The True Vedantist

“’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

In the same way that people debate the best kind of diet to follow, the ideal style of government for the benefit of all of the people, and the pros and cons of certain medical interventions, genuine religion is not to be followed blindly. Once exiting the harsh and sometimes corrupt model of dogmatic insistence, there is genuine inquiry and understanding, focusing on the nature of the individual in comparison to the whole. In the school of Vedanta, the central point of contention often comes down to personal versus impersonal. In the case of the five-year old child named Prahlada, we can say that his behavior and teachings indicate a true Vedantist.

Imagine the situation of visiting one of your friends. They are a family-man like you. They need rest every now and then. They welcome the opportunity to interact with adults again, like they did prior to marriage. They are happy that your children are around the same age as theirs. They invite you over one time, and you immediately pick up on something peculiar. You see, one of their children is celebrating a birthday.

There is nothing odd in a birthday party, except that the child is the only one celebrating. They have a tiny area for a pretend table and cake. There are some decorations around. When pressed on the matter, they respond that today is their birthday. You immediately look to your friend, who quietly shakes their head. They don’t want you to spoil the fun, but they also need to be accurate. Today is indeed not the child’s birthday.

You later come to learn that the child follows the same pattern on a recurring basis. Day after day, they act as if it is their birthday. This warrants celebration, you see. This requires special treatment from others. Everyone should be nice to them. Everyone else should acknowledge the special occasion.

The obvious distinction, which you are reticent to point out, is that if every day is the birthday, then none of the days are. If you turn everything into something special, then you lose the key distinguishing characteristic. The whole situation turns into a blur, merging into a single characteristic.

This is one way to understand the flow with Advaita-Vedanta, in the limited understanding. Advaita refers to the absence of duality. It is Vedanta since it is the conclusion of knowledge. It is the highest point of understanding to reach. Under this philosophy, every person is God. There is no distinction. I am God. You are God. So is that tree standing tall in the backyard. So is the fruit that falls from the tree.

The argument has support in the factor of autonomy. No one tells me what to think. No one can steal my thoughts. People can suggest certain ways to act. They can employ a threat of violence to compel, but I still must make the choice. I have to move. It is my life experience, after all.

Since we have countless individual, autonomous beings, corresponding to the chetana concept in Sanskrit, we can say that there are individual versions of God everywhere. They are all over the place and always present. His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada says that the living being is sarva-ga. They can go anywhere. There are also the Sanskrit words of sarvatra and sarvada. Of course, there is the same blurring factor, in that if every person is God, then no one is God. This means that the person with this narrow understanding is essentially cancelling out the concept of Divinity.

श्रीभगवानुवाच
इदं शरीरं कौन्तेय क्षेत्रमित्यभिधीयते
एतद्यो वेत्ति तं प्राहु: क्षेत्रज्ञ इति तद्विद:

śrī-bhagavān uvāca
idaṁ śarīraṁ kaunteya
kṣetram ity abhidhīyate
etad yo vetti taṁ prāhuḥ
kṣetra-jña iti tad-vidaḥ

“The Blessed Lord then said: This body, O son of Kunti, is called the field, and one who knows this body is called the knower of the field.” (Bhagavad-gita, 13.2)

Shri Krishna describes in Bhagavad-gita the difference between the playing field, kshetra, and the knower of that field, kshetrajna. This begins to create separation from the flawed perspective described above. If I am an individual God, I am still limited. I am kshetrajna, but only for my field. I do not control your field. In the human body that you are currently in, you have the same distinction between field and knower. I am not the knower of your field and you do not know about my field. I can tell you about my experience, but that is different from someone controlling. There is a dependence on communication. There is separation. There is distinction.

Meanwhile, there is actually a universal knower. The same Krishna is that knower. This introduces the missing piece. There is Dvaita-Vedanta combined with the advaita side. The true Vedantist understands, acknowledges, and lives by this truth. Prahlada Maharaja is one such Vedantist. He tried to explain the sarvatra property to his father. You could say this was the advaita side, in the lack of duality. The person worshiped by Prahlada is indeed everywhere. The existence, rise, and even persistence in resistance by the father, Hiranyakashipu, was proof of this truth.

God is everywhere. Everyone is nondifferent from God, and yet God is also a separate individual. This was revealed to the doubting father in a spectacular way. Thinking that maybe this Vishnu person worshiped by his son was a kind of attributeless spark, incapable of acting or responding to violent behavior, Hiranyakashipu struck a nearby pillar. The father carried through on a threat. He used his powerful sword, known as Chandrahasa, and because of this violent act the Supreme Witness gave visual evidence of His distinct and separate position relative to the living entities. He also made good on the delivery of justice, in showing the father that the crimes committed against the innocent Prahlada did not go unnoticed.

In Closing:

Control locally to wield,
Knower of my playing field.

But still distinction there,
Not of your field aware.

Difference with Vishnu though,
Prahlada distinction to know.

Proof from that pillar clear,
Narasimha everything to hear.