View source for Simultaneously the father, the son and the grandson are one and different also. As human beings they are one, but as relativities they are different

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"Simultaneously the father, the son and the grandson are one and different also. As human beings they are one, but as relativities they are different"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|Iswaraj}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|2020-07-02T16:34:18Z}}
{{last|2020-07-02T16:34:18Z}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=1|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=0|Con=0|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:Father]]
[[Category:Son]]
[[Category:Grandson]]
[[Category:Simultaneously One and Different]]
[[Category:Human Beings]]
[[Category:They Are]]
[[Category:Relative]]
[[Category:Srimad-Bhagavatam, Canto 02 Chapter 09 Purports - Answers by Citing the Lord's Version]]
[[Category:Srimad Bhagavatam, Canto 02 Purports]]
</div>
<div id="section">
<h2>Srimad-Bhagavatam</h2>
</div>
<div id="sub_section">
<h3>SB Canto 2</h3>
</div>
<div class="quote">
<div class="quote_heading">
Simultaneously the father, the son and the grandson are one and different also. As human beings they are one, but as relativities they are different. Therefore the relativities of the creator and the created or the predominator and the predominated have been differentiated in the Vedas by saying that the predominator "I" is the feeder of the predominated "I's," and thus there is a vast difference between the two principles of "I.".
</div>

<div class="quote_link">
[[Vanisource:SB 2.9.33|SB 2.9.33, Translation and Purport]]
</div>
<div class="quote_translation">
Brahmā, it is I, the Personality of Godhead, who was existing before the creation, when there was nothing but Myself. Nor was there the material nature, the cause of this creation. That which you see now is also I, the Personality of Godhead, and after annihilation what remains will also be I, the Personality of Godhead.
</div>
<div class="text">
We should note very carefully that the Personality of Godhead is addressing Lord Brahmā and specifying with great emphasis Himself, pointing out that it is He, the Personality of Godhead, who existed before the creation, it is He only who maintains the creation, and it is He only who remains after the annihilation of the creation. Brahmā is also a creation of the Supreme Lord. The impersonalist puts forth the theory of oneness in the sense that Brahmā, also being the same principle of "I" because he is an emanation from the I, the Absolute Truth, is identical with the Lord, the principle of I, and that there is thus nothing more than the principle of I, as explained in this verse. Accepting the argument of the impersonalist, it is to be admitted that the Lord is the creator I and that the Brahmā is the created I. Therefore there is a difference between the two "I's," namely the predominator I and the predominated I. Therefore there are still two I's, even accepting the argument of the impersonalist. But we must note carefully that these two I's are accepted in the Vedic literature (Kaṭhopaniṣad) in the sense of quality. The Kaṭhopaniṣad says:

<div class="quote_verse">
:nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām
:eko bahūnāṁ yo vidadhāti kāmān
</div>

The creator "I" and the created "I" are both accepted in the Vedas as qualitatively one because both of them are nityas and cetanas. But the singular "I" is the creator "I," and the created "I's" are of plural number because there are many "I's" like Brahmā and those generated by Brahmā. It is the simple truth. The father creates or begets a son, and the son also creates many other sons, and all of them may be one as human beings, but at the same time from the father, the son and the grandsons are all different. The son cannot take the place of the father, nor can the grandsons. Simultaneously the father, the son and the grandson are one and different also. As human beings they are one, but as relativities they are different. Therefore the relativities of the creator and the created or the predominator and the predominated have been differentiated in the Vedas by saying that the predominator "I" is the feeder of the predominated "I's," and thus there is a vast difference between the two principles of "I."

In another feature of this verse, no one can deny the personalities of both the Lord and Brahmā. Therefore in the ultimate issue both the predominator and predominated are persons. This conclusion refutes the conclusion of the impersonalist that in the ultimate issue everything is impersonal. This impersonal feature stressed by the less intelligent impersonalist school is refuted by pointing out that the predominator "I" is the Absolute Truth and that He is a person. The predominated "I," Brahmā, is also a person, but he is not the Absolute. For realization of one's self in spiritual psychology it may be convenient to assume oneself to be the same principle as the Absolute Truth, but there is always the difference of the predominated and the predominator, as clearly pointed out here in this verse, which is grossly misused by the impersonalists. Brahmā is factually seeing face to face his predominator Lord, who exists in His transcendental eternal form, even after the annihilation of the material creation. The form of the Lord, as seen by Brahmā, existed before the creation of Brahmā, and the material manifestation with all the ingredients and agents of material creation are also energetic expansions of the Lord, and after the exhibition of the Lord's energy comes to a close, what remains is the same Personality of Godhead. Therefore the form of the Lord exists in all circumstances of creation, maintenance and annihilation. The Vedic hymns confirm this fact in the statement vāsudevo vā idam agra āsīn na brahmā na ca śaṅkara eko nārāyaṇa āsīn na brahmā neśāna, etc. Before the creation there was none except Vāsudeva. There was neither Brahmā nor Śaṅkara. Only Nārāyaṇa was there and no one else, neither Brahmā nor Īśāna. Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya also confirms in his comments on the Bhagavad-gītā that Nārāyaṇa, or the Personality of Godhead, is transcendental to all creation, but that the whole creation is the product of avyakta. Therefore the difference between the created and the creator is always there, although both the creator and created are of the same quality.
</div>
</div>
</div>