[May, 1928, 442 Caitanya-Era. Vol 25 pg. 265-275

By Sj. Nimananda dasa Adhikari, B. Ag., B.T.]

GOD has been proclaimed as the highest unchallengeable truth by all the three great religions of the world, – Hinduism, Mohammedanism and Christianity. The followers of these religions believe in the existence of a personal God, and look upon Him as the creator, the maintainer, and the destroyer of the world. The difference between Hinduism and the religions–Christianity and Mohammedanism, lies in the fact that the former preaches worship of God under a definite form, whereas the latter say that the scriptures of these religions, namely the Bible and the Koran entertain an idea of a formless God. It is fallacious to think that because God is not worshipped under a perishable form that therefore He must be formless. It is a matter of great regret that generally the followers of these two religions show a lamentable lack of information revealed in their own scriptures when they taunt Hindus, for their conception of a definite form of God and their worship of Him in that form, as idolaters and their religion as idolatry. Insinuations of this nature are but the natural outcome of a dogmatic mind, that is addicted more to the form than to the spirit of a religion.

Such execrable adherence to form so dwarfs the vision that it totally incapacitates one to appreciate the comparative beauty of religions. The minds of such people are ever impercious to education. The well-known maxim ‘strike but hear,’ bears no weight with them. Now the people who have made it their business to attack, to vilify, to insinuate, it is no use to argue with them. Let them remain alone. Approach must be made to a less dogmatic section of the people who lend ears, and refer them to a comparative study of the philosophies of the different religions, which will certainly, if they happen to be unbiased, enable them to discern one sublime truth that pervades all these religion, that are fundamentally not different, but are the different phases of the one and the same religion that governs the universe. There will then be no room for these acrimonious assertions hitherto so lavishly made about a most, important religion, namely, Hinduism.

There is however no denying of the fact that among the Hindus there are certain sects that do practice idolatry. Their profession has however no locus standi as a revealed religion. And the less we take notice of it the better. It is not to be mistaken for vaisnavism that the Vedas and the Puranas unequivocally preach, vaisnavism is a soul’s religion, to be grasped and practiced by the soul only. Mental speculation has no room in it. It is above the body, and above the mind. It is devotion to One Supreme Being. Who is One without a second? Hindus know Him as Krsna or Visnu. The worshipper of Visnu is generally known as a vaisnava. Lord Krsna eternally reigns in Vaikuntha; but He sometimes manifests Himself on this Earth, when all see Him, but none knows Him, save His devotees to whom however He ever remains manifested. The vision of the worldly people, accustomed to view things through time, space and causality, is obstructed. But that of His devotees, who have been favored with the transcendental knowledge of Him, is never obstructed.

Vaisnavism is not Sectarianism as it is generally regarded by the people whose minds are not sufficiently trained so as to penetrate into the depth of its subtle philosophy. It is the universal Religion. All other religions, that preach God in one form or another, are part and parcel of it. The nearer they become to vaisnavism, vaisnavism reconciles them all, and all are reconciled in vaisnavism. All our Scriptures that, at first sight, appear to strike discordant notes, do but record the different view-points of the same truth that vaisnavism reveals in full. Sri Gaurasundara, the greatest and undisputed exponent of our sastras, has made such a clear exposition of them as can admit of no secondary meaning. Anyone who is fortunate enough to associate himself with His real followers and discuss with them His teachings, is sure to be drawn to think with Him, to feel with Him, and hail vaisnavism, as preached by Him as the only acceptable form time to time, and the flow has thus been kept untainted, by the realization of the never-ending line of the successive devotees.

All other faiths that also go by the name of Hinduism, and that can hardly venture to cross the narrow limits of Sectarianism, are but doctrines of the elevationists who, in the matter of investigation after truth, rely more on their intellect than on the grace of God. It has been discussed in these pages that the speculations even of a giant mind can hardly reach God. He defies all our intellectual achievements, and ever remains unexplainable. A mind, however trained it may be, cannot assert anything positively about the Absolute Truth, which it is entirely the soul’s duty to do. The scriptures of all these three religions are one in condemning such doctrines of the non-conformists. Truth is transcendental, eternal and unchangeable. All that these people have to say about it cannot claim a higher place than the prattlings of a child. God cannot be what they want to make Him; but He is what He is. He is His own explanation; and only he, to whom He wants to be known, knows what He is. These doctrines of the different schools of elevationists are the same in the different religions.

The elevationists do practice idolatry. Anything concocted by the mind is idolatry, and nothing but idolatry. But the vaisnavism is not idolatry. And why? A peep in to the history of idolatry as it obtained in Arabia and Palestine before the advent of Mohammad and Christ will enable anyone to see the difference between it and vaisnavism and convince him at once of the injustice of calling the latter idolatry. In Kabba at Mecca there were originally three idols named Lat, Monat and Gora worshipped as gods. These three soon grew into three hundred and sixty. Mohammad had to wage war against these three hundred and sixty gods. They were entirely of human making, and their worship was not based on any revelation recorded in scriptures then existing. These idols were looked upon as national gods by the people of whole Arabia, and were held in such a high esteem by them that damage to any part of any of these idols used to send the whole nation into mourning. The particular idol, thus damaged, was not replaced, but was allowed to continue its existence with the deformed body. Matter was thus being deified as spirit.

Things continued in this way for a very long time, when Mohammad appeared on the scene, and his preaching against the worship of the idols so enraged the people of Arabia that they arrayed themselves against him, and Mohammad had to fight many a deadly battle with them. They were at last vanquished and compelled to bow before the superior strength of Mohammad. With the breaking of their physical power their age-long superstition also broke. Truth triumphed over fiction; and Mohammad soon succeeded in mustering a strong army of believers who were ready to live by his faith and die for his faith. The aversion for idol worship ran so strong in the minds of his followers, that they, soon after his ascension, began to enforce conversion by means of the sword; and slaughtering of men, instead of being looked upon as a crime, came to be regarded by his followers as a pious act that immediately earned for the slaughterer a place in the Behest. They extended this indiscriminate slaughtering even to the door of Hinduism, which to them appeared as nothing but idolatry. Roughly the history of idolatry in the neighbouring district of Palestine had been the same. And Christ attempted to obtain its eradication by love and hatred of its followers.

But vaisnavism does not deify matter. Neither does it deny form to the spirit. On the contrary it holds that the spirit is identical with and inseparable from, its form. In this physical world there is a difference between the spirit and the matter with which the former is clad. But in the spiritual world there is no material body. There the entity is not made up of different elements like spirit and matter as it is here. The spirit and its form are but differentiations of the same element called cit. A careful study of the problem will make clear the distinction between the soul in its natural condition in Vaikuntha and engaged in a material body.

First let us take God. Is He personal or impersonal? None of the three religions call Him impersonal. When a Mohammedan chants “La ila ilillaho Mohammed rasul allaho,” he speaks of a personal God. When Christ to his disciples said “He that receiveth me receiveth Him that sent me,” he spoke of a personal God. When Sri Gaurasundara preaches “jivera svarupa haya krsnera nitya dasa,” He speaks of a personal God, whose eternal servant is the jiva.

The next question is “Has God any definite form?” The answer is in the positive. But the issue is controversial. Some among the empiricists maintain that God cannot have definite form. He however can assume any form when there is a need for Him to be manifest in this physical world. The form or forms that He thus assumes are as material and transitory as ours. In support of their view the two quote Scriptures. Even devils quote Scriptures and no one need deprive them of the right of doing so. But the twist and torture of the Scriptures and to make them mean a thing which they do not and cannot mean—this class of thinkers are not wanting among the Mohammedans and Christians. Nay, they go a degree a-head of their Hindu compeers, and maintain that God can neither have a form, nor can He assume any. They thus put limitation upon the Unlimited, and deny a certain power to the Almighty. God is what He is, and not what we want Him to be. We cannot give Him a form, if He has it not, and we cannot deny Him one if He has it.

Now let us see what the Scriptures have to say. We shall take up the Bible first. What does Christ say about the form of God? His teachings disclose a definite form of God. In his conference with Nicodemus he said “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God”. Being asked what he meant by man being born again, he said “Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” What part of a man is then born of the flesh, and what part of the Spirit? Obviously our body is born of the flesh and is flesh, and our soul is born of the Spirit and is spirit. Spirit has the right to see Spirit and feel Him; and so long as the man does not return to the Spirit, he must remain blind to the splendors of the Kingdom of God. This returning to the spirit to the spiritual realm has been called the second birth by Christ. This is exactly what we also say. Our Scriptures reveal that man is an infinitesimally small fraction of the Supreme Spirit engaged in a physical body.

So long as the man whose real nature is pure spiritual goes on identifying himself with his physical body, he is evidently ignorant of his true self, and consequently of God, his Father. But as soon as he realizes his self, he realizes God, and he is then said to be born again. This does not, however, mean that a man, after this spiritual birth, ceases to live in the body and take cognizance of things of this phenomenal world. He may live in this body, and may take cognizance of earthly things. His physical senses now being completely subject to his spiritual ones although he happens to live in the body and perceive thing of the earth he neither lives nor perceives in the way he did formerly. His spiritual or angelic life begins even while he walks in this material plane, and his physical death does not in anyway, affect the continuity of his actual life. He is an angel on the earth while he lives, and is the same angel in Vaikuntha after he ceases to live in the body. These angels are separate souls and have definite spiritual form to distinguish one from another, and all from God, their Lord in Heaven. A definite spiritual form likewise, belongs to God. Had there been no specific form of God, His fractional parts could have no existence distinguishable from His, in which case the idea of differentiation of the Spirit as the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost and the host of angels would have been absolutely meaningless. So these denizens of heaven must have each his own definite spiritual form. The only difference between the forms of these heaven-born and these of the earth-born is that while the external forms of the latter are material and transitory, those of the former are purely spiritual and eternal.

But what about the forms visible to us of those Pure Spirits that appear on the earth?–Do they retain their own spiritual forms, or put on transitory forms of flesh and blood like the earth-born? Certainly not the latter. In the same conference Christ said to Nicodemus “If I have told you earthly things, and you believe not, how shall you believe, if I tell you of heavenly thing? And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.” Here Christ makes reference to his own self saying that he existed in heaven as the Son of man, and that as the Son of God he had not a different form from what he has now as the Son of David. In one and the same form he exists in the heaven as well as on the earth.

In one place of the Bible it has been written that when the people talked of Christ as the Son of David, Christ said, “How then doth David in spirit call him Lord saying,–The Lord said unto my Lord (Christ), sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy foot stool”? –St. Matthew. In fact he, being of heaven-born, cannot be born of flesh as the son of this man and that woman. To designate him as the son of such and such a man is to ignore his heavenly nature that suffers neither deflection nor suppression on account of his working on a material plane. He was unearthly throughout even when he appeared earthly. He looked earthly to those who did not develop spiritual eyes to witness the spirit. Once Christ went to Jerusalem where the Jews said to Him “What sign showest thou unto us, seeing that thou does these things?” To this Christ answered saying. “Destroy this temple (his own body), and in three days I will raise it up.” Accordingly on the third day Jesus rose from the dead, and appeared before Magdalene who was weeping when she could not find his body in sepulcher. He likewise appeared before his eleven apostles, Thomas having been absent. When informed, Thomas doubted their report, and said that he would not believe unless he felt him. One day when all the twelve disciples assembled to confer in a house with doors shut, Christ stood in the midst of them and said to Thomas “Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing”; when Thomas because thou hast seen me’ thou has believed; blessed are they that have not seen, and yet believed.” One thing that needs mentioning here is that the disciples of Christ were not to be much credited with this vision of Christ. It is only by believing and doing the will of God under the direction of the Prophet or the guru that a disciple can develop spiritual eyes by which not Christ alone but God with all the splendors of heaven are seen. Not endowed with such eyes the body of Christ was to them still material, and they were, after they had seen him the same as they had been before they saw him. They saw him and believed him,–that is all, and, nothing more.

But one thing that concerns us the most is that his disciples saw him, felt him and recognized him. He was evidently recognized by the same form in which he had been known to them while living. Now if his form after his death exactly resembles his form before it, if his form before his birth is the same as that after it, then it must be supposed that he was neither born nor dead. He was one thing throughout, unaffected by so called birth and death. He is eternal and changeless. This is the nature of every heaven-born. Birth and death that affect the material form of an ordinary mortal cannot reach him. He is cap-a-pie immaterial: he is spirit, body and soul. That he appears to us to be born and to die, is due to the defect to matter, through which we see him, and, which cannot present things to us without giving them its own color. One way it is however greatly advantageous to us, the bound jivas. It is by appearing as a man that a divine teacher can infuse into the heart of his followers a noble zeal to love God, which, in the full, characterizes his own. His followers, attracted by his wonderful human career at once be-take themselves to his practices, and endeavor to emulate them in their own lives. Without this co-operation, on the basis of equality, the mission of divine messenger is foredoomed to failure. Unable to gauge his own spiritual depth, a mortal is sure to look upon the spiritual endeavors of a divine entity as wholly impracticable for him. He may altogether give up the pursuit as a hopeless job.

The earth-born have, like-wise, angelic forms in the kingdom of heaven, though these forms are at present actually covered up with flesh and blood. Hence Christ advised his disciples not to offend the people who believe in him saying “Despise not one of these little one; for I say unto you, that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven”–St. Matthew.

Koran, that acknowledges isa or Christ as one of the Nabis, must necessarily agree with the teachings of the Bible. Mohammed on the day of his meraj or ascension, told his disciples that all that do the will of God expressed through the mouth of His prophet, will see Him. At the close of his earthly career he at once went to Behest without having to wait, along with these of flesh and blood, till the day of judgment. On the day of judgment Mohammad will have to plead before God for those who believed in him. Mohammad, then, like Christ is a distinct heavenly entity, and has a definite form to distinguish him from God That sent him. Nay the host of ‘ferestas’ that reside in Behest must have each a form to distinguish one from another, and all from God.

Now the question is – What does the form of God resemble? Does it resemble that of a man? Yes it does. God has created man after His own image says the Bible. God’s form then must be accepted as the prototype of the human form. In fact He can assume any form He likes. But the human form is His own real form.

If this our interpretation of the Christian and the Mohammedan scriptures is correct,– in fact it cannot be otherwise – then the followers of these religions cannot have any quarrel with their Hindu brothers when the latter conceive a form of God. If the former glorify God for sending His Son and a prophet to proclaim Him in this world, the latter glorify Him for His own manifestation. God’s manifestation in His own form is equally reasonable. If it is possible for the Son to come down into this world, it is still more possible for his Father to do so. If it is possible for the prophet to be visible to us, it is still more possible that God be so. His manifestation is necessary when His devotees want to see Him and love Him – a boon which it is not in the power of His Son or of the prophet to confer.

People are very often heard to say that God cannot be visible to mortal eyes. These people at once forget that He is all-powerful. To say He can do this and not that, is to put His power under certain limitations. Certainly God, thus reduced to the position of a constitutional monarch, will not be very proud of exercising these powers that the members of His constitution are pleased to empower Him with. Such a conception of God is merely a mockery of Him. The people of this mentality do not deify Him but defy Him. Their homage, their offerings, their prayers are all directed to Him only to make Him ponder to their tastes. Worship of such a God manufactured in one’s own factory can hardly work out one’s salvation.

God can make Himself visible to us; He does manifest Himself. He did and, will again and again appear in world. Our Lord Krsna is God who manifested Himself in this world. He is the Supreme Lord. There are none equal to Him and there are none superior to Him. Him all our sastras directly or indirectly refer to. Him Christ calls Father and Mohammed calls Allah. If they saw God, they heard Krsna. If they did not describe Him, it was because the people, to whom they preached, were not in a stage of spiritual evolution to understand the subtle philosophy of such preaching. Preaching of a form would have been to these people in addition to the number of idols, already existing, it least, in their mind, and their mission would have been then a complete failure. Again descriptions are always defective. They are more so, when transcendental things become their subjects. This defect is due to the fact that human language is ever imperfect and material and hence cannot act as a medium of expression for spiritual things. Thus any attempt to interpret God in human language is to give Him human color, is to bring the Unlimited under limitation. This is the danger of description. It becomes still more dangerous when people attempt to understand Him in the measure of the language employed to describe Him. It is therefore found in Scripture that a description of God is invariably concluded with an apology, that He pardons the humble describer for his inordinate attempt to describe Him Who is indescribable.

Sri Gaurasundara has repeatedly warned His disciples against the danger, and, exhorted them not to study Scripture without the assistance of the guru who only knows the meaning of Scripture, and, can enlighten His disciple on It. It is the duty of every man that wants to knock at the door of heaven to find out such a man first who, having in his possession the key, can open it and admit him into the kingdom of heaven. This is the way, and the only way out of the danger. Christ and Mohammed avoided the danger by not describing Him at all. And they, whose mission was to inculcate into the heart of their disciples a belief in one God,– merely a belief and nothing more, could do without a description of Him. But the Hindu Sages or the mahajanas, whose mission was to enkindle in the mind of their followers a fire of passionate love for God, could not avoid describing Him. The mind of such people, who are bent on loving Him, caressing Him and serving Him, could not have been captivated by anything short of the most beautiful, ever-smiling ever-young Krsna with a flute in His hands. While the followers of the teachers of Arabia and Palestine are required to prostrate before God at a respectable distance, and beg Him to be merciful to forgive their sins; those of the Hindu Sages are required to run to Him to embrace Him, to kiss Him, and to curse their own lot that hitherto kept them away from their Beloved. These minds then necessitate His description which encourages them, allures them and, in the long run, satisfies them.

Revelation is made in just proportion to the spiritual fitness of the people or it is sure to produce, in their mind, a degree of spiritual languor that will soon drive them into the fold of atheists. This is the only reason for the differences between two scriptures. God knows how to deal with us, and whatever He does for our spiritual welfare. Going to understand His ways in our own light, we sometimes find fault with these, and sometimes our faith so degenerates into rank bigotry that it renders our heart impervious to education, and reduces it to a breeding ground of the spirit of intolerance to the faiths and customs of other people. Lord Krsna is not the creation of anybody but He is the creator of all. All the wild vituperations that we direct against Him, while they do not bring about any change in His eternal nature, bring us to woe all the more for these. “God reveals Himself as Krsna” says our Scripture. Krsna calls Himself God, and shows Himself as such. He was Krsna before He appeared on the Earth, He is Krsna in His visible earthly manifestation, and He will be Krsna after He ceased to be visible. Manifestation does not bring Him under limitation. His mundane existence is but a part of His one continuous, eternal existence. Or in other words time, space and causality are in Him and not above Him. He is above all and beyond all: He is the End-All and Be-All. He is the Eternal Truth: He is the Absolute Truth.

In Brahma-samhita He has been described as the Supreme Lord having an aprakrta or transcendental form made up of sat, cit, and ananda.

isvarah paramah krsnah sac-cid-ananda-vigrahah
anadir adir govindah sarva-karana-karanam

About the reason of His being manifested it has been stated in Srimad-Bhagavatam that when His devotees such as Vasudeva and others are oppressed by Asuras like Kamsa and others, He, the Lord of the physical and spiritual worlds, although birth-less, out of mercy, becomes manifests, in the same manner as fire manifests from wood.

svasanta rupesvitareh svarupe
rabhyardha manesvano kampitatma
pravreso mahadam sayokto
hrjaupi jatu bhagavana yathagnih

This however does not mean, as some people understand, that He was at first formless and now has assumed this form which is as material and transitory as theirs. In the Gita, Krsna cautions Arjuna not to entertain such an idea. He tells him, “The people who think that I am in reality impersonal and formless, but have, for some purpose, manifested Myself in this form, are fools. They do not know that I am, in this form, ever unchangeable and the most excellent.”

avyaktam vyaktim apannam manyante mam abuddhayah
param bhavam ajananto mamavyayam anuttamam

One may reasonably ask, if Krsna, in that form, is ever existent, then why it is that we do not see Him always. To this Krsna replies saying, I am, in this form, ever existent and ever visible. But I have a power called Yogamaya which so blindfolds the eyes of the ordinary mortal that I do not become visible to them, and hence the latter cannot know that I am, in this form, birth-less and eternal.”

naham prakasah sarvasya yoga-maya-samavrtah
mudho ‘yam nabhijanati loko mam ajam avyayam

It may be illustrated by a clouded sun. The sun is ever there in the sky. It is made invisible by a patch of cloud coming between it and ourselves. We must not however understand that the cloud has hidden the sun. In fact it is not possible for a small patch of cloud to cover so huge a thing as the sun. The cloud has covered our eyes and thereby made the sun invisible to us. This cloud is maya. Remove the cloud and there is the sun. In the same way overcome maya and there you see Krsna ever existing. How to overcome this maya? Krsna says, “My maya is imbued with the properties of matter, and it is very difficult to overcome her. It is only those who take shelter in Me that are set free by maya.”

daivi hy esa guna-mayi mama maya duratyaya
mam eva ye prapadyante mayam etam taranti te

People, laboring under the influence of this maya, think, “Krsna is a man; and can He be God?” Krsna tells Arjuna, “These people are fully ignorant. They do not know that I have the power to manifest My form in this physical world as well, and that I am, in this form, the Lord of all My created beings.”

avajananti mam mudha manusim tanum asritam
param bhavam ajananto mama bhuta-mahesvaram

In Gita when Arjuna wants to see Krsna in His divine glory, Krsna tells him that he will not see Him with his present eyes. He will give him spiritual eyes, wherewith he will see Him and understand Him.

na tu mam sakyase drastum anenaiva sva-caksusa
divyam dadami te caksuh pasya me yogam aisvaram

Endowed with spiritual vision Arjuna saw in Krsna first Ruadra-rupa; then Visvarupa, next, Catur-bhuja Narayana-rupa, and last of all, Krsna-rupa which has been called by Him His own Rupa. Appearing before him again in Krsna-rupa, He tells Arjuna, “Even the devas, O, Arjuna always long to see this beautiful form which you see now.”

ity arjunam vasudevas tathoktva
svakam rupam darsayam asa bhuyah
asvasayam asa ca bhitam enam
bhutva punah saumya-vapur mahatma

 

su-durdarsam idam rupam
drstavan asi yan mama
deva apy asya rupasya
nityam darsana-kanksinah

Now the question is, did not Arjuna see this form before? Yes he did. Not he alone, even His worst enemies like Kamsa and Jarasandha saw Him in that very form. If so, then what makes Him say that even the devas long to see Him in this form but do not see. The reason, as has been advanced before, is the same here also. To the material eyes of Arjuna and all He appeared as one of flesh and blood. But now endowed as he is with spiritual eyes, Krsna appears to him as one of heaven.

Among the educated mass there is a class of people who think that God, when He appears in flesh and blood, is also subject to the influence of matter, and shares the frailties of the mortal. Srimad-Bhagavatam tells them, “Godliness of God lies in the fact that He, although manifested in matter, is not however influenced by it.”

etad isanam isasya prakrti-stho ‘pi tad-gunaih na yujyate

About the birth and death of Krsna, Srimad-Bhagavatam says, “They, like the tricks of a magician, play deception upon the mortal.”

rajan parasya tanu-bhrj-jananapyayeha
maya-vidambanam avehi yatha natasya

Skanda-Purana says, “By death of Hari, His leaving of this world is meant. He is Eternal Bliss; His death means nothing else. His form is transcendental and is made up of cit and hence cannot be subject to death. But that He dies is nothing but a trick, which, He, like a magician, plays for the deception of the ordinary mortals.”

prthvi lokasantyago dehatyago hareh smrteh
nityananda svaruptvadanyane voplabhyate
darsyejanmohaya sadrsim mrtikakrtim
natabhagavana Visnu prajnanakrti svayam

Sri Gaurasundara, in a controversy with the mayavadi sanyasins who do not allow Brahma to have any form, says, “Krsna has a form made up of sat, cit, and ananda. The people who do not believe this, and think that His body, as manifested in this world, is material, a handwork of sattva-guna, are heretic, and are, therefore, ever subject to death.

visnu-ninda ara nahi ihara upara
prakrta kariya mane visnu-kalevara
isvarera sri-vigraha sac-cid-anandakara
se-vigrahe kaha sattva-gunera vikara
sri-vigraha ye na mane, sei ta’ pasandi
adrsya asprsya, sei haya yama-dandi
—Caitanya-caritamrta

There are innumerable statements of the like in our Scriptures to which reference may be made on the subject. They are one in declaring Krsna as Parabrahma. Brahma is idea and Krsna its expression: it is not that. The people, who think so, are wrong, terribly wrong. He is Brahma, and albeit Brahma, nothing but Brahma, and nothing short of Him. Him Upanisads call Brahma, Yogins call Paramatma, and bhaktas call Bhagavan. He is one, but appears in three aspects to three classes of His devotees. Sadhus, who have realized Him, corroborate the scriptural evidence, and accept Him as the Supreme Lord, and make obeisance before Him.

Krsna, as has been said above, is cap-a-pie God. The body of Krsna and Krsna are one and the same thing. The distinction between the body and the soul, as obtains in us, does not exist in Him. He has nothing to die, but everything to live, when He left this world, He left it body and soul. Sri Gaurasundara, likewise, left nothing behind Him, when He left this world. Like God His angels have forms, which are like His eternal and ever celestial. They cannot be thought of without these forms; and when they come to this world they do so with their forms. A rigid adherence to form worship then does not constitute any fault on the part of its votaries. On the contrary, those who are angry to be called a form-worshipper are all the more unhappy for their belief that is neither warranted by Scriptures nor corroborated by other sages. They will reap as they sow. If they deny God any form, God to them will remain formless. They will not see Him. And it is not very encouraging for a servant who wants to serve his master but cannot see him.

As regards image-worship, one may do it and may not do it. It makes no difference. Forms of worship are merely means whereby to develop our spiritual eyes, and that is all. They are never the ends themselves. To the spiritual eyes, if developed, the image will have no significance as matter, but will be transformed into God. And before the development of such eyes, obeisance to God in the form of Krsna or to Christ in the form of Son of man means the same thing as obeisance to God in the form of an image. For did not Kamsa see Krsna, and yet wanted to kill Him? Did not Caiaphas see Christ, and yet charged him as a heretic? When different religious methods are judged on their own merit, then it may be that one method is found more efficient than another. But when they are judged in reference to the people for whom they are prescribed, then such comparison is inadmissible. For then they will be found equally efficient. As for instance, food nourishes our system, nourishment is the end for which food is taken; and so long as it fulfills this end it is considered the best. But there is a great difference between the stuff that is given to an adult and the stuff that is given to a child. Now if both are served with the same stuff, then what will be the result? Why, the both will not have nourishment. Like our systems our minds also differ, and hence need differential treatment. A method, which is suitable to the mentality of one class of people, may not be so to that of another. Let everybody love his own method with all his heart; let him stand by it at all costs; but let him, at the same time, have a soft corner in his heart for the method of another. He may not find any interest in it; but that is no reason why he should curse it.

Of nine kinds of bhakti mentioned in the Srimad-Bhagavata, Sri Gaurasundara has laid much stress on the incessant muttering of the Name of Krsna as the best and most suitable form of devotion in Kali-yuga. He has however retained His Image-worship for those who have a predilection for it. But while He recommends this He warns the votaries not to think the Images they worship as made of stone, clay etc. It is the guru or the spiritual guide who prescribes a form of worship for his disciples. Disciples, on no account, should prescribe for themselves. If they do so, they follow not the soul but the whims of their own mind, and by so doing they do not attain God, but ever recede from Him. Heavenly light is not possible for him who becomes his own guide instead of offering himself to be guided by the guru who knows the way that leads to God. Hence in Koran we find that one who does not select such a guide is certainly guided by Satan. Those, who-think that gurus are like them, mortal, and are therefore reluctant to accept them as guide, are sure to think the images they worship as made of stone or clay.

arcye visnau sila-dhir gurusu nara-matir
vaisnave jati-buddhiryasya va naraki sah
Srimad-Bhagavatam

Image-worship is most appealing to people in general. For do we not erect statues of men and demonstrate our love and honor for them by garlanding the statues? We cannot remain satisfied with merely entertaining in the mind a good-will towards them; but we want to do something with our body also. This necessitates image-worship. Devotees are sure to be indifferent, if they do not find something before them to think of or to do with.

Again it is easy to denounce image-worship, but difficult to get away from it. In Hindu Scriptures mention is made of eight kinds of images, one being the image constructed by mind (manomayi murti), one who has not the courage to bow before an image of mind. For no conception is possible without an image. And an image of mind is as material as the image of earth. So long as we do not return to our soul, there is no escape from our conceptions being material; and till then our meditation on the spiritual form of God is impossible. Hence we are all image-worshippers. If we do not confess it, it is because we want to conceal our hearts or to taunt others who have the courage to do so.

There is however as mentioned above, a sect of people among the Hindus that do practice idolatry. This class is knows as mayavadin. It has other designations such as the jnanin, the vedantin etc. It is analogous to the class of thinkers among the Mohammedans called Sufi. According to them Brahma is indistinguishable, having no form and no personality. There is no personality. There is no reality besides it. Jivas are not many, but one, and that is Brahma. That you see many is due to the fact that you are under the influence of maya or illusion. Get away from the illusion and you will see that you are Brahma and nothing but It. Evidently bhakti, according to them, cannot have any locus standi. Still for the people, who cannot grasp the idea and make it a matter of realization, they prescribe worship of five gods namely, the Sun, Ganapati, Siva, Sakti, and Visnu. This worship is known as pancopasana or the worship of five gods. They say that the worship of any one of these gods will purify the heart of the devotee, and help him to realize oneness with Brahma. He will now out-grow the necessity of any worship. For when he becomes himself transformed into the object of his worship, who will not worship whom? They do not acknowledge God, His devotee and his function, devotion, as eternal. This is sheer idolatry and nothing but idolatry,–idolatry in spirit and idolatry in form. If there be no God, why do you create one and demonstrate yourself a great devotee of Him? What benefit is likely to accrue from such a self-deception? Your God, devotee and devotion are all your handi-work and are therefore material; and, as such, they are not expected to obtain salvation for you. On the contrary you will have to sufficiently thank your stars, if they have not already managed to lighten the grip of materialism on you the more. We must always remember that our mind is ever material and ever creative. This mind should in no case be allowed to have an opportunity to unduly interfere with and vitiate the program of religious activities that our Teachers, in unison with our Scriptures, have, through overwhelming mercy, prescribed for us. The path, whereby they want to lead us, is not an untrodden one. Many have gone by this way before us, and have attained their object. There is no room for discovery of a new one. We must do well to go by the old one. The words of our Teachers are our safe guards, and their experiences our security. We must keep the barks of our life steady along this path, a slight deflection wherefrom is sure to lead them into the dangerous clutches of the octopus-mind which is the mother of idolatry.

[Transcribed and transliterated by the Bhaktabandhav Team from photocopies of the original Harmonist.]
[CC-by-NDNC Bhakta Bandhav]