Page 53 - THE FOURTH DIMENSION

The āhlādinī-śakti is manifested as Rādhārāṇī, but Kṛṣṇa and Rādhārāṇī are the same, although one is potent
and the other is potency.

Brahmā was mystified about Kṛṣṇa’s opulence (nija-mahimani) because this opulence was atarkya, or
inconceivable. With one’s limited senses, one cannot argue about that which is inconceivable. Therefore, the
inconceivable is called acintya, that which is beyond cintya, our thoughts and arguments. Acintya refers to that
which we cannot contemplate but have to accept. Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī has said that unless we accept acintya in
the Supreme, we cannot accommodate the conception of God. This must be understood. Therefore, we say that
the words of śāstra should be taken as they are, without change, since they are beyond our arguments. Acintyāḥ
khalu ye bhāvā na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet: “That which is acintya cannot be ascertained by argument.” People
generally argue, but our process is not to argue but to accept the Vedic knowledge as it is. When Kṛṣṇa says,
“This is superior, and this is inferior,” we accept what He says. It is not that we argue, “Why is this superior and
that inferior?” If one argues, for him the knowledge is lost.

This path of acceptance is called avaroha-panthā. The word avaroha is related to the word avatāra, which
means “that which descends.” The materialist wants to understand everything by the āroha-panthā — by
argument and reason — but transcendental matters cannot be understood in this way. Rather, one must follow
the avaroha-panthā, the process of descending knowledge. Therefore, one must accept the paramparā system.
And the best paramparā is that which extends from Kṛṣṇa (evaṁ paramparā-prāptam). What Kṛṣṇa says, we
should accept (imaṁ rājarṣayo viduḥ). This is called the avaroha-panthā.

Brahmā, however, adopted the āroha-panthā. He wanted to understand Kṛṣṇa’s mystic power by his own
limited, conceivable power, and therefore he himself was mystified. Everyone wants to take pleasure in his own
knowledge, thinking, “I know something.” But in the presence of Kṛṣṇa this conception cannot stand, for one
cannot bring Kṛṣṇa within the limitations of prakṛti (matter and all things controlled by the Lord). One must
submit. There is no alternative. Na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet. This submission marks the difference between Kṛṣṇa-
ites and Māyāvādīs.

The phrase atan-nirasana refers to the discarding of that which is irrelevant. (Atat means “that which is not a
fact.”) Brahman is sometimes described as asthūlam anaṇv ahrasvam adīrgham, “that which is not large and
not small, not short and not long.” (Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 5.8.8) Neti neti: “It is not this, it is not that.” But
what is it? In describing a pencil, one may say, “It is not this; it is not that,” but this does not tell us what it is.
This is called definition by negation. In Bhagavad-gītā, Kṛṣṇa also explains the soul by giving negative
definitions. Na jāyate mriyate vā: “It is not born, nor does it die. You can hardly understand more than this.” But
what is it? It is eternal. Ajo nityaḥ śāśvato ’yaṁ purāṇo na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre: “It is unborn, eternal,
ever-existing, undying and primeval. It is not slain when the body is slain.” (Bg. 2.20) In the beginning the soul is
difficult to understand, and therefore Kṛṣṇa has given negative definitions:

nainaṁ chindanti śastrāṇi
nainaṁ dahati pāvakaḥ
na cainaṁ kledayanty āpo
na śoṣayati mārutaḥ

“The soul can never be cut into pieces by any weapon, nor can it be burned by fire, nor moistened by water, nor
withered by the wind.” (Bg. 2.23) Kṛṣṇa says, “It is not burned by fire.” Therefore, one has to imagine what it is
that is not burned by fire. This is a negative definition.
51