What Does His Opinion Matter

“’You said that He is indeed everywhere, so why can He not be seen in this pillar? If I do see that Vishnu right now in the middle of the pillar, then I will not kill you. Otherwise, you will be divided into two.’ Having seen (his father) in that way, Prahlada began to meditate on that Supreme Lord.” (Narasimha Purana, 44.10-11)

Download as podcast episode (right click and save)

त्वयोक्तं स हि सर्वत्र कस्मात् स्तम्भे न दृश्यते
यदि पश्यामि तं विष्णुम् अधुना स्तम्भमध्यगम्

तर्हि त्वां न वधिष्यामि भविष्यसि द्विधान्यथा
प्रह्लादो ऽपि तथा दृष्ट्वा दध्यौ तं परमेश्वरम्

tvayoktaṃ sa hi sarvatra kasmāt stambhe na dṛśyate
yadi paśyāmi taṃ viṣṇum adhunā stambhamadhyagam

tarhi tvāṃ na vadhiṣyāmi bhaviṣyasi dvidhānyathā
prahlādo ‘pi tathā dṛṣṭvā dadhyau taṃ parameśvaram

“Listen, I do not want to reduce the history to a fairytale. I would never refer to the events surrounding Prahlada Maharaja as mythology. To me, it is a myth to think that you can enjoy life to the fullest by constantly engaging the senses, blind to the reality of impending death. It is a myth to think you can suddenly eradicate disease with a mysterious, rushed-to-market injection, which lacks sufficient data to vouch for its safety. I think it is a myth to think that the amazing universe we operate under somehow came about through randomness or chance. No, the story of Prahlada and the inimical father named Hiranyakashipu makes sense. At least to me, it almost hits too close to home.

“Therefore, I tend to think of ways the story could have diverged. The various twists and turns that could have occurred. It is almost like Prahlada had this secret friend. You might be tempted to call that friend “imaginary”, since there were skeptics all around. The truth is that the people opposed did believe, but they were trying to deny the reality. That was the basis of their existence, after all. The kingdom of the Daityas was opposed to Vishnu. The Daityas understood that Vishnu is different, that He is the deva of the devas. Vishnu is not an order supplier. Vishnu cannot be commanded to do anything.

“And here it was, a five-year old boy, innocent and precocious, somehow surviving the worst physical attacks. Prahlada meditated on Vishnu during the difficulty. Prahlada did not necessarily expect protection. He was peaceful. He was joyful, despite the chaos surrounding him. The perpetrators were obviously dumbfounded. They could not believe their eyes. How was Prahlada surviving a fall from the top of a cliff? How could he ingest poison and live to tell about it? How did the fire do nothing to him? How did the most feared ruler in the land, Hiranyakashipu, fail to take out an unarmed boy, who was not even fighting back?

“We all know that it was Vishnu protecting Prahlada. The question I have is why wasn’t there an inclination towards proof. You know, like in a grand reveal, pulling the curtain back like from one of those television gameshows. Why didn’t Prahlada ask Vishnu to show Himself, to prove to the doubters that the Supreme Lord is indeed sarvatra? Wouldn’t that have solved the problem? Couldn’t Vishnu have prevented the skeptics from crossing over the edge?”

In this case, there is the urge to prove someone wrong. If only they could see what I see. If only they were privy to the same information. If only there was a sign from above, then they would finally acknowledge the truth. This was not Prahlada’s approach. He chose to speak. His words served as the evidence. He wanted others to reach the proper conclusion through careful consideration, contemplation, and deliberation.

Indeed, this is the way of the wise, the cultured, the kind, and the honest. Even the famous Bhagavad-gita conversation has the recommendation for deliberation at the conclusion. Shri Krishna has already shown the virat-rupa. He essentially transformed into the universal form, at the request of the devotee named Arjuna. What was left to prove after that?

इति ते ज्ञानम् आख्यातं
गुह्याद् गुह्यतरं मया
विमृश्यैतद् अशेषेण
यथेच्छसि तथा कुरु

iti te jñānam ākhyātaṁ
guhyād guhyataraṁ mayā
vimṛśyaitad aśeṣeṇa
yathecchasi tathā kuru

“Thus I have explained to you the most confidential of all knowledge. Deliberate on this fully, and then do what you wish to do.” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad­-gita, 18.63)

Arjuna could see everything in a single image. Multidimensional and with a time element – the virat-rupa is like the visual proof of the existence of God. It is one way to view God, in fact. He pervades the entire space, in the worshipable form that is technically unmanifest, or avyakta.

मया ततम् इदं सर्वं
जगद् अव्यक्त-मूर्तिना
मत्-स्थानि सर्व-भूतानि
न चाहं तेष्व् अवस्थितः

mayā tatam idaṁ sarvaṁ
jagad avyakta-mūrtinā
mat-sthāni sarva-bhūtāni
na cāhaṁ teṣv avasthitaḥ

“By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them.” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-gita, 9.4)

Still, Arjuna should carefully go over what he heard, not what he saw. Accepting the individual truths would hopefully lead him to understanding the complete whole. Krishna is the anchor upon which all truths rest. He is the complete everything. When you have Him, you no longer require assistance in this temporary situation or that.

मत्तः परतरं नान्यत्
किञ्चिद् अस्ति धनञ्जय
मयि सर्वम् इदं प्रोतं
सूत्रे मणि-गणा इव

mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat
kiñcid asti dhanañjaya
mayi sarvam idaṁ protaṁ
sūtre maṇi-gaṇā iva

“O conquerer of wealth [Arjuna], there is no Truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread.” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-gita, 7.7)

Prahlada was trying to create the same understanding in others. This would happen through their own shift in consciousness. What purpose would an image serve? Moreover, why does their opinion matter? If someone is intoxicated from a night out and they refuse to sit quietly and listen to my presentation, is there a flaw on my end? Have I done something wrong? Should I be upset that my words are falling on deaf ears? Is some image going to magically change their mind?

Prahlada had nothing to prove. He only wished well for others. In this regard, he continued to tell about Vishnu. It was the inimical father who finally insisted on proof. He failed to consider that he might not like what he would see. That proof might be upset, in retaining the memory of the heinous attacks against the devotee, who was only five years of age. That proof might emerge exactly from where it was demanded, out of the nearby pillar struck by the powerful sword known as Chandrahasa.

In Closing:

Proof right where demanded,
From target of sword commanded.

The one protecting the same,
Child of Prahlada the name.

Who the entire universe pervading,
Father critical knowledge evading.

That truth insisting to see,
As Narasimha ferocious to be.