Lecture
given by H.H. Suhotra Swami
on Bhagavad-gita
2.29,
recorded
on 22nd October 1992
in Heidelberg , Germany
äçcarya-vat paçyati kaçcid
enam
äçcarya-vad vadati tathaiva
cänyaù
äçcarya-vac cainam anyaù
çåëoti
çrutväpy enaà veda na caiva
kalcit
TRANSLATION
Some look on the soul as
amazing, some describe him as amazing, and some hear of him as amazing, while
others, even after hearing about him, cannot understand him at all.
PURPORT
Since Gétopaniñad is largely based on the principles of the Upaniñads,
it is not surprising to also find this passage in the Kaöha Upaniñad (1.2.7):
çravaëayäpi bahubhir yo na
labhyaù
çåëvanto 'pi bahavo yaà na
vidyuù
äçcaryo vaktä kuçalo 'sya
labdhä
äçcaryo 'sya jïätä
kuçalänuçiñöaù
The fact that the atomic soul is within the body of a gigantic animal,
in the body of a gigantic banyan tree, and also in the microbic germs, millions
and billions of which occupy only an inch of space, is certainly very amazing.
Men with a poor fund of knowledge and men who are not austere cannot understand
the wonders of the individual atomic spark of spirit, even though it is
explained by the greatest authority of knowledge, who imparted lessons even to
Brahmä, the first living being in the universe. Owing to a gross material
conception of things, most men in this age cannot imagine how such a small
particle can become both so great and so small. So men look at the soul proper
as wonderful either by constitution or by description. Illusioned by the
material energy, people are so engrossed in subject matters for sense
gratification that they have very little time to understand the question of
self-understanding, even though it is a fact that without this
self-understanding all activities result in ultimate defeat in the struggle for
existence. Perhaps they have no idea that one must think of the soul, and thus
make a solution to the material miseries.
Some people who are inclined to hear about the soul may be attending
lectures, in good association, but sometimes, owing to ignorance, they are
misguided by acceptance of the Supersoul and the atomic soul as one without
distinction of magnitude. It is very difficult to find a man who perfectly
understands the position of the Supersoul, the atomic soul, their respective functions
and relationships and all other major and minor details. And it is still more
difficult to find a man who has actually derived full benefit from knowledge of
the soul, and who is able to describe the position of the soul in different
aspects. But if, somehow or other, one is able to understand the subject matter
of the soul, then one's life is successful.
The easiest process for understanding the subject matter of self,
however, is to accept the statements of the Bhagavad-gétä spoken by the greatest
authority, Lord Kåñëa, without being deviated by other theories. But it also
requires a great deal of penance and sacrifice, either in this life or in the
previous ones, before one is able to accept Kåñëa as the Supreme Personality of
Godhead. Kåñëa can, however, be known as such by the causeless mercy of the
pure devotee and by no other way.
LECTURE BY HH SUHOTRA SWAMI:
So this verse and purport
reminds me of Srila Prabhupada’s appreciation for the Greek philosopher
Socrates. Prabhupada said in the whole history of the western civilization
there was only one philosopher. Socrates. Because he was a mukta purusha, he was a librated
soul. So Socrates was much appreciated by Srila Prabhupada, because he was
preaching atma jnana, he was
preaching this very knowledge of the soul, which is presented here in the second
chapter of the Bhagavad-gita, but he was preaching to an audience in the
ancient Greece and Athens Athens Athens
So in spite of his
brilliant explanations, he was sentenced to death and he was even asked at his
trial. “So Socrates, you’ll have to die by drinking hemlock.” That was the
means of execution in those days, hemlock is a poison. So one would be placed
in prison and on an appointed day the cup of hemlock would be brought to him
and he would have to drink it. So he was asked: “When you drink the hemlock and
you die, how do you want to be buried? In what way shall we dispose of you?”
And Socrates said: “You can dispose of me if you can catch me.” Prabhupada always
appreciated that very much. He went to say that if you mean me, that means the
soul. So you can dispose of me, bury me or burn me or whatever you want to do,
if you can catch me. And as far as the body is concerned, who cares anyway?
This was his attitude. So Socrates’ most famous disciple was Plato. So Plato wrote down all the
teachings of Socrates, that’s how we know them today. So one of his very famous
works is called “The Last Days of Socrates” which describes his trial and it
describes how Socrates met his end, the end of this body anyway, by drinking
the hemlock. So at that last day Socrates was preaching about the soul. All his
disciples, he, Socrates was married, so he had a wife, she was there too and she
was crying. Some of the disciples were crying and some were trying to stop from
crying and Socrates was saying: “Why are you crying? And he was explaining them
very nicely about the soul and about how he was actually welcoming death as
release. Socrates was not only situated in atma jnana, the knowledge of the soul, but he knew something
about God too. At least we can say he was Supersoul realized because he used to
say, that what I speak comes from within, from the Lord within me. He said
throughout my whole life I have been guided from within, so that when I was
faced with an opportunity to do right or wrong, if I would even think of doing
something wrong, this voice, this presence within my heart would say: “No,
Socrates, you cannot do this.” And I was, he said, the difference between
myself and other men, is that I would always listen to that voice, I would
always follow. So Socrates was telling them: “By the grace of God I will meet
God after the end of this body. So why do you lament like this?”
So his explanations were
very brilliant and convinced everyone there except two persons. One was named
Simyas (?), who is a follower of system of philosophy called the pythagorean system.
There is Pythagorean mathematics known
today. So Pythagoras was a mystic who lived long before Socrates, he is from Egypt , he is said to live in Alexandria
or some place, I don’t know Egypt
This is an example here, I
just want to bring us back to this verse for a moment – srutvapy enam veda na caiva kascit. The soul is such, the
subject of the soul is so amazing to people caught up in the material
consciousness, that even after they hear about the soul from one who is
realized in the soul, these people who are absorbed in the gross body they fail
to understand. These two persons, Simyas and Sebes, they could not understand
even after hearing Socrates explain so nicely. Socrates asked both of them: “You
please explain to me what your judgement are to what I have said. What is your
philosophical standpoint?” So they both put forward some arguments.
And it’s interesting that
their arguments we can discuss in the light of some verses of the
Bhagavad-gita. So for Simyas we can turn to chapter two text seventeen. Krishna says here: “That which pervades the entire body
you should know to be indestructible. No one is able to destroy that
imperishable soul.” Now what is interesting is that Simyas, he accepted part of
this statement, the first part. Just like both Simyas and Sebes they said to
Socrates: “Some of what you say we accept, but not the conclusion.” So Krishna here is saying that the soul pervades the entire
body, but then the conclusion is you should know that to be indestructible. So
Simyas accepted that there is a soul and that it pervades the entire body, but
he could not accept that it’s indestructible because he was a follower of
Pythagoras. In this Pythagorean idea of the soul the body is a composite of
balances. There are so many different factors in the body and they all are
balanced very, very finely. So the Pythagoreans take that very balance to be
the soul and they make a comparison, like a musical instrument, violin for
instance. What is a violin, it’s an
arrangement of wood and ivory and strings. And then, when the violin is
properly tuned, then there’s that mysterious quality, that you can say,
incorporeal quality. It is not a physical quality. We see the Pythagoreans
accept that the soul is not physical. So when the instrument is finely tuned
that quality of being tuned, when you plug the string, then a certain note is
sounded. That is invisible incorporeal and it is also splendid and for those
who like music they will say: “It is divine, very beautiful.” Yes, so they will
agree with all these points, it is so nice, but when the instrument breaks, if
the violin is broken, if the strings pop out of the frame then the tuning is
finished forever. This was his argument that that which we call soul, yes it is
there, it is invisible, it is incorporeal, it cannot be found in anything
physical and yet in the same time it’s existence depends upon the fine tuning of
the body. And when the body is finished, the soul is finished. So that was
Simyas’s argument.
Then Sebes, he had an argument
which pertains to the 22nd verse of 2nd chapter of Bhagavad-gita.
This verse reads: “As a person puts on new garments giving up old ones the soul
similarly accepts new material bodies giving up the old and useless ones.” So
Sebes agreed with that. He said, just like Krishna
says in the Bhagavad-gita, that kaumaram
yauvnam jara. We are accepting youthful bodies or a child body, then
youth body then old body. So Sebes said: “Yes, so similarly, the soul is
accepting a succession of bodies in this life,” but then actually he was using
this very same analogy, he said: “Just like a human being in his life, he is
putting on clothes and the clothes are wearing out, or he is getting tired of
them or whatever and than he is changing his clothes, he is putting on new clothes.
And throughout his life he is changing his clothes. But at the end of his life
he dies and than he doesn’t put on any more clothes.” Sebes said: “So just like
that the soul is moving through a succession of bodies and the soul is indeed
outliving because the soul is powerful, so the soul is outliving one body after
another, but at some point in the life the soul itself dies and then you don’t
see the soul taking on any more bodies.” Clever, huh?
Actually it was so clever
that all the people in the room except for Socrates, they were amazed by these
arguments and they said to Socrates: “Socrates, we were convinced by everything
you were saying, but now that we heard these two, we’ve lost all of our faith.”
This shows what kind of people he was teaching. So then this work “Last days of
Socrates” is very humorous actually, Socrates engages in some joking, some
patting of heads, “Oh, you are a good boy to come up with such nice arguments”
and then he proceeded to smash them completely in just a few words. The way he
took care of the first argument about the tuning of the instrument with violin
comparison between finely tuned instrument and the balances within the body is
that he asked Simyas: “So clearly from your example than that which you call
the soul is totally subordinate to the body, isn’t it? Just like the tuning of
an instrument depends on the instrument entirely. The way the physical set up
of the instrument is done, that will depend on the tuning. There’s no
independence of this which you call soul from the body.” And Simyas, he agreed.
So then Socrates asked him: “Then how do you explain the soul’s exertion
against the dictates of the body?” For instance, not even to discuss about
those who are on the spiritual path endeavoring to control their senses for
spiritual advancement, even among the sense enjoyers, even among the karmis, when
they are hungry due to whatever reasons, even it may be he is just working at
his job and his stomach is rumbling, but he controls it. He says: “No, I can’t
eat now I have to wait till the lunch hour. Otherwise I may lose my job. I’m
not supposed to eat.” And, in some other case, even among materialists he may
be sleepy, but he forces himself to stay awake and someone may be lusty
desiring sex, but he cannot do it because he is on the bus, all kinds of people
standing there. So he has to wait till he gets home. And someone else for some
reason the urge is there, the bodily response is there to defend oneself
because he is just been slapped in the face but he controls himself – don’t do
anything because the person who slapped him is twice as big as him. So even
among materialists they control the tendencies of the body. So if the soul, if
the consciousness is completely subordinate to the body than how is that
possible? For instance we do not see an instrument tuning itself. If we have a
nicely tuned violin, there is no way, that the violin did that itself.
Obviously some conscious entity picked up the violin and turned the keys and
plugged the strings and got it to a right tune. It is actually through
consciousness that we appreciate that an instrument is tuned or not tuned. So
consciousness is actually opposing the nature of the body, even among material,
materialists. In order for this material society to go on, the consciousness of
even the karmis, you’ll see if you examine what’s going on for the most part
the karmis are opposing their bodily urges. For the most part. They have to,
otherwise how will life go on?
Just like yesterday we were
riding from Italy , from
Milano, and actually yeah, we came from the temple in Bergamo Germany Krishna
consciousness – no meat eating under any circumstances, no illicit sex, no
gambling, no intoxication ever. So this is done by the soul, by the consciousness.
Therefore Simyas, he had to
agree that the soul has to be more than just the balances of the body. Because if
it would be only something under the control of the body, then whatever the
body desired, whatever urges appear within the body must be carried out
immediately. Then for the next argument by Sebes, Socrates had a really
interesting dialectic. So he asked Sebes: “Is fire hot?” Sebes said . “Yes.”
“Is snow cold?” “Yes, snow is cold” “And are fire and snow opposites in
quality?” That means to say: “If you bring fire and snow together, if you build
the fire, make a fire place out in a snowy field and light the fire, will the
snow become hot? Will you see hot snow? Or will you see cold fire? He said:
“No.” “So they are absolutely opposite, they cannot coexist. The qualities of
fire and the quality of snow can never coexist, is it not?” So Sebes said: “I
do agree.” Then Socrates asked Sebes: “So now what of this body, are the
elements of this body - we are just talking about the constituent elements of
this body - are they dead?” And he had to admit: “Yes, they’re dead.” And then
he asked: “What brings life to the body?” And, because Sebes he did accept the
soul, but under his own terms, that the soul can die, he said: “The soul brings
life to the body.” And then Socrates asked: “So, but still the body remains,
the elements of the body remain dead, is it not?” He said. “Yes.” So the soul
and the body are always distinct, they are always opposite, is it not?” “Yes.”
So then Socrates asked: “So the body and soul are opposite and you‘ve said that
the elements of the body are always dead. And you’ve said that the soul brings
life to the body. So we must conclude that therefore the soul must also be
always alive if they are opposite in every way.” And Sebes had to say: “Yes.
Logically you are right, Socrates.” “So when the soul leaves the body, the body
is a lump of dead matter, is it not? Which rots away and transforms into other
material forms, earth and so on.” “Yes.” “So what of the soul? Wouldn’t you
agree that soul must continue to exist?” “Yes, Socrates, I have to agree.”
So in this way Socrates
actually simply by common sense he established that the soul being alive must
always be alive. Just as the body being dead is always dead. This is common
sense. But the problem is, the difficulty people have in understanding this is
that because of lust they want the body to be the living self, because they
want to enjoy. Who are they? They are the soul, they are the life force, they
are the consciousness. But they want to enjoy matter which is dead. So, in
order to do this they have to think of themselves as dead matter. But because
they are alive, they can’t think of themselves as dead, so they think that
matter is alive. The body is actually the life itself. Now as soon as you
entertain the dead material elements are actually alive, then, if you have also
in your philosophy, your strange hodge-podge philosophy some idea of soul, as
soon as you can think that the body is actually alive, then you can also
entertain that the soul may die, isn’t it? Because you’ve created one illogical
equation by your lusty desire, so that automatically creates another, that the
soul, the consciousness, may die. So this is due to lust.
And Prabhupada here also in
the purport says that people who identify with the body, they cannot understand
how the soul can be great and small. Prabhupada gave examples of how the atomic
soul is within the body of gigantic animal, the body of gigantic banyan tree
and also in the microbic germs, millions and billions of which occupy only an
inch of space. So they find this amazing, this makes them disbelieve in the
soul or makes the soul something that is just beyond their comprehension. And
the fact is that the soul is beyond that comprehension that they are using,
because in Bhagavad-gita 2.18, also in this chapter, Krishna
uses a term for the soul – aprameya. Aprameya
means immeasurable. A soul cannot be measured. Antavanta ime deha – the material body, deha, antavanta – that has an end. Now in this verse it means an
end in time. These bodies will perish. But also anta can refer to end in space. So the bodies have their
existence measurable in time
but also measurable in space. So we see as Prabhupada mentions here – some very
great bodies – elephant body, banyan tree, and very small bodies. So this is
all prameya, this is all measurement.
Measurement pertains as Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Maharaja said in a magazine
interview in India
Now, you may say, but the
soul is described as atomic in size. Yes, smaller than the smallest,
immeasurably small. This example of taking the tip of a hair and dividing it
into a hundred parts and then dividing each one of those parts into a hundred, Prabhupada
explains, that it’s to illustrate that the soul is immeasurably small. Just
like Krishna is immeasurably great, but the
point is both are immeasurable. Immeasurable means that it cannot be understood
in terms of these immeasurable bodies. So the soul, the consciousness of the
soul, can pervade as great or as small body you would like to give it. The body
of Brahma, it is said that the whole universe is the width of I think something
like seven hands of Lord Brahma. That information is given in Srimad
Bhagavatam. So that’s how big Brahma is. And then there are of course microbic germs. So jiva’s consciousness can pervade any
body you like within creation. Why?
Because it is fundamentally immeasurable. But this jiva is called anu – immeasurably small, whereas the
Lord, Krishna is called vibhu, He is immeasurably great. So
from the pores of the body of Lord Mahavisnu are streaming countless universes.
Anyone universe is beyond our power of comprehension.
Today scientists with all
of their telescopes and instruments have failed to find the limit of this
universe. So anyone of these universes is beyond our comprehension, what to
speak of trying to understand how there are limitless number of universes. And
they’re all coming out of the pores of Mahavisnu. So this is inconceivable. This
is another point here, Srila Prabhupada says that there are those who hear
about the soul, they attain lectures in good association but sometimes due to
ignorance they’re misguided by acceptance of the Supersoul and the atomic soul
as one without distinction of magnitude. Now this is another point here that
such persons had become a little acquainted with the soul, but now they are
amazed about the Supersoul. In other words understanding the soul is one thing,
but then understanding where everything comes from, where this existence, this
vast material existence, what the origin is, how it is maintained, that is
amazing. So they become amazed and bewildered by that and in their bewilderment
they may wrongly assume that somehow the soul, the individual soul, is
responsible for the origin, the maintenance and the destruction of the entire
cosmic manifestation. But the point is this amazement, this bewilderment, this
in itself is the evidence of the distinction between the soul and the
Supersoul.
Because as far as Krishna is concerned, Bhagavatam says, He is avismita, avismitam tam. He is avismitam tam pari purna kamam svena
labhyena, so He is, first of all avismita
means He is never amazed by anything because Krishna is perfectly
situated in complete knowledge of everything, so there is nothing to surprise
Krishna. Pari purna kamam, all
of His desires, kama
means desires, they fulfill themselves. Krishna
has a name satya sankalpa, it
means as soon as He has a desire it is fulfilled. In other words, wherever Krishna ’s desires are, that is what we call reality. There
is not even a microscopic difference between Krishna ’s
desires and that what is. So He is pari
purna kamam. All of His desires they’re fulfilled in themselves.
Svenaiva labhena samam. So He is completely satisfied in His own
transcendental glories, He is samam, He
is always equipoised and prasanta
means He is supremely peaceful, supremely satisfied. Why? Simply because He is Krishna . This is Krishna .
This is why the jiva is not Krishna and that’s a fact. As far as the jiva is concerned, there is only one
way for the jiva to become santi, to become peaceful, to become
satisfied and that is to become Krishna
bhakta. Krishna bhakta niskama ataeva santa, because the
Krishna bhakta, because he is a devotee of Krishna, he has taken shelter of Krishna,
therefore he has surrendered all his desires to Krishna – this is the meaning
of taking shelter of Krishna .
Prabhupada explained it
once very nicely – he said just like when a son has surrendered to the father,
the son may have desires, but he makes no endeavor to fulfill them outside of
his dependence upon the father. So the son may go to the father, Prabhupada gave
a nice example, he said the son may have a desire, small son may have a desire
to see a certain film, Arnold Schwarzenegger film, which is playing in town.
The son would like to see this film. He goes to the father and he says: “My
dear father, there is a new Schwarzenegger film in town, may we go see it?” And
the father says: “Yes, we can go.” Then the son is very happy to go and he goes
under the protection of the father and he is actually taken care of completely
by the father. The father brings in the son and says: “Would you like some
popcorn?” “Oh, yes.” Then let us take popcorn. So the father provides
everything. And they enjoy the film together. And actually for the son the film
becomes much more enjoyable. He enjoys to see that father is enjoying this
film. “It was my suggestion,” the son is thinking. “It was by my suggestion
that we came into this movie house and I am so happy to see that father likes
the film.” So the son is enjoying, but he is enjoying doubly, because the
father is also enjoying. So his satisfaction is so much greater. So this is a
good son.
Of course a bad son, than
he may not ask the father at all or the father says no, than he breaks into the
city bank, steals the money, goes to the theatre anyway, comes back and gets
caught. That happened to me once when I was about seven years old, I wanted to
see one cowboy film, my parents did not want me to see it. So somehow I got
some money and I went to see it anyway and when I came back, because some
friend of mine had also been at the showing of that film, so when I came back,
I came back with the friend, we were talking about the film and I forgot, I
mean I was so absorbed in talking about the film and I walked into my house
with the friend, we were talking about the film and my mother was there and she
was listening to us and she said: “So, you saw this film anyway, did you?” And
then I was in trouble. So that’s what happens. When the living entity separates
his desires from Krishna , then he is in
trouble. So surrendering to Krishna means to
surrender the desires and therefore one becomes niskama. Krishna bhakta niskama. Then he has no
desires of his own. His own desires are…
