has got form. His father has got form. Even if we do not see the tenth generation, up to, whether it was form or formless, but it is supposed that he must have a form. So similarly, if you ultimately go to the supreme father, then how it is formless? No. Formless is not the actual realization of God. That is the beginning. That may be beginning. To realize the energy of God, that is formless. Just like the sun. The sunshine is formless, but the sun globe is not formless, or the person, the predominating Deity within the sunglobe, he is not formless. The sunshine is formless. So this formless realization... Just like the sun. Sun is also light. Sun is also heat. The sunshine is also light, sunshine is also heat. But this heat and light, energy of the sun, they are not actually the sun. It is only the energy.
The forms of the Lord is not imagination. They say that they imagine some form. Sādhakānāṁ hitvārthāya brahmaṇo rūpa-kalpanaḥ. The Māyāvādī philosophers, due to their poor fund of knowledge, they think that "The Absolute Truth is formless, but because we cannot meditate upon formless, something formless, let us imagine some form." Imagine. Nirviśeṣa-vādī, nirākāra-vādī, they imagine forms.
Therefore, their philosophy, that "Any form you like, you can concentrate. Because after all, there is no form. But for your present facility, you can imagine some form." But there is also mistake on their part, because they say "Imagine any form." Generally, they prescribe the form of Lord Śiva, the form of Lord Viṣṇu, the form of Durgā, the form of the sun, and the form of Gaṇeśa. Pañcopāsanā. These five forms. But ultimately, you become "form-less."
"Oh, here is nice beautiful woman. Let me embrace," that is foolishness. That is ivābhāti. That is difference. So therefore this very word is used, ivābhāti. Actually it is all matter. But they have been changed into different forms. The Māyāvadi philosophers, they say "It is ivābhāti. There is no form. Therefore make it formless." But our is that ivābhāti means there is form, but this is simply imitation. That is the difference between Māyāvada and They say "Because it is false therefore reality must be zero. It is formless. It must be zero." Śūnyavādi. Nirviśeṣa śūnyavādi. There are no varieties. They will say "No varieties," and somebody will say, "No. It is zero." We say, "No. There is variety." This is ivābhāti. It appears like the reality. It is not real thing. The real is different. A comparison is given: just like water, the desert. There is no water, but it appears like water. But that does not mean there is no water. As soon as you say, ivābhāti, that there is reality, but this is not. It appears like reality.
No live Even Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Lord, He can also say. He wants variety. So this variety of forms... Because they want variety of enjoyment, therefore they have got different forms of body according to the association.
So Māyāvādī philosophers, when they come to know that this is māyā's place, so therefore they want to make it varietyless, formless. This is their theory. So, but that is not the solution. This is māyā. This form or no form, this is māyā. When we develop our real spiritual form and enjoy in company and association of the Supreme Lord varieties, just like Vṛndāvana, variety... In Vṛndāvana the cows, the trees, the water, they are also spiritual. Some devotee wants to serve Kṛṣṇa becoming a cow. Some devotee wants to serve Kṛṣṇa becoming a bird, becoming a monkey. And somebody is serving as gopī or as cowherd boy, as father, as mother. But they are all spiritual.
He manifested His form to Brahmā. That means God is not formless. If He is formless then how He could show His form? Brahmaṇe darśayan rūpam avyalīka. Avyalīka means without any cheating. Where is avyalīka? "Without any deceptive motive." So those who have realized impersonal form, not form, impersonal feature, they are cheated. They do not know actually what is God, what is the Absolute Truth. Avyalīka-vrata. And why Brahmā was favored to see the form of the Lord? Because he underwent severe tapasya, vow, worship. So God, or the Absolute Truth, is not formless. He has his form, sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha (Bs. 5.1). But that can be seen only by persons who underwent severe austerities, penances, or engaged in devotion. Bhaktyā mām abhijānāti (BG 18.55). Otherwise, they will remain impersonal. The conclusion is, those who are impersonalists, their knowledge is imperfect. They have still to go forward.
You cannot say there is no length and breadth. You have no instrument to measure what is the length and breadth of the point. You say...
Similarly you cannot understand what is the form of God. You say, "Oh, God is false." But from the śāstra we can understand. Here it is said that rūpaṁ sa ādi-devo jagatāṁ paro guruḥ. Brahmaṇe darśayan rūpam. So if God has no form, how He showed His form to Brahmā? He has form. Brahmā has attained the perfection to see the form of God, and the rascals who have no such perfection, they say "No form." That is the position. They, with their imperfect senses, all rascal theories, they are thinking that they have become perfect. But they are not perfect. First thing is that the senses with which you are studying, they are imperfect. What is the value of our eyes? Unless there is sunlight, you cannot see. So how can you say that "Our seeing is absolute"? It is relative. So whatever knowledge we are getting, they're all relative knowledge.
Because in Upaniṣad the negating, that negation, negation of the material form... Therefore it is described in an impersonal form. These nonsense are sticking to that impersonal form. Impersonal—there is no form. Really, Veda says, apāni-pāda javano grahitā: "The Supreme Absolute Truth has no legs, has no hands, but He accepts whatever you offer." Now, how He accepts? He has no hand; then how He accepts? But they have no brain. They have no brain. When it is said that "He has no hand," it is said that "He has no hand like you." When he says that "He has no leg," it means that "He has no leg like you." If he has no hand, then how Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā, patraṁ puṣpaṁ phalaṁ toyaṁ yo me bhaktyā prayacchati tad aham aśnāmi bhakty-upahṛtam: (BG 9.26) "If I accept them"?
They do not actually believe in the form of Viṣṇu, but they take it as a means, a imagination, to imagine the form of Viṣṇu. This is Māyāvāda philosophy. Sādhakānāṁ hitārthāya brāhmaṇaḥ rūpa-kalpanaḥ.(?) They imagine. Just like they are worshiping Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa. The Māyāvādī will say, "This is imagination. Actually, the Absolute Truth has no rūpa, no form." That is impersonalism. They do not know that here is the actual form, Kṛṣṇa. Īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ (Bs. 5.1). Vigraha. Vigraha means who has got form. They do not know that. Therefore they mistake that that is not... There are many so-called Vaiṣṇavas. They are worshiping Viṣṇu, but thinking of becoming one with the Supreme, imagining. They cannot be one. How it can be? That is not possible. They sometimes give the example: the drop of water, when it mixes with the vast mass of water in the sea, it becomes one. But does it actually become so? No. According to scientific division these, there are the atomic molecules of water. So each molecule and atom is different from one another.
Arcanaṁ vandanaṁ dāsyaṁ sakhyam ātma-ni... There are nine different processes. So you accept all of them or some of them or at least one. Then your life is successful. Spṛhayanti. Very selected words. You surrender to Him, but don't talk things which does not please Him. You don't say that "God is formless. God has no eyes, no leg, no head." These things are there. Just like in the Vedas it is said, apāṇi-pādo javano grahītā, that "He has no hand, but He can accept your offerings." But if He has no hand, then how He can offer your offerings, er, how He can accept your offerings? He has His hand, but not like our hand. He can extend His hand millions of miles. Just like Kṛṣṇa leaves His Goloka, Goloka Vṛndāvana. That planet is many millions and trillions of miles away. But He can accept what you offer. That is Kṛṣṇa's hand, not like Your hand, three feet, no. Therefore sometimes in the Vedas it is said that "God has no hand." That means He has no this material hand. But He can accept your offerings.
The Māyāvādī theory is saguṇa worship and nirguṇa worship. Saguṇa worship means when you worship a deity, in form, that is called saguṇa worship. And when you meditate upon impersonal, that is nirguṇa. That is their theory. But meditation is not possible unless there is form. Without form, meditation means... That is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā, kleśaḥ adhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām: "One who is trying to meditate upon the impersonal Brahman," kleśaḥ, "it is very troublesome," because we are not accustomed to concentrate our mind, meditate upon anything which is impersonal. That is not possible. We simply try to do that under labor, under trouble, kleśaḥ adhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām, whereas devotee, he immediately sees Kṛṣṇa in the temple: "Here is Kṛṣṇa. Here is Rādhārāṇī.' Arcā-vigraha. Kṛṣṇa has appeared to be visible.
Without being sinless, nobody can understand Kṛṣṇa. So this process should be continued. Kīrtanya-tīrtha-yaśasaṁ puṇya-śloka-yaśaskaram dhyāyed devam. Devam. Devam means the Supreme Lord. Samagrangam. So if He has no form, how you can think of His whole body, samagra? Samagra means the whole; aṅgam means body. Samagrāṅgam. So if He has no body, if He is formless, if He is nirakara, then where is the question of aṅgam? He has aṅgam, samagrāṅgam, but He hasn't got a form like us. That is the meaning. When in the śāstra it is said that God has no form, it means that He has no material form. He has form; otherwise how can I think of His form? This Kṛṣṇa's form is not like us. Just like if you take my statue or any other statue and if you pray or if you offer food, that does not go actually to the person. But Kṛṣṇa's His aṅga, His form, is nondifferent from Kṛṣṇa.
Acyutānanda: When I visited the Hare Kṛṣṇa center I thought that God had no form. In such case why should we garnish the idol of Kṛṣṇa with jewelry and adore the idol?
Prabhupāda: Hm? What is that?
Pañcadraviḍa: Why should we adore the idol if God has no form?
Prabhupāda: Who says God has no form? God is the supreme father. You know your father has form. What the supreme father has done that He'll not have form? Your father has got form. You're born of him. Then why the supreme father will not have form? What fault He has done? What is this logic? God is supposed to..., the supreme father. Janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1). That is the Vedic information. The Supreme is that which is the source of everything. So we have got varieties of forms, and why the source should be formless? Why? What is the logic?
We have got so many forms—8,400,000—and Kṛṣṇa says, ahaṁ bīja-pradaḥ pitā: (BG 14.4) "Of all these forms of life, I am the seed-giving father." The seed-giving father, Kṛṣṇa, has form, and His sons have got form. Why the father should be formless? What is this logic? Eh? What is this logic—can anyone say?—that because He's father, therefore He should be formless. What is this logic? The father must have form. Otherwise how many form... All these forms, wherefrom it is coming? Kṛṣṇa says, ahaṁ bīja pradaḥ pitā. He is the father. If the sons have form, why the father will not have form? What is this logic? This is not logical conclusion. The real idea is... Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā that "My dear Arjuna, you, Me, and all these kings and soldiers who have assembled here, they were in the past like this," that means they have forms, "and they're existing like this. And they'll continue to exist." Where is formless?
"My dear Arjuna, you, Me, and all these kings and soldiers who have assembled here, they were in the past like this," that means they have forms, "and they're existing like this. And they'll continue to exist." Where is formless? You see the (indistinct) Bhagavad-gītā. He says in the past all of them existed like this, and we're existing now like this, past present, and in the future they'll continue. So where is formlessness? There is no question of formlessness. Nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.13). When there is such question, formlessness means that is not material form. But there is form. Īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ (Bs. 5.1), vigraha means form. But that is sat-cid-ānanda, eternal, full of bliss, and full of knowledge. This is not this form. Therefore Kṛṣṇa says, avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritaḥ, paraṁ bhāvam ajānanto: (BG 9.11)
"These rascals, they do not know what I am. Therefore he's thinking that My form and his form is the same." Avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā, unless one is mūḍha, he cannot say that God is formless. God has form. But His form is different from our form, this material form. Sat-cit-ānanda-vigraha. So therefore, we have to learn all these things by mahat-sevā dvāraṁ vimukteḥ. We can get out of all this ignorance when we are engaged in mahat-sevā. Otherwise we shall remain in the darkness. Kṛṣṇa has form, but His form is different from our, this material form. That is (indistinct).
God has His form. That I explained the other day. But His form is not like our form. His form is sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ (Bs. 5.1). His body is eternal, full of knowledge, and blissful. Our, this form is not eternal, neither full of knowledge, nor blissful. So it is not that God has no form. When it is described indirectly that "God has no form," means He has no form like us. Don't think that He has no form. He has no form, material form like us, which is not eternal, not full of knowledge, not blissful. So God has form. So God's form is realized in three different stages.
Guest (3): How you reconcile the void... God is infinite and He is all places, and you said just now that God has form. To have form would mean that He has..., He is finite... (indistinct) And how could you reconcile these two: He is formless, and He has form. He has form and yet infinite?
Prabhupāda: The reconciliation I have explained several times. Just like the sun globe, the sun-god and the sunshine. They are one, the light and heat. But still, sunshine is not the sun globe, and sun globe is not the sun-god. This is reconciliation. Anyone can understand. The three things, they are one by heat and light, but at the same time when the sunshine is within your room it does not mean the sun globe is within your room or the sun-god is within your room. This is the reconciliation.
Guest (4): Do you believe that Jesus and Buddha and Kṛṣṇa are manifestations of the same God? Or do you believe Kṛṣṇa is the only...?
Prabhupāda: Om is the concentrated name of God.
Guest (5): Can one say om instead of "Kṛṣṇa" and gain the same benefit?
Prabhupāda: Yes. But why instead of Kṛṣṇa? If one Kṛṣṇa is the same, why not Kṛṣṇa? Why stick to om? Om. Om is formless but Kṛṣṇa has got beautiful form, enjoying. And we are addicted to beautiful form. Why something (chuckling) which is not beautiful? Kṛṣṇa... Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā, akṣarāṇām akāro 'smi: "Amongst the alphabets I am oṁkāra." So Kṛṣṇa says that "I am oṁkāra." So in one sense oṁkāra and Kṛṣṇa the same. But I can see Kṛṣṇa very beautiful and so many things, but I do not see in oṁkāra that thing. Therefore my preference should be to Kṛṣṇa. Why shall I stick to om? Yes.
Guest (6): Swamiji, how... What kind of a capacity is knowledge?
Prabhupāda: Capacity of knowledge?
Hṛṣīkena hṛṣīkeśa sevanam. If God has no form, how He is Hṛṣīkeśa and how we can serve with our senses? Hṛṣīkena hṛṣīkeśa sevanam. That is bhakti.
So God has form, but it is inconceivable by us. But from the śāstra we can understand what kind of body God has. Just like in the Brahma-saṁhitā it is explained,
- aṅgāni yasya sakalendriya-vṛtti-manti
- paśyanti pānti kalayanti ciraṁ jaganti
- ānanda-cinmaya-sad-ujjvala-vigrahasya
- ānanda-sat-ujjvala-vigraha...
- govindam ādi-puruṣaṁ tam ahaṁ bhajāmi
- (Bs. 5.32)
Now, it is inconceivable. Aṅgāni yasya sakalendriya vṛtti-manti. Now, we have got this understanding, that we can see with our eyes, but God can not only see with His eyes; He can eat with His eyes. This is inconceivable. We shall think, "How it is possible that one can eat with His eyes?" Therefore śāstra says, aṅgāni yasya sakalendriya vṛtti-manti (Bs. 5.32). Just like we offer foodstuff to the Deity. The atheist will say, "Oh, you have offered this, so many nice foodstuff, but He has not eaten.
If God is everywhere, why He is not in the temple? So this is their knowledge, poor fund of knowledge. Alpa-medhasā. Alpa-medhasā. Avajānanti māṁ mūḍhāḥ (BG 9.11).
So God has form, but He is sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha. He is not... When it is said, the nirākāra, "no form," that does not mean that He has no ākāra. The ākāra, or the form which we understand, He hasn't got that form. He is sac-cid-ānanda vigrahaḥ (Bs. 5.1). Otherwise how He can accept your offerings? Kṛṣṇa says that patraṁ puṣpaṁ phalaṁ toyaṁ yo me bhaktyā prayacchati, tad aham aśnāmi (BG 9.26). He says, "I eat." So if He has no mouth, how He can eat? And therefore the Vedic literature informs us that paśyati acakṣuḥ: "He sees, but He has no eyes." When the Vedic literature says that He has no eyes, that means He has no eyes like us. But He has got eyes; otherwise how He sees? Paśyati acakṣuḥ śṛṇoti akarṇaḥ. He can hear; otherwise what is the use of offering prayer? Yes, He hears, but akarṇa, not that He has got ears like you.
So what type of body I am going to accept next life? I am not going to die. I am simply changing body. Just like we change dress. If one dress is torn or old, we change another dress. Exactly like that. This body we change when it is no more usable. We have got our spiritual body. And they say the spirit is formless. No. Now if this body is my dress, then how the body has got these hands and legs? Just like because you have got actually hands and legs, therefore your coat and pant has got hands and legs. If you have no form, then how the coat and pant is made? The coat, the pant has got legs because actually I have got leg. The coat has hands or body because actually I have got body. So the argument that the spirit is formless, that is bogus. Unless I have got form, how the dress body is made with hands and legs and heads and everything?
That nistrai-guṇya means nirguṇa. (Hindi) He has no qualities—this is nonsense. When one is powerful, all-powerful, how he can think that He has no good qualities? Is it possible to think like that? That means He has no material qualities. When there is nirviśeṣa, when there are such description, "The Absolute Truth has no form," that means He has no material form. As soon as there is question of form, we think of form like you have got a form, I have got a form, he has got a form. Immediately we think of form like that. When Veda says "God is formless," that means He is not under the conception of form which you can conceive. Sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha (Bs. 5.1). His form, His form is described in the Brahma-saṁhitā, that aṅgāni yasya sakalendriya-vṛtti-manti (Bs. 5.32). He has got form, but every part of His limb has got the power of other limbs. Just like I can see with the eyes only, but Bhagavān, Kṛṣṇa, can see with His fingers. I can eat with my tongue, with my mouth, but Kṛṣṇa can eat by seeing, by eyes.
Arjuna was taking the position of ordinary man. Because our form, we have got this form in our previous form, body, we are existing because we are eternal, but we don't remember. We don't remember what I was in my previous life. So this form is distinct. Kṛṣṇa's form is distinct from this form. He hasn't got a form like this useless form. Therefore He is formless. Not that He hasn't got form. His form is sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha (Bs. 5.1). His form is eternal, sat; cit, full of knowledge; and blissful. Our this form is not blissful. Why you are covering the body? Because it is painful. Unless what is the use of covering? Similarly during summer season we have to take out all this...
Yes. Due to this form you are always in suffering. Adyātmika ādibhautika. But because they are in māyā they are thinking they are happy. Kṛṣṇa's form is not like that. He is always ānandamāyā. We see Kṛṣṇa's form in a picture. He is always happy. Therefore His form is not like our form. Therefore indirectly it is said "formless." His qualities are not exactly like our qualities; therefore He is called nirguṇa. Apāṇi pāda grahītā. Just like Veda says that He has no hands, no legs, but still He accepts the sacrifices which you offer Him. How He accepts? Paśyaty acakṣuḥ. He has no eyes but He sees everything. How you can adjust it? Two contradicting things. He has no eyes but He sees. Upadraṣṭā anumantā. So His words are there in the Bhagavad-gītā. Your conception of eye, that if God has no eye then how He can see? Is it not the next question? But He sees. That means He has eyes which is not exactly this eye. Therefore you can say He has no eye.
Therefore it is called apāṇi acakṣur. Acakṣur means his eyes are not like your eyes. So as soon as we consider "Kṛṣṇa like me, Kṛṣṇa like me," that is natural for a foolish person. That is the first consideration. Because they cannot adjust that God can have eyes different from me, therefore they take nirviśeṣa, nirākāra. Nirākāra means He has no form, He has no eyes, no leg. If I say that God has no leg, no eyes, it is defaming. He has got the brilliant eyes. Yac-cakṣur eṣa savitā. Here is one of the eyes of Kṛṣṇa: the sun. When as soon as they declare "God has no eyes," if we take in that way that we cannot see, He has no eyes, then it is blaspheme.
So God is living entity, and we have got this form after the form... God is two-handed; we have got two hands. So that is a fact. This human form of life is made according to the form of Lord. It is imitation; that is real. Sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ, īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ (Bs. 5.1). But we are thinking that God has no form. Why? Wherefrom you got your form? You are daily praying, "O God, O Father, give us our daily bread," and we accept God as the supreme father. So if I have got form, the father must have got form. It is reasonable. How you say, "There is no form"? This is all not very reasonable argument. God is also a living entity, but what is the difference between God and all these living entities? They are all dependent on God. That's all. God is great; we are small. Just like father maintains all the children, so we are all children, and the supreme father maintains. So if the children have got forms, so it is naturally concluded the father has got, even though you have not seen the father.
So if the children have got forms, so it is naturally concluded the father has got, even though you have not seen the father. Suppose a posthumous child, a child is born after the death or disappearance of the father. So that does not mean because he has not seen the father, he will conclude that "My father had no form." This is not conclusion. He should know from the mother that "Yes, my child, your father had form." So this is intelligence.
So difference between this prime, or the Supreme Person, and these... Difference is that eko yo bahūnāṁ vidadhāti kāmān. We different living entities, we are planning differently. Just like children. Somebody is playing with the motorcar toy, somebody is something, somebody is..., a doll, and the parents are supplying, "All right, you take this doll. You take this. You take this. You take this." So we are playing like that, making plan. So God is supplying all the... But He wants that "My dear child, you are now grown up. You have got this human form of body.
"I am this, like this," that they will not take. Just see. God is canvassing that "Here I am. I have come." Paritrāṇāya sādhūnāṁ vināśāya ca duṣkṛtām (BG 4.8). "I have appeared before you just to give you relief." Paritrāṇāya sādhūnām. "You are trying to understand Me, so here I am. I am present. Why you are thinking God is formless? Here I am, Kṛṣṇa, form. You see, I have got My flute in the hand. I am very much fond of the cows. I love the cows and the sage and Brahmā, everyone equally, because they are all My sons in different bodies." Kṛṣṇa is playing. Kṛṣṇa is speaking. Still, these rascals will not understand Kṛṣṇa. So what is Kṛṣṇa's fault? It is our fault. Andha. Just like the owl. Owl will never open the eyes to see that there is sunlight. You know this, owl? So they will not open. However you may say, "Mr. Owl, please open your eyes and see the sun," "No, there is no sun. I don't see." (laughter) This owl civilization. So you have to fight with these owls. You must be very strong, especially the sannyāsīs. We have to fight with the owls.
That is the benefit. Tyaktvā dehaṁ punar janma naiti mām eti (BG 4.9). Kṛṣṇa gives assurance that if you simply try to understand Kṛṣṇa, and if you really understand Kṛṣṇa... Janma karma ca divyaṁ me yo jānāti tattvataḥ. If you simply try to understand Kṛṣṇa in truth, not vague... "Yes, I understand Kṛṣṇa, but Kṛṣṇa has no form"—this is not understanding of Kṛṣṇa. This is rascaldom. Kṛṣṇa says such persons, such rascals who says that "Kṛṣṇa has no body. He has no form. It is māyā..." They are called Māyāvādī. "Everything māyā. Kṛṣṇa is also māyā." That is Māyāvāda. So these Māyāvādīs are condemned by Kṛṣṇa: na mām... What is that? Mānuṣīṁ tanum... Avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā (BG 9.11). These rascals, Māyāvādīs, avajānanti, he thinks Kṛṣṇa as ordinary human being, or even if He is God, He has taken a body made by māyā. This is Māyāvādī philosophy. "The spirit soul cannot appear without being dressed by māyā." But that is not the fact, that... A man is diseased, suffering from fever. It does not mean that without fever nobody can exist.
His father, his father, everywhere—Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Person. God cannot be without being person. He must be person. This impersonal understanding of God, nirākāravādī, that nirākār... Of course, in the Vedic language, when we speak nirākāra, ni, ni means negative, and ākāra, ākāra means form. So negative form. Negative form means not that He has no form but He has no form like you and me. That is negative. Form means just like we have got form. So what is the value of this form? This form will be changed after few years. As soon as I give up this body this form is changed. Just like we change our dress. Therefore He hasn't got a form like this to be changed. Therefore He's sometimes called nirākāra. Ākāra is there, and that is also explained in the Brahma-saṁhitā that īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ (Bs. 5.1). "Oh, Kṛṣṇa has got a form, sir? How you say that He is the Supreme? Brahman is the Supreme." No. He has form certainly. Sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ. His form is not like you and me. Sac-cid-ānanda. His form is eternal, full of bliss, and full of knowledge.
This material world is created by Him, composition of three material qualities—sattva-guṇa, rajo-guṇa, tamo-guṇa—but He does not belong to any one of them. The Māyāvādī philosophers, they think that when God comes, incarnation, He also accepts the sattva-guṇa and therefore the form is there. Their conclusion is, "The Absolute Truth is formless, so when He accepts a form of this material world, He accepts this sattva-guṇa." But that is not the fact. He's above sattva-guṇa even. Therefore it is said, nitya-vijita ātma-guṇaḥ. Sva-dhāmnā. He comes with His own spiritual energy, sva-dhāmnā. In the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam also, in the beginning it is said, dhāmnā nirasta-kuhakam. Nirasta-kuhakam. Kuhakam means illusion. So the spiritual world, there is no such illusion or these three guṇas. Therefore it is said, nirasta-kuhakaṁ sva-dhāmnā. In the spiritual world there is no influence of these three guṇas. That is in this material world. So when Kṛṣṇa comes, He does not become affected or, rather, infected with these guṇas. Nirguṇa... That is nirguṇa.
Mayā tatam idaṁ sarvaṁ jagad avyakta-mūrtinā (BG 9.4). He... That is His avyakta, impersonal form. Everything is Kṛṣṇa, but that does not mean that His personal form is finished. Because He is expanded everywhere... This is Māyāvāda theory, that "Because God has expanded in so many varieties, therefore God has no form." No. That is not the fact. Fact is, goloka eva nivasaty akhilātma-bhūtaḥ (Bs. 5.37). He is... In His original sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ (Bs. 5.1) He is existing always in Goloka Vṛn... He does not go anywhere, leaving aside His friends, father, mother, beloved, anywhere. He's always... Vṛndāvanaṁ parityajya padam ekaṁ na gacchati. He does not go anywhere. Padam ekaṁ na gacchati. Just like a big man. We have got so many examples. A big man, he is sitting at his home. With family he's enjoying. But he is managing many, many hundreds of factories sitting there. We have got practical experience. Big, big business magnate, they do not come to the office, neither he goes to the factory.
Nectar of Devotion Lectures
This is the process of transmigration of the soul from one body to another.
So soul has got form. It is not formless. Similarly, Kṛṣṇa has got also form. But that form is different from this form. When in the śāstras it is said, nirākāra, nirākāra means nirākṛta ākāra, "This ākāra, this form, is being nullified." Nirākāra does not mean there is no ākāra. This body. When it is said, nirākāra, that means the soul, the Supersoul or the soul, has no this ākāra, as we see. Just like we are seeing some dog or some cat or some hog, some tree, some plants, so many, eight million four hundred thousands of forms, but this is not the form. Nirākāreti. Not this form. The soul has got a different form. That is described. Keśāgra-śata-bhāgasya śatadhā kalpitasya ca (CC Madhya 19.140). We cannot see, at the present moment. So as we cannot see you.
So up to mukti, then above mukti, there is bhakti. It is a mistaken idea that one has to attain mukti by bhakti. Sometimes they say that, these pañcopāsanā Māyāvādī, they say that "Ultimately, the absolute truth is nirākāra. There is no form. But because you cannot worship or meditate upon the nirākāra, so just imagine some form. Either of Viṣṇu, or Lord Śiva or Sūrya or Devī." Pañcopāsanā, it is called pañcopāsanā. Sādhakānāṁ hitārthāya brahmaṇo rūpa-kalpanaḥ. This is kalpana, he imagines. "Ultimately the Brahman has no form, but because you are accustomed to meditate on the forms, and it is very difficult for you to meditate upon the formless, so you imagine some form. This is imagine, not fact." That is their theory. And Bhagavān says in the Bhagavad-gītā, kleśo 'dhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām (BG 12.5). So that is simply troublesome. After much trouble in that way, when they come to the form of Vāsudeva, vāsudevaḥ sarvam iti sa mahātmā su-durlabhaḥ (BG 7.19).
Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures
So they are all Lakṣmīs, goddess of fortune. Lakṣmī... You have heard the name Lakṣmī, Lakṣmī-Nārāyaṇa, associates of Nārāyaṇa. Kṛṣṇa is Nārāyaṇa. So all these gopīs, they are expansion of Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī, the original Lakṣmī. This is spiritual world. It is not impersonal, neither nirākāra, formless. Everything form, but that form is different from this form. That form is sat-cid-ānanda form—eternal, full of bliss, full of knowledge. This is not this material form. When we speak of formless, that means without any material form. Formless does not mean Kṛṣṇa and His expansion, they are formless. They are not of material form. Aprakṛta, not material. Here everything is prakṛta. It is not, neither, eternal nor blissful nor full of knowledge. It is temporary, full of ignorance and always miserable, this form. We can understand it.
"This Māyāvāda philosophy is covered Buddhism." Mayaiva kalpitaṁ devi kalau brāhmaṇa-mūrtinā. Lord Śiva says to his wife, "My dear Pārvatī, in the age of Kali, in the garb of a brāhmaṇa, I'll have to preach this philosophy." Brahmaṇaś cāparaṁ rūpaṁ nirguṇam vakṣyate mayā. Brāhmaṇaś ca aparaṁ rūpam: "Brahman, the Supreme Lord, He has got transcendental form, but I'll have to preach that He has no form, nirguṇam." Sarvasvaṁ jagato 'py asya mohanārthaṁ kalau yuge: "In the age of Kali, just to bewilder the persons, I'll have to preach this philosophy." Vedānte tu mahā-śāstre māyāvādam avaidikam: "And, when I shall explain Vedānta, I shall explain everything against Vedas."
Now, the Lord's body is eternal, blissful and full of knowledge, and Śaṅkarācārya says that prākṛta-sattvera vikāra. "This body of Kṛṣṇa or Lord Rāma, when They come," according to Māyāvāda philosophy, that "actually, the Brahman, the Supreme Absolute Truth, has no form, but when They assume form, They take help of this material nature." That is not a fact. They come in Their own spiritual form. That is confirmed by Caitanya Mahāprabhu.
The minute particle, that is called dehi, who has formed this body.
So it is very easily understandable. Unless the original, the spiritual spark, has form, how this form can take place? This is shirt and coat. Just try to understand. If you have no form, then how the shirt and coat can take form? From argument. So therefore, living entity is not formless, neither Kṛṣṇa, or the supreme living entity, is formless. Both of them form, having form, but not this form. This is temporary form. The real form is spiritual form. Therefore nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.13). And Kṛṣṇa also says in the Second Chapter that "Both you and Me and all these soldiers and kings who have assembled before us, they were existing in the past, they are existing now, at present, and they will continue to exist in the future."
So they... From our present experience we can see that all the living entities are in form. Therefore, if they existed in the past, they existed in the past as forms, and they'll continue to exist in the future as forms, there is no question of formlessness. There is no question of form... But because we cannot see the form in these material eyes... Just like there is a form in the body, but when that spirit is passing from this body, we cannot see. A medical man cannot see because he hasn't the eyes to see. But it is not that a jīvātmā is formless. No. He hasn't got the eyes to see. Ataḥ śrī-kṛṣṇa-nāmādi na bhaved grāhyam indriyaiḥ (CC Madhya 17.136). Just like I am seeing you, you are seeing me. But what I am seeing? I am seeing your body, shirt and coat. You are seeing my shirt and coat. But when I pass away from this body or you pass away from this body, neither I can see you, neither you can see me.
So because we cannot see, because we have no such knowledge, therefore we say sometimes that formless. Just like people say generally, "A point has no length, no breadth," because he has no measuring instrument how to see the length and breadth of the point. That is deficiency of knowledge. But anything has length and breadth. That is a fact.
So nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.13). This Vedic version, Upaniad, means that Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Person and we are also persons. We are... What is our position? Eko bahūnāṁ vidadhāti kāmān. We are dependent persons, and He is the maintaining person. So your position is always dependent. Jīvera svarūpa haya nitya kṛṣṇa dāsa (Cc. Madhya 20.108-109). That is the version of Lord Caitanya. And Kṛṣṇa also says.
Now Caitanya Mahāprabhu is explaining what is the identification of Kṛṣṇa. In the beginning He says, kṛṣṇera svarūpa ananta. Kṛṣṇa has form, svarūpa. Kṛṣṇa is not formless, but He has got many millions of forms. Not one form, many millions of forms. But He has form. He is not impersonal. Kṛṣṇera svarūpa ananta. Ananta means unlimited. That is also confirmed in the Brahma-saṁhitā:
- advaitam acyutam anādim ananta-rūpam
- ādyaṁ purāṇa-puruṣaṁ nava-yauvanaṁ ca
- vedeṣu durlabham adurlabham ātma-bhaktau
- govindam ādi-puruṣaṁ tam ahaṁ bhajāmi
- (Bs. 5.33)
The Brahma-saṁhitā says that advaita acyuta. Advaita means although Kṛṣṇa has many forms, many expansions, still, they are one. There is no duality. Just like Kṛṣṇa and Rāma, They are one. They are not different. Similarly, rāmādi-mūrtiṣu kalā-niyamena tiṣṭhan (Bs. 5.39).
That is Kṛṣṇa. Not that He married 16,000 wives, but He remained one. He also expanded Himself sixteen hundred times. That is Kṛṣṇa. He can expand Himself. Rāsa-līlā... Rāsa-līlā, every gopī was feeling that "Kṛṣṇa is dancing with me." So many gopīs. That is Kṛṣṇa. He can expand. But He has got form. He is not formless. The Māyāvādī philosopher thinks because Kṛṣṇa is all-pervading, therefore He has no form. No. That is not fact. He has form, but His form is not like your form and my form. This form is explained in the Brahma-saṁhitā: advaitam acyutam anādim ananta-rūpam (Bs. 5.33). Acyuta. And He does not fall down. Acyuta means thing which does not fall down. So just like we are, we are living entities, we fall down in the clutches of māyā. But Kṛṣṇa does not fall down. The Māyāvādī philosophers mistake that. They think that as we come to this material world with a material body, similarly, Kṛṣṇa also comes with a material body. No. That is not the fact. Therefore Kṛṣṇa says, avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā manuṣīṁ tanum āśritāḥ (BG 9.11).
Even the atom has got its measure. But because we have no power to measure, we set aside, dismiss: "Oh, there is no, nothing." So similarly, "Because we do not know what is spirit, and we think spirit is something just opposite to this matter, and matter we find manifestation, form, therefore spirit should be formless." That is their conclusion.
But actually it is not so. We therefore require to learn from the authority. Kṛṣṇa... Lord Caitanya says, cid-ānanda-deha. Cid-ānanda-deha, the transcendental eternal body. Cid-ānanda-deha and sarvāśraya. Sarvāśraya means He is the rest of everything. Now, you see before you that so many big, big planets, even the sun, it is floating in the air. Such a big body, lump body, which is some million times greater than this earth, we can see it is floating in the sky. So how it is floating? Here it is explained, sarvāśraya. It is floating on Kṛṣṇa's energy. Everything is Kṛṣṇa's energy. Sarvāśraya sarveśvara. Sarveśvara means the Supreme Lord.
Sri Brahma-samhita Lectures
Why it is so? Ānanda-cinmaya-sad-ujjvala-vigrahasya. Vigraha, His form is not like our form. When in the Vedas it is stated, "formless," that means His form is not like our form—not that He is formless. The form is of different quality.
- aṅgāni yasya sakalendriya-vṛtti-manti
- paśyanti pānti kalayanti ciraṁ jaganti
- ānanda-cinmaya-sad-ujjvala-vigrahasya
- (Bs. 5.32)
These are possible when the body is made of ānanda-cinmaya-rasa. This body is material. It is not ānanda-cinmaya-rasa. The material body is different from the spiritual body. That they do not know. So when the Vedas says nirākāra, "formless," that means He has no material form; He has got spiritual form. That spiritual form means full of bliss, ānanda. Ānandamayo 'bhyāsāt (Vedānta-sūtra 1.1.12).
Festival Lectures
The Māyāvādī philosophy is that because God has expanded Himself in so many, all-pervading, therefore he is finished. He is finished. Just like material conception. You take any big paper and make it into pieces and then throw it—the original paper is lost. There is no more existence. That is Māyāvādī philosophy. Māyāvādī philosophy means because God is all-pervading, therefore He has no form. He has finished His form. There cannot be any form. And this is material conception. This is not spiritual conception. Spiritual conception is pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya pūrṇam eva avaśiṣyate (Iso Invocation). If Kṛṣṇa is the complete, supreme, so even He expands Himself in millions and trillions of complete forms, still, He is complete. Still, He's complete. This is conception of Kṛṣṇa. So therefore avyaya. Avyaya means acyuta, avyaya. Acyuta means He does not fall. It is not like that, that in my bank I have got one hundred pounds; if I take one, two, three, four, five in this way, one hundred finished, my bank balance is finished. It is not like that.
Initiation Lectures
Yes. One should not put the Supreme Personality of Godhead... Just like the Māyāvādī says, "The demigods and God, they are all the same." Because according to them, God has no form, so any form you accept, imagine, as the form of God, it is as good. But that is not the fact. There are demigods and the Supreme God also. So we should not place... Just like demigod, Lord Brahmā or Lord Śiva, Indra, Candra, they are demigods. So we should not place... In one sense, there is nothing except God, because everything expansion of God. But that does not mean I am equal to God. I am also expansion of God, that's a fact. Just like father and the son. Son is the expansion of father; still, the son is not the father. Don't mistake that. There is no difference between father and son because the same body is expanded as son, but still, the son is not the father. Father is father, son is son.
This form which we have got just now, this form, when it will be finished, you'll never get this form. Another form. Another. Just like bubbles. Bubbles in the ocean, they come out. You cannot have the exact same bubbles, same measurement. No. That is going on. Similarly, this rūpam is anyathā. This is not our rūpam, our form. Therefore sometimes in Vedic literature it is stated, "formless." Formless does not mean has no form. Not this form. That is formless. But people with less intelligence, they think formless means there's no form. Formless means not this form. This is anyathā rūpam. This is different from our real form. So mukti means to give up this unreal form and accept your real form. Just like freedom from disease. Get free from the diseased condition and come to real healthy life.
Yes. Those who are impersonalists, they think that "After all, the Absolute Truth is void or impersonal. So we can imagine any form." The Māyāvādī philosopher says, sādhakānām hitarthaya brahmaṇo rūpaḥ kalpanaḥ. "Brahman, the Supreme Absolute Truth, He is formless, but because we cannot concentrate our mind in the formless, therefore let us imagine any form we like, and that will make me advance." This is not the philosophy. The Absolute Truth, Supreme Personality of Godhead, He has His form and He is not equal, nobody is equal to Him. So according to Vedic literature, you cannot put Viṣṇu-tattva even on the equal footing with Brahmā and Śiva. His position, Viṣṇu-tattva, is mahato mahīyān. He's the greatest of the greatest. So this is offense. There are many Māyāvādī philosophers, they say "You can chant any name, either Kṛṣṇa or Kali or Durgā or..." And another mission says, "Any nonsense name you can chant. That doesn't matter."
General Lectures
It is a fact that we are in a conditioned life. It is not absolute. And the, Kṛṣṇa, He is absolute. He is never conditioned, as we have explained that the three qualities of this material nature are emanation from Kṛṣṇa, but He is not affected by the qualities. Therefore He is called nirguṇa. Nirguṇa, nirākāra, does not mean that He has no form or He has no quality. He has no material qualities, nor He is affected by the material qualities. And ākāra... He is not nirākāra as we understand. We understand nirākāra means formless. But Kṛṣṇa is not formless. Kṛṣṇa has form. That is transcendental form, sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ (Bs. 5.1). His body is eternal and full of bliss, transcendental bliss, and full of knowledge. That is Kṛṣṇa's feature. So we have also got minute quantity of Kṛṣṇa's qualities because we are minute particles of Kṛṣṇa, but that is now covered by māyā. This māyā means... When we forget our actual relationship with Kṛṣṇa, that is called māyā, false egotism. Falsely I am thinking that "I am American," "I am Indian," "I am brāhmaṇa," "I am this," "I am that."
The ocean is abiding by His order. Everything under His order, everything going on nicely, without any change. How you can say God is dead? If there is some mismanagement, you can say there is no government, but if there is nice management, how you can say there is no government? So God is there. You do not know God. Therefore some of you say that "God is dead," "There is no God," "God has no form," "God is zero," so many things. But no. We are firmly convinced that there is God, and Kṛṣṇa is God, and we are worshiping Him. That is Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. Try to understand it. Thank you very much...
And ānanda. He's full of joyfulness. In the Vedānta-sūtra it is said, ānandamayo 'bhyāsāt (Vedānta-sūtra 1.1.12). The Supreme Person is always joyful, abhyāsāt, naturally. So our, this body is not ānandamaya; it is, rather, always miserable. Therefore we must distinct the body of the Supreme Person from our body.
When sometimes in the Vedic literature it is explained as God has no form, that does not mean He has no form. He has a form which is different from this form. Nirākāra. Nirākāra means not this ākāra. We can distinguish. Because in the śāstra it is said that sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ (Bs. 5.1), "eternal, blissful and fully cognizant." He knows everything. Just like in the Bhagavad-gītā it is said, vedāhaṁ samatītāni (BG 7.26). Kṛṣṇa says, "I know everything, past, present and future." That is knowledge. In the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam it is also stated, janmādy asya yataḥ anvayād itarataś ca artheṣu abhijñaḥ (SB 1.1.1). Abhijñaḥ: He knows everything. In the Bhagavad-gītā it is said also: kṣetra-jñaṁ cāpi māṁ viddhi sarva-kṣetreṣu bhārata. Kṣetrajñaḥ.
That is another thing. But Godhead, that is explained in the Vedic literature, īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ. This is explanation. Īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ, the Supreme Personality of Godhead is Kṛṣṇa. And how is He? Sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ (Bs. 5.1). He has got His form. God is not formless. Vigraha. Vigraha means form. But what kind of form? Sat-cid-ānanda. Sat means eternal, cit means full of knowledge, and ānanda means full of bliss. You find that form, Kṛṣṇa's picture, always blissful, ānanda. You'll see here is Kṛṣṇa's picture. Here He's enjoying with his pleasure potency, Rādhārāṇī. That is His own potency. When Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa is Para-brahman, described, paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān (BG 10.12). When Arjuna understood Bhagavad-gītā, he said..., he addressed Kṛṣṇa not as Kṛṣṇa. Before that he was addressing Kṛṣṇa, because he is friend. Now when he understood Bhagavad-gītā, he understood Kṛṣṇa also.
One who has actually seen or actually realized the truth, you have to take knowledge from there. So we have to approach such person. Otherwise, if we approach some speculator, we cannot get real knowledge. So those who are speculators, they cannot understand what is God. Therefore they commit mistake that "God is like this," "God like that," "There is no God," "There is no form." All these nonsense things are proposed, because they are imperfect. Bhagavān therefore said, avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritāḥ (BG 9.11). Because He comes for our benefit in the human form, the fools and rascals consider Him as ordinary person. If Bhagavān says, ahaṁ bīja-pradaḥ pitā (BG 14.4), "I am the seed-giving father," so we, every one of us, we know that my father is person, his father is person, his father is person, and why the Supreme Person or the supreme father should become imperson? Why? And therefore we have to learn from Bhagavān, the Supreme Person, full knowledge. This Bhagavad-gītā is therefore full knowledge from the full Personality of Godhead.
There are many persons within this world, they are trying to understand what is God. (aside:) What is...? (break) When you want to study me by speculation, it is not perfect. But if I speak myself about my career, my position, they you can understand very easily. So the speculators, they are thinking that "God has no form. You can imagine any form of the Lord and try to worship Him." That is speculator. (break) ... Another type of atheism. The atheists, they say, Śūnyavādī, "There is no God." But these Māyāvādī, they say, "Yes there is God, but He has no head, no leg, no mouth, nothing." Means, indirectly, they are saying there is not God.
So Caitanya Mahāprabhu has therefore clearly said that this Māyāvādī, nirākāravādī, is more dangerous than the Śūnyavādī. Śūnyavādī, they publicly declare, "There is no God," just like modern population, that "There is no need of God." Asatyam aprathiṣṭhaṁ te jagad āhur anīśvaram (BG 16.8). That is also described in the Bhagavad-gītā. The atheist class, they say that "This world is asatya.
Philosophy Discussions
Prabhupāda: By speculation, the real world for them is negation of this world. That is voidism. I am experiencing everything here material, so this material thinking and other material thinking induces him to conclude that it must be opposite. It must be opposite. This is material. So spiritual means not this form, or formless, or void. So that is also material thinking. Just the opposite number.
Śyāmasundara: He is still proceeding in his method. He comes to some good conclusions. He is trying to understand what makes men's minds work. He says that "Thus this real world becomes an ideal construction in the mind of man."
Prabhupāda: Yes. Ideal construction... Here we are frustrated because everything is temporary; therefore ideal is eternal. That much we can understand. Temporary. Just like I want to live; that is my tendency. Nobody wants to die. But I am hopeless, because this body is not eternal. Therefore ideal life is eternal body.
Prabhupāda: Then you make images. You make images, but when you make images, that is also earth. And when it is broken, that is also earth. And originally it is earth. Sarvam khalv idaṁ brahma. The three conditions: formless condition, form, and again, what it is called-merging. In three conditions it is earth. Aham evāsam evāgre, in the Bhāgavata Kṛṣṇa says, "I existed in the beginning of creation, I maintain the creation, and when the creation is broken, I exist."
Kīrtanānanda: But that's what the Māyāvādīs, they say that all of these forms, all form is māyā.
Prabhupāda: Yes, we say temporary, they say māyā.
Kīrtanānanda: So we also say that there is spiritual world full of form, and that is not-
Prabhupāda: Yes. That they do not know. That is their ignorance. We say wherefrom this form came, who gave this idea? The Vedānta says janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1), the origin, from the original source it comes.
Prabhupāda: Yes. Like the same example, just like the earth when it comes to form it is also earth, and if there is no form, that is also earth. The earth remains always. Therefore spiritual energy. The sky is sky, but when there is cloud you'll say there's no big sky, it has become shortened or something like that; you cannot see. So cloud comes, and if there is no cloud, a sky, sky is always there.
Kīrtanānanda: It is both, isn't it Śrīla Prabhupāda, it is both material and spiritual. In essence it is spiritual.
Prabhupāda: Essence is spiritual, that's it. But my imperfect vision makes it material.
Śyāmasundara: His idea, too, is that everything has a purpose, the whole universe is rational.
Śyāmasundara: ...research. They found that atomic particles vibrate at a certain frequency, a certain rate of vibration, and that elements such as lead, iron, all the different chemical elements, disintegrate gradually. The atomic particles vibrate out of the element and change the structure of the element gradually, and this is a constant—what they call—life of the element, and the constant number of years before it disintegrates into some other element. So this life they have measured, and they have a table or a chart, and by this half-life formula they can determine how old a rock is by how quickly the isotopes are disintegrating. So according to their calculation, the layers of the earth go down for many millions of years; and in those lower layers, millions of years old, there is either no form of life or very, very simple forms of life only. There is no evidence of any complex forms.
Prabhupāda: Bolo... (Bengali—to Svarūpa Dāmodara)
Prabhupāda: Yes. Yes. It is forced by the energy. Matter has no form, but by the superior energy, the living entity (indistinct) mixed up (indistinct) matter and make the form. Just like a (indistinct) plate, clay, water, and fire. So the potter makes a form from the clay. Clay means earth and water, mixed up, and it makes a pot and then puts it with fire and it becomes a glass and so on. So tejo-vāri-mṛdāṁ vinimayam. It is simply exchange of earth, water, and fire. But this mixture is being made by the potter. And the instrument is the potter's wheel. So similarly, God is the potter, and the material nature is the wheel, and so many things are coming out. But if there is no potter to turn the wheel or make the clay into pots, this is not (indistinct). There is already water, there is already earth, there is already fire, but unless a spirit, a being, a living being, comes into it, there is no question of (indistinct). Therefore in Bhagavad-gītā it is said, (indistinct). Because the living entities are there, the formation is taking place. A (indistinct), it is a combination of matter. But because we see that the living entity is there, it is taking a certain type of shape. Matter does not out of itself take the shape. That is wrong theory. We have no such experience where matter is taking automatically shape. (indistinct). Is there any exception?
Prabhupāda: That is from Vedic same. As soon as there is instruction there is form. As Kṛṣṇa is giving instruction, He is always saying "I," "you," like that, it is personal. He says Arjuna, "You," and He says Himself, "I." So Arjuna is also form and Kṛṣṇa is also form, and Kṛṣṇa also says that "Both you, Me, and all these living entities, kings and soldiers who are assembled here, they existed in the past, they are existing now, and they will continue to exist." So you can understand that "In the present I am in form, so I existed in the past in form and I shall continue to exist in the future as form. So where is formless?" From my present position I can understand my past and future. So Kṛṣṇa says that we existed in the past. So we existing now, now I mean to say, continuing. He never said that "In the past we were formless; now we have got form." This is not stated there. Rather, He condemns, that avyaktaṁ vyaktim āpannam manyante mām abuddhayaḥ (BG 7.24): "In the past I was formless, impersonal, and now I am a person," that is Māyāvādī thought, that when God takes the form, He takes the form of māyā. So they have been condemned as abuddhayaḥ, no intelligence. Avyaktaṁ vyaktiṁ āpannaṁ manyante mām abuddhayaḥ (BG 7.24). Those who have less intelligence, they think like that, that "God was formerly formless, now He is talking in form, that means He has accepted the body of māyā." This is called Māyāvāda philosophy.
Prabhupāda: Yes. The mat..., matter has no form. The spirit soul has got form. Though the matter is covering the actual form of the spirit soul, the matter appears to have form. Just like the original cloth has no form, but when the tailor cuts the cloth according to the body of the person, then the shirt and coat takes a form. The matter itself has no form. When you take clay, it has no form, but if you make it like a doll, like a man or woman, then it has a form. When the change the clay, and you manufacture a fort, then the fort has form. So form and formlessness is of the matter, but in the spiritual world everything has got form. The spirit soul has got form. God has got form. This is the truth.
Prabhupāda: No. The form..., material body is imitation, is false. Real body is the spiritual body. Because the spiritual body has form, the coating of the spiritual body by matter takes a form, as I have already explained, that the shirt and coat originally has no form, but when the shirt and coat is cut by the tailor according the form of the man, it takes a form. So actually this material form is illusion. It is not form. It, it takes the form, and when it is old enough, no more use, it again comes to the original position, earth. "Dust thou art, dust thou beist." This form is made by the material nature. It is just like a machine. Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā, bhrāmayan sarva-bhūtāni yantrārūḍhāni māyayā (BG 18.61). The soul has its own form, but he is given a machine, a particular machine, which is this body, and therefore he enjoys by wandering throughout the whole universe in different conditions of life.
Prabhupāda: Original form, that is the form of the spirit.
Hayagrīva: Of the spirit.
Prabhupāda: Yes. And the form of the body takes place on account of the form of the spirit. This is very nice example. The cloth has no form, but when it is cut according to the form of the gentleman, it takes a form. Similarly, matter has no form. When it is coated on the spiritual form of the soul, it takes the form. This is very easy to understand.
Hayagrīva: To get on to another point, Aquinas believed, or rather he opposed sex for any purpose other than the begetting of children, and not only should sex be used only for the begetting of children, but that when one begets children one takes the responsibility of giving them a spiritual education.
| Page Title: | Formless (Lectures) |
| Compiler: | Visnu Murti, RupaManjari |
| Created: | 22 of Jun, 2012 |
| Totals by Section: | BG=0, SB=0, CC=0, OB=0, Lec=117, Con=0, Let=0 |
| No. of Quotes: | 117 |