Subjective Evolution of Consciousness - Chapter Five

There are many schools of atheist philosophers. The most famous atheist in Indian philosophy was Charvaka Muni. His philosophy is paralleled by the extreme atheists of Western philosophy. According to their opinion, consciousness is the by-product of the chemical combinations of different material substances. With the dissolution of this physical body, neither soul nor consciousness remains. Only the physical combination of the different elements of the body remain. Just as the combination of different chemicals produces something more than the individual chemicals themselves, the physical combination of different material elements produce consciousness. With the dissolution of this fleshy body, nothing remains. This philosophy was first propounded in the West by Epicurus.

Then there is Buddhism. The Buddhists say that when the physical body is dissolved, the subtle body, the mental system, goes on to take another birth. The Buddhists admit transmigration from one body to the next, or reincarnation. According to them, although this body may vanish, we must enter another body according to our karma. If we work in a particular way, then the subtle body, the mental system, dissolves, and nothing remains. According to the Buddhists, there is no soul.

Śaṅkarāchārya’s philosophy is similar – with a slight difference. The Buddhist school says that the individual soul does not exist. According to them there is no permanent individual soul.

Śaṅkarāchārya has also said that no permanent individual soul exists. But Śaṅkarāchārya says that conscious substance, Brahman, exists as the ultimate reality. This is the difference between Śaṅkarāchārya and the Buddhists. According to Śaṅkara, consciousness itself is true; it is only the consciousness of separate existence that is false. In his view the individual soul is only a reflection of the conscious substance which is the ultimate reality. With the dissolution of the mental system, each soul’s consciousness of individuality vanishes; it is nonexistent in that ultimate plane of reality. He gives the example of the moon and its reflection in a mirror. Remove the mirror and there is no reflection. His view is that all individual souls are reflections from a common source: Brahman, consciousness. So Śaṅkarāchārya says, in reality individual souls are one and the same with Brahman.

Śrī Chaitanya Mahāprabhu’s interpretation of Vedānta is different from Śaṅkarāchārya’s. Śrī Chaitanya says that we have to accept the Vedic truth in its entirety, without any modification. Śaṅkarāchārya has accepted only a few Vedic aphorisms which constitute a partial representation of the truth. His four principle expressions taken from the Vedas are ahaṁ brahmāsmi: “I am Brahman”; tat tvam asi: “Thou art that”; so’ham: “I am that”; and sarvaṁ khalv idaṁ brahma: “Everything is Brahman.” Śrī Chaitanya analyzed the meaning of the aphorism sarvaṁ khalv idaṁ brahma follows. According to Śaṅkarāchārya, everything is one. He says brahma satyaṁ jagan mithyā: Spirit is true, the world is false. Śaṅkarāchārya says that brahma (spirit) exists, and that sarva (everything) does not exist. If this is actually true, and everything is one, then why does the question of existence or nonexistence arise at all?

In the aphorism sarvaṁ khalv idaṁ brahma, sarva – everything – exists, and brahma – spirit – also exists In this expression, many exists and one also exists. There is many and there is one.

Again, if everything is one, then the question arises: to whom are we speaking? For whom have the Vedas come with this advice? Both the relative and the absolute exist together; they are coexistent. The absolute and the relative are also represented in the Vedāntic aphorism tat tvam asi: Thou art that. Tat or “that” is there and tvam “you” is also there. Both variety and unity are found represented in the aphorism tat tvam asi, but Śaṅkarāchārya accepts one and rejects the other. His explanation is therefore a misinterpretation of the original meaning of the Vedānta-sūtras. It is not a proper interpretation of the Vedas, because he has thrust his own idea or conception forward in the name of the Vedānta. Śaṅkarāchārya’s interpretation of Vedānta is artificial. It is selfish and provincial.

This is the refutation of Śaṅkarāchārya given by Śrī Chaitanya Mahāprabhu, and as far as we are concerned, it cannot be seen otherwise. If we try to follow the interpretation of Śaṅkarāchārya, then what meaning can be found in this statement of the Upaniṣads: yato vā imāni bhūtāni jāyante yena jātāni jīvanti? “The Absolute Truth is He from whom everything is coming, who is maintaining everything, within whom everything exists, and into whom everything enters at the time of annihilation.” What does this mean? Does this statement say that the Absolute Truth is non-differentiated? It is sufficient for our understanding to accept its direct meaning. The self-explanatory meaning of these words is sufficient to understand this simple statement of the Upaniṣads.
Śrī Chaitanya Mahāprabhu defeats Śaṅkarāchārya through common sense. This is the unique characteristic of His argument. He defeats His philosophical opponents not with difficult, abstract, intellectual arguments, but with common sense.

When Śrī Chaitanya wanted to demonstrate the supremacy of Nārāyaṇa over Śiva, he said that one may just consider the position of the Ganges. The Ganges is the water that washes the feet of Nārāyaṇa, and yet she rests on the head of Śiva. From this, we can easily use common sense to see which of the two holds the superior position. When Śrī Chaitanya wanted to show that Krishna is greater than Nārāyaṇa, he pointed to the example of Lakṣmīdevī. She aspires after the association of Krishna. Although she has everything with Nārāyaṇa, still she has some aspiration for the company of Krishna. On the other hand the gopīs have no attraction for Nārāyaṇa. When they meet Nārāyaṇa, they pray that by His grace, their devotion to Krishna may be enhanced.

In this way, by applying common sense, intuition, we may judge the nature of reality. Intuition will be far more helpful than abstruse argument. Vedānta confirms this in the aphorism tarko-pratiṣṭānat: “Argument can never help us reach any real conclusion.” Rather it is only intuition and common sense that can really help us. This is the recommendation of Śrī Chaitanya, and this is how He refuted many scholars including even the great all-conquering digvijaya paṇḍita of Kashmir.

Question: The Buddhists say that after one transcends sensory experience he will find that underneath it all there is actually no foundation of life. One will find that there’s nothing there but the void. According to their teaching, after our experience is removed, there is no soul, no basis of existence. How do the Vaiṣṇava āchāryas deal with Buddhism?

Śrīla Śrīdhar Mahārāj: In South India, and especially in Andhra Pradesh, there are many Buddhist scholars. Śrī Chaitanya Mahāprabhu met the Buddhists when he was passing through South India. Chaitanya Mahāprabhu says veda nā māniyā bauddha haya ta’ nāstika. Because the Buddhists do not accept the Vedic Scriptures, they are considered atheists. Śaṅkarāchārya, in a hidden way, also preaches on behalf of the Buddhists. The difference between them is that Śaṅkarāchārya admits the existence of Brahman as the fundamental reality, whereas the Buddhists say that ultimately nothing exists.

The Vaiṣṇava āchāryas disagree with both Śaṅkarāchārya and with Buddha. They say that the jīva is an individual eternal soul. This particle of spiritual energy known as the jīva or spirit is tiny, like the dust particles of earth or the pencils-rays of the sun. There is the Supreme Infinite Soul or Consciousness, and the finite sparks of consciousness. Their relationship may be compared to the relationship between a great fire and the sparks that emanate from the fire. The sparks that emanate from the fire may become covered by darkness, but when they re-enter the shelter of that great conflagration, they are again perfectly situated.

To refute the atheism of the Buddhists, we may look to the modern European philosopher Descartes. Descartes said, “I doubt everything. Whatever you say, I doubt.” Then, Descartes says, the question that arises is, “Does the doubter exist: true or false?” You have to start your search for truth from there. Who am I ? To whatever truth is related, whatever idea is stated, one may say, “I oppose that statement. I doubt it.” Then the question arises does the doubter exist, or is he nonexistent? If he is nonexistent, then there can be no question of doubting. If one takes the position of an extreme skeptic, he must explain his own position. He may assert, “Whatever you have said, I doubt,” but he must discern whether or not he really exists. That must be the starting point for any further inquiry.

And what is the doubter? Is he an atom? A particle of dust? Is he without knowledge? And if so, then how has he comes to assert doubt? This question should be examined. Whenever one may doubt, the question must be asked, “Who is the doubter? Is he conscious? Does he have reason? Has he any existence at all? Or is he imaginary? Is it matter that is submitting the question? Or is a unit of consciousness asking the question? What is the origin of this question? Who is asking the question? Has it come from the conscious region? If it has, then what shall we consider as the basis of existence? Consciousness or matter? A fossil or God?”

Before the First World War, I was a student of law in the university. In my senior year I studied philosophy under a professor named Mr. Stevenson. He was a German scholar, but during the war he took Indian citizenship. His class dealt with ontology and psychology. Professor Stevenson’s language was very simple, and he used fine arguments to make his point. He gave four arguments against atheism, one of which I find very useful: “Consciousness is the starting point of everything.” Whatever you say presupposes consciousness. Any statement presupposes consciousness.

If we examine the fossil, what do we see? It is black, it is hard, it has some smell, some attributes, but what are these things? These are all different stages of consciousness. Without the help of consciousness, no assertion can be made. No assertion is possible at all. One may say that the fossil is the most elemental substance, but a fossil means what? Some color, sensation, hardness, taste; but the background is consciousness.

After everything is analyzed, we will find that it is an idea. This is Berkeley’s theory. Everything is an idea in the ocean of consciousness. Just as an iceberg floats in the salt ocean, so the fossil is floating in the conscious ocean.

Ultimately everything – whatever we can assert, whatever is within the world of our experience – is floating like an iceberg in the ocean of consciousness. This point can never be refuted.

I have had personal experience of this. When I was twenty-three, I had some deep and natural indifference to the world. At that time I had an experience of the reality of consciousness. I felt the material world floating on consciousness just as cream floats on milk. Conscious reality is much deeper than the apparent reality of our present experience. The world of experience is like cream floating on milk which is the mind. This physical world is only the visible portion of reality floating over the mental world. I felt this myself. When there is a huge quantity of milk, the cream that floats over the milk and covers it is very meager. In the same way, I could feel at that time that this physical world is only a meager portion of reality, and that the subtle world, which is at present in the background, is far more vast. The mental world is a huge and vast reality, and the physical world is a small cover over that mental world.

Whatever can be perceived by the eye, the ear, the tongue, the nose, the skin – any of the external senses – is only a covering of reality. In Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Prahlāda Mahārāj says, na te viduḥ svārtha-gatiṁ hi viṣṇuṁ, durāśayā ye bahir-artha-māninaḥ. We are making too much of the covering of reality, we are devoting our minds to the external coating – bahir-artha-māninaḥ – but we do not dive deep into the eternal substance. If only we were to dive deep into reality, there we would find Viṣṇu. The most peaceful substance is within, but it is covered, just as milk is covered by cream, and we are making much of that cover. The real substance is within, just as fruit is covered by its skin. What we experience at present is the cover, the skin, and we are making much of that, ignoring the very substance which the cover is protecting.

The primary step in the search for truth is to penetrate the covering and find the knower within. And then begin our analysis. What is he? Is he an atom like an atomic particle of dust? Or is he a fantastic atom in the conscious plane? At first we must approach reality in this way. There is the knower and the unknown, the inquirer and the inquired.

Try to find yourself. Then gradually, you will come to know that you are the soul, the particle of consciousness within. And just as you are spirit covered by matter, the whole world is also like that; the spiritual reality within is covered. Upon realizing yourself as spirit soul, you will be able to see that everything is a part of consciousness. Within the world of consciousness, worlds of different sorts of experience are floating. In the conscious sea, the sun, the moon, trees, stones, human beings, our friends, and our enemies are all floating. As we approach the spiritual plane, we will find it to be nearer to our real self. And in this way, we will see that matter is far, far away, but the soul is near.

Try to conceive of reality along these lines. Soul, spirit, consciousness, is nearer to the soul and you are a child of that soil. Matter is far, far away. But the interrupting planes are so close together that we don’t see the nature of spiritual reality, just as if you put your hand over your eye, you can’t see the hand. But if the hand is only one foot away, we can see it very clearly. Sometimes what is very close, we cannot see. I may be able to see so many things, but I cannot see myself.

Although the Buddhists and other atheists argue that consciousness is a material thing, I say that there is no material thing. If I am to answer the question of whether or not consciousness is produced from matter, then I shall say that nothing is material. Whatever we feel is only a part of consciousness. Everything is an idea. We are concerned only with consciousness from the beginning to the end of our experience. Beyond that we cannot go. Everything is an idea: the stone, the tree, the house, the body – all are ideas. The plane of consciousness is very much closer to us than we perceive. And what is shown as a particular thing is far away. We are involved only with ideas. We can’t go outside that. Everything within our experience is a part of our mind.

Question: The Purāṇas say that there are 8,400,000 species of life. Are they only ideas?
Śrīla Śrīdhar Mahārāj: All ideas. Consciousness is always in the primary position. Yet these ideas are real, because they are also originally present in the spiritual reality Vṛndāvana. Nothing is eliminated in our conception of reality; everything is harmonious. Everything has its proper position; nothing is to be eliminated. The only thing necessary is harmony. Only our outlook, our angle of vision, needs to be changed. But in order to have that kind of vision, we must give up being self-centered. Both exploitation and renunciation must be given up. These two things cause this hallucination. Everything has its contribution to the service of the supreme Center, and if we can understand that, we become free from this relative world. The material world is a reflection of the spiritual world. There is undesirability here. From Brahmā, who holds the highest position in this universe, to the lowest creature (ābrahma-bhuvanāl lokāḥ), everyone is prone to misconception. On the other hand, everything in Vṛndāvana contributes towards the pastimes of Rādhā-Govinda.

Everything in Vṛndāvana is Krishna conscious; every tree, creeper, and shrub. How can they be useless or ordinary shrubs and creepers? Uddhava is the greatest devotee of Krishna and he aspires to take birth as a creeper or a shrub in Vṛndāvana. What then, is the value of the shrubs and creepers of Vṛndāvana! Should we think that Uddhava’s aspiration is imaginary or theoretical, with no practical value?

Everything in Vṛndāvana is necessary for the pastimes of Rādhā-Govinda. Everything in the spiritual environment has its indirect value. This is called śānta-rasa, or passive mellow. It may be understood in this way: if a man does not harm anybody, even a fly or a mosquito, that does not mean that he is paralyzed or diseased; he is simply in a passive mood. So in Vṛndāvana, service may be rendered in a passive mood. The Yamunā river, the trees the birds, and the insects, are absorbed in rendering service in a passive mood.

How this is so can be understood by the analogy of a drama. In a drama in the theater, an actor may play the part of a dead man. As his body is being carried, he can’t say anything; he can’t move. That does not mean that he is dead. Similarly, a devotee in śānta-rasa may assume a passive role as a creeper, a shrub, or a tree in Vṛndāvana, in order to enhance the drama of Rādhā-Govinda līlā.

A devotee may also accept the role of a servant. He may be a king, but for the satisfaction of the Lord, he may play the part of a sweeper. While one is playing the part of a sweeper, he may perform his role so nicely that the men standing by applaud in appreciation. So the mood of servitude is also a contribution to the service of Krishna.

Another example of śānta-rasa is Rādhā-kuṇḍa. Rādhā-kuṇḍa, the bathing place of Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī, where Krishna enacts his pastimes of conjugal love, is considered to be the highest place in Vṛndāvana. The gods and devotees all praise Rādhā-kuṇḍa. Should we think it to be an ordinary body of water? Rather, how exalted is the position of Rādhā-kuṇḍa.

Then there is Govardhana Hill. That is also a kind of pose. Apparently it is a hill, but Govardhana is worshiped as Krishna Himself. He also appears as a stone, as śalagram; He appears in the form of the Deities.

Śrī Chaitanya Mahāprabhu prays, “O Lord, please consider me as the dust of Your holy feet,” expressing Himself as a vibhinnāṁśa jīva. Foot-dust is generally inanimate. But when Chaitanya Mahāprabhu prays, “Consider me foot-dust,” the dust He speaks of is not matter; it is a unit of consciousness filled with knowledge and love. The dust of the Lord’s lotus feet is the emblem of knowledge and ecstasy. In the spiritual realm, existence and knowledge is presupposed. But more than that, the souls there are points of divine love in Vṛndāvana and Navadwīpa. And with the wholesale conversion of the souls of this world, everywhere we will find the kingdom of God. Krishna’s kingdom, Mahāprabhu’s kingdom, exists; we have only lost the proper angle of vision by which to see it. We must once again acquire that vision. At present we are in the midst of enemies, but if our angle of vision is changed, we shall think, “No, I am in the midst of friends.”

And that angle of vision is so broad that one who sees in that way becomes fearless. When Jaḍa Bhārata was captured by dacoits and taken to the deity of Kālī to be sacrificed, his angle of vision was so spacious that he did not care for anything. He thought, “Whatever is happening is the Lord’s will. He is the proprietor and witness of all. He sees everything. Everything is his will, and I have nothing to do with the outcome.” With this idea, wherever Jaḍa Bhārata was taken, he went without resistance. Although he was about to be sacrificed, he was unconcerned. He thought, “I am in a friendly circle. There is no danger.” He was in such a plane of consciousness that no apprehension, no danger, could affect him; he thought, “I am under Krishna’s care.” And so it is proved by Jaḍa Bhārata’s practical example that this angle of vision is not simply philosophy or imagination. It is reality.

Krishna’s divine will is in the background of everything that exists. And when one comes in connection with that paramount power, that original plane of reality, he will not have any care; he will become fearless, māyā santuṣṭa-manasaḥ sarvāḥ sukha-mayā diśaḥ (Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 11.14.13).

Yet, in the plane of reality where Krishna is worshipped with knowledge-free devotion, jñāna-śunya bhakti, that sort of posing is there. There appears to be fear and concern, but that concern is quite different in nature from material cares. Influenced by yogamāyā, the gopīs and Krishna’s friends want to know, “Krishna is not here! Where is He?” And in this way, the gopīs and cowherd boys run here and there searching for Krishna. Even the cows are concerned and stop grazing, but all this is conducted by yogamāyā for the satisfaction of Krishna. Such is the nature of līlā in the plane of jñāna-śunya bhakti.

We are engaged in an inner search for truth. And in the Vedas the answer to our questions, the essence of the whole revealed truth of the Scriptures, can be summarized in one word, oṁ: “Yes!” What is the meaning of that “yes?” “What you want: yes, it exists. What you are searching for: yes, it is there! Your inner search to live and to improve will be fulfilled: seek and ye shall find.” If you examine yourself and search out your innermost need, you will find that the revealed truth says, “Yes, your thirst will be quenched. You will be well-fed.”

Question: In Bhagavad-gītā, Krishna says jīva-bhūtāṁ mahā-bāho yayedaṁ dhāryate jagat: the spiritual energy is sustaining this material world. How are we to understand this?
Śrīla Śrīdhar Mahārāj: The misguided souls of this world are from taṭastha-loka, the marginal plane, and misguided by misconception they have come within this illusory angle of vision.

Krishna says this world is dead matter. The souls entered here and movement came. They entered into this material conception and began moving it. In that sense, they are sustaining the universe, yayedaṁ dhāryate jagat. But ultimately everything is sustained by Him.

Krishna also says ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavo: “Everything emanates from Me.” And in the Vedas it is said, yato vā imāni bhūtāni jāyante. He is the origin of everything in its creation, its maintenance, and its annihilation. But here in this material world, the fallen souls as so many sparks have entered like glowworms into the dark region showing the darkness surrounding it. The jīva souls are like glowworms in the dark night of this material world. Somehow they are carrying on in the darkness. We can barely trace them out as a meager light in the dark. They are almost completely covered by darkness, but still they can be distinguished. Spirit can know itself.

Question: Who did you say was expounding the atheist philosophy in the West?
Śrīla Śrīdhar Mahārāj: Epicurus is the greatest atheist of the West, as Charvaka Muni is in the East. According to Epicurus, with the dissolution of this physical body, nothing remains. And according to him there is no mental system; the mental system – what we come across in our dreams – does not have any separate existence. But Śaṅkara and Buddha both accept the existence of the mental system within the physical body. Transmigration of the soul is also admitted in their philosophy. But Buddha says that with the dissolution of the mental system – the sukṣma śarira – nothing remains.

Śaṅkarāchārya, on the other hand, says that the consciousness within the mental body is a reflection of Brahman, and Brahman is the ultimate existence. According to him, with the dissolution of the body, nothing remains but Brahman. Śaṅkarāchārya says:

śloka dhenu pravakṣyāmi
yad aktam yānti kotibhiḥ
brahma satyaṁ, jagan mithyā
jīva brahmaiva na paraḥ

“In half a verse, I am summarizing the truth that has been expressed by volumes and volumes of scripture. Within only half a verse I shall give the essence of all truths: brahma satyaṁ, jagan mithyā. Brahman, spirit, is true – this world is false. And the jīva is nothing but Brahman. This is the substance of all the Scriptures.”

Proper knowledge is not possible under the philosophical systems of Buddha and Śaṅkarāchārya. If what they say is true – the world is false – then we must ask, “Why do you speak? And to whom? If everything is false, is your philosophy also imagination?” We will have to ask Śaṅkarāchārya, “Does your coming to this world and your endeavor to refute Buddhism and establish oneness as the ultimate truth have no meaning? Who have you come to preach to? Why have you come to preach if this world has no reality? If this world is false, then why are you taking so much trouble to explain your philosophy? For what? Is your mission also imagination?” The first great opponent of Śaṅkarāchārya was Rāmānuja. Rāmānuja’s refutation was very strong and based on a sound foundation. Rāmānuja argued: “What is the necessity for Śaṅkarāchārya to endeavor with so much energy to establish his philosophy if it is all fictitious? To say, the world is false, is a suicidal position. Has he come here to do nothing? He has come to correct us and free us from error, but there must be errors. Error or misconception has reality, otherwise, what is the necessity of spending so much energy refuting so many propositions? Māyā exists. Māyā is eternal. The individual soul is eternal, and māyā is also eternal.”

The basis of material existence is the possibility of the taṭastha jīva committing a mistake and developing misconception. The soul is anu chetana, atomic consciousness. And as atomic units of consciousness, our freedom is not perfect. Our defective freedom is the cause of this illusion. The soul must have freedom. Before a crime is committed, the possibility of committing a crime is present in the ordinary peace-loving subject. The possibility of disease is there, so hospitals, medicine, and special diets are all necessary. In the same way, the possibility for misconception is there in the soul because we are weak and limited.

Māyā, the world of measurement, is unnecessary for the Absolute, but necessary for those in the relative position. When there is only one self-interest, māyā is not necessary. But where there is division, differentiation, and distribution, when there are many ideas of self-interest, māyā is necessary.

Within the world of misconception, māyā is the law of the land. The law helps the law-abiding, and the law punishes the law-breaking. The law is the same for everyone; and that same law means protection for the good and suppression for the bad. Law means to divide rights. One and the same law provides for protection of the good and punishment of the bad. The svarūpa-śakti, the Lord’s internal energy, helps the good, and the māyā-śakti punishes the bad.

Śakti, or energy, serves the purpose of the Lord, and therefore necessarily has two aspects, paritrāṇāya sādhūnāṁ vināśāya cha duṣkṛtām: to chastise the wicked and reward the good. When the Lord Himself appears, His purpose has two aspects: one for the good, another for the bad. He also comes here with that combined purpose. So although He is one, we see these two aspects of His character.

The conception that the unity of the absolute is not a stale, nondifferentiated thing is a theory that was propounded by Rāmānuja. This is called viśiṣtādvaita-vāda, oneness with difference. The philosophy of Śaṅkarāchārya, on the other hand, is known as kevalad-vaita-vāda, exclusive oneness. Rāmānuja accepts that the Absolute Truth is one, but according to him, it is a differentiated oneness. He does not accept non-differentiated oneness. That it is one, he has no doubt. But that one is characterized by specification and differentiation. This is similar to the panentheism of Hegel.

Question: According to what you are saying, matter is also conscious because it is coming from the Lord who is the Supreme Consciousness. In the beginning, when we first differentiate between matter and spirit, we learn that matter is dead and the living entities manipulate it, but when we develop a higher realization will we see that matter is also living?
Śrīla Śrīdhar Mahārāj: Yes, and that is known as śānta-rasa. In a higher stage of realization we can detect consciousness everywhere: within glass, stone, earth, wood – in all the innumerable shapes and colors in which matter may appear.

We are always in the midst of consciousness. Consciousness is all-pervading, but is situated in different gradations of conception. The gradation of conception may differ, but it is all consciousness, all eternal: paśu-buddhi-tanturājanam hariṣyeti. We must try to reinstate ourselves in our own plane of reality. There, without the help of this mortal element, we can live happily. That transcendental plane is not a nondifferentiated world. It is not that there you have no individuality. If a nondifferentiated mass of consciousness can be admitted, then why should we not admit the existence of a system of consciousness? Rāmānuja says that it is a system. Śaṅkarāchārya says there is only a nondifferentiated mass of light-consciousness. Rāmānuja disagrees. He says that a differentiated light-mass of consciousness is the basis of reality. It is not undifferentiated or non-distinguishable.

And Śrī Chaitanya Mahāprabhu says that the basis of reality is achintya bhedābheda, inconceivable bipolarity. Everywhere there is something common and something different. Whatever opposing points you may discuss will have something in common, and something different. Nothing is quite the same as anything else. And above all, the infinite is not within your fist. It is inconceivable. The unified and differentiated character of reality is inconceivable; its secret is in the hand of the Supreme. It does not depend upon your whim. Still, that differentiated character of the Absolute will be seen differently according to the subjective relationship we have with Him.

An example of this is found in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (10.43.17)

mallānām aśanir nṛṇaṁ nara-varaḥ
strīṇāṁ smaro mūrtimān
gopānāṁ sva-jano ’satāṁ kṣiti-bhujāṁ
śāstā sva-pitroḥ śiśuḥ
mṛtyur bhoja-pater virāḍ aviduṣāṁ
tattvaṁ paraṁ yogināṁ
vṛṣṇīnāṁ para-devateti vidito
raṅgaṁ gataḥ sāgrajaḥ

“When Lord Krishna, accompanied by Baladeva, entered Kaṁsa’s wrestling arena, He appeared to the spectators in different ways. Everyone viewed Him according to their own relationship (rasa) with Him. To the wrestlers He appeared as a lightning bolt. To the people in general He appeared as the most beautiful personality. To the ladies, He appeared to be the most attractive young man, Cupid personified, and thus increased their lust. The cowherd men looked upon Krishna as their own kinsman coming from the same village of Vṛndāvana. The kings who were present there saw Him as the most powerful ruler. His parents Nanda and Yaśodā saw Him as their most beloved child. Kaṁsa, the king of the Bhoja dynasty, saw Him as death personified. The worldly-minded saw Him as the Universal Form; the unintelligent saw Him as incapable, and to the yogis, He appeared to be the Supersoul. To the members of the Vṛṣṇī dynasty, He appeared to be their most celebrated descendant.”

When Krishna entered the arena, everyone saw Him in their own way. In this way we can understand how He satisfies everyone. When Yaśodā sees Him, she says, “My boy!” But the gopīs see a grown-up – not a child. His friends see Him as one of their playmates. Krishna satisfies everyone. Even the animals in Vṛndāvana become ecstatic when they come in connection with Krishna.

barhāpīḍaṁ naṭa-vara-vapuḥ karṇayoḥ karṇikāraṁ
bibhrad vāsaḥ kanaka-kapiśaṁ vaijayantīṁ cha mālām
randhrān veṇor adhara-sudhayāpūrayan gopa-vṛndair
vṛndāranyaṁ sva-pada-ramaṇaṁ prāviśad gīta-kīrtiḥ
(Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 10.21.5)

“While the gopīs were describing the sweet vibration of Krishna’s flute, they also remembered their pastimes with Him; thus their minds became enchanted, and they were unable to describe completely the beautiful vibrations. While discussing the transcendental vibration, they remembered also how Krishna dressed, decorated with a peacock feather on His head, just like a dancing actor, and with blue flowers pushed over His ear. His garment glowed yellow-gold, and He was garlanded with a vaijayantī garland made of tulasī, kuṇḍa, mandāra, parījāta, and lotus flowers. Dressed in such an attractive way, Krishna filled up the holes of His flute with the nectar emanating from His lips. So they remembered Him, entering the forest of Vṛndāvana, whose soil experiences the pleasure of consorthood upon being embraced by the touch of Krishna’s lotus feet.”

Krishna Consciousness means full-fledged theism, up to consorthood. All conceptions of fulfillment are found there in their purest and most desirable position. This material world, however, is only a shadow, a black imitation of reality. Full-fledged theism means Krishna Consciousness. In the full-fledged conception of theism, the Infinite embraces the whole of the finite. It comes down to completely embrace and welcome the finite. This kind of full-fledged theism is found in Vṛndāvan. There, one negligent part of the finite may find the bliss of the embrace of the whole of the Infinite. In Vṛndāvan, not a corner of the finite is left unfulfilled; every particle of sand and every creeper is well-represented there, with complete personality in the loving Pastimes of Śrī Krishna.

Here in this material world, however, a particle of sand is nothing; it is ignored. But there, everything is well-attended. In Vṛndāvana there is no ignorance. No interest of anything is ignored there; everything is harmonized, and therefore the conception of Vṛndāvana in Krishna Consciousness is the highest conception of full-fledged theism. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam says, “Whenever Krishna sets his lotus feet within Vṛndāvana, the Earth personified says, ‘My fate is fulfilled, I have achieved my highest fortune.’ In Vṛndāvana, the earth, the very dust, feels the pleasure of the highest type of conjugal love merely by the touch of His lotus feet. Wherever Krishna puts his footsteps, the Earth’s joy knows no bounds. By his touch, the Earth feels the most intense type of ecstasy.

In Vṛndāvana, Krishna is mādhurya, sweetness personified. He is ānanda, ecstasy personified. And Krishna responds to our own inner demands in every way. The Supreme Center has the peculiar capacity of responding to all our needs and satisfying the thirst of all existence. According to their capacity, rank, and dignity Krishna distributes to all souls the juice from the sweet sea of transcendental mellow, yo yaṁ śraddhā sa eva saḥ.

One can taste the sugar-candy sweetness of the Absolute, according to one’s capacity, just as sugar candy is tasted in different ways. For a normal tongue sugar candy is very sweet, but if there is a boil on the tongue even sugar candy is bitter.

When a man is working, his manager will see him as a worker; his child will see him as a father, and his wife will see him as a husband. His servant will see him as master. Dogs and other animals will view him in another way. The same person will be seen differently according to the relationship between seer and seen. Similarly, Krishna appears differently to those who view him according to their respective rasa. In this way, the differentiated character of the Absolute is revealed according to the soul’s subjective qualifications.