Not so cheap

Expressions researched:
"not so cheap thing"

Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures

We must approach Kṛṣṇa through guru. That is paramparā system. Kṛṣṇa is not so cheap thing that you can jump over.

Lecture on BG 2.2 -- London, August 3, 1973:

If one has got unflinching faith in Kṛṣṇa and guru, guru-kṛṣṇa-kṛpāya... (CC Madhya 19.151). We have to receive mercy both from the spiritual master and Kṛṣṇa. We cannot jump over to Kṛṣṇa. That is another nonsense. We must approach Kṛṣṇa through guru. That is paramparā system. Kṛṣṇa is not so cheap thing that you can jump over. Somebody says, "Oh, why shall I accept guru? I can approach Kṛṣṇa directly." No. Kṛṣṇa does not accept such... Mad-bhaktaḥ pūjābhyadhikaḥ. Kṛṣṇa says that "First of all you become devotee of My devotee." Caitanya Mahāprabhu says, gopī-bhartuḥ pada-kamalayor dāsa-dāsa-dāsānudāsaḥ: "I am the servant of the servant of the servant of Kṛṣṇa (CC Madhya 13.80)." This is called paramparā system. You have to learn how to become servant of the servant of Kṛṣṇa. The more you become in the lower position—servant, servant, servant, servant, servant, hundreds times servant, servant—then more you are advanced. Here in this material world everyone is trying to be master of the master. Just opposite. And the spiritual world, the endeavor is to become servant's servant. This is the secret.

Vedānta is not so cheap thing. Without becoming a brāhmaṇa, nobody can understand a Veda, what is Veda.

Lecture on BG 2.7 -- London, August 7, 1973:

Although Vedas means knowledge, and the ultimate knowledge is to understand Kṛṣṇa. Vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyam (BG 15.15). This is the instruction. So if you independently wants to study Vedas, just, there is, there are some rascals... They say: "We understand only Vedas." What do you understand Veda? How you'll understand Veda? So Vedas says, tad vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum eva abhigacchet (MU 1.2.12). You'll understand Vedas by taking one, purchasing one Vedas book, or taking it, you'll understand Vedas? Vedānta is not so cheap thing. Without becoming a brāhmaṇa, nobody can understand a Veda, what is Veda. Therefore, it is restricted. Without becoming brāhmaṇa, nobody is allowed to study Vedas. It's all nonsense. What you'll understand about the Vedas? Therefore Vyāsadeva, after compiling the four Vedas, dividing the four Vedas, he made Mahābhārata. Because the Vedas, subject matter of Vedas is so difficult. Strī-śūdra-dvija-bandhūnāṁ trayī na śruti-gocarāḥ (SB 1.4.25). For women, for śūdras, and for the dvija bandhu. They cannot understand what is Vedas. So all these rascal dvija-bandhus and śūdras, they want to study Vedas. No, that is not possible. One has to become first of all situated in the brahminical qualification, satyaṁ śamo damas titiksva ārjavaṁ jñānaṁ vijñānam āstikyaṁ brahma karma sva-bhāva... (BG 18.42). Then touch Veda.

In this way one has to purify himself internally and externally. God consciousness is not so cheap thing.

Lecture on BG 2.32 -- London, September 2, 1973:

In our Society also, we do not accept a disciple unless he's brahminically qualified: no meat-eating, no illicit sex, no gambling, no intoxication. These are brahminical. Unless one is free from the sinful activities, how he can become a brāhmaṇa? Brāhmaṇa means śuci. And the others, they are called kṛpaṇa, or muci. Śuci means always cleansed. Internally... Bāhyābhyantara-śuciḥ. Inside and outside. Outside by taking bath, washing with soda, soap, or if soda, soap is not available, with earth or oil. That is external cleanliness. Similarly, internal cleanliness, one must rise early in the morning, evacuate, then after taking bath must chant Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra, see the maṅgala-ārātrika. In this way one has to purify himself internally and externally. God consciousness is not so cheap thing. Yeṣāṁ tv anta-gataṁ pāpaṁ janānāṁ puṇya-karmaṇām. One who is completely free from all contamination of material modes, anta-gataṁ pāpam, sinful activities, they can te dvandva-moha-nirmuktā bhajante mām (BG 7.28), they can stick to the principle of devotional service. Otherwise, if he's not free from the contamination of sinful life, he may show, make a show of devotion, but that is not actual devotion. Bhaktyābhāsa. That is called bhaktyābhāsa.

God is not so cheap thing.

Lecture on BG 2.51-55 -- New York, April 12, 1966:

So the idea is that imitation God, there may be so many. Nowadays it has become a fashion. Not in your country; at least in India, it has become a fashion, that everyone is coming out and he declares himself, "I am God. I am God." As if the God has become a very cheap thing, and it can be had in the market, wherever you go. You see? That is not the thing. God is not so cheap thing. God is not so cheap thing.

Without showing universal form, they're still claiming that "I am God." God is not so cheap thing. They're imitating, trying to imitate.

Lecture on BG 3.18-30 -- Los Angeles, December 30, 1968:

Prabhupāda: This morning, the press representative, he was astonished that "Swamiji, so many people are coming, they are declaring that 'I am God.' What is this?" So these rascals are like that. Therefore there are so many incarnations of God without the powers of. So people, why they should be cheated? If somebody comes and says that "I am God," why don't you test? For testing this... When Kṛṣṇa assumed the Supreme Personality of Godhead... Of course, Arjuna was convinced. He accepted, paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma (BG 10.12), but for future guidance, he requested Kṛṣṇa, "Please show me Your universal form." Otherwise, without showing universal (form), they're still claiming that "I am God." God is not so cheap thing. They're imitating, trying to imitate. This is very dangerous.

And those who are accepting such rascals, they are also not intelligent. They should know. Just like I asked the press representative, "Suppose if I come and say that I am President Johnson, will you accept me?" So similarly, people should know what is God, what is the definition of God. How can I accept a rascal as God? They have no sense also. Somebody comes, "I am God," and he accepts, "Yes, he's God." What is this nonsense?