Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna Lecture 159 on 10-March-2026
Full Transcript (Not Corrected)
Opening Invocation
OM JANANIM SHARADAM DEVIM RAMAKRISHNAM JAGADGURUM PAHADAPADMETAYOH SRIDHVA PRANAMAMI MUHURMUHU
ओम् जननीम् शर्दाम् देवेम् रामक्रिष्णम् जगत् गुरुम् पादपत्मे तयोस्रित्वा प्रणमामि मुहुरु मुहु
The Four Types of Physicians and Gurus
We are studying the Gospel of Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa. In our last class, Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa was referring to three types of physicians — first class, middle class, and lower class. Unfortunately, we have to add a fourth class nowadays.
A third class physician just prescribes the medications and never enquires after the patient. A middle class one now and then enquires, but doesn't take much interest in the patient. But a first class physician, if necessary, forces them.
What is the fourth class I just referred to? There are some very evil people in this world. If you go to them for something, they will create something else so that their business can continue.
Now, how do we connect this to spiritual life? A first class guru, a second class guru, a third class guru — if any guru falls under any of these three categories, we would have been very lucky people. But nowadays, how much deception is taking place, even to the extent of sometimes killing devotees. We do not know what to call these fourth types of gurus. But at least a third class guru is one who doesn't do any harm — he initiates the devotee and enquires just a little bit.
Higher than that, a guru goes on telling, even though many of the devotees do not listen. But a first class teacher — both teacher and devotee must be first class. Then he even forces. We have to remember that it is God alone who comes in the form of a human being to guide us. Let us never forget it.
The Sacred Nature of Vernacular Teachings
What comes out, even from the lowest of gurus, is nothing but the sacred teachings of the Vedas. However, they are expressed in local language. There have been so many saints — Sūrdās, for example; Kanaka Dāsa, for example. When these people are recognised, there will be people who will be able to recognise them and take refuge in them when they speak.
They do not talk in Sanskrit. They do not talk in high-flowing words. They just talk in ordinary language, their own language. In South India, there was a very famous saint known as Anjanappa Svāmī, Añjaneya Svāmī. He used to compose some songs in very ordinary words, but with extraordinary meaning.
Even Rāmprasād, the well-known teacher, is no exception. Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa followed his bhajans. Every bhajan is an Upaniṣad for the devotees. We have to remember that. The bhajans composed by the saints and sages are not ordinary bhajans at all. They are among the greatest teachings — the same Vedic knowledge flowing in different languages.
The Story of the Illiterate Cobbler
I remember a marvellous Russian story. There was a cobbler who was not literate. Somehow he used to memorise — he could just read a little bit of the words. So he put a prayer together in a small book, and every day, with great difficulty, he used to read that book, which was a prayer to the Divine Lord.
One day he forgot to bring that book along with him, and he had to pray. Such was his great love for God. So he told God, "Lord, you know I am illiterate. I don't even remember. But I will be praying — you put the words together."
And God heard it and turned towards the angel Gabriel and said, "This is the greatest prayer I have heard in all my lifetime."
It is the earnestness. It is the śraddhā that really counts.
The Guru as a Channel of Grace
Now, we are talking about the physicians. Every guru is only a mouthpiece, a tap. In Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa's words, the water comes only from God. But when it rains, sometimes we can store it and redirect that water through pipes. Every guru is like a pipe, and there are also different types of pipes.
Some are completely stainless steel — beautiful, first class stainless steel pipes, which don't rust, through which clean water flows. And there are also plastic pipes, through which the water that comes might be a little bit contaminated. But for an earnest, thirsty soul, it doesn't really matter.
Now, what is important? A first class physician forces his disciple until he realises God. He will not allow him to get out of his grip. Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa gives a beautiful example, referring to himself: "If a water snake swallows a big frog, then it is agony for both the snake as well as the frog." And then, turning to one of the devotees, he says, "You rich man, you think you are swallowed by a water snake? You are caught hold of by the most virulent, poisonous cobra. At best, three croaks and then you will die." That means: "I have accepted you, and I will not leave you."
Karma, Suffering, and Divine Will
But then, what is important for us to note down here is that sometimes God creates difficulties. It is said that whenever people are going through suffering, there could be different causes.
One cause definitely will be one's own prārabdha — whatever we have done in the past, not only in the last birth, but through many lakhs of births, especially as a human being. We have to remember in this context that karma-phala doesn't apply to animals, to babies, and to those who have lost their minds. Only a person who has a rational mind, and who deliberately and purposefully does good or evil, dharma or adharma, will receive karma-phala in the form of puṇyam and pāpam.
So accidentally, if something happens, and some harm has come to somebody — many accidents are like that, where people do not know each other — karma-phala will not come from that. Only when a person deliberately, schemingly pursues both good and bad.
For example, if some small child gives away a golden ornament when you show him some biscuits or lozenges, that child doesn't get dharma or puṇyam. Only when he grows up and thinks, "I want to help other people because they are all children of God" — Śiva-jñāna, jīva-Śiva — then only will he get that dharma; otherwise not.
So when people go through suffering, one cause is definitely one's own prārabdham, the resultant of what a person has done in many, many lives. But there is another reason — God deliberately, not as a result of karma-phala but as a result of His will, creates problems. Why? Because problems alone can help a person grow up.
At first, it may seem extraordinarily difficult to tolerate, to put up with, to bear sufferings and difficulties. But no — God will also give, at the same time, the strength. Many a teacher has said this. It is also recorded: when God gives suffering to man, He also gives at the same time the capacity for that person to cope with that difficulty. But if God gives both together, man will not learn a lesson. He has to go through that suffering and ultimately take refuge in God. Then God gives him the strength, and that strength alone can help the person.
So these are the three types of physicians and three types of gurus, and we have seen how they relate to one another. That was what we discussed in our last class.
The Brahmo Devotees and Their Great Fortune
Then, one Brāhmo devotee — this passage is set among Brāhmo devotees. Because of Keśab Candra Sen, many Brāhmo devotees were attracted to Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa, and sometimes they used to come on their own. But many times, some of the rich Brāhmo devotees used to invite Rāmakṛṣṇa for some special festival, at which time a large gathering of Brāhmo devotees would come. We do not know the occasion here, but there must have been some such occasion.
Whatever ideas we may have about these Brāhmo devotees, we have to understand how fortunate they are to talk directly with God in the form of Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa, Holy Mother, and Svāmī Vivekānanda — whether they realise it or not.
In fact, some things are very surprising, even shocking. Svāmī Vivekānanda had given initiation, and some of the devotees had betrayed him terribly. If you still recollect, in England, Miss Müller turned against Svāmījī, but she had helped — it was her money with which the Belur Maṭh land was purchased, nearly 40,000 rupees. Then E. T. Sturdy, who served Svāmījī so much, turned into a bitterest critic of his own guru. And then in America, Kripānanda, a Russian to whom he had given sannyāsa, had gone berserk and gave a lot of trouble to Svāmījī.
I still remember in the Gospel of Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa, when Svāmījī — then Narendranāth — used to bring some of his friends. What type of friends? One-eyed, some fellows were one-eyed or squint-eyed. Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa knew these are not very good characteristics. Then he asked also, "Why do you bring these types of people?" So Svāmījī had tremendous compassion. He just melts like butter in the Arabian deserts whenever he sees anybody in distress. He trusts. Distrust was unknown to Svāmī Vivekānanda. And Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa might have warned him many times, but Svāmījī had to suffer through these people.
So this Kripānanda was the greatest admirer at the beginning and turned out to be a terrible torturer later on. Then he gave sannyāsa to one lady called Svāmī Abhayānanda, and this Abhayānanda came to India and started giving lectures — but knowing fully well that her guru was at Calcutta Belur Maṭh, she never came and met him. Do you think these things went unnoticed by Svāmī Vivekānanda? He would never miss them. But then, says he — anyway, the concept about forms of God.
Does God Have Form? The Brahmo Devotee's Question
So does God have a form? Or is He formless? Or is He beyond both form and formlessness? At the beginning itself, we had discussed this. M himself was a person who, when Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa had given this teaching, came to understand that God can be anything anybody likes. If any devotee thinks that God is a stone, He can be a stone also.
Just by the way, there is a beautiful story. There was a hunter in South India, in Andhra Pradesh — he is well known at Śrī Śailakṣetra. There was a dilapidated Śiva temple, and this person used to go there and offer meat. One day he found that from one of Śiva's eyes, blood was coming out. The devotee could not tolerate it and said, "Lord, I think something happened. You will go blind in one eye. So I will donate my own eye." So he plucked out his own eye with his arrow and placed it there. The moment he did that, the blood completely stopped. But then the other eye started. Then the devotee was ready to give his own second eye also. Śiva was very pleased with his devotion.
So this person may not have had the highest intellectual concept of God — in fact, that would be a wrong statement. It was not a stone. It was a living Śiva, just like a human being. He has got eyes. Just as we have a problem with our eyes — not only EYE, but the biggest problem is with the letter "I"! So the EYE problem is much less compared to this "I" problem. So Śiva-bhakti — so wonderful it is to see how many people all over the world.
In fact, for a Christian, a cross is the greatest symbol of God. What is this cross of the Christians? Neti, neti — "Not me, not I, but Thee and Thine." That crossing of the "I" — that is the symbolism of the cross, really. "Take up thy cross and follow my footsteps" — Jesus Christ instructs a rich young man who asked, "How can I enter into the kingdom of heaven?" He says, "You cannot enter until you give up your identity." This identity means individuality. You must become universal. Becoming universal is equivalent to entering into the kingdom of heaven.
Unable to understand, some religions teach their followers that you become a martyr — it is called jihād. "You kill somebody, God will be highly pleased. The more people of other religions you kill, the more Allah will be pleased." How much wrong teaching, and not only are these teachings wrong — they brainwash millions and millions of people into believing this doctrine, ending up believing that Allāh is bloodthirsty. He loves, indeed, but in the wrong direction. Anyway, coming back to our subject.
Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa's Answer: The Four Conceptions of God
A Brāhmo devotee or any one of us might ask: "Sir, has God forms, or has He none?" The question itself is incomplete. The moment we say "God," as I have mentioned many times — I think in my last class also — even the most ordinary person has four ideas about God.
First, that God is everywhere — He is ananta. Otherwise, what happens? If I am here and God is somewhere else, how is He going to help me?
Second, He knows everything — He is sarvajña. If I am in trouble and He doesn't know what my trouble is or what the remedy for that trouble is, then He is as helpless as anybody else, even though He may be right next to me. That is what happens with our family members — they all know, but they don't know how to help.
Third, God is all-powerful — He can do anything. He can simply say, "Just be cured," and the person will be cured. If God says, "May you be rich," instantaneously you will become rich. He can do anything and everything.
Fourth, He is all-merciful. Because even if a person has got all three of the above qualities, but if He doesn't feel like doing anything and doesn't love us, then it is no use.
So that is what every ordinary person believes — God is everywhere, He knows everything, He can do anything, He is very compassionate towards me. That is what is called religion.
So Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa was being asked: is God with form or without form?
The Vedas — remember, the Gospel of Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa, that name itself is not a very appropriate name. Śrī Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa Kathāmṛtam in Bengali is a much better title, but the highest title that can be given to the teachings of Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa is Śrī Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa Vacana-Veda. The words that come out of any jīvanmukta — not only Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa, but anyone who realises God.
What is the meaning of the realisation of God? Most of us still think a devotee is sitting or standing, and God comes and sits or stands in front of him, and he sees God — this is called God-realisation. No. God alone is real — that is called realisation. That means everything we see is real, not mithyā, but real. Because there is no place for mithyā. If God is everywhere, where is the place for a second something called mithyā or non-God?
God as Form and Formless: Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa's Teaching
So people, some of them, believe in the formlessness of God. Now, what is formlessness? For that also we have to have right understanding. There are two types of forms for those who believe. One is called pratimā. Another is called pratīka.
Pratimā means usually in the form of a human being, because we are human beings. And Svāmī Vivekānanda makes the point that if a cow had to imagine, it could never think of God as a human being — it could only think of God as a huge, most powerful cow whom nobody can resist. If an ant has to think, he will be the biggest ant. But even an ant will think that its ant-God is irresistible — He can destroy anything He wants. Even if an ant could think like that, wherever its God may be, He is everywhere, He knows everything, He can do anything. And if He wants, He can grant a mountain of sugar where the whole colony can live without wars.
Now wars are going to break out because of land, because of water, and because of the paucity of energy, unless we find some alternative way. And by the way, whatever is happening in this world is all the will of God — it is hard for us to swallow, but that is the truth. Everything is the Divine Mother's will. That is the ultimate truth. We have to understand that.
So, "Has God forms, or has He none?" If you remember, Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa asks M in the very first chapter itself: "How do you like to think of God?" He says, "I think of God as formless." Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa says, "Beś — very good. But don't think that those who are worshipping God with form are all fools, ignorant people, illiterate people. No. God can have form. God can be formless. And God is also beyond both form and formlessness."
And M started reflecting — he himself was recording. How can two contradictory things happen? There are so many contradictions. If you are here, you are here. If you are in America, you are not here. But that is not true about God. God can be here. He can be in America. He can be in Mars. He can be everywhere.
So this idea — whether God has form or formlessness — is also a thought in the mind, a concept, a vṛtti in the mind. Because when you are in deep sleep, do you have these kinds of questions — whether God is with form, without form, or beyond both form and formlessness? It is only so long as the mind is capable of thinking. And the mind is incapable of thinking of only one side of a thing — the very nature of the mind is that it must think in terms of duality: cold and heat.
That is why somebody explained something very beautifully. Supposing somebody has been thrown into hell — what is our concept of hell? He is suffering too much. But if he is suffering too much, how does he know he is suffering? So necessarily God gives him the highest pleasure for a moment. After experiencing that for a moment, for a long time the person remembers. Then he is deprived of that pleasure. Then only does he understand, "Oh, what a suffering this hell is!" Similarly, you have to apply the same concept to heaven. Suppose somebody is continuously cutting capers in heaven — do you think you will enjoy it? You go on eating sweets — do you know that you cannot enjoy sweets continuously? Even to recognise that "this is sweet," you must have the opposite idea.
So the essence of what I am talking about is this: this world, which means our own mind, consists of duality, and this is the nature of the mind. You cannot conceive of what is formless unless you have an idea of what is form, and vice versa.
Not only that, but what is the formless aspect of God? Usually — say, Muslims — they think God should not be imagined in an image, that they don't worship God in an image. Then why do they have to go and perform namāz in a mosque? If God is everywhere, they can do namāz anywhere. Of course, sometimes some of them do it even on aeroplanes — that is a different issue. You don't need to turn to Mecca. God is not only in Mecca. All these are aids. Even that structure like the mosque is also only to remind us of God. So unknowingly they do it.
But mostly, what they want to think about God is with certain qualities — He is all-merciful, He is all-forgiving, He protects His devotees, etc. And that is the common idea every one of us has. Even when a person is looking at a piece of stone, he is not thinking, "God is a stone." No — God is everywhere, and He is like a human being. He knows everything. He is all-merciful. All these qualities are superimposed automatically by every devotee of God.
Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa's Reply to the Brahmo Devotee
Anyway, so the Brāhmo devotee asks, and Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa replies. This topic comes many times because we need that teaching. Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa says:
"No one can say with finality that God is only this and nothing else. He is formless, and again He has forms. For the bhakta, He assumes forms. But He is formless for the jñānī — that is, for him who looks on the world as a mere dream. The bhakta feels that He is one entity and the world another. Therefore, God reveals Himself to him as a person."
Let us analyse this. First, Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa says something completely in accordance with what the Upaniṣads teach. The Taittirīya Upaniṣad says God is beyond the mind and cannot be expressed — if I don't know something, how am I going to talk about it? So He is beyond mind, and naturally, as a consequence, He is beyond speech also.
But at the same time, we have to start from where we are standing. So these ideas are given for us.
What is Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa telling? "No one can say with finality" — because every person is only a mind, and every mind is limited by time, space, and object. This is called pariccheda: deśa-pariccheda, kāla-pariccheda, vastu-pariccheda. Therefore, we cannot think of God as limited. The moment you say, "God is this," you cannot say God is something else — that goes contrary to our understanding. He can be what is called formless, and again He has forms.
For the Bhakta, God Assumes Forms: The Iṣṭa-Devatā Principle
And then Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa pronounces: "For the bhakta, He assumes forms." This is a statement we have to understand properly. There are Kṛṣṇa bhaktas, Śiva bhaktas, Devī bhaktas, bhaktas of Christ, bhaktas of Allāh, bhaktas of Buddha, etc. For all these types of devotees, they have certain ideas.
A Kṛṣṇa bhakta thinks Kṛṣṇa is like that. But among Kṛṣṇa bhaktas also, there are so many varieties. Gopāla Yāmī, for example, used to only think about baby Kṛṣṇa: "I have to take care. I am the mother. Without me, this fellow is totally useless." This Kṛṣṇa, the Gopāla that Gopāla Yāmī was worshipping, has this much knowledge — that butter is a very tasty thing. Naturally, I have to confess that he wanted butter because he was completely unaware of rasgullā, that rasgullā being only a 100-years-back invention. So poor Kṛṣṇa had no knowledge of rasgullā. If he had knowledge of rasgullā, he would have demanded rasgullā. Who goes for butter when there is first class rasgullā, rasmalai, jalebi?
Ṭhākur was very fond of jalebi. He says it is like a Viceroy of India — everybody has to make place. Even if it is a crowded place, when his carriage approaches, everybody will make way for him. So nobody should say that God is only this much, because the person who says, "God is this much," — his understanding is only that much.
He is formless. And for the sake of the bhakta, He assumes forms. That means: whatever the mind thinks this is God, God also has to assume that form. Very interesting.
So even Hanumān did not like the form of Viṣṇu. During the Rāmā-Rāvaṇa battle, Rāma recalled Garuḍa. Garuḍa liked Viṣṇu's caturbhuja form. But Hanumān liked only the deva-bhuja form of Rāma. So Hanumān was fidgeting. Then Rāma had to tell him, "Why are you fidgeting?" Was Hanumān an ignorant person? No — he knows very well. But there is something called iṣṭa-devatā. Just like Sri Rāmakṛṣṇa — he knew about rasgullās, but he referred only to jalebi as the Viceroy. He never said of rasgullā that it is the Viceroy.
So Hanumān uttered: "Śrī Nādhe, Jānakī Nādhe — I know that Viṣṇu and Rāma are completely non-different. But even though I know that, for me this is the Lord of Sītā — Rāma. I like Rāma's form." This is called the iṣṭa-devatā siddhānta.
Why was Rāmakṛṣṇa referring to this? Because we have to develop eka-rūpa bhakti. First we have to start our spiritual life with one iṣṭa-devatā. And once we progress in spiritual life, once we realise God through that iṣṭa-devatā — once you enter into a huge tent through one particular door, then you perceive there are so many other doors through which anyone can enter from any side at any time. But until that time, it is only an intellectual notion. A person doesn't know that God is everywhere — first we have to see God somewhere, then only can we understand that the same God is everywhere.
So God can assume any form that the devotee approaches. There are Hindus who worship Varāha avatāra, some people worship Narasiṃha avatāra — with the head like a boar's head or lion's head, but the rest being like a human body. There are many people who are upāsakas of Varāha and Narasiṃha avatāras. In fact, one of the disciples of Śaṅkarācārya was a great upāsaka of Narasiṃha. He saved Śaṅkarācārya from the clutches of a Kāpālika who wanted to sacrifice Śaṅkarācārya in order to obtain some petty powers — siddhis.
So, "God assumes" means: God is available in whatever way a sincere devotee thinks and believes God is like. He appears to him. There is a beautiful teaching of Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa. I think it was Svāmī Brahmānandajī who said: once a person has got darśan, vision of his iṣṭa-devatā, he afterwards recognises that his own iṣṭa-devatā is appearing in the form of so many other devatās. So the truth is one — Ekaṃ sat viprāḥ bahudhā vadanti.
For the Jñānī, God is Formless: The Vedāntist's Path
Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa continues: "But He is formless for the jñānī — that is, for him who looks upon the world as a mere dream."
We go on reading the Gospel without understanding. So who is the person who is fit to think of God as formless? Such a person is called a jñānī. And how do we know whether this person is a jñānī or not? Simply claiming, "I don't worship images," does not make him a jñānī. A jñānī is a person who looks on the world as a mere dream — that means nothing in this world appears to be real for him. Only such a person can be called, really speaking, a jñānī. Only for such a person does God become formless.
Formless means what? Formless does not mean emptiness. Formless means He is just like the same space that appears as a small pot, a big pot, a small baby, a grown-up person, a youth. There is a hymn which says: "You are a young man. You are a beautiful young maiden. And you are also moving forward with tottering steps, with the help of a staff. Everything is nothing but you." Such a person alone can think of God as formless. Formless means He is everything — not simply an empty space.
"The bhakta feels that he is one entity and the world another." But who is a bhakta? A bhakta is a person who feels that I am an individual and the world — everything in this world — is separate. Such a person alone, for him alone, God appears as iṣṭa-devatā with various forms. A person who knows that everything has a form — for him God also has a form. A person who knows everything is formless — for him God also appears formless. That is why Svāmī Vivekānanda used to say again and again: "As man grows, God also grows." A peculiar statement, if we do not really analyse it properly. That means: as man's understanding about himself grows, his understanding of God also grows. That is what we have to understand.
Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa continues: "But the jñānī, the Vedāntist for instance, always reasons, applying the process of neti neti — 'not this, not this.' Through this discrimination he realises by his inner perception that the ego and the universe are both illusory like a dream. Then the jñānī realises Brahman in his own consciousness."
So Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa is further clarifying that earlier idea — a jñānī is one for whom the whole world is a dream. What do I mean by the world? Because I am the world. If I am a person, God also and the world also are full of persons, forms. But a person who thinks, "I am not the body, I am not the mind, I am not even the kāraṇa śarīra" — that is called really thinking about the world as a dream.
That is just like when a person wakes up. We have to understand these sentences properly. When we are dreaming, we should never call it a dream — of course we don't call it a dream. We act and react as if it is the waking state. Only when we come out of it, look back, and remember what we have experienced, then only in comparison with this waking-state reality does that dream reality become unreal.
Similarly, when we wake up from this waking reality also — which is temporarily called turīyāvasthā in the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad — then only do we understand: "I am pure consciousness." That is what he says: "Then the jñānī realises Brahman in his own consciousness." I am turīya, I am only this consciousness, this Chaitanya alone, experiencing — temporarily assuming identity as a waker, as a dreamer, and as a sleeper.
The Ocean and Ice Analogy
"Think of Brahman — existence, knowledge, bliss absolute — as a shoreless ocean. Through the cooling influence, as it were, of the bhakta's love, the water has frozen at places into blocks of ice."
It is very true. You go to the Arctic area — it is all full of ice, but that ice is only through the cooling influence. Very, very cold — maybe minus 80, minus 100 degrees, like your refrigerator. In the refrigerator also there are places where you can keep things for a few days, but there is a compartment where you can keep things frozen for a long time.
When we take this analogy, we also have to understand: supposing for some reason that area becomes quite warm — what happens? That ice starts melting, and huge chunks of ice start breaking into pieces and falling into the ocean, increasing the level of the ocean. And that is what scientists nowadays are telling us — because of global warming, huge chunks of ice are melting. The Himālayas are melting.
We cannot understand this holistic idea — that this is all because of climatic changes, mostly brought about by our own civilisation and by the way we are warming things up. When you are cheerfully sitting in the aeroplane — "I can reach Vārāṇasī in one and a half, two hours!" — how much heat it is producing! And the collective effect of millions of aeroplanes flying all over the world creates so much gas discharge and heat. The cutting down of forests is causing global humidity to rise. Weather scientists are predicting that many cities, like New York, etc., are going to be submerged, like Dvārakā, in the oceans.
The Cycle of Yugas and God's Leelā
We are not able to understand. But the thing is — there is God. According to Hindu Vedānta, God has divided history into four categories: Satya-yuga, Tretā-yuga, Dvāpara-yuga, and we are in Kali-yuga. Every time this cycle changes. So this phenomenon of wars is nothing new.
As Peter Sorokin had shown in his work on the reconstruction of humanity and society, in the known history of the entire world, there were very few years when there were no wars, small or big. History is nothing but a story of man fighting with another man from the very beginning, and that will continue. Whatever you may imagine — "One day I will go to Svargaloka and there will be no wars" — nothing can be more foolish. What are all these wars that we see graphically described in our Purāṇas — between devatās and rākṣasas — continuous warfare? Sometimes the devatās win, become rākṣasas. Then the rākṣasas win, become devatās, and then they misbehave and again go back to being rākṣasas. These never-stopping, ever-recurring events continuously going on — that is the story of God's līlā.
That is why it is said — in the Ṛg Veda — what is creation? Every time a new yuga starts, Brahmā wakes up. Brahmā's waking up is called the start of a yuga. The Bhagavad Gītā beautifully describes that when Brahmā starts creating, that is his daytime. When Brahmā goes to sleep, that is called pralaya. And when we go to sleep, that is called nitya-pralaya. When we wake up, that is our sṛṣṭi.
As I explained many times, every activity has a beginning, a continuation, and then comes to an end. Every activity is nothing but sṛṣṭi, sthiti, and laya — until a new creation starts.
God once, for all, created a mould, and whatever He puts into that mould, the same shape comes out. So only once He needs to create the mould. That is what Brahmā remembered: "This is the mould" — and then that is it. His very thought becomes creation.
The same thing — this is what Svāmī Vivekānanda had said many times: "How many times I came to America and lectured in the past, countless times, and in the future also, countless times." He gave the example of the ferris wheel — what goes down at the bottom goes up, and what is at the top comes down. This is called Brahma Chakra, the wheel of Brahman , it never stops. This wheel goes on and on and on. That is why saṃsāra is called anādi — beginningless.
God-Realization as the Goal of Life
These are the beautiful thoughts. We will have to meditate upon them. But this is the important point — that God can be realised. God-realisation alone is the very goal of life. God-realisation means to know that "I am God." Each soul is potentially divine. "I am divine" — that is the goal of life. And that can be achieved through certain disciplines which are called Karma-yoga, Bhakti-yoga, Rāja-yoga, and Jñāna-yoga.
This is what Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa had come to awaken in us — this spiritual consciousness. We will talk about this beautiful subject. Even though you may be thinking, "We are talking about the same subjects" — yes, we have to go on talking about the same subjects until every idea merges into one idea. Finally: "I am That" — Ahaṃ Brahmāsmi.
Closing Prayer
Om Jānānāṃ Śāradāṃ Devīṃ Rāmakṛṣṇaṃ Jagadgurum
Pada Padme Tayo Śṛtvā Praṇamāmi Muhur Muhuh
May Sri Ramakrishna, Holy Mother, and Swami Vivekananda bless us all with bhakti.
Jai Ramakrishna!