Go to Vanipedia | Go to Vanisource | Go to Vanimedia


Vaniquotes - the compiled essence of Vedic knowledge


Argue (Lectures, Other)

Expressions researched:
" argued" |" arguer" |" argues" |" arguing" |"argue"

Notes from the compiler: VedaBase query: argue or argued or argues or arguing or arguer not "may argue*"@ 5 not "might argue"@4

Lectures

Nectar of Devotion Lectures

The Nectar of Devotion -- Bombay, January 6, 1973:

So our request is, therefore, that try to understand this Kṛṣṇa philosophy and take to it seriously. Then your life will be successful. Otherwise you are simply wasting your time. This is our message. And if you want to talk, if you want to argue, then also we are prepared. We have prepared so many books for this purpose. Now this is the fact. If you accept it, it is good. Then the next question may be that "Why the people do not take to Kṛṣṇa consciousness? If it is so important, why they do not take to it?" That is also explained by Prahlāda Mahārāja. Matir na kṛṣṇe parato svato vā mitho 'bhipadyeta gṛha-vratānām. Gṛha-vratānām. Adānta-gobhir viśatāṁ tamisraṁ punaḥ punaś carvita-carvaṇānām (SB 7.5.30). So matir na kṛṣṇe. If one sticks to this principle, that "I shall be happy with this material body, I shall be happy within this material world, within my country, within my society," in this way, if one thinks, they are called gṛha-vrata. So for such persons, gṛha-vratānām, those who want to become happy within this bodily envelopment, they are... (break) Therefore from the beginning of life one has to be educated the value of life or approach a devotee.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, November 13, 1972:

So otherwise there is no meaning, "all-powerful." He can do whatever He likes. Inconceivable. Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī therefore explains that unless we believe (in the) inconceivable potency of the Lord, then we cannot understand that activities... Parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate, svābhāvikī-jñāna-bala-kriyā ca (Cc. Madhya 13.65, purport). We cannot judge how things are happening, but we have to believe. Therefore Vedic knowledge is so important. We cannot make research. We cannot judge. Simply if we take the Vedic truths... Just like we have several times explained, the Vedas accept the cow dung pure, whereas the stool of other animal is impure. So we have to accept like that. So Veda-vāṇī. Veda-vāṇī means you cannot deny it. You cannot argue on it. You have to accept as it is. Therefore learned scholar, when he speaks something, he gives evidence from the Vedas, śruti, śruti-pramāṇa. That is the best evidence.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, November 13, 1972:

Yes. You cannot argue with the spiritual master. First of all, you have to select a spiritual master where you can completely surrender. And as soon... Just like Arjuna surrendered to Kṛṣṇa. When he saw that "The questions which have arisen in my mind, it cannot be solved by ordinary person," therefore he selected. He told Him that "I can understand, without Your Lordship, nobody can mitigate all the doubts in my mind." Tasmād guruṁ prapadyeta (SB 11.3.21). Śiṣyas te 'haṁ śādhi mām (BG 2.7). Therefore original spiritual master is Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa is original spiritual master. Tene brahma hṛdā ādi-kavaye. Kṛṣṇa first instructed Brahma, Ādi-kavi. From Brahma, we have got these Vedas, Vedic knowledge. Therefore, Kṛṣṇa is the original spiritual master. Aham evāsam agre. Before creation, Kṛṣṇa was there. Aham ādir hi devānām (Bg 10.2). Kṛṣṇa is the origin of all the devas. Devas means Brahmā, Viṣṇu, Maheśvara, then all other demigods. So, in this way, Kṛṣṇa is the original spiritual master. Just like He's the spiritual master of Arjuna. So study of Bhagavad-gītā means if you follow the footprints of Arjuna, then you are also as good as Arjuna. Not as good; I mean to say, that your knowledge is perfect. Perfect in this sense: that Arjuna accepted Kṛṣṇa as Paraṁ Brahma; you accept Kṛṣṇa as Paraṁ Brahma; then your study of Bhagavad-gītā is perfect. And if you make your so-called erudite scholarship, commentary, "It is not to Kṛṣṇa," then you are spoiled. Your life is spoiled, your study is spoiled. Sādhu-mārga-anugamanam.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Calcutta, January 27, 1973:

These are the symptoms of the topmost devotee. He has got full knowledge in scripture. He can argue on the basis of scripture. He can convince the other party. These are the symptoms of uttama-adhikārī.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Calcutta, January 27, 1973:

"The second-class devotee has been defined by the following symptoms: he is not very expert in arguing on the strength of revealed scripture, but he has firm faith in the objective. The purport of this description is that the second-class devotee has firm faith in the procedure of devotional service unto Kṛṣṇa, but he may sometimes fail to offer arguments and decisions on the strength of revealed scripture to an opposing party. But at the same time, he is still undaunted within himself as to his decision that Kṛṣṇa is the supreme object of worship.

Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 1.7 -- Mayapur, March 31, 1975:

It is not possible. We have to accept. Therefore the injunction is that you accept the statement of the śāstras. That is... Bhagavad-gītā also said, yaḥ śāstra-vidhim utsṛjya vartate-kāma-kārataḥ: (BG 16.23) "If you do not follow the description of the śāstra and if you manufacture something," then na siddhiṁ sa avāpnoti, "then you'll never get perfection." We have to follow the śāstra; otherwise there is no other alternative to understand the exalted position of Kṛṣṇa, how He expands in different forms, as Viṣṇu, as Nārāyaṇa. Sometimes they argue that Kṛṣṇa is incarnation of Viṣṇu. That is also truth. You'll find in Caitanya... Truth in this way, that when any incarnation comes, He comes through the Kṣīrobdhi-śāyī Viṣṇu. But Kṣīrobdhi-śāyī is partial expansion of Kṛṣṇa. The subject matter is very intricate, but if we follow the śāstra and accept it, then some clear conception we can have.

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.49-65 -- San Francisco, February 3, 1967:

Caitanya Mahāprabhu, although He was in the renounced order of life, sannyāsī, still, He was avoiding the company of the Māyāvādīs, who are impersonalists. Caitanya Mahāprabhu is personalist. So generally, that is the system still. The impersonalists, as soon as they see some personalist, they begin to attack by argument. So those who are not very highly developed, they avoid. But those who are conversant, they argue, so on. So Caitanya Mahāprabhu, while He was staying at Benares, He was not very enthusiastic to mix with this Māyāvādī class of sannyāsīs. Therefore this man who invited all the sannyāsīs for a dinner, he also came to Caitanya Mahāprabhu and asked Him that "I know that You do not associate Yourself with the Māyāvādī sannyāsīs. Still, I have come to invite You. Please accept my request."

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.76-81 -- San Francisco, February 2, 1967:

The reason is that Vedānta philosophy, because the Māyāvādī sannyāsīns... The Vedānta philosophy actually belongs to the Vaiṣṇava sampradāya because it was compiled by Vyāsadeva, who is the original spiritual master of this Vaiṣṇava sampradāya. Of course, the Māyāvādī philosophers, they also accept Vyāsadeva as their original spiritual master, but they have interpreted Vyāsadeva's views; therefore they are not considered to be bona fide disciples. Just like you'll see in the Bhagavad-gītā that Arjuna, in the beginning he was arguing with Kṛṣṇa, between friend and friend, but when he surrendered himself as student, śiṣyas te 'haṁ śādhi māṁ prapannam... (BG 2.7). He said, "My dear Kṛṣṇa, now I am surrendering unto You. I accept You as my spiritual master." Śiṣyas te aham: "I am Your disciple, not friend." Because friendly talks, arguments, there is no end. But when there is talk between spiritual master and disciple, there is no argument. No argument. As soon as the spiritual master says, "This is to be done," it is to be done. That's all, final.

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.76-81 -- San Francisco, February 2, 1967:

The Vedas says that if you touch the stool of any animal, then you become infected—you have to take bath, cleanse yourself. And again you say that cow dung, which is also stool of another animal, if you touch it, then you'll be purified. Now, if you put your argument, "Oh, this is contradictory. So Veda is full of contradiction," no, it is not contradiction. It is fact. One doctor, Mr., Dr. Goshal, he is a medical college chemist. He analyzed this cow dung and found all antiseptic properties in cow dung. So this is Vedic injunction. Whatever is there, it is already tested, it is already experimented. You have simply to accept. Don't try to argue. This is acceptance of Vedānta-sūtra. Not that "Oh, I have got to serve some purpose, political purpose. So I'll have to prove from Bhagavad-gītā there is nonviolence." In our country, Gandhi, he was supposed to be a great student of Bhagavad-gītā. He wanted to prove that there... (break) ...by violence. So he was killed. How you can prove Bhagavad-gītā nonviolence? There is tacit order, "You must fight. The other party is impious. So you must fight." These are the injunction. You cannot change. That is not Vedānta-sūtra.

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.76-81 -- San Francisco, February 2, 1967:

If you at all accept somebody as spiritual master, you must test him. You must test him for at least one year if you have got doubts. And when you are convinced that "Here is a person whom I can follow blindly," then you accept. You haven't got to follow blindly. Spiritual master will not place before you anything unreasonable. But the process is that you cannot change the order of spiritual master. You cannot argue. You... Unless you are convinced that "I shall accept the order of this person without any argument," don't accept anybody as spiritual master. It is a false acceptance. Just see. Caitanya Mahāprabhu says that. And other point is that if you take Caitanya Mahāprabhu's life, oh, He was a vast learned scholar, but He said that His spiritual master found Him the nonsense. Now how it is that? He was a great scholar, and how His spiritual master found Him a nonsense? So therefore, however you may be a great scholar, if your spiritual master finds you a fool, you must accept that you are a fool. You don't say, "Oh, I am such a great scholar, and unjustly my spiritual master says that I am fool." Then you lose the connection at once. You'll understand, yes, just like Caitanya Mahāprabhu's disciple. He is, Caitanya Mahāprabhu is speaking about His own discipleship.

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.76-81 -- San Francisco, February 2, 1967:

"What is the objection? You are already learned. You are very good scholar." "Yes. Now I understand that I am fool because I do not know what I am. I may be materially advanced in learning, but if somebody asks me, 'Can you say what you are, wherefrom you have come, where you are going after death, why you are suffering all these material miseries? Can you have any remedy?' oh, there is no answer. So what sort of learned man I am? I cannot answer all these things. Therefore I have come to You." Similarly, Arjuna, when he was arguing with Kṛṣṇa, "Oh, if I kill my grandfather, then such and such thing will occur me. Oh, if I kill my brothers, the, my brothers' wives, they will be widow and they'll be corrupted, and there will be unwanted children," so many things. He was arguing rightly. That was not... That is from materialistic point of view. From materialistic point of view, you may be very great learned man. But every one of you must know that spiritually, you are damn rascal, nothing! Spiritually, all these persons who are very proud of their learning, they're all damn rascals. Asat. Simply rascals. Simply rascal. So you must know that "I am simply rascal" if you want to make progress in spiritual life. And what do you know about spiritual life? You do not know anything.

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.109-114 -- San Francisco, February 20, 1967:

"My dear foolish brothers, you kindly worship Kṛṣṇa, Govinda..." Thrice he has said, bhaja govindaṁ bhaja govindaṁ bhaja govindaṁ mūḍha-mate. Mūḍha-mate means "You foolish nonsense, you kindly worship Govinda." Why? Now, prāpte sannihite kāla maraṇe: "When death will be nearer, your this grammatical interpretation, ḍukṛñ karaṇe, this pratha (?), that pratha (?), arguing, jugglery of words, will not save you, will not save you. You please worship Govinda." That is his instruction. And there are many others.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.100-108 -- New York, November 22, 1966:

Now the first question was, of Sanātana Gosvāmī, that is, that should be the first question of everyone: "What I am?" Because if I do not know what I am, there is no question of my duties and my destination, everything. Everything will depend first to know what I am. Just like in the Bhagavad-gītā Arjuna did not know what he was; therefore Kṛṣṇa first of all taught him that "You are not this body. You are not this body." That was the first instruction. Dehino 'smin yathā dehe kaumāraṁ yau... (BG 2.13). "You are so much absorbed in bodily conception of life, and you are thinking that you are a learned man. That is your foolishness." In the Bhagavad-gītā you'll find the first instruction of Lord Kṛṣṇa is there, aśocyān anvaśocas tvaṁ prajñā-vādāṁś ca bhāṣase: (BG 2.11) "You are thinking, you are talking with Me just like a very learned man. You are arguing with me. But from your behavior I can understand you are a fool number one." Because such kind of talk is never, I mean to say, placed by a learned man.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.108-109 -- New York, July 15, 1976:

So māyā is very strong, that these mistakes continue even one is very advanced so-called spiritually. No. Therefore Caitanya Mahāprabhu touches the main point immediately with His instruction. That is Caitanya Mahāprabhu's philosophy. Where Kṛṣṇa says the last word, sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja.. (BG 18.66). He is talking on the position; He is Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He is asking, demanding, "You rascal, give up everything. Just surrender to Me. Then you'll be happy." This is the last instruction of Bhagavad-gītā. Caitanya Mahāprabhu, the same Kṛṣṇa but acting as devotee of Kṛṣṇa; therefore He is speaking the same thing. Kṛṣṇa said, "You surrender," and Caitanya Mahāprabhu said that "Every living entity is the servant of Kṛṣṇa." That means he must surrender. Servant's business is to surrender, not to argue with the master or to claim that "I am equal with you." These are all fanatic, mad proposal.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.119-121 -- New York, November 24, 1966:

So one has to accept. Sādhu-śāstra-kṛpāya. They are always merciful. But one has to accept them and become Kṛṣṇa conscious. Sādhu-śāstra-kṛpāya yadi kṛṣṇonmukha haya. And as soon as he agrees to become Kṛṣṇa conscious, then his path becomes clear. He'll get rid of these material clutches and this always full life full of anxiety and problems, he'll kick. These things, sādhu, śāstra, saintly person and scripture, they have to be accepted. If you don't accept them, then there is no other way. Why there is no other way? Daivī hy eṣā guṇa-mayī (BG 7.14). He's citing again from Bhagavad-gītā. The Bhagavad-gītā is the book of evidence. Lord Caitanya is citing. Because it is Vedic. Just like in the law court you have to cite section from the law book, not from your concocted mind. No foolish man can argue in the law court, because he has to refer in every step from the law book. Sādhu means that he has to give evidence from the scriptures. Not that "I think... In my opinion you can do this." He's not a sādhu; he's a fool.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.146-151 -- New York, December 3, 1966:

So Bhagavān, Paramātmā and Brahman, they are not different. Simply according to my realization, the different names are there, according to my different realization. Somebody is realizing only the impersonal manifestation, energies, and somebody is experiencing the... Because God is everywhere. So I experience this way; you experience in that way. Therefore the name, Absolute Truth, is differently named. Otherwise there is no difference. It is my realization. So we... If somebody argues, "The sunshine is sun," well, that can be accepted. Why not? Sunshine is sun. But if somebody says, "No, sunshine is not sun," that is also accepted because sunshine is not sun also. Somebody says that "Sunshine is sun." That is accepted. And somebody says, "Sunshine is not sun." That is also accepted because there is no difference between sun and the sunshine. Similarly... But by comparative study, one who is studying the sun as it is, he is studying everything or he knows everything. Similarly, one who knows Kṛṣṇa, he knows everything. He knows Paramātmā; he knows Brahman; he knows māyā and everything. Yes. Yasmin vijñāte sarvam eva vijñātaṁ bhavanti. The Vedic literature says, "The understanding of that one is the understanding of everything."

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.353-354 -- New York, December 26, 1966:

As soon as one becomes atheist, oh, it is very difficult to convince him. You see. Therefore our preaching should avoid the atheist class. Of course, if we stop that, then we cannot find who is theist in the... Time is so nice that 99.9% all atheists. So we have to take the risk of talking with atheist also. But generally it is advised that preachers should not talk this atheist class because they'll not..., they simply argue. Their only point is simply argue and waste your time. That's all. They'll never accept, however you may try to convince him with reason and argument, they'll never... Here is a śloka by Yamunācārya. It is, say, about one thousand years before, this was the same condition for the atheist.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.353-354 -- New York, December 26, 1966:

So even their evidences in the authorized scriptures, even they are accepted by great stalwarts and sages and munis, still, the asura prakṛti, those who are atheistic persons, they'll never accept. They'll never accept. They'll simply go on arguing. The process is that if... Vedic process is if something is mentioned in the Vedas, and it is accepted by the previous ācāryas, then it is accepted. I have nothing to bother. That's all. This is the proce..., the simple process. Suppose I am a fool number one. That doesn't matter. I may be fool, but if I follow the previous authorized ācāryas, then I am all right. Just like a child, he may be a child, innocent child, but if he catches the hand of his father, then he's all right. He can walk. He can cross the street. This is the Vedic process. Vedic process, research, oh, there is no research in Vedic process. What research, nonsense, you'll do? What sense you have got? You shall research about God? The frog philosophy? There is no research. Research, that is not accepted in Vedic philosophy. You have to accept the authority. That's all.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 21.62-67 -- New York, January 6, 1966:

So this Sanskrit scholar, Keśava Kāśmīrī, he came from Kashmir to challenge the learned scholars in other parts of the country. There were four celebrated places where highly educated scholars were there. One was at Benares. Benares still, it is considered to be the center of Sanskrit scholars place. Similarly Navadvīpa, where Caitanya Mahāprabhu was born. And in Bihar there was a place, Darbhanga. That is also a scholarly. So Benares, and Berhampur (?), Berhampur in East Bengal near Dacca. So some of the places in India, they are very famous for learned scholars. Still they are continuing. So Sanskrit scholars would come in such celebrated places, and they would challenge for arguing on the śāstras. So the rule was that two parties will argue, and the defeated party will become the disciple of the victorious party. That was the system. So Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu, when He was sixteen years old, this Keśava Kāśmīrī came to Navadvīpa to challenge. In other places he was victorious. He became champion. And then, at last, he came to Bengal, Navadvīpa. So that scholarly discussion will take place.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 22.5 -- New York, January 7, 1967:

So axiomatic truth. How it is truth? You may not have sufficient intelligence, but if you go deep into the matter you will find it is all truth: "Yes, it is all right." That is called Vedic injunction. So you cannot argue. You have to accept as it is. You cannot interpret. What education we have got, what intelligence, that we can interpret on Vedic injunction? No. It should be accepted as it is. That is called Vedic injunction. This is called śruti. You have to simply hear and act accordingly. That is called Vedic. And smṛti. Smṛti means if you are learned scholar in the Vedic injunction, if you have heard from the bona fide souls, and if you are convinced, then if you write something, that is smṛti. You cannot write nonsense. You have to write something which corroborates with the Vedic injunction. That is called smṛti. You cannot manufacture anything. You should always remember that "I am a tiny brain here, so I have to receive knowledge from superior sources." Then whatever knowledge you have received, if you can expand that in your, by your, I mean to say, capacity, that is called smṛti.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 25.19-31 -- San Francisco, January 20, 1967:

And because He defeated the Māyāvādī philosophers, many other scholars also began to meet Him personally and talk with Him, argue with Him.

So this was going on naturally. Whenever a man becomes prominent, so many others, they come to challenge him. That is natural sequence.

sarva-śāstra khaṇḍi' prabhu bhakti kare sāra
sayuktika vākye mana phirāya sabāra

The speciality of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu was that He used to put very sound arguments, and He used to defeat His opponents in such a way that they were satisfied. They were not inimical. And with the evidence of śāstra. Not that argumentum vaculum. He was putting reasonable arguments and evidences from śāstra, scripture. Sarva-śāstra khaṇḍi' prabhu bhakti kare sāra. And the beauty was that He was defeating all other arguments against devotional service. He was establishing only that God is great, and we are meant for serving Him. On this basis He was arguing and He was defeating others.

Sri Isopanisad Lectures

Sri Isopanisad, Mantra 5 -- Los Angeles, May 7, 1970:

The conchshell is the bone of an animal. So Vedic injunction is if you touch the bone of an animal, immediately you become impure and you have to take your bath. But here is a bone which is used in the Deity room. But you cannot argue, "Oh, you said that bone is impure. As soon as you touch it, you become impure. And you are putting into the Deity room?" No argument. You have to accept it. This is Veda. You cannot argue. Similarly, spiritual master's order, you have to accept. There is no argument. In this way you can make progress. Sādhu śāstra guru vākya tinete kariyā aikya. If we argue... Na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet. Acintyāḥ khalu ye bhāvā na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet. Things which are inconceivable by you, you cannot argue. Then it will be a failure. You have to accept that axiomatic truth. It is not dogmatic. It is not dogmatic in this sense, because our predecessor ācāryas, they accepted. What you are that you are arguing? So that is the proof. Mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ (CC Madhya 17.186). Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnā. If you argue, there is no conclusion. The argument will go on. You put some argument; I put some argument. That is not the process.

Festival Lectures

Sri Rama-Navami, Lord Ramacandra's Appearance Day -- Hawaii, March 27, 1969:

So similarly, the other qualification, nobody can be stronger than God, nobody can be wiser than God, nobody can be more beautiful than God, and nobody can be more renouncer than God. So here Rāmacandra, Lord Rāmacandra exhibited the quality how He renounced the whole kingdom simply on the order of His father, His obedience to father. He could have argued with His father, "My dear father, you, simply for keeping your promise and actuated by the dictation of a woman, you are doing this. Let us stop it. Everyone is expecting that tomorrow My coronation will be there, and they love Me so much." Because He... Just like Kṛṣṇa was so much loved, similarly, Lord Rāmacandra was the life of the people. They were very much expecting that Rāmacandra was going to be enthroned tomorrow. So how they were celebrating, how they were decorating the whole city. Everything. He never argued. He accepted immediately: "Yes, father. I am ready."

His Divine Grace Srila Sac-cid-ananda Bhaktivinoda Thakura's Appearance Day, Lecture -- London, September 3, 1971:

You cannot overlap ācārya and go to Kṛṣṇa. That is not possible. Kṛṣṇa will not accept you. Just like if you want to see a big man you should go through his secretary, through his orderly, doorkeeper; similarly, our process is ācāryopāsanam, go through the ācārya. That is the injunction of the Vedas. Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ. If you want to enter into the spiritual world, you cannot get through simply by arguments. Because there is no limit of argument. I place my argument in one way. Another man, who is better arguer, he places his argument in a different way. So if you simply go on arguing, it is not possible. Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ. It will never help you. Argument. Śrutayo vibhinnāḥ. If you think that "I shall read scriptures and I shall understand God," no, that is also not possible. Śrutayo vibhinnāḥ. Scriptures are also different. Because scriptures are made according to time, circumstances, people. Just like Bible. Bible Lord Jesus Christ preached in the desert, Jerusalem.

His Divine Grace Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Prabhupada's Disappearance Day, Lecture -- Los Angeles, December 13, 1973:

So anyway, it was Kṛṣṇa's grace. I would not go, but their point of view was that unless I certify that sādhu, Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura, he'll not be accepted. Therefore he dragged me. So I went to see Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura on that day. On the first meeting, just we offer our obeisances. It is the practice. So immediately he began his talking that "You are all educated young men. Why don't you take up Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu's cult and preach all over the English knowing public? Why don't you take up this matter?" So I argued with him in so many... At that time I was nationalist. So I told that "Who will accept our message? We are dependent nation. Nobody will care." In this way, in my own way, in these younger days... But we belonged to the Vaiṣṇava family, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, Nityānanda, Rādhā-Govinda. That is our worshipable Deity. So I was very glad that "Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa cult, Caitanya Mahāprabhu's cult, this sādhu is trying to preach. It is very nice."

His Divine Grace Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Prabhupada's Appearance Day, Evening -- Gorakhpur, February 15, 1971:

So I was trained up in this line, but in my youthful age, when I was college student, gradually, by their bad association or something, gradually, I lost my activities. But when this friend, Mr. Mullik, took me to Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Gosvāmī Mahārāja, he immediately asked me that, "You are educated young boys. Why don't you take up Lord Caitanya's message and preach in the Western world?" In the very first sight, he told me. At that time, I argued with him that "We are dependent nation, and who is going to hear about our message?" So he defeated my argument. (aside:) There is no necessity of closing. Yes. He defeated my argument. He was learned scholar. What I was? I was still boy. So I agreed (chuckles) that I was defeated. So after finishing our visit with Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī, I got some impression that "Here is a person who has taken Lord Caitanya's message very seriously. Now it will be preached." My friend asked my opinion, that "What is your opinion?" So I gave this opinion, that "Here is a person who has taken Lord Caitanya's movement very seriously, and now it will be preached."

Initiation Lectures

Talk, Initiation Lecture, and Ten Offenses Lecture -- Los Angeles, December 1, 1968:

Yes. This is one offense. These are offenses. When we accept spiritual master, it is understood that you cannot deny his order. Just like Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna was talking as friends, but when Arjuna accepted Kṛṣṇa as spiritual master, he was simply hearing, and whenever there was difficulty to understand, he was questioning. Not that he was equally arguing with Kṛṣṇa. Before accepting Him, he was arguing. So this is the position. Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu, He said that "My spiritual master found Me a great fool (CC Adi 7.71)." Caitanya Mahāprabhu is not a fool, but it is the good qualification of a disciple to remain a fool before the spiritual master. Therefore he'll never, I mean to say, dare to argue or disobey. That is offense. Now, go on. That does not mean that when you cannot understand, you cannot question. Question must be there. That is stated in this Bhagavad-gītā, tad viddhi praṇipātena paripraśnena sevayā (BG 4.34). Your relationship is to know from a spiritual master everything, but you should know that with three things. What is that? First of all you should surrender. You must accept the spiritual master as greater than you. Otherwise what is the use of accepting one spiritual master? Praṇipāt. Praṇipāt means surrendering; and paripraśna, and questioning; and sevā, and service. There must be two sides, service and surrender, and in the middle there must be question. Otherwise there is no question and answer. Two things must be there: service and surrender. Then answer of question is nice.

Initiation Lecture -- Los Angeles, July 13, 1971:

The example is the same, just like the conchshell. In the Vedic injunction is that you should not touch dead animal's bone. If you touch, you become impure. But Vedas say the conchshell is pure. So that is being practically observed. We followers of Vedic injunction, we are using conchshell in the Deity room because Vedas says it is pure. You cannot argue, "Oh, one place you said that conch..., the bone is impure. Oh, here I can show you the book. You have said like that." Oh, that nonsense will not do. Whatever is said is all right. You have to accept that. Even it is contradictory, you have to accept. That is called no interpretation. That is wanted. There is meaning, but through your brain at the present moment you cannot understand. That is another thing. But you cannot say like that: "Oh, one place you have said this conch, yes, bone of an animal is impure, and now you are saying the conchshell is pure. It is contradictory." So that will not do. Therefore it is said you cannot interpret in that way. That is offense. Then you will not be able to make progress.

Initiations -- San Diego, June 30, 1972:

So in the beginning, in order to increase your attachment for Kṛṣṇa, you have to follow the regulative principles, "Don't do this." Just like a doctor gives you prescription, "Don't eat this. Don't do this," similarly, there are so many "don't"s and so many "do"s. So we have to accept the "do"s, not the "don't"s. Ānukūlyena kṛṣṇānu-śīlanam (CC Madhya 19.167). This is called favorably cultivating Kṛṣṇa consciousness. We have to accept the "do"s, not the "don't"s. Ānukūlyasya saṅkalpa, ānukūlyena kṛṣṇānuśīlanam. We have to accept the favorable things. So if illicit sex life is unfavorable for my advancement in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, I must accept it. You cannot argue. That will not help you. Similarly, intoxication. Similarly, meat-eating. Similarly, gambling. Because these are the four pillars of sinful life: illicit sex, meat-eating, intoxication and gambling. The roof of sinful life is held by these four pillars.

Wedding Ceremonies

Paramananda & Satyabhama's Wedding -- Montreal, July 22, 1968:

Unless one is free from these four principal activities, one cannot make progress in spiritual life. Because God is pure, pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān, so no impure soul can approach Him. This body is the sign of impurity because soul has no material body. So anyone in this material world who has this material body is to be considered as sinful. But how to get out of this? To get out of it, everything, dovetailing with spiritual life. Nirbandhe kṛṣṇa-sambandhe yukta-vairāgyam ucyate. The example is just like milk. If you take too much milk, then there will be disorders in the bowels. You'll have to pass so many stools. But when you approach to a physician... Of course, I am speaking of the Āyur-Vedic Indian physician. If one has got diarrhea or loose bowels, then the physician prescribes curd or yogurt with some medicine. Now, this yogurt or curd is also mixed with medicine. So the man who has got the disease by drinking milk is also cured by the same milk preparation under the direction of the physician. Nobody can argue. The patient cannot argue to the physician that "I have become diseased by drinking milk, and you are prescribing another preparation of the milk?" Yes, because it is treated. Similarly, this lust propensity between man and woman, if it is properly treated, then it can turn into love of Godhead.

General Lectures

Lecture on Maha-mantra -- New York, September 8, 1966:

This picture is before you so that gradually, when you feel ecstasy, you will also dance like Him. And when you automatically dance, then you will know that the thing is already realized. Not artificially, but when you feel, "Oh, let me dance. It is so much ecstatic. Let me dance." Nothing should be done artificially. Let everything come automatically. And only we have to follow. Mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ (CC Madhya 17.186). Dharmasya tattvaṁ nihitaṁ guhāyāṁ mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ. This is a verse from scripture, that tarko apratiṣṭhaḥ, if you simply go on arguing about spiritual matters—"This is not, this is not, this is not, yes, this is not..." I say something; you say something. No, no, no. You cannot realize spiritual objects simply by this speculation, argument. Our argument or logical, I mean to say, strength has no access in the spiritual world. The Vedic mantra says, nāyam ātmā pravacanena labhyo na medhayā na bahunā śrutena: "Atma, the supreme self, cannot be realized pravacanena." Suppose I am very expert speaker, I can present things very nicely—but without any substance. Oh, that won't help you. Simply by jugglery of words, if I can captivate you, oh, that won't help you. Nāyam ātmā pravacanena. This is pravacana.

Lecture -- Seattle, October 9, 1968:

But karma is accepted? But I do not know. Dr. Urquhart was arguing that if I am suffering or enjoying as the effect of my previous life, so who is the witness? His argument was like this. Just like if I have committed some criminal act, in the court there is need of witness. Then one has to prove that somebody has seen that he has done this. This is simply a legal formality. Who is going to steal while keeping one witness? Nobody's going, but court wants that who has seen that he has stolen. Anyway, Dr. Urquhart's argument was that "Who is the witness? I am suffering the reaction of my previous bad or evil activities, but who is the witness?" But at that time we were not so intelligent. We could not answer. But later on, when we were grown up and studied Bhagavad-gītā, then here, in the Bhagavad-gītā, we saw that upadraṣṭā. The Lord is upadraṣṭā, He is witness. Upadraṣṭā. Anumantā. Anumantā means ordering. You cannot do anything without being sanctioned by the Supreme Personality of Godhead. You have no power. Therefore we are, in all respect, we are dependent. That we have got very nice experience.

Lecture -- Hawaii, March 23, 1969:

"If one were to begin to study ISKCON techniques, what would he have to give up?" Give up... Give up means... First give up is that "I am this material body." The nonsense idea that "I am this body," that is the root of all misunderstanding. So he has to give up this bodily consciousness. That is naturally. That is the beginning of teachings of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. The Bhagavad-gītā teaches Arjuna. Arjuna was overwhelmed of family affection, that "How can I fight with my members of the family? They are my brothers..." So this conception, bodily conception, was first of all eradicated in the Bhagavad-gītā. He lectured... Arjuna was talking, arguing with Kṛṣṇa, that "If I kill my family, male members, the female members will be without husband, and they will be polluted, and there will be unwanted children and this on...," so many, as far as one can, materialistic person can think.

Lecture -- Boston, April 25, 1969:

Our system is so nice that we haven't got to manufacture daily a new thesis. The difficulty of modern age is... Not modern age. It is also old system, because in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam we find one verse which says, tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ: "Simple arguments and logic will not carry you to the Absolute Truth." Tarkaḥ. Tarkaḥ means arguments. You may be very good logician, you can argue very nice, but another logician may come and defeat you. That is going on. New philosopher, new logician, new thinker means he defeats his previous other scripture in some details. Of course, on nkers, logicians, and philosophers, and becomes prominent. That is the materialistic way of gaining name, fame and popularity. But our process is different. Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ. We accept that simply by arguments and logic, it is not possible to approach the Absolute Truth. Absolute Truth is not subjected to our deficient logic or argument.

Lecture Excerpt -- London, August 13, 1971:

Therefore you are saying, "There is no soul." But there is soul. From your experimental knowledge, you cannot understand where is that soul, but there is soul. When the soul is out, the body is dead, useless. That we can experience. Anubhāva. It is called anubhāva perception. So anyone, any sane man, can understand there is something missing. The scientists also say, "the something missing." Now, what is that missing, they cannot say. If they knew it, what is missing, then they are scientists, they could produce again that thing by laboratory mixture of chemicals and put it into the body, and he becomes alive. No, that is not possible. Acintyāḥ khalu ye bhāvā na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet. Therefore Veda says that "Don't uselessly argue on subject matter which is beyond your perception." That is not the process.

Lecture -- Delhi, December 13, 1971:

So, here in this life also we see according to the change of the body, the duty is changed. The activities are changing. So, this body is changing, that's a fact. Tathā dehāntara-prāptiḥ dhīras tatra na muhyati (BG 2.13). Just like in this life we are changing different types of bodies, similarly dehāntara-prāptiḥ, another body. These rascals, they do not understand the simple reasoning. Simple logic they cannot understand, still they argue, "What is the proof there is transmigration of the soul?" Here is the proof. That this child, Sarasvatī, when she is a grown-up lady she'll not act like that. But everyone will accept her, Sarasvatī, the same character (?). Her father, mother, relatives, everything is there, Sarasvatī has got another body. So what is the difficulty to understand this logic? That the soul is immortal and the body is changing. What is the difficulty? Just try to understand, you have to preach immortality of the soul, transmigration of the soul. What is the difficulty? Simple logic. What is the difficulty? Can anyone say? No difficulty? Will you be able to convince others?

Lecture -- Delhi, December 13, 1971:

Nara-Nārāyaṇa: I think people will argue that just because a child develops to a certain stage, what is the indication that he will develop after that stage? In other words, if I go from birth, youth, old age, then what is to say that I am again going to youth? They will say, "What is that logic? How I will go again to youth? Simply I will go again and vanish away," or something like that. They do not know...

Prabhupāda: No, that example is given. Just like this garment I am using. So when it becomes too old torn or something, so I will throw it away. I take another. What is the difficulty? When this body I am growing or changing, whatever the Christians say, but when it is no more workable, I give it up. I take another. What is the difficulty?

Town Hall Lecture -- Auckland, April 14, 1972:

In the Vedic scriptures, Kathopaniṣad, it is said, tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum eva abhigacchet (MU 1.2.12). Upaniṣad, whatever is spoken in the Upaniṣad that is gospel truth. That is the system of understanding transcendental knowledge, veda-pramāṇa, evidence from the Vedas. According to Vedic system, amongst the learned scholars, if one presents Vedic evidences, then his position is strong. Just like in law court, two lawyers are arguing. One lawyer who quotes from the lawbook various bona fide quotations, the judgment is given in his favor because that is authorized. Similarly, a Vedic statement is accepted in Indian spiritual society. There are hundreds and thousands of men who are still dedicated. Practically the whole population of India, they are dedicated to spiritual life. Perhaps you may not know, but anyone who has taken birth in India, he has got a natural inheritance of spiritual life. Unfortunately, at the present moment the leaders are under wrong impression that in India, being too much spiritually inclined, its material advancement has been checked. But material advancement does not become hampered by spiritual knowledge. That is a wrong impression. Rather, if you become spiritually advanced, your material necessities will be very nicely adjusted. That is the injunction, Bhagavad-gītā, yuktāhāra-vihārasya yogo bhavati siddhi-da. Yoga... Spiritual life means yoga. So yogic life can be very nicely successful if you adjust your material necessities of life. If you become extravagant so far your material necessities of life is concerned, then you cannot make successful in yogic life.

Sunday Feast Lecture -- Los Angeles, May 21, 1972:

That is the Vedic information. Na tasya sama adikasya dṛśyate. We don't find... They are also, great saintly persons, they're researching that who is the greatest personality. Greatest personality. So by research work by great saintly persons, especially by Lord Brahmā... He is the first creature within this universe. So he has found by his spiritual advancement and research work that Kṛṣṇa is the greatest. Īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ (Bs. 5.1). He gives his decision: "The greatest personality is Kṛṣṇa." Just like we are sitting, so many ladies and gentlemen here. We can analyze who is the greatest here. So, say, for arguing, you can accept that "You are the greatest." But I am not the greatest. I have got my spiritual master. He has got his spiritual master. He has got a spiritual master. In this way, we go up to Brahmā. Brahmā is the original spiritual master within this universe, who gave us the Vedic knowledge. He's therefore called forefather, er, grandfather, pitāmaha. But he's also not independent. In the Vedānta-sūtra or Bhāgavata it is said that Brahmā... He's the first creature.

Lecture -- London, July 12, 1972:

Just like if you are in touch with fire you will get yourself warmer and warmer and warmer, and at last you'll get red fire. Similarly, if we are in touch with Kṛṣṇa, then we advance spiritually, and then we become completely spiritualized, our original Brahman. This is the process. Simple process. Chant Hare Kṛṣṇa and you'll gradually develop your spiritual consciousness. That is actually happening. It is not story. You can see practically how they are spiritually advancing. So why not experiment yourself? What is the loss? If you chant Hare Kṛṣṇa, is there any loss? Tell me, is there any loss? But why don't you do it? Why not make a try? Instead of arguing, you see practically what is happening. They are of different civilization, different culture. How they are developing their Kṛṣṇa consciousness? How it is possible? Simply by chanting. This is practical. Throughout the whole world—in Africa, in America, in Canada, everywhere. So this is very simple process. But people will waste their time by arguing. Why not make an experiment and see what is the result? That is our propaganda. (end)

Rotary Club Lecture -- Ahmedabad, December 8, 1972 'The Present Need of Human Society':

So if we accept cow dung as pure, we don't require to make research. But actually it is pure. The other day I was passing through a cow shed in Hyderabad. So, so much cow dung stocked there. So I was asking my students, "Suppose so much human stool was stocked here. Could we pass through it?" No, it is not possible. But it was pleasant to pass through. So this is a fact. If we argue that animal stool... (aside:) Stop. Stop him. Don't make noise. ...the animal stool is impure, but when the Vedas says the animal stool of the cow is pure, so this is, this true. Similarly conchshell. Conchshell is the bone of an animal. So according to Vedic instruction, if you touch the bone of an animal, you become impure. But the bone of an animal which is conchshell, it is kept in the Deity room. So Vedic instruction is so perfect. Why this animal bone is pure, why this stool of animal is pure, that is already known. You don't require to make any research. You simply accept and get the fact. This is Vedic truth.

Lecture at Bharata Chamber of Commerce 'Culture and Business' -- Calcutta, January 30, 1973:

So if you follow the path of pāpa, then you must suffer. Just like state laws. If you become criminal, you must suffer. You must go to the prison house. You, you cannot argue that "Why government has created the prison house? Why?" Can you argue like that? Yes, there is necessity. The government knows that there will be some rascals who will commit criminal activities; therefore there must be prison house. So this material world is prison house. Every one of us, we are member of the prison house-first class, second class, third class. Just like in the prison house there are different classes. Duḥkhalayam aśāśvatam (BG 8.15). You cannot expect treatment in the prison house just like son-in-law. No. That is not possible. You must suffer. Otherwise, what is the meaning of prison house? Similarly, Kṛṣṇa says, although Kṛṣṇa has created this world, He says this is duḥkhālayam aśāśvatam, this is the place of misery. And aśāśvatam. You cannot make any arrangement. "All right, Sir, let it be duḥkhālayam. Let me remain here." No. That also you cannot remain. You'll be kicked out. This is the place like that. But Kṛṣṇa gives you the idea how you can be happy, how you can get out of this. He says, mām upetya kaunteya duḥkhālayam aśāśvatam nāpnuvanti (BG 8.15).

Lecture What is a Guru? -- London, August 22, 1973:

So, just like Arjuna accepted Kṛṣṇa as guru, he said, śiṣyas te 'haṁ śādhi māṁ tvāṁ prapannam: (BG 2.7) "I am now surrendered to you." That is the process. Tad viddhi praṇipātena paripraśnena sevayā (BG 4.34). To... Guru means Kṛṣṇa's representative, former ācāryas' representative. Kṛṣṇa's... All ācāryas are representative of Kṛṣṇa; therefore guru should be offered the same respect as you offer to God. Tasmād guruṁ prapadyeta (SB 11.3.21). Therefore Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura says, yasya prasādād bhagavat-prasādo **. Because guru is bona fide representative of Kṛṣṇa, or God, so if you surrender to guru, bona fide guru, that means you surrender to God. God is accepting your surrender through the guru. Yasya prasādād bhagavat-prasādo. If you surrender to guru, that means Kṛṣṇa is pleased. Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā, sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja: (BG 18.66) surrender. That somebody argues, "Where is Kṛṣṇa? I shall surrender." No. You surrender to His representative, then you surrender to Kṛṣṇa. This is the process.

Lecture at World Health Organization -- Geneva, June 6, 1974:

So all these information we get from the Vedic scripture, just like Bhagavad-gītā, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and Upaniṣad, like that. And we follow the instruction. That is good for human society. Human society, if they do not follow the footprints of great ācāryas, great saintly persons, then there will be trouble. And that is happening actually. In the Bhagavad-gītā, when Kṛṣṇa was..., Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna was talking, so Arjuna presented the after-effects of war, that women will be widows and their, they will not be able to keep their character, and then adharma, irreligious principles, will begin. So he said... He was arguing like this, that,

adharmābhibhavāt kṛṣṇa
praduṣyanti kula-striyaḥ
strīṣu duṣṭāsu vārṣṇeya
jāyate varṇa-saṅkaraḥ
(BG 1.40)

The Vedic civilization is varṇāśrama-dharma. If the varṇāśrama-dharma is not properly protected, then there will be population who are called varṇa-saṅkara, mixed population. Brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya, śūdra—that is the natural division. The society must be divided... Cātur-varṇyaṁ mayā sṛṣṭaṁ guṇa-karma-vibhāgaśaḥ (BG 4.13). (aside:) There is no need.

Tenth Anniversary Address -- Washington, D.C., July 6, 1976:

So this system, one system, to accept the real principles of religion. That is, Kṛṣṇa also explained. It is explained by Kṛṣṇa, that Kṛṣṇa came, appeared. Why? What is the purpose of Kṛṣṇa's appearing? Sometimes they argue, atheist class of men, that God cannot come. Why God cannot come? God is your father's servant, that He cannot come? You are ordering? If He cannot come, how He is God? God can do everything. Why you say that God cannot come? He is not under your rules and regulations. Then He is not God. God can come. God says, "Yes, I come!"

yadā yadā hi dharmasya
glānir bhavati bhārata
abhyutthānam adharmasya
tadātmānaṁ sṛjāmy aham
(BG 4.7)
paritrāṇāya sādhūnāṁ
vināśāya ca duṣkṛtām
dharma-saṁsthāpanārthāya
sambhavāmi yuge yuge
(BG 4.8)

So why God cannot come? So when God says, "Yes, I come for this purpose. This is My mission..." Yadā yadā hi dharmasya glānir bhavati. What is that glānir? Glānir means discrepancies. Not, the principles of religious..., when it is not executed properly, that is called glānir. So what is dharma? A simple definition is given: dharmaṁ tu sākṣāt-bhagavat-praṇītam. Dharma means the law given by God, that's all-three words: God and His words. So if we do not know who is God, if we do not know what is His order, then we are lost. If we do not know God and if we... Just like if we do not know what is the government and if we do not know what is the order of government, then what is our position? We'll commit every step some mistake, and we shall suffer.

Address to Rotary Club -- Chandigarh, October 17, 1976:

Śiṣyas te 'ham. Ahaṁ te śiṣya: "I just become Your disciple, and You just educate me. Please enlighten me." This is the position. Before that, Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna, they were talking like friends. Friends means argument. We can go on arguing for days together, but there is no decision. That is friendly talk. But when there is talk between a master and disciple, there is no question of arguing. The disciple has to accept what is ordered by the master.

Philosophy Discussions

Philosophy Discussion on Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz:

Śyāmasundara: Where is this stated?

Prabhupāda: It is in Bhāgavata. This question was raised by Yudhiṣṭhira Mahārāja. So sometimes that is special favor. By force the whole plan is like that, but everyone wants to delay. By special favor he draws by force, "Come on. This time." Because that is explained in Caitanya-caritāmṛta that a rascal, he wants Kṛṣṇa, or he wants God, but at the same time he wants to enjoy this material world, because to want God means finish with material world. But sometimes he is both ways. When Kṛṣṇa sees the other way is hampering, He breaks his profit by force, so that in helpless condition. Everything is explained in the Bhāgavata. "I take away his all money. He may try to get money—again I take. So in this way, when he becomes hopeless and there is no money, then he surrenders to Me." And as soon as he has no money, his so-called relatives, friends, wife, children, they neglect, "Oh, what is this man? He is useless." So he is bereft of money, he is bereft of friends, bereft of any love from wife and children, then hopelessly he surrenders to Kṛṣṇa. So the plan is that: all these rascal living entities, those who are trying to be happy in this material world, nature's plan is to give him trouble—every attempt shall be frustrated, every attempt shall fail—so that he may come, after many, many births. Bahūnāṁ janmanām ante jñānavān māṁ prapadyante (BG 7.19). So He has pointed out that there is a plan, and this is the plan: to bring you back to home, back to Godhead. It is not partial, that somebody may remain here and somebody may go to Godhead. No. The whole plan is that everyone must come back. But he is obstinate, he is obstinate. Just like a bad boy, father says, "Come on," he's not. He's crying, "No, I'll not go." But the father's only business is to drag him. Therefore the final, after speaking all the proposals in the Bhagavad-gītā, Kṛṣṇa says finally, "I am giving you final, very confidential instructions," sarva guhyatamam. "You give up all this rascaldom, arguing with Me. Just surrender unto Me." Arjuna was arguing. "Just surrender unto Me. That is your business. If you think you will be sinful by killing your... I will give you protection." Therefore, before citing this verse He says, "I am speaking to you most confidentially." That means unless one is very sincere to God, he does not heed the final confidential instruction. "All right, you go on with your own work." But to show Arjuna special favor, He says that "I am talking to you now the most confidential instruction. I have talked to you about karma, jñāna, yoga, and so many things, but the most confidential thing is this: that you fully surrender to Me. I will give you all protection."

Philosophy Discussion on Hegel:

Śyāmasundara: So in a sense this is spirit.

Prabhupāda: Yes. It is spirit actually. But because I have no sense of Kṛṣṇa, I am taking it as matter. Just like sometimes people criticize that "You are spiritualists, you hate materialism, why you are using this table, why you are using this typewriter, microphone." But our reply is that it is not matter, it is spirit. But when you use it for your sense gratification then it is material. Just like prasādam—the people will say "What is this nonsense, prasādam, we are taking also dahl, rice, capātī, how it becomes spiritual?" They can argue like that and sometimes they do that. But, they do not know that we are accepting this dahl, rice, capātī in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Actually it belongs to Kṛṣṇa. They, you cannot produce dahl, rice, it is Kṛṣṇa's production; everything is Kṛṣṇa's production. But when you forget Kṛṣṇa, his relationship with Kṛṣṇa, then it is material. Therefore you revive the relationship with Kṛṣṇa, you offer to Kṛṣṇa, then you understand Kṛṣṇa has eaten, now let us take. Therefore it is spiritual. The consciousness is spiritual.

Philosophy Discussion on Hegel:

Śyāmasundara: So in a sense this is spirit.

Prabhupāda: Yes. It is spirit actually. But because I have no sense of Kṛṣṇa, I am taking it as matter. Just like sometimes people criticize that "You are spiritualists, you hate materialism, why you are using this table, why you are using this typewriter, microphone." But our reply is that it is not matter, it is spirit. But when you use it for your sense gratification then it is material. Just like prasādam—the people will say "What is this nonsense, prasādam, we are taking also dahl, rice, capātī, how it becomes spiritual?" They can argue like that and sometimes they do that. But, they do not know that we are accepting this dahl, rice, capātī in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Actually it belongs to Kṛṣṇa. They, you cannot produce dahl, rice, it is Kṛṣṇa's production; everything is Kṛṣṇa's production. But when you forget Kṛṣṇa, his relationship with Kṛṣṇa, then it is material. Therefore you revive the relationship with Kṛṣṇa, you offer to Kṛṣṇa, then you understand Kṛṣṇa has eaten, now let us take. Therefore it is spiritual. The consciousness is spiritual.

Nirbandhe kṛṣṇa sambandhe
yukta-vairāgyam ucyate.
prāpañcikatayā buddhyā
hari-sambandhi-vastunaḥ
mumukṣubhiḥ parityāgo
phalgu-vairāgya kathyate

This is our philosophy, Rūpa Gosvāmī's philosophy. That hari-sambandhi-vastunaḥ; everything has relation with Kṛṣṇa and those who are giving it up, "No, no it is matter, brahma satyaṁ jagan mithyā, this is false," Rūpa Gosvāmī says, phalgu-vairāgya, that kind of renunciation is insufficient or, phalgu means false, false renunciation. So our renunciation means renounce things for sense gratification. That's all. (indistinct) we renounce anything for our sense gratification, but we accept everything for Kṛṣṇa's senses. But actually everything is spiritual. Just like if Kṛṣṇa does not accept anything material but they argue that you are offering material flower, material food, how will Kṛṣṇa accept? Therefore in essence it is not material, but because we have been habituated to accept them for our sense gratification, therefore it is material.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Śyāmasundara: Yes, admitted, but I say that...

Karandhara: So dealing on a whole range of imperfection and deduction...

Śyāmasundara: Anyone can argue on that level and say anything, but what I want to know are the facts.

Karandhara: The facts are there, but you can accept the facts as Darwin presents them or as the Vedas present them or as anyone presents them.

Svarūpa Dāmodara: These are all controlled by the force of nature. For example, we do not find evidence, scientific evidence, so-called they've got from eight hundred thousand years ago. That does not mean anything. It is all subject to the course of nature. So maybe it just changed with the earth turning. (indistinct) That does not mean that it did not exist.

Śyāmasundara: If I'm a Darwinist; I'm still not convinced. Because you still haven't proven to me that the layers of earth that are far, far below are not millions of years old. You say that they may be newly formed, but...

Karandhara: They haven't proven that they are millions of years old.

Śyāmasundara: Well, I'm not a geologist...

Prabhupāda: My charge is that you cannot give history of human society more than three thousand years; how you speak of millions of years? That is my charge.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Prabhupāda: The whole thing is that Dr. Frog, famous story. He comes to this country, Dr. Frog's understanding. He has studied the three-feet-wide well, and he says he is satisfied with that. He has nothing to do with the Atlantic Ocean. But Atlantic Ocean is also a reservoir of water, and that well is also a reservoir of water. But (there is a) vast difference. So we take knowledge of who has created Atlantic Ocean. Therefore our knowledge is perfect. What do you say?

Śyāmasundara: I just want to try to cover this from every angle so that Darwinists will not be able to argue. Today I'd like to find out how they date earth layers, how geologists find...

Prabhupāda: No. Your geologists have given, "It may be millions of years ago." They say like that.

Svarūpa Dāmodara: They estimate.

Prabhupāda: Estimate.

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Śyāmasundara: They estimate, but there must be some basis for their estimation.

Karandhara: They don't even agree amongst one another. They argue. I attended college with scientists, and they argue amongst one another. They don't agree on their own scientific evidence.

Śyāmasundara: But at least they all agree that there is several million years old, many millions of years old, at least.

Karandhara: No. Not necessarily.

Śyāmasundara: The Pleistocene two hundred million years...

Karandhara: Just an assembly of fools. You can get all the fools to agree on the same thing. It doesn't make anyone...

Śyāmasundara: Well I still want to find out how they...

Prabhupāda: Kṛṣṇa nāma koro bhai ar sab niche, parai gab pap nahi yoni ache piche (?). Our real problem is birth, death. All these scientist, they could not solve any of these problems, neither they could answer. Maybe Darwin's cam(?) has died. They could not stop death. Kata choto dayana na mari meri jao (?).

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Śyāmasundara: But there is no difference between the oldest cavemen and the men today. We're still killing, still hunting, still fighting. Same things.

Prabhupāda: No. Suppose just like Jesus Christ instructed his disciples, "Thou shall not kill." Say two thousand years ago in the Western countries, the men were killers, that's all. But we'll see Bhagavad-gītā, five thousand years ago, Kṛṣṇa is arguing that "If our women become widows then they'll be polluted. There will be varṇa-saṅkara, unwanted children, the society will go to hell." How much elevated society. Five thousand years ago. It is a question of place. It is a question of place. If Darwin says... Here in the Bible it is said that "Thou shall not kill," so that means two thousand years ago they were simply killers. That does not mean five thousand years there were no highly elevated personalities. That is his lack of studying. He is too much localized. He has no broadened knowledge, neither he has studied all the books, contemporary books; therefore he has poor fund of knowledge. He's very poor in his knowledge. Just like, still, there are many Americans... You Americans are completely different from others. You cannot say that all the Americans are drunkards and irresponsible; therefore, they are also. Side by side some moral is still there. You don't drink; you don't take meat; you are all God conscious; side by side there is. So how you can write history that "Such and such, 1971, '72, all Americans were LSD"? How you can conclude like that?

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:

Hayagrīva: At first Darwin was a Christian, but his faith in the existence of a personal God dwindled, and he finally wrote, "The whole subject"—that is the subject of religion, or God—"is beyond the scope of man's intellect. The mystery of the beginning of things is insoluble by us, and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic. I have steadily endeavored to keep my mind free, so as to give up any hypothesis, however much beloved, as soon as facts are shown to be opposed to it." So he didn't argue against Plato or Descartes or Kant or any other philosopher, but he simply presented what evidence he had amassed during a five..., only a five-year voyage, on a British freighter, oh, from 1831 to 1836. But what is considered important is that his book, The Origin of Species, marks what they call the emancipation of science from philosophy.

Prabhupāda: What is that, emancipation?

Hayagrīva: That is to say he simply presented what material he found—that is the fossils. He investigated certain life forms on these island during this trip and theorized about evolution.

Prabhupāda: That is philosophic; that is not scientific. He found something and he based his thesis on that. He cannot find out all the bodies, because there are, at the end, some section, some sect they burn the body. So how he can get information of their body, burned? So his theory is not at all scientific. It is always defective.

Philosophy Discussion on John Dewey:

Śyāmasundara: He says that moral laws are not absolute rules which never permit exceptions. He says that moral laws are flexible; that they're not absolute.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Real moral law means the law of the Supreme. Just like Kṛṣṇa has preached dhyāna-yoga, jñāna-yoga, haṭha-yoga, so many yoga systems. Then He says, sarva-dharmān parityajya (BG 18.66). These principles have not less moral, dhyāna-yoga, jñāna-yoga, aṣṭāṅga-yoga, but ultimately He says, "Give up all of them." Then what is moral? His word is moral. Whatever He says, that is moral. Not this dhyāna-yoga, jñāna-yoga. No. Whatever He says, that is morality. So it is changed. Nobody can argue: "Sir, you have prescribed so many kinds of yogas. Now You say to give up all these things. It is contradictory." No. It is not contradictory. Whatever He says, that is morality. That is Vaiṣṇava principle. We don't consider anything moral or immoral. Whatever is ordered by Kṛṣṇa or His representative, that is moral. That is our position.

Philosophy Discussion on John Dewey:

Hayagrīva: This is John Dewey, who believed that religions were basically myths and that experience is of the utmost necessity. He felt that philosophy was superior to religion. He writes, "The form ceases to be that of the story told in imaginative and emotional style and becomes that of rational discourse, observing the canons of logic." So it's apparent that Dewey considers religion simply to be a story told in imaginative and emotional style, and for him philosophy observes the canons of logic. So for him the Vedic accounts of Kṛṣṇa's pastimes would be imaginative and emotional, or mythic. How does one argue against this kind of a...?

Prabhupāda: Kṛṣṇa is historical fact. It is not imagination. It is, to think like that, is imaginative. Kṛṣṇa... The Mahābhārata is there. It is accepted by all Indian authority, and Kṛṣṇa is a historical figure. How it can be imaginative? So... he may think like that, like a madman, but India's leader will not accept that. Especially the ācāryas who are controlling the spiritual life of India, they do not accept a lunatic foreigner speaking like that.

Philosophy Discussion on Ludwig Wittgenstein:

Śyāmasundara: It's only working in two planes, or two dimensions.

Prabhupāda: Just like this body. This body, I can say is false, but suppose somebody kills somebody, he cannot argue that it is a false thing. If it is killed, why the state should by so much anxious about it if it a false? No. Even it is temporary, even if it's false, but it has got temporary use. You cannot disturb that use.

Śyāmasundara: He says that propositions pertaining to metaphysical realities such as we have been talking about, like the soul, he says they are neither chronological, that is uninformative assertions, neither are they empirical propositions. So it is impossible to demonstrate either their validity or to verify them.

Prabhupāda: Why?

Śyāmasundara: Statements like "the soul," "I am the soul."

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Philosophy Discussion on Sigmund Freud:

Hayagrīva: One who needs...

Prabhupāda: Unless you can deny that you have born, you are born without father, then you are a child. You do not have conception how you are in existence without father. What is this argument? That everything must be argued, a sane man. So this is simple logic I am putting forward. Who can refute it, that you have father, your father had father, his father had father, father's father's, all? This is a disciplic succession of fathers. How can you deny the father? Therefore the ultimate father, the supreme father, He is also father but He is supreme father. That is the difference. So father conception of God is very practical, and it is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā, ahaṁ bīja-pradaḥ pitā (BG 14.4). So how he can defy it if he is a sane man? Who can defy it? Is there any person to defy it?

Hayagrīva: Well, he says, "Man's helplessness remains, and with it his father-longing and the gods."

Prabhupāda: Hopelessness or no hopelessness...

Hayagrīva: Helplessness.

Philosophy Discussion on Sigmund Freud:

Prabhupāda: Father. So how he can avoid this father conception? If you mislead people that there is no father conception, that is not education; that is misleading. Father is there, everyone knows this simple philosophy. And if he is misleading them, then that is not philosopher, that is cruelty. A man is naturally believing that there is father and there is father's father, and he is diverting his attention from this natural belief. So this is cruelty. He is committing cruelty to human understanding, simple understanding.

Hayagrīva: He says, "I disagree with you when you go on to argue that man cannot in general do without the consolation of the religious illusion, that without it he would not endure the troubles of life, the cruelty of reality."

Prabhupāda: Man cannot do without education. Without education a man remains an animal. Therefore in the human society there is a school, college, an institution, teacher—not in the animal society. So the principle is, the man is meant for being learned or being educated. That you cannot deny, that man life should not be like cats and dogs, simply eating, sleeping, mating, and dying. That is not man's life. Man's life is to become advanced in knowledge and education. And as I have already described, the ultimate knowledge: to understand God.

Philosophy Discussion on B. F. Skinner:

Prabhupāda: The defect is that these programs are being forwarded by some rascal. Therefore they are defective. If they would have been forwarded by perfect man, then you would have actual (indistinct). Now one rascal is forwarding some program, another rascal next time (indistinct) this is true. So this is going on in Western world. Because according to Bhāgavata we belong to the category of dogs, hogs, camels. So what is the benefit of a dog's program and (indistinct) by camel's program. If they are on the, basically there is nothing but dogs, hogs, camels and asses, then suppose dog has given some program and the camel says, "No. This program is better than this one." And the ass comes, he introduces another program, "This program is better than this program." So either of these programs, because they are made by dogs, hogs, asses and camels, they cannot be perfect. Take a program from a real human being. Then it is perfect. The defect is there. One philosopher is proposing something, another philosopher is proposing something... That is (indistinct) especially in the Western countries, they are doing so independence (?). But the Vedic civilization there is no independence. They must follow the Vedic injunction. As I have said several times, the Vedas says that the stool of cow is completely pure. They do not argue that "Formerly you say that the stool of animal is impure. Now you are saying that the stool of animal, cow, is pure. So how can we accept?" There is no such thing. The Vedas says, even it is stool, but the Vedas says the stool of cow is perfectly pure. Yes. No contradiction. Our presentation of Kṛṣṇa consciousness is like that. But Kṛṣṇa says, "(indistinct), as it is." There is no question of altering or changing according to circumstances. We know Kṛṣṇa is perfect. Whatever He has said, it is all right, in all conditions. That is our belief. We do not deviate. So similarly, if the direction is taken for training from the perfect, that is the best. And if the direction is taken from the process of (indistinct) philosophy, hogs, dogs, and asses, and camels how can you take? (indistinct) something, (indistinct) something, (indistinct) analysis something, so the whole society will be (indistinct).

Philosophy Discussion on The Evolutionists Thomas Huxley, Henri Bergson, and Samuel Alexander:

Śyāmasundara: But he says not the authority. He says by the most willing people...

Prabhupāda: That we see... He's going... He's going... Veda is accept by everyone. All learned scholar. Who can decry Vedas? Only the rascals will decry Vedas. Otherwise... Just like in our country, India, all the big ācāryas, they accept Vedas as the basic principle. So who can decry? Veda says that the stool of cow is pure, and it is accepted. Everyone. All Hindus, brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas, vaiśyas, and the ācāryas, they accept that cow dung is pure. Why? Veda says. In another place, Veda says that "Stool of any animal is impure," but this stool is pure. So we haven't got discrimination. We accept that. Other animal stool is impure. But the cow dung, the stool of cow, we immediately accept as pure, and we apply it in our Deity room and make is purified. That is Veda. You cannot contradict . You cannot argue Vedas.

Philosophy Discussion on Johann Gottlieb Fichte:

Śyāmasundara: He says that the world, he calls it the stuff of duty, the world is made up of the stuff of duty.

Prabhupāda: Yes, yes. Stuff of duty, because duty means you are abiding by the superior order, that is duty. So we accept Vedas, the superior order. When it is stated, order in the Vedas, then we accept. That example we have given several times, if the Veda says that cow dung is pure. Once it is said that any stool of animal is impure. Then Veda says, "No, cowdung is pure." So you cannot argue that once you said that stool of animal is impure, how you say that cowdung is pure? You cannot contradict. You will have to accept it because it is order of the Vedas. (indistinct)

Śyāmasundara: He sees that everything in the world, all nonego objects, all the objects of the world are seeking to realize themselves. Everything is seeking to realize itself.

Prabhupāda: Yes, seeking, therefore if you take advantage of a perfect person, then that seeking will be (indistinct) very soon understand. Otherwise he'll hover in the oblivion. That's all. Our process is we are seeking but we are going to the Absolute Person, Kṛṣṇa, and you are taking the knowledge, immediately. That saves our time. If you are seeking, considering your (indistinct) very great scholar, research scholar, then you are misled. Our process is very nice. Therefore tad vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum eva abhigacchet (MU 1.2.12), the injunction is you must approach a bona fide spiritual master to make a short cut of the searching.

Philosophy Discussion on Socrates:

Prabhupāda: Yes. So almost similar to our method, because we advised, we advised in this Vedic principle, that for the truth one must approach a guru. That is the version everywhere. In Bhagavad-gītā also, same instruction is there:

tad viddhi praṇipātena
paripraśnena sevayā
upadekṣyanti tad jñānaṁ
jñāninas tattva-darśinaḥ
(BG 4.34)

So you have to approach a guru who knows the Absolute Truth. "Knows" means he has seen. Just like in our daily life, direct perception to see something, people argue on that, that "Can you show me God?" That is the tendency, that direct perception. So the direct perception is possible by advanced devotion. There is no difficulty because, as I have already explained, santaḥ sadaiva hṛdayeṣu vilokayanti. Constantly he is seeing the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Śyāmasundara. So there is a state when one can constantly see the Supreme Lord as Paramātmā sitting within his heart and taking advice from Him. Kṛṣṇa also confirms this: buddhi-yogaṁ dadāmi tam. He talks. So by meditation, if it is actually meditation to search out the Absolute Truth within the heart, then he can meet. That is the yoga practice. Yoga practice means concentrating the mind to see the Supersoul within. Therefore he has to control the activities of the senses from all other engagements. Then it is possible. Yoga practice, this dhyāna, dhāraṇā, āsana, praṇāyāma, these are why? Simply to concentrate the mind, focusing toward the Paramātmā, and then, when is perfect, he always sees.

Philosophy Discussion on Socrates:
Prabhupāda: "Of all the yogis, one who has learned to see Me within himself, he is first class." Others are bogus. The perfection of yoga means to see God within himself. That is perfection of yoga. So this process, as Socrates used to give chance to his disciple, that is good process, to give him chance to develop his understanding. The teacher helps. Just like the father and mother give the child. First of all he helps, taking his hand, "Now walk, walk," and sometimes he gives him pleasure: "Now you walk. Let me see how you walk. Now you walk." Although he sometimes falls down, but a father will encourage, "Oh, you are very nice. Stand up, stand up again. Walk." So give chance to the disciple how they can think properly to go back to home, back to Godhead, teacher is giving instruction and tries to see how he has developed. So that process is natural. And another process is that suppose a man comes to argue, so you should give him first chance, "All right, you say what is the import of these verses." Then he can understand his position, where he is. Then he captures him. Because an expert, he knows how to capture the fool. So let the fool first of all go on, talk all nonsense, then he'll understand where he is and he will capture. That is also a process.
Philosophy Discussion on Thomas Aquinas:

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Hayagrīva: But he goes on to argue, "The inordinate emission of semen is repugnant to the good of nature, which is the conservation of the species. Hence, after the sin of murder, whereby human nature already in actual existence is destroyed, this sort of sin seems to hold a second place whereby the generation of human nature is precluded." Well how, people today would ask, how could the argument of the generation or the, the conservation of the species still hold, since there's so many human beings, since there are almost four billion human beings on this earth, how could this argument still hold that, uh...?

Prabhupāda: That, what is that argument?

Hayagrīva: That sex is only to beget children, for propagation of the species, and any other use is...

Prabhupāda: Sinful.

Hayagrīva: ...sinful.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That we recommend in our, this Kṛṣṇa consciousness: no illicit sex. Illicit sex means not producing..., not for producing children but for enjoyment. That is sinful. And...

Hayagrīva: Well the conservation, what he calls the conservation of the species, that doesn't enter into it.

Prabhupāda: No. The soul is already explained, that it has nothing to do with the body, but he has to accept a certain type of body on account of his association with certain type of modes of nature.

Philosophy Discussion on John Locke:

Hayagrīva: And John Locke, Locke is the..., is most famous for his conception of tabula rasa, or blank slate, that a child is born with no innate ideas. He states that "If there are innate or inborn ideas, all men would have them." That is to say, there would be universal consent. He writes, "This argument of universal consent, which is made use of to prove innate principles, seems to me a demonstration that there are none such because there are none to which all mankind give a universal consent." So it cannot be argued that all people have an innate or inborn idea of God since there is no universal consent on this subject. Well, do innate ideas have to be universal? Might not some living entities have some innate ideas and other living entities have others? Why does an innate idea have to be universal and apply to everyone?

Prabhupāda: Yes. Innate idea is that there is somebody. That is developed consciousness. The animals, they cannot think, on account of nondeveloped consciousness, but even in human society, uncivilized society, they have got the innate idea of some superior form. When there is lightning, they offer obeisances. When they see big ocean, they offer obeisances, something big. So that innate idea is universal, to offer obeisances to something wonderful. But this innate idea of accepting something supreme and offering respect is not developed in the animal. So this innate idea is there. When it is not developed, it is animal, and when it is developed, then it is human being. And a perfect human being is he, when he has developed this innate idea to the fullest stage. That is Kṛṣṇa consciousness.

Philosophy Discussion on John Locke:

Hayagrīva: This is the continuation of John Locke. Now you said that from your very birth you knew that Kṛṣṇa was the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Now does this mean that from your very birth you were acquainted with the name Kṛṣṇa, or didn't your father have to at least say the word once? Now Locke would argue that the idea of Kṛṣṇa is not an innate idea because it is not universally assented to.

Prabhupāda: Universally...?

Hayagrīva: Universally, not everyone acknowledges that Kṛṣṇa is God, so he would say that idea is not inborn in the mind.

Prabhupāda: No. In the material world they have got different ideas. That undeveloped mind has got different ideas, but developed, what is called, idea or conception, perfect conception is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. So if one remembers Kṛṣṇa consciousness after his birth, that means he had previously cultivated. There is a verse, you can find out: ataḥ. Find that.

Devotee: Gītā?

Prabhupāda: Yes. The word begins ataḥ paurva-dehikam. You can stop the machine and find it. (break) You can record it. Tatra taṁ paurva-dehikam buddhi-saṁyogam. Yes, that is. Therefore Kṛṣṇa consciousness, culture of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, is never lost. It goes on, unless it is perfect. Therefore it is stated, sv-alpam apy asya dharmasya trāyate mahato bhayāt. Even little acting on Kṛṣṇa consciousness can save one from the greatest danger—as it was done by Ajamila. He cultivated Kṛṣṇa consciousness in the beginning of his life, then he fell down, he became the greatest debauch. But at the end of life again he remembered Nārāyaṇa and he got salvation. Tatra taṁ buddhi-saṁyogam (BG 6.43). Read Bhagavad-gītā carefully. All answers are there. This philosopher cannot go beyond Bhagavad-gītā.

Philosophy Discussion on John Locke:

Hayagrīva: And Locke argues on behalf of private property given to man by God. That is to say a man may have a certain stewardship over a certain amount of property. Is this in compliance with the Īśopaniṣadic version?

Prabhupāda: Yes, yes. Tena tyaktena bhuñjīthā: (ISO 1) everything belongs to God. Just like the father has got many sons and the father is the proprietor of the house. He gives one son, "This is your room," the other son, "This is your room." So the obedient son is satisfied what the father allows to him. Others, those who are not obedient, they want to disturb other brother that "This room also belongs to me." That creates chaos and confusion in the world. The United Nations, they have created a society for unity of the nations, but actually that is not unity. That is another way of encroaching upon others' property. Therefore there is no peace, unless they accept God is the Supreme proprietor. And we must be satisfied with the allotment God has given to us. Then there is no trouble. But the trouble is that we are not satisfied with the allotment given to us.

Philosophy Discussion on George Berkeley:

Hayagrīva: Berkeley. Berkeley—very brief section on Berkeley. Berkeley seems to be arguing against objective reality. In other words, three men standing in a field looking at a tree could all have a different impression or idea of the tree, or at least according to his argument. The problem is, although there are three impressions of the tree, each differing from one another, there is no tree as such. Now, how does the tree as such exist? In the mind of God? Is it possible for a conditioned living entity to perceive the suchness or essence of anything?

Prabhupāda: Everything means God, expansion of God's energy. So how tree or anything can be without reference to God? We see that the earthen pot is on the ground, on the, what is called, ground?

Hayagrīva: The what?

Prabhupāda: Earthen pot, pot, pots made of earth.

Page Title:Argue (Lectures, Other)
Compiler:Visnu Murti, Mayapur
Created:06 of Mar, 2012
Totals by Section:BG=0, SB=0, CC=0, OB=0, Lec=69, Con=0, Let=0
No. of Quotes:69