Asserted Topics:
The distinction between avatar and avatari.
Key Points:
- Based on the scriptures authored by Vyasji, not all incarnations (avatar) are the same. By that same measure, Maharaj is not an incarnation like the others but is the avatari (the source of all incarnations).
- Bhagwan does not create the universe out of necessity; it is merely His leela (divine play).
Explanation:
In this Vachanamrut, Swayamprakashanand Swami asked a question: “Are all incarnations of Bhagwan the same, or is there a higher and lower distinction among them?” The question is quite beautiful and deserves deep contemplation. It is vital for us to understand because we refer to Maharaj as Sarvopari-Avatari (the supreme, the source of all incarnations) and worship Him as such. How much of this belief is grounded in the scriptures? This question holds significant importance for discovering that.
In response, Shriji Maharaj said, “I have read all the scriptures authored by Vyasji, listened to them, and after considering everything, I have understood that the incarnations of Matsya (fish), Kurma (tortoise), Varaha (boar), Nrushinh (half-man, half-lion), and other such divine forms are all incarnations of Bhagwan Shree Krishna. However, Bhagwan Shree Krishna is not an incarnation like the others; He is the avatari (the source of all incarnations).” Maharaj gave such a beautiful and scripturally sound response.
Maharaj’s answer was that not all incarnations are the same. Furthermore, He did not speak from personal imagination but based on the scriptures authored by Vyasji. The santo and bhakto present in the assembly were very pleased with Maharaj’s response and agreed, affirming, “Yes, Maharaj, we also believe that not all incarnations are the same.”
During Maharaj’s time, this question also perplexed many devotees: How should we understand Maharaj? Should we regard Him as being like other incarnations or superior? This debate has been ongoing in the Sampradaya since Maharaj’s time. Even during the creation of Satsangijivan, this topic became a heated debate among the senior santo of the Satsang. Not only that, but Maharaj Himself would often test the wisdom of the santo by stirring up debates to see how well they understood Him. In such debates, Nityanand Swami and other rare saints passed the test, earning Maharaj’s heartfelt approval. Maharaj raised a similar debate in Bhaktachintamani, chapters 104 and 105, testing the santo again, who also described Maharaj as the avatari (source of all incarnations). Moreover, Nishkulanand Swami, Gunatitanand Swami, Gopalanand Swami, and other saints have explicitly described Maharaj as the supreme being in their literature. Although Maharaj has given clear answers on many occasions, the debate seems to have continued.
Why is this? From a neutral perspective, there appear to be two reasons.
Firstly, we might fall short in recognizing or evaluating Maharaj’s true nature. Secondly, due to human ego, there may be a belief that one’s understanding is correct, dismissing all other views. These two reasons seem to sustain the debate, despite the fact that after Maharaj’s clear answers, there should have been no further arguments.
This Vachanamrut provides us with a perspective that Maharaj is Sarvopari (supreme). When examining the scriptures of Vyasji, it becomes evident that not all avatar are the same. This implies that Vyasji had a particular scriptural insight, by which the distinction between incarnations can be understood. What is this insight? Is it based on grand events, such as performing large feats, or more subtle acts like reading someone’s mind or entering their thoughts? If that were the case, even someone like Hiranyakashipu possessed such knowledge of the mind. Should we, then, consider him Bhagwan? Even great yogis possess such abilities, but does that make them Bhagwan? Is Bhagwan Shree Krishna greater because He lifted Govardhan? No, because Hanuman lifted the entire Dronachala mountain, of which Govardhan is just a part. Moreover, Varaha Bhagwan lifted the entire Earth on His tusks. Should we then say that Varaha Bhagwan is greater than Shree Krishna Bhagwan? No, we cannot say that. Is Shree Krishna considered greater because He killed a demon like Kansa? Even this cannot be said definitively. Hiranyaksha was a mighty demon, with the ocean only knee-deep for him, and no one in the universe was strong enough to fight him. Compared to him, Kansa does not measure up at all. Kansa did not possess any of the powers that Hiranyakashipu did. Based on this, Varaha Bhagwan or Nrushinh Bhagwan would seem greater, but this is not the case. Ravana, too, was extremely powerful, but if Valin had desired, he could have easily killed him. Therefore, no standard based on physical feats can be universally applied.
So, by what measure should Bhagwan be evaluated? According to the Upanishads and other scriptures, Bhagwan possesses two extraordinary qualities: “heya pratibhatt” and “kalyanaikatana”. The form of Paramatma is described as both benevolent and capable of removing the faults of jivas (souls), which are the exceptional attributes of Paramatma. The avatar that demonstrates these two qualities more clearly than others is considered superior. Scriptures have noted the greatness of an avatar based on how many jivas have been uplifted through their charitras (divine exploits). Gunatitanand Swami once said that Kapildev uplifted one mother, Rishabhdev Bhagwan uplifted one hundred jivas, and the saints say, “We will uplift divine souls.” Maharaj, however, has uplifted countless jivas.
Secondly, the creation of this universe is an extraordinary act of Bhagwan. For this reason, Vyasji said, “Janmadyasya yataḥ” (The source of creation is Bhagwan). Therefore, the one who governs the universe and demonstrates His divine powers through charitras can also be considered superior. The third measure is that during the course of their lives, the avatar who merges the forms of other incarnations into themselves, yet whose form is never absorbed into another, is considered supreme. This is the standard acknowledged in the scriptures, and it remains valid even if people accept or reject it. Furthermore, Gopalanand Swami also described numerous other characteristics to recognize bhagavatta (divinity), which were clearly visible in Shreeji Maharaj. Thus, Maharaj is not like other avatar; rather, all other avatar are of Maharaj, and Maharaj Himself is the avatari.
A second debate arises: even if we neutrally compare Shree Krishna Bhagwan to other avatar using scriptural standards, Shree Krishna Bhagwan is superior. However, if we evaluate the charitras of Maharaj and Shree Krishna Bhagwan using those same standards, we can understand that Maharaj is the avatari of all, including Shree Krishna Bhagwan.
In this Vachanamrut, a question arises: Maharaj has clearly instructed us to accept Shree Krishna Bhagwan as our Ishtadev (chosen God). Maharaj has explicitly highlighted the greatness of Shree Krishna Bhagwan, but He has not declared His own superiority as the upasya (object of worship). Yes, this has been presented by the contemporary and later santo, but not directly by Maharaj. So, whose command should be considered primary—Maharaj’s or the saints’? Should we prioritize His instruction or their opinion?
The resolution to this is that, in the spiritual path, there are two essential figures: the upadeshta (teacher or guru) and the Ishtadev, the object of worship. Most often, these two roles are fulfilled by different individuals. For instance, in the devotees of Shree Ram, Ram is the upasya and Tulsidasji or Valmikiji is regarded as the upadeshta. Similarly, for Vaishnav devotees, Shree Krishna Bhagwan is the upasya and Vallabhacharyaji is the upadeshta. The guru is referred to as the upadeshta. However, in our case, both the upasya and upadeshta are Maharaj Himself. Therefore, as long as there is no conflict between the two roles, no issue arises. But when it seems that there is a contradiction between devotion to the upasya and devotion to the guru, then the devotion to the guru can be secondary, but never the devotion to the upasya. The primary focus remains the worship of Maharaj. Even if the guru aspect of Maharaj has to be made secondary, the upasya aspect cannot be diminished.
Just as a devoted wife considers her husband both as her guru and as the object of worship, when her husband instructs her to serve or honor her parents, elders, or guests, she obeys with utmost respect. However, if her husband tells her to regard someone else as her husband, she will not follow that. In the same way, Maharaj’s words—His commands and teachings—can become secondary, but the upasya aspect cannot. This is the principle established by the scriptures. Therefore, even if Maharaj gives certain instructions, as the object of worship, only Maharaj is to be revered, and in matters of worship, the words of the nand santo and the saints who have attained the state of brahmabhav should be given greater importance than Maharaj’s words. Only then can it be said that we are truly worshipping Maharaj.Another question posed by Purushottam Bhatt was: Why does Bhagwan not directly liberate the jivas (souls) from the womb of Maya? Why does He first create such a vast universe and then proceed to redeem the souls? Maharaj answered that Bhagwan does not face any effort in creating the brahmand (universe). Once the universe is created, it does not cease to exist. Maharaj said that only the pralay (dissolution) of the brahmand whose lifespan has ended occurs, but not the dissolution of all of creation. Hence, creation continues to exist. Furthermore, Maharaj explained that creating the universe does not involve any effort for Bhagwan because He is Yogeshwar (master of yoga), and He creates merely through His will (sankalp). Creation, for Bhagwan, is His leela (divine play), which is why it is called srishti-leela. A leela is characterized by spontaneity, joy, and a lack of boredom. Additionally, creation does not require Bhagwan to travel far or exert Himself. Despite being present everywhere (anvay), Bhagwan remains distinct (vyatirek). He exists in one place while simultaneously pervading everywhere. This is one of the divine yogkala (powers) of Bhagwan. His knowledge and powers are so vast and extraordinary that even the intellects of gods, humans, and others cannot comprehend or measure them. Furthermore, Bhagwan is exceedingly merciful, and thus, out of compassion, He creates the universe. There is no obstacle to this. If Bhagwan were to liberate souls without creating the universe, it would raise issues such as determining whose liberation to prioritize. Such partiality would lead to various faults. Therefore, Bhagwan proceeds perfectly in His actions. Bhagwan, as Purushottam, is the creator and destroyer of the universe.