Śrīla Gurupāda-padma on Śrī Vigraha-tattva

(A compilation of instructions in relation to śrī vigraha-tattva collected from the speeches delivered by Śrīla Ācārya Kesarī on the occasion of the deity installation at Śrī Gauḍīya Vedānta Samiti’s Śrī Pichladā Gauḍīya Maṭha in 1959 and at Śrī Caitanya Gauḍīya Maṭha, Śrī Vṛndāvana-dhāma, in 1962.)

Throughout the authentic scriptures, such as the Vedas, Upaniṣads and Purāṇas, there are descriptions of the sac-cid-ānanda vigraha of Bhagavān along with the method of worship. Some people consider the Supreme Truth to be formless, devoid of attributes, devoid of potency (śakti) and unchangeable. In their opinion the para-tattva has no individual form (vigraha). If He assumed a form He would have to accept birth and death, and it would not be possible for Him to be all-pervading.

Actually, those who propound a conception of formlessness are not liberated from their own thought processes, which are permeated with the idea of form. They try to imagine formlessness, but the concept of ‘formfulness’ is still the centre of their denial of form. ‘Īśvara has no shape, no form, no qualities and no potency’ – these conjectures are all incorrect. The root of this false imagination is the śunya-vāda (voidism) of the Buddhists, or the anti-Vedic theory of atheism.

Furthermore, it will not be entirely inappropriate to say whatever theory of formlessness is current in our country today is the result of the Christian religion. The karma-vāda (philosophy propagating the performance of pious actions) of institutions such as the Bhārata Sevāśrama Saṅgha, the Rāmakṛṣṇa Mission and the modern Ārya Samāja is completely the remains of Christian dharma, because the ancient karma-vāda of our country is in all respects based on the Vedic injunctions. Therefore, in literatures such as the Bhagavad-gītā or other Smṛtis and Saṁhitās, there is no mention of pious acts (karmas) other than Vedic karmas. These people have done great harm to the world by preaching non-Vedic ideologies.

If the Christian conception of formlessness is indeed true, then what is the meaning of constructing places of worship and establishing the sign of the cross inside huge churches and on the tops of their steeples? Why do they not perform worship while looking at the sky in an open field? The most authoritative Christian literature is the Bible, and there it is written, ‘God created man in His own image’. That is, Īśvara has made man resembling His own form. Why do they not remove this statement from the Bible, in which the human-like form of Bhagavān has been accepted?

Similarly, in the holy Koran of the Muslims, who propound formlessness, there is an authoritative statement (āyatta) in one of the narrations (hadīsa) that resembles the words from the Bible. I will quote as what I remember: innālāhā khālākā men sūrātahi. Sūrat means ‘shape’ or ‘form’. “God has made man corresponding to His own form.” Thus the human-like form of Parameśvara is supported by both the Koran and the Bible. Under such circumstances, why do those supporters of formlessness who have taken shelter of Muslim dharma bother to construct mosques? Why do they, also, not meditate on the formless Absolute, in the open sky or within the ocean?

The Buddhists and Jains are also nirākāra-vādīs, proponents of formlessness. But the Buddhists and Jains have huge deities in their temples in places such as Boddhagayā, Kāśī, Sāranātha, Ajantā and Elorā. Mount Ābū, Paṇḍharapura and Kolkata’s Pareśanātha temple are examples of the deity worship performed by the Jains. According to Purī’s ancient history, the Buddhists attacked the temple and took control of it. At that time the Buddhists used to honour Jagannātha-deva, considering Him to be Buddhadeva, Subhadrā to be kirti (fame), Balarāma to be dharma (religion) and Sudarśana to be saṅgha (community). After driving the Buddhists from Purī, Ācārya Śaṅkara again established the proper worship of Jagannātha, Baladeva and Subhadrā.

In Indian literature, it is the indisputable truth that Parameśvara is the cause of which the visible universe is the effect. According to the theory of cause and effect, there is an inseparable relationship between them. Whatever is seen in the effect must exist in a subtle form within the cause. It is impossible in all respects for something which is not present in the cause to be present in the effect. Some philosophers maintain that a substance may be present in the effect even if it does not exist in the cause. The defect in this point of view is that, if one accepts an effect without a cause, then anything and everything could manifest from each substance. For instance, oil could be obtained from dust, ghee from water, and a mango could be obtained from an acacia tree. But this is not so. The fact is that whatever potential substance is in a seed (the cause), that very substance will manifest as the effect, just as oil comes from mustard and sesame seeds, ghee comes from milk, and mangoes come from mango trees.

Thus, as many forms as are visible in the effect – in the form of this universe – all must necessarily exist in the cause, brahma. If this were not so, and if brahma were formless, then this visible universe full of innumerable forms could not have arisen from it. Thus the deity of Bhagavān and the existence of the potential for the universe’s innumerable forms within Him is proved by the theory of cause and effect.

To accept that the universe has originated from a formless brahma that is devoid of attributes is tantamount to accepting that something or everything is born from nothing. But we do not see this happening. Rather, Parameśvara has been accepted in the Vedic scriptures as the pūrṇa-tattva, the complete truth: pūrṇam adaḥ pūrṇam idam. The Gītā 2.16 also proclaims the very same conclusion: “nāsato vidyate bhāvo nābhāvo vidyate sataḥ – there is no permanent existence of the asat, the temporary, and no cessation of the sat, the eternal truth.” Thus the deity of Bhagavān, the Personality of complete existence, is established beyond a doubt. In various places in the Śruti, brahma has been called nirākāra (formless), nirguṇa (without qualities), arūpa (without features) and nirviśeṣa (devoid of attributes). However, this does not mean that brahma is fundamentally nirviśeṣa, nirākāra and śūnya (void). The words nirguṇa, nirākāra, arūpa and nirviśeṣa are not prominent. It is ākāra (with shape), rūpa (form), guṇa (qualities) and viśeṣa (attributes) which are given prominence. Words such as nirākāra, arūpa, nirguṇa and nirviśeṣa signify the negation of the root words, and are derived from ākāra, rūpa, guṇa and viśeṣa. Therefore, para-tattva with vigraha, rūpa and guṇa is saviśeṣa-tattva, possessed of attributes. Why, then, has He been called arūpa and so on in the Śruti? The śāstras have given the answer to this:

acintyāḥ khalu ye bhāvā
na taṁs tarkeṇa sādhayet
prakṛtibhyaḥ paraṁ yat tu
tad acintyasya lakṣaṇam
Mahābhārata (Bhīṣma-parva 5.12)

It is not proper to apply logic and argument to that existence which is acintya, inconceivable. That which is inconceivable is beyond material nature.

yā yā śrutir jalpati nirviśeṣaṁ
sā sābhidhatte saviśeṣameva
vicārayoge sati hanta tāsāṁ
prāyo valīyaḥ saviśeṣameva
Hayaśīra-pañcarātra

Wherever Śrutis have initially described the tattva-vastu as devoid of attributes (nirviśeṣa), they have, in the end, established saviśeṣa-tattva (truth with attributes), not the nirviśeṣa-tattva. Nirviśeṣa and saviśeṣa are both eternal qualities of Bhagavān. Nevertheless, after seriously deliberating on the matter, it is the saviśeṣa-tattva which turns out to be prominent, because in this world there is experience of only the saviśeṣa-tattva. There is no experience of the nirviśeṣa-tattva.

The purport is that para-tattva has been called acintya, arūpa, nirākāra and so on because of His being beyond māyā. Actually, Bhagavān has a transcendental (aprākṛta) form. He is the foundation of all transcendental qualities and is possessed of all transcendental features and attributes. There is not even the slightest hint of prakṛti (material nature) or māyā in His sac-cid-ānanda form. Words such as nirākāra have been stated in particular parts of the scriptures only to make us understand this fact.

Some people consider the universe and all of the forms within it to be false. But if this world is false, then the people who say such things are also false and illusory. Furthermore, the statements of such illusory people are also illusory. This establishes the reality of the world.
Some people assert that a form cannot be all-pervading. However, this charge is also incorrect. As well as being all-pervading, Parameśvara is also the possessor of all potencies (sarva-śaktimān). One of His potencies is His aghaṭana-ghaṭana-paṭīyasī śakti, that by which the impossible is made possible. So why can He not have a form? Besides, by the influence of that śakti, why can that form not be all-pervading? If He cannot have form and also be all-pervading, then where is His omnipotence? This type of mistaken understanding is due to a lack of tattva-jñāna. By the power of His acintya-śakti, that Parameśvara, being unborn and without origin, is also the eternal son of Śrī Yaśodā.

It is impossible to worship a formless substance. Some philosophers have given a method of worshipping nirākāra brahma. They say, “Any substance with shape is illusory and should be rejected. Therefore, the best sādhana is just to worship the formless.” This opinion, however, is incorrect. Of the five gross material elements, air and ether are formless, but no one accepts them as transcendental or replete with eternality, cognizance and bliss. Therefore, we cannot say that the brahma of those who propound formlessness is worshipful just because it is formless or void like ether. In the Śrutis it has been said that liberated personalities always worship and have darśana of para-tattva through transcendental devotion (nirguṇa-bhakti): tad viṣṇoḥ paramaṁ padaṁ sadā paśyanti sūrayaḥ / divīva cakṣurātatam (Ṛg Veda 1.5.22.20). In other words, the divine and learned Vaiṣṇavas always have darśana of the supreme abode of Viṣṇu with their spiritual (aprākṛta) eyes. The form of para-tattva is clearly established by this śruti-mantra.

Some people say that the deity form is not mentioned anywhere in the Vedas, and that deity worship is therefore not Vedic. This charge is also erroneous and entirely unfounded, because accounts of the deity are found throughout the Vedas, for example:

(1) “sahasrasya pratimāsi – O Parameśvara, You have thousands of forms” (Yajuḥ Veda 15.65).

(2) “arcata prārcata priyamedhāso arcata – O intelligent men, intently worship the divine deity of Parameśvara” (Ṛg Veda 8.7.69.8).

(3) Further, in the Gītā (9.11), those who disregard the deity of Bhagavān have been called foolish (mūḍha) and the lowest of mankind (narādhama):

avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā
mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritam
paraṁ bhāvam ajānanto
mama bhūta-maheśvaram

Fools whose intelligence is bewildered by illusion disrespect Me when I appear in a human-like form, being unaware of My supreme nature as the Lord of all beings.

(4) In Taittirīya Upaniṣad (3.1):

yato vā imāni bhūtāni jāyante
yena jātāni jīvanti
yat prayanty abhisaṁviśanti
tad vijijñāsasva tad brahma
Know that brahma as that by whom the universe is created (the ablative case), by whom the universe is protected and maintained (the instrumental case) and into whom the universe enters at the time of devastation (the locative case).

That brahma in whom there are these three cases cannot be formless (nirākāra). We see fruit falling from a tree, but if we do not accept the existence of the tree, how can [we see] fruit fall from it? The falling of fruit is possible only if we accept the existence of the tree. Similarly, the appearance of the universe, which is full of form, is only possible if its source, brahma, also has form.

(5) Māyāvādīs say that the form of Bhagavān has been denied in Vedānta-sūtra, in the sūtras arūpavadeva tat-pradhānatvāt (3.2.14) and na pratīke na hi saḥ (4.1.4). However, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu has established the deity of brahma with these very same sūtras. The meaning of arūpavadeva is not that brahma has no transcendental form. Rather, this sūtra is clear evidence that brahma has form, but it seems to those who are unqualified that He is arūpa, or formless. In the word arūpavat, the suffix vatup has been used. According to Sanskrit grammar, vatup is used in the sense of similarity (tulya). Thus arūpavat conveys na-rūpavat, appearing to not have form. Rather, His own form, the vigraha, is predominant. There is no difference between brahma Himself and His vigraha. Similarly, in the next sūtra, na-pratikena means ‘śrī vigraha is not a symbol of brahma’, and saḥ means ‘this vigraha is brahma Himself ’. At the time of taking darśana of Śrī Jagannātha, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu said, “pratimā naha tumi,—sākṣāt vrajendra-nandana – You are not a statue; You are directly Kṛṣṇa, the son of the king of Vraja” (Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya-līlā 5.96).

The following mantra from Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (3.19) denies that the form of brahma is material and establishes His transcendental form of eternality, cognizance and bliss:

apāṇipādo javano grahītā
paśyatyacakṣuḥ sa śṛṇotyakarṇaḥ
sa vetti vedyaṁ na ca tasyāsti vettā
tam āhur agryaṁ puruṣaṁ mahāntam

That is, although para-brahma is devoid of material hands, He accepts all things. Although devoid of material feet, He comes and goes everywhere, at great speed. Although devoid of material eyes, He sees everything. The purport is that His form is not material but aprākṛta (transcendental) and sac-cid-ānanda, composed of eternal existence, cognizance and bliss –īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ.

The crest jewel of all evidence, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (10.14.32), also proclaims that Śrī Nanda-nandana is the complete, supremely blissful, eternal brahma: yan-mitraṁ paramānandaṁ pūrṇaṁ brahma sanātanam.

The suffix vatup is never used to convey a substance that does not exist. It is not accepted that a class exists of completely non-existent substances. We cannot make statements such as: “There is a substance that does not exist.” We have already established this earlier in relation to the evidence of the Gītā 2.16, nāsato vidyate bhāvaḥ. The compiler of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Vedavyāsa, is indeed the compiler of Vedānta-sūtra ; his statements can never be contradictory. Thus it is thoroughly improper to interpret the sūtras as indicating formlessness when they are illuminated by verses such as kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam, nanda-gopa-vrajaukasām, yan-mitraṁ paramānandaṁ pūrṇaṁ brahma sanātanam and brahmaṇo hi pratiṣṭhāham. In addition to this‚ the form of brahma is also established by the aphorisms of Vedānta-sūtra such as, “api saṁrādhane pratyakṣānumānābhyām – although He is omnipresent and unmanifest, one can receive His darśana by worshipping Him” (3.2.24), “prakāśaś ca karmaṇy abhyāsāt – and when the activity is repeated, He appears” (3.2.26), and “prakāśa vat-ca-avaiśeṣyam – He is (not) like fire or other things, for He has no such features” (3.2.25).

The purport of arūpavadeva tat-pradhānatvāt is that brahma does not have a particular shape or form – He is Himself form (vigraha). That is why it has been said arūpavat, ‘not having form or shape’. The suffix eva indicates the hopelessness of opposing arguments. Brahma-rūpa, the form of brahma, is predominant. There is no difference between His form (svayam-rūpa) and His deity (śrī vigraha). If you ask, “Can we accept that an omnipresent Being has a human-like form?” then the answer is, “Yes, it is possible.” “Api saṁrādhane pratyakṣānumānābhyām – although He is omnipresent and unmanifest, one can receive His darśana by worshipping Him.” Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (11.14.21) also confirms this: “bhaktyāham ekayā grāhyaḥ – I am obtained only through devotion.”

This conclusion has been made even more clear in the sūtra ‘na pratīke na hi saḥ’. The meaning here is that one cannot attain perfection or Bhagavān by worshipping a symbol or an idol, nor is it correct to impose the presence of Bhagavān on the idol. In this regard, Ācārya Śaṅkara states, “Forms of the formless brahma have been imagined for the welfare of the sādhakas. The consciousness is purified by worshipping these imaginary forms, and when the consciousness is purified, the attainment of the formless brahma becomes easy.”

It is not correct, however, to worship Bhagavān by imagining forms or idols. The deity of eternality, knowledge and bliss (sac-cid-ānanda mūrti ) is directly para-brahma Himself (svayam-rūpa), and He is to be worshipped. This has been stated in the aforementioned Vedānta-sūtra aphorism. The consideration here is this: “Can we establish the worship of a form of Bhagavān that is imaginary?” In reply to this, the sūtra states emphatically, na hi – No! “Then how will worship be performed?” Saḥ, by worshipping the spiritual śrī vigraha of Bhagavān Himself, one will meet with Him.

Therefore, it has been stated in Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta: “īśvarera śrī-vigraha sac-cid-ānandākāra – the transcendental form of Īśvara is composed of eternal existence, cognizance and bliss” (Madhya-līlā 6.166). “Cid-ānanda kṛṣṇa-vigrahe ‘māyika’ kari’ māni / ei baḍa ‘pāpa’,—satya caitanyera vāṇī – to accept the transcendental form of Kṛṣṇa to be made of the external energy is a great sin. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu’s statements are true” (Madhya-līlā 25.35). “Pratimā naha tumi,—sākṣāt vrajendra-nandana – You are not a statue; You are directly Vrajendra-nandana Kṛṣṇa Himself” (Madhya-līlā 5.96).

Therefore, the śrī vigraha of Bhagavān is the form of eternal existence, cognizance and bliss. However, one should bear in mind that only the śrī vigraha established by great liberated personalities are forms of eternality, knowledge and bliss. The mūrti established by conditioned souls is called pratimā, a statue, and the worship of such statues is prohibited in the scriptures. Just as a certified copy of a certified copy is not evidence, a duplicate statue of a deity established by a mahāpuruṣa is not a deity composed of sac-cid-ānanda. Throughout the śāstras it has been mentioned that endless auspiciousness for the jīvas comes by rendering service to śrī vigraha.

[CC-by-ND GVP]