FolioCorpusŚrīmad-Bhāgavatam

Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 11.13.22

वस्तुनो यद्यनानात्व आत्मन: प्रश्न‍ ईद‍ृश: । कथं घटेत वो विप्रा वक्तुर्वा मे क आश्रय: ॥ २२ ॥
vastuno yady anānātva
[vastuno yady anaanaatva]
ātmanaḥ praśna īdṛśaḥ
[aatmanah prashna eedrishah]
kathaṁ ghaṭeta vo viprā
[katham ghateta vo vipraa]
vaktur vā me ka āśrayaḥ
[vaktur vaa me ka aashrayah]
vastunaḥ — of the essential reality yadi — if anānātve — in the concept of nonindividuality ātmanaḥ — of the jīva soul praśnaḥ — question īdṛśaḥ — such katham — how ghaṭeta — is it possible or appropriate vaḥ — of you who are asking viprāḥ — O brāhmaṇas vaktuḥ — of the speaker vā — or me — of Me kaḥ — what is āśrayaḥ — the real situation or resting place.
Blended reading (Sanskrit + English inline)
vastuno yady anānātva
vastunaḥ
of the essential reality
yadi
if
anānātve
in the concept of nonindividuality
ātmanaḥ praśna īdṛśaḥ
ātmanaḥ
of the jīva soul
praśnaḥ
question
īdṛśaḥ
such
kathaṁ ghaṭeta vo viprā
katham
how
ghaṭeta
is it possible or appropriate
vaktur vā me ka āśrayaḥ
vaḥ
of you who are asking
viprāḥ
O brāhmaṇas
vaktuḥ
of the speaker
vā
or
me
of Me
kaḥ
what is
āśrayaḥ
the real situation or resting place.
My dear brāhmaṇas, if, when asking Me who I am, you believe that I am also a jīva soul and that there is no ultimate difference between us — since all souls are ultimately one without individuality — then how is your question possible or appropriate? Ultimately, what is the real situation or resting place both of yourselves and of Me?

Āśraya means “the resting place” or “shelter.” Lord Kṛṣṇa’s question “What is our actual resting place or shelter?” means “What is our ultimate nature or constitutional position?” This is because no one can come to rest or be satisfied unless one is in one’s natural position. The example is given that one may travel all over the world, but ultimately one becomes satisfied by returning to one’s own home. Similarly, a crying child is satisfied when embraced by its own mother. By inquiring about the shelter or resting place of Himself and the brāhmaṇas, the Lord is indicating the eternal, constitutional position of every living entity.

If Lord Kṛṣṇa were also in the jīva category, and if all living entities including Him were thus equal, there would be no deep purpose in one living entity inquiring and another answering. Only one who is in a superior position can meaningfully answer important questions. It may be argued that the bona fide spiritual master answers all the questions of the disciple, and yet the guru is in the jīva category. The answer is that the bona fide spiritual master speaks not on his own behalf but as a representative of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is in the Viṣṇu category. A so-called guru speaking on his own behalf as a jīva soul is useless and is unable to meaningfully answer serious questions. Thus, the sages’ question ko bhavān (“Who are You?”) indicates that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is eternally an individual person. And because the sages headed by Lord Brahmā offered obeisances and worshiped the Lord, it is understood that He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Lord Brahmā, as the first created being in this universe, could not accept any other living entity except the Lord as worshipable.

Lord Kṛṣṇa’s actual purpose is to explain the ultimate perfection of yoga, which the sages were desiring to know. If one becomes fixed in transcendental knowledge, the mutual attraction between the material mind and the material sense objects automatically ceases. The spiritual mind is not attracted to material objects of gratification, and thus by spiritualizing the mind, material existence automatically slackens. By questioning the propriety of the sages’ question, the Lord is assuming the position of the spiritual master and preparing to give valuable instructions. One should never be envious of a bona fide spiritual master, especially if, as in the case of Lord Haṁsa speaking to the sages headed by Brahmā and Sanaka-kumāra, the guru is the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself.

— A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda
Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura Gauḍīya
Translation
O brāhmaṇas! If, when asking me who I am, you believe that I am also a jīva, this question cannot occur if there is no plurality of ātmās in the absolute. I would have to answer in terms of plurality of qualities and type. In asking “Who are you?” do you think I am a jīva? Or do you think I am a material body? Or do you think I am the Supreme Lord? First Haṁsa dismisses the idea that he is a jīva. If you ask if I am a jīva arising from the absolute substance, how can your question arise at all? There exists no plurality of the absolute into many ātmās since the absolute has no distinctions based on qualities and species and all conscious particles are actually one. Who is the shelter of me, the person answering you? (How should I answer?) I would give an answer “I am so and so” based on particular qualities and species (which would be contrary to your belief in one absolute.).
If you think we are non-different jīvas with no ultimate distinction, then how is your question even possible? The Lord's first move dismantles a sloppy non-dualism.
Reflection Questions
  • Where does my philosophy collapse meaningful questions?
  • What might be more useful than easy oneness-talk?
📝 My note

← Read full Chapter 13