Are We Willing To Hang for Our Ideals?

Śrīla Prabhupāda and Prof. Phaṇibhūṣaṇa Adhikārī

By Swami Bhaktivijñāna GiriPublished On: June 5, 2026Tags: Śāstra15.2 min read

Overview

Brahmā explains that the Supreme Lord cannot be fully perceived by the material senses, mind, or intellect, and can only be known when He reveals Himself through bhakti. Thus, realisation comes through surrender and purified spiritual perception – not speculation or scholarship. He further teaches that although the Lord cannot be completely fully described by words, He is not impersonal or unknowable.

Articles in This Series:

TEXT 3-4
न तत्र चक्षुर्गच्छति न वाग्गच्छति नो मनः ।
न विद्मो न विजानीमो यथैतदनुशिष्यात् ॥३॥
अन्यदेव तद्विदितादथो अविदितादपि।
इति श्रुश्रुम पूर्वेषां ये नस्तद्व्याचचक्षिरे ॥४॥

na tatra cakṣur gacchati na vāg gacchati no manaḥ
na vidmo na vijānīmo yathaitad anuśiṣyāt
anyad eva tad viditād atho aviditād adhi
iti śuśruma pūrveṣāṁ ye nas tad vyācacakṣire

The eye does not reach Him, nor speech or the mind. We do not know Him, nor do we know how to explain Him. He is different from all that is known and all that is unknown. He transcends both. Thus, we have heard from ancient authorities that have taught this.

Commentary

It is common for atheists to demand, “If God really exists, show me!” but one could just as easily demand, “Show me the government!” Of course, we can point out the White House, 10 Downing Street, or the Kremlin, but these are just buildings, they are not the government – that would be as effective as showing an atheist a church, a mosque or a temple to prove the existence of God. One could show the President, the Prime Minister etc. but these are just positions, and those filling those posts change every few years.

However, we see the signs of government all around us – in law enforcement, health care, trade, education etc. Similarly, if we actually have the eyes to see, we can perceive the existence of a Supreme Intelligence all around us. Simply because we cannot see Him with our physical eyes, does not negate His existence. If we consciously cast our glance upon the environment, we will experience His presence. That Supreme Person is not a thing of this mortal realm. He cannot be measured. He is beyond the confines of time and space. How can we fully comprehend that which is beyond all mundane comprehension? We must cultivate a deeper vision. We must go beyond the limitations of matter and enter the world of ‘anti-matter’. We cannot see God when we consider Him to be an object for our observation. His purpose is not to satisfy our childish curiosity. He alone is the subject. He is the seer (draṣṭa) and we are the object to be seen by Him (dṛṣṭa).

In the above text, Brahmā states, naiva vācā na manasā prāptuṁ śakyo na cakṣuṣā – “He cannot be attained by words, nor by the mind, or the eyes.” Śrī Kṛṣṇa is known as Adhokṣaja, meaning that He cannot be experienced with our blunt mundane senses. Thus, it is said:

adho-bhūte hy’akṣa-gaṇe pratyag rūpa pravāhite
jāyate tasya vai jñānam tena’dhoksaja ucyate

When the senses are made to look inwards, knowledge of the Lord arises. Thus, He is known as Adhokṣaja.

The untrained senses are accustomed to gravitate towards external sense-objects. This is known in Sanskrit as bahir-mukha-pravṛtti, the external material propensity. When we reverse this and turn our consciousness inwards, then we can attain knowledge of our true nature and our relationship with the Supreme Lord. This is called antar-mukha-pravṛtti, or the internal spiritual propensity. The most effective process of controlling the senses in Kali-yuga is through the system of bhakti-yoga, the yoga of devotion. By engagement in this system of yoga, the strong current of the bahir-mukha-pravṛtti is reversed and the senses become purified.

ataḥ śrī-kṛṣṇa-nāmādi na bhaved grāhyam indriyaiḥ
sevonmukhe hi jiḥvādau svayam eva sphuraty adaḥ

The name, form, qualities and pastimes of Śrī Kṛṣṇa are transcendental and cannot be experienced through the material senses. But to one who performs pure devotional service to the Lord, beginning with the tongue, the Lord will personally manifest to such a devotee. (Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 1.2.234)

In the mundane world, a name is different to the object it represents. The substance water and the word ‘water’ are not the same – no matter how much we chant the word ‘water’ our thirst will not be quenched. However, spiritual sound is non-different from the transcendental reality it represents. Thus, Kṛṣṇa and His name are one and the same spiritual substance (cit-vastu).

nāma cintāmaṇiḥ kṛṣṇaś caitanya rasa vigrahaḥ
pūrṇa śuddho nitya mukto’ bhinnatvān nāma nāminoḥ

The Holy Name of Kṛṣṇa is like a touchstone and is the form of all divine mellows. It is complete, pure, and eternally liberated, due to the non-difference between the Name and the Named (Kṛṣṇa). (Padma Purāṇa)

When a receptive listener receives spiritual sound through a proper channel, the potency within it is directly transmitted to that person, and by meditating on that sound vibration, one attains self-realisation.

Text Three continues with Brahmā stating that he does not know the Lord, nor does he know how to explain Him. How can one fully know or explain that which is infinite? The infinite Supreme Lord can only be understood by the finite jīva when He reveals Himself. It is not from any qualification on our side that we can understand the Absolute.

nāyam ātmā pravacanena labhyo na medhayā na bahunā śrutena
yamevaiṣa vṛṇute tena labhyaḥ tasyaiṣa ātmā vivṛṇute tanūṁ svām

The Supreme cannot be realised simply by lecturing, or by applying one’s intelligence or by studying many scriptures. He alone can achieve the Supreme whom the Lord chooses to favour. To that person the Supreme reveals His own personal form. (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.2.23)

Academic pursuits, intellectual wrangling, and reading many books does not attract Him. We can only attract His sweet will through the process of surrender (śaraṇāgati). Otherwise, He remains, in the words of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, “unknown and unknowable.”

Brahmā also says that the Lord is different from all that is known and unknown. This refers to the two stages of knowledge – parokṣa-jñāna and aparokṣa-jñāna. Parokṣa-jñāna means knowledge that we have no direct experience of. For example, we may hear about the United States of America from others, but have never gone there ourselves. This is indirect knowledge. However, when we finally go to the United States, we have direct knowledge of that place. This is aparokṣa-jñāna. Here, Brahmā is saying that the Lord transcends both direct and indirect sensual experiences.

Finally, at the end of this text, Brahmā says that he has heard this knowledge from ancient authorities. A question may arise as to how Brahmā could have heard from ‘ancient authorities’ when he is superior to, and older than all jīvas, including the great sages and ṛṣis. Here, the word pūrveṣām does not refer to any human sage, but indicates Kṛṣṇa and His avatāras such as Hayagrīva, Haṁsa etc. who previously instructed Brahmā on transcendental knowledge.

TEXT 5
यद्वाचाऽनभ्युदितं येन वागभ्युद्यते ।
तदेव ब्रह्म त्वं विद्धि नेदं यदिदमुपासते ॥५॥

yad vācānabhyuditaṁ yena vāg abhyudyate
tad eva brahma tvaṁ viddhi nedaṁ yad idam upāsate

He that cannot be fully expressed by speech, but impels others to speak – know Him to be the Absolute, not that which the world worships.

Commentary

There is a class of philosophers in India known as māyāvādīs who claim that the Supreme is ultimately impersonal and can never be described by words. If the Absolute cannot be described by words, then the entire canon of Vedic literature is rendered useless because it employs words to describe the inconceivable Absolute and His name, form, qualities etc. Thus, in the Gītā, Śrī Kṛṣṇa tells Arjuna, vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyo – “I alone am to be known through the Vedas” (Bhagavad-gītā 15.15). Furthermore, the Vedānta-sūtras state, ikṣater nāśabdāt – “It is seen that He is not indescribable by words.” The great Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava ācārya, Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa has explained in his book, Prameya-ratnāvalī:

kvacit kvacid avācyatvaṁ yad vedeṣu vilokyate
kartsnena vācyam na bhaved iti syāt tatra saṅgatiḥ
anyathā tu tad ārambhe vyarthaḥ syād iti me matiḥ

It is observed that in various places in the Vedas, the Supreme is said to be indescribable. This means that His qualities are unlimited, thus He cannot be fully described. This is the actual explanation. Any other interpretation than this is meaningless. This is my opinion. (Prameya-ratnāvalī 2.3)

Furthermore, if the māyāvādīs are correct and the Absolute cannot be described by words, why do they waste so much time writing books attempting to describe Him? Such an endeavour contradicts their philosophy.

At the end of Text 4, Brahmā says, “Know Him to be the Absolute, not that which the world worships.” Māyāvādīs such as Ādi Śaṅkara interpret this verse to mean that, “One should know the Impersonal Brahman to be the Absolute – not the personal forms of the Supreme that people worship in this world.” Māyāvādīs propound that the Absolute has two facets –one is the impersonal aspect known as nirguṇa (without qualities), the other is the personal aspect called saguṇa (with qualities) which is contaminated by māyā, the illusory potency. Thus, they consider the Lord’s transcendental forms such as Kṛṣṇa, Rāma, Narasiṁha etc. to be temporary, material, and inferior. In other words, they believe there is a realised Absolute and an ignorant Absolute.

Similarly, māyāvādīs also believe that the individual jīva is ultimately Brahman, but has forgotten his original position as the Absolute due to the contamination of māyā. Śrī Madhva addresses this erroneous idea in his own interpretation of this verse. He translates the words nedaṁ (na idaṁ) to mean ‘not the jīva’ and the word upāsate to mean ‘nearby.’ Thus, Madhva’s rendition of this verse is, “One should know that the Absolute is not the jīva. The Absolute is very close to you, as the Paramātmā within the heart.”

The māyāvādī’s conclusion that the Absolute is covered by ignorance is against the conclusions of the Vedas. If everything is advaita (non-dual) as the māyāvādīs claim, then how can their one Brahman have two aspects? This is at odds with the very idea of monism. Furthermore, how can any aspect of the Absolute be covered by ignorance? Just as shadow and light cannot occupy the same point in space, similarly, ignorance and knowledge cannot coexist simultaneously in the same undivided reality.

The Taittīriya Upaniṣad (2.1) clearly states, satyaṁ jñānam anantaṁ brahma – “The Absolute is truth, knowledge and infinity.” If the Absolute is the embodiment of knowledge, how did He become covered by ignorance? From where did this ignorance originate? If ignorance covers the Absolute, then ignorance is superior to Him and He can no longer be considered as absolute.

According to the philosophy of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, the very nature of reality is acintya-bhedābheda – inconceivable difference and non-difference. The relationship between the Absolute and His potencies is simultaneous difference and non-difference. Mahāprabhu Himself gives the following example in Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta:

avicintya-śakti-yukta śrī-bhagavān
icchāya jagad-rūpe pāya pariṇāma

tathāpi acintya-śaktye haya avikārī
prākṛta cintāmaṇi tāhe dṛṣṭānta ye dhari

nānā ratna-rāśi haya cintāmaṇi haite
tathāpiha maṇi rahe svarūpe avikṛte

prākṛta-vastute yadi acintya-śakti haya
īśvarera acintya-śakti ithe ki vismaya

The Supreme is the possessor of inconceivable potencies. By His desire, He transforms the cosmic manifestation. By His inconceivable potency, He remains unchanged. In this respect we must accept the example of a touchstone. Although a touchstone produces many varieties of gems, still the touchstone retains its original form and does not change. If such inconceivable potency is present within material objects, then what to say of the amazing inconceivable potency of the Supreme? (Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi-līlā 7.124-127)

Since the jīva-śakti is a potency of Kṛṣṇa, then the individual jīvas must be different and non-different from Him, just as the sun and the suns-rays are one and different in quality and quantity (bhedābheda). The insufficient reasoning of finite humans cannot comprehend how two things can be simultaneously one and different at the same time – therefore Mahāprabhu’s philosophy is known as acintya (inconceivable). Simply to stress the oneness between the jīva and the Absolute, and neglect the differences between them, is untenable and illogical.

In this way, the māyāvādīs have concocted a philosophy that makes very little sense in light of true Vedic knowledge and logic. Due to their offensive mentality against the transcendental form of the Lord, the monistic philosophers are deluded by His māyā potency and can never understand His true nature or the nature of the individual ātmā.

yac-chaktayo vadatāṁ vādināṁ vai
vivāda-saṁvāda-bhuvo bhavanti
kurvanti caiṣāṁ muhur ātma-mohaṁ
tasmai namo ‘nanta-guṇāya bhūmne

I offer my respects unto that great Lord of unlimited qualities, whose material energy is the cause of agreement and disagreement amongst those who create philosophies and argue with others, and who continues to bewilder them as to the real nature of the ātmā. (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 6.4.31)

In India, there are many speculative schools of thought apart from the māyāvādīs, all of which oppose each other’s opinions. In the Western hemisphere we also find academics, scientists, and thinkers who endlessly debate with each other over the origins of life, the universe, creation, religion, etc. Because the hypothetical philosophies of such people have no basis in transcendence, such people remain in darkness about the nature of the self.

Brahmā’s words in this text also touch upon a problem that has burdened humans from time immemorial – the projection of divinity upon others. This tendency is seen in all cultures throughout the world. For example, it is a common idea throughout Asia and South America that the ghosts of dead ancestors have been given some godly status, thus people seek their blessings and make offerings to them. According to the Bhagavad-gītā, the worship of ghosts and spirits is considered to be in the mode of ignorance (pretān bhūta-gaṇāṁś cānye yajante tāmasā janāḥ) and such worship never results in transcendental knowledge.

In India, many Hindus worship various demigods and goddesses with the misunderstanding that they are all forms of the one Absolute. This idea is thoroughly condemned in the Vedas which declare that it is only Viṣṇu/Kṛṣṇa who is the para-tattva (Supreme Reality):

yas tu nārāyaṇaṁ devaṁ brahma rudrādi daivataiḥ
samatvenaiva vīkṣeta sa pāṣaṇḍī bhaved dhruvam

One who considers gods such as Brahmā, Rudra etc. to be equal to Nārāyaṇa, should be regarded as an atheist. (Padma Purāṇa)

Some people also worship ‘god-men’ who claim to be avatāras and sometimes attempt to prove their divine nature by materialising ashes, pendants, rings etc. – a trick that any amateur magician can perform. But in actuality, these ‘gods’ are imbued with so much divinity that they cannot even control their own bodily functions, and sometimes it is seen that they cannot curb their perverse sexual appetites. Some of these charlatans, pretending to be Śiva or Dattātreya, dress up elaborately with large crowns, expensive silks and golden ornaments that are supplied by their docile followers. Such persons never show the transcendental qualities of Śiva or Dattātreya. In the śāstras we find that Śiva drank a whole ocean of poison, yet such imitators cannot even drink a cup of poison without dropping down dead! Some god-men also claim to be Kṛṣṇa and try to imitate the Lord’s rasa dance (His transcendental dance with the cowherd maidens of Vṛndāvana) with their female followers. It is easy to dance madly with a group of ladies pretending to be Kṛṣṇa, but when these ‘Kṛṣṇas’ are asked to exhibit the universal form, or lift Govardhana Hill as Śrī Kṛṣṇa did, they politely decline and make feeble excuses. The Bhāgavatam warns against such farcical demonstrations:

naitat samācarej jātu manasāpi hy anīśvaraḥ
vinaśyaty ācaran mauḍhyād yathārudro ‘bdhi-jaṁ viṣam

One who is not a great personality should never try to imitate them, even in his mind. If one acts so foolishly, he will be destroyed just as drinking an ocean of poison will kill one who is not Śiva. (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 10.33.30)

Similarly, around the world, people worship sportsmen, singers, actors and politicians, considering them to be practically divine. These loyal supporters sometimes dress like their idols, imitate them, speak like them, and try to emulate their success. Mimicking such fallible role models, however, does nothing to raise the collective consciousness of our society.

Brahmā alludes to another important point – the various misconceptions found amongst the world religions as regards to the nature of the Absolute. When we take an objective look at most religious theologies, we find a great deficiency in them. This is because man-made religions are based primarily upon superstition and speculation. We may discover some basic moral teachings within the pages of their scriptures, but one is hard pressed to find any actual philosophy. Detailed information about the transcendental nature of the ātmā and the Paramātmā (individual consciousness and the Supreme Consciousness) is conspicuously absent. It should be pointed out that the Vedic literatures have nothing to do with God as seen from the western perspective – they deal with the Absolute Truth who transcends the material designations and deficiencies of the Abrahamic conception of God.

Thus, Brahmā points out in this text that what most of the world worships as supreme, is in fact the exact opposite. The worship of demigods, ghosts, ancestors, god-men, and celebrities, as well as the various religious and philosophical misconceptions of God, all fall under the three modes of material nature. In the words of the Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, they are ultimately to be considered as kaiṭava-dharma – paths of deception.

About the Author: Swami Bhaktivijñāna Giri

Swami B.V. Giri is a senior disciple of Swami B.G. Narasiṅgha Mahārāja. Receiving dīkṣā and sannyāsa initiation in the year 2000, he has been the main editor, translator and researcher for many books and articles written by Swami B.G. Narasiṅgha and many that he's authored himself. He is currently residing in Vṛṇdavana where he is engaged translating and publishing articles and books of our acāryās.