View source for This body of a table, it's not an individual personality is it? There's not one jiva soul in charge of this table?

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"this body of a table, it's not an individual personality is it? There's not one jiva soul in charge of this table"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|Mangalavati}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|16May11}}
{{last|16May11}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=0|Con=1|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:this]]
[[Category:Body]]
[[Category:Table]]
[[Category:Is It Not]]
[[Category:Individual]]
[[Category:Personalities]]
[[Category:There Is No]]
[[Category:one]]
[[Category:Jiva]]
[[Category:Souls]]
[[Category:In Charge]]
[[Category:Questions asked to Srila Prabhupada]]
[[Category:Questions asked to SP... 1971]]
</div>
<div id="Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" class="section" sec_index="5" parent="compilation" text="Conversations and Morning Walks"><h2>Conversations and Morning Walks</h2>
</div>
<div id="1971_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" class="sub_section" sec_index="4" parent="Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" text="1971 Conversations and Morning Walks"><h3>1971 Conversations and Morning Walks</h3>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationAugust171971London_0" class="quote" parent="1971_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="20" link="Room Conversation -- August 17, 1971, London" link_text="Room Conversation -- August 17, 1971, London">
<div class="heading">Everything is there. But actually, it is Kṛṣṇa, but we cannot see. Idaṁ hi viśvaṁ bhagavān ivetaraḥ. The whole cosmic manifestation is Kṛṣṇa but it appears it is different from Kṛṣṇa. Idaṁ hi viśvaṁ bhagavān ivetaraḥ. This is acintya-bhedābheda. So unless we accept the thesis or philosophy expounded by Lord Caitanya, inconceivable one and different... Inconceivable. For us it is inconceivable. You cannot have any clear distinction. Therefore take it as inconceivable, acintya. But from theoretical or by logical conclusion, everything is one: Kṛṣṇa. That's all. And another example is that the finger is myself, but I am not finger.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation -- August 17, 1971, London|Room Conversation -- August 17, 1971, London]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Revatīnandana: So there are many different manifestations of energies. It is the oneness that they're all Kṛṣṇa's energies. But there is also diversities.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Therefore we say acintya bhedābheda. You cannot clearly distinguish. It is one and different, at the same time. It is spirit and not spirit. You have to take it like that.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: Somehow or other, we create our own ignorance.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Everything is like that. Everything is spirit but at the same time, not spirit. Just like Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā, mat-sthāni sarva-bhūtāni ([[Vanisource:BG 9.4|BG 9.4]]), "Everything is in Me, but I am not there." How is that everything is in Kṛṣṇa? How Kṛṣṇa is not there? He says like that.</p>
<p>Revatīnandana: Yes. He says because you can't see Him there.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. Therefore matter means when our consciousness is covered to understand Kṛṣṇa, that is matter.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: I want to clear this up. Just like this table. It is full of millions of living entities, but there's not one...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Atom. Millions of atoms. But Kṛṣṇa says, "I am within the atom." So how you can say Kṛṣṇa is not there?</p>
<p>Revatīnandana: Now you were also telling me that Kṛṣṇa is in the atom as the jīva expansion.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Revatīnandana: Not as plenary expansion.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Eh?</p>
<p>Revatīnandana: Not as a plenary expansion, but a part of a plenary expansion.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: A plenary expansion that is also. Jīva is also plenary expansion.</p>
<p>Revatīnandana: Plenary? I thought plenary means...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Not plenary. That is also expansion. It is called vibhinnāṁśa. Svāṁśa, vibhinnāṁśa. Viṣṇu-tattva is svāṁśa and vibhinnāṁśa. Both of them are part and parcel.</p>
<p>Revatīnandana: Plenary means full portion.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Revatīnandana: So svāṁśa is plenary.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Revatīnandana: And vibhinnāṁśa is part of plenary.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Revatīnandana: So the presence of Kṛṣṇa in the atom, it is vibhinnāṁśa.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No. Both of them there.</p>
<p>Revatīnandana: Both of them? In the atom.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Devotee: Kṛṣṇa is not alone there.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Whenever the Kṛṣṇa is there, the, everything must be there. (laughter)</p>
<p>Haṁsadūta: But in the Brahma-saṁhitā it says that He is present in every atom in His complete fullness.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: This brain will not accommodate. But as soon as the king is there you must know the king is with his ministers, secretaries, everything. How you can say the king is alone there.</p>
<p>Revatīnandana: You said also in the heart Kṛṣṇa is not alone. Every...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Kṛṣṇa is never alone. With all paraphernalia, all Vaikuṇṭha paraphernalia. That is acintya.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: But this body of a table, it's not an individual personality is it? There's not one jīva soul in charge of this table.</p>
<p>Revatīnandana: In other words the table itself is not a person, but within there are many persons.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Revatīnandana: Living entities, germs, like that are in the...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: God is also there.</p>
<p>Revatīnandana: And Kṛṣṇa is there.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Kṛṣṇa is also... Everything is there. But actually, it is Kṛṣṇa, but we cannot see. Idaṁ hi viśvaṁ bhagavān ivetaraḥ. The whole cosmic manifestation is Kṛṣṇa but it appears it is different from Kṛṣṇa. Idaṁ hi viśvaṁ bhagavān ivetaraḥ. This is acintya-bhedābheda. So unless we accept the thesis or philosophy expounded by Lord Caitanya, inconceivable one and different... Inconceivable. For us it is inconceivable. You cannot have any clear distinction. Therefore take it as inconceivable, acintya. But from theoretical or by logical conclusion, everything is one: Kṛṣṇa. That's all. And another example is that the finger is myself, but I am not finger. This is the position. The hair I am. I am the hair, but I am not hair, at the same time. This is like that. This is called acintya-bhedābheda, inconceivable.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>