Go to Vanipedia | Go to Vanisource | Go to Vanimedia


Vaniquotes - the compiled essence of Vedic knowledge


Argument (Lectures, SB)

Expressions researched:
"Argumentum baculam" |"Argumentum baculum" |"Argumentum vaculam" |"Argumentum vaculum" |"argument" |"argument's" |"argumentative" |"argumentativeness" |"arguments" |"argumentum ad baculum"

Lectures

Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures

Lecture on SB 1.1.1 -- London, August 6, 1971:

Pradyumna: "Śrī Vyāsadeva asserts herein that Śrī Kṛṣṇa is the original Personality of Godhead and all others are His direct or indirect plenary portions or portion of the portion. Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī has even more explicitly explained the subject matter in his Kṛṣṇa Sandarbha, and Brahmā, the original living being..."

Prabhupāda: Jīva Gosvāmī has got six sandarbhas, theses: Bhagavat-sandarbha, Kṛṣṇa-sandarbha, Tattva-sandarbha, Prīti-sandarbha, like that. So these books are... I don't think it is published in English. So these sandarbhas are so philosophically discussed that throughout the whole world, there is not a single philosopher who can defy these Jīva Gosvāmī's six sandarbhas. Our, this Gauḍīya-sampradāya... We belong to Gauḍīya-sampradāya—Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu, from the disciplic succession of Caitanya Mahāprabhu. We have got immense literature to understand God. One who wants to understand God through philosophy, science, argument, logic, so to supply them material, we have got immense literature, Vedic literature. So one of them is mentioned here, Kṛṣṇa-sandarbha, what is Kṛṣṇa. Go on.

Lecture on SB 1.1.1 -- Caracas, February 21, 1975:

Then the origin of everything, what is the nature of that origin? That is being explained now. Vāsudeva is everything, accepted, but whether Vāsudeva is a living being or a dull matter. Nowadays the theory, scientists' theory, is going on that life is made of chemicals. That means matter. This has been discussed five thousand years ago by Vyāsadeva, whether the origin of life is life or matter. So he says that the origin of everything is life because Vāsudeva is also life. And now you come to your argument and reason, whether origin of life is matter or life. That you have to discuss. So here it is said that origin is life because here it is said, yato 'nvayād itarataś ca artheṣu abhijñaḥ svarāṭ. Just like if I am taken as the origin of this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement, that means I know everything directly and indirectly of all this movement. If I do not know directly or indirectly everything of this movement, then I cannot be called the founder-ācārya. And as soon as the origin becomes a knower, he is life. So therefore dull matter cannot be the knower of everything.

Lecture on SB 1.1.1 -- Caracas, February 21, 1975:

This is the creation understanding. So one may mistake, "Then Lord Brahmā is, the Supreme Personality of Godhead because He has no..., nobody knew that by whom born Lord Brahmā was born." It may be questioned like that. But Brahmā is not the original source of everything. Although he has created this universe, he is not the original source. Therefore it is explained here that the original person is Vāsudeva, or Kṛṣṇa, and He gave intelligence to Brahmā to create this universe. But if we put this argument that "Brahmā was alone. How he took instruction from the superior person?" therefore it is said, tene brahma hṛdā: "The Supreme Personality of Godhead Vāsudeva instructed him from within the heart." That is not only for Brahmā. That is not the only prerogative of Brahmā. Kṛṣṇa, we have already stated, is seated in everyone's heart. If you want to consult Him, He can give you instruction. The only thing is that you have to become qualified like Brahmā so that you can received instruction from Him within the heart.

Lecture on SB 1.2.1 -- New Vrindaban, September 1, 1972:

Sometimes they put argument, taṇḍula-vṛścika-nyāya. In Sanskrit it is called. You have no experience here. In India we have got experience. Sometimes from heap of rice, one scorpion is coming out. So foolish men, they will think that the heap of rice, piles of rice, is giving birth to a scorpion. No, that is not the fact. One who knows the scorpion This animal is very clever. They lay down eggs within the heaps of rice, and by the fermentation of rice, it comes out. So actually, rice is not producing the scorpion. It is coming out under some chemical fermentation process. There are manifestation of living entities. There are different types. Udbhijja. Just like trees, they are coming out of the seed. If the seed is sown on the ground, under favorable conditions it comes out. This is also life. And some of the living entities are coming out of eggs. Aṇḍaja. Aṇḍa means egg. That you know.

Lecture on SB 1.2.5 -- Melbourne, April 3, 1972, Lecture at Christian Monastery:

Your heart will be cleansed. Now we are in so many consciousness: "I am this, I am that, I am this, I am that, I am this, I am that." And therefore there is so much trouble all over the world, because we have misidentified with this body which is simply shirt and coat. Suppose we are sitting, so many ladies and gentlemen. If we simply fight on the basis of our dress, "Oh, you are not in such dress. I am in such dress. Therefore you are my enemy," this is not very good argument. Because I am in different dress, so I am not your enemy. And because you are in different dress, you are not enemy. But that is going on. That is going on. "I am American," "I am Indian," "I am Chinese," "I am Russian," "I am this," "I am that." And the fighting is going on on this point only.

Lecture on SB 1.2.6 -- Hyderabad, November 26, 1972:

So where is the wrong in this? There is superior judgement and there are different types of body, that is a fact. So how, you cannot deny. Sometimes Christians, they deny this karmavāda. I was a student in Calcutta, Scottish Churches College. So, I was student of philosophy also. So Dr. Urquhart, he denied karmavāda. That "I am punished at this present, present body, where is the witness? Where is the witness?" Because any judgement is done on the strength of witness. So that was his argument. But the witness is there. According to Vedic system the witness is the sun, the witness is the moon, the witness is the day, the witness is the night. And above all the supreme witness is God Himself. Īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānāṁ hṛd-deśe 'rjuna tiṣṭhati (BG 18.61). The Supreme Lord is situated in everyone's heart so how you can hide yourself from the vigilance of the Supreme Lord? The Supreme Lord is witness. So according to your karma... And that is also explained in another place in Bhagavad-gītā. Why people are getting superior and inferior types of bodies? That is explained, kāraṇaṁ guṇa-saṅgo 'sya sad-asad-yoni-janmasu (BG 13.22).

Lecture on SB 1.2.6 -- Delhi, November 12, 1973:

his is the śāstra's direction. Yathā taror mūla-niṣecanena tṛpyanti tat-skandha-bhujopaśākhāḥ (SB 4.31.14). Very practical example. Just like watering, pouring water on the root of the tree, automatically you please the branches, the twigs, the leaves, the flowers, the fruits and everything. Immediately the watering energy is transformed to every part of the tree. It is practical. There is no argument. And another example is given. Prāṇopahārāc ca yathendriyāṇām. You give food to the stomach, and the energy will be distributed to all the parts of your body. If you want to serve separately, two sweetmeats to the two eyes and two sweetmeats to ears, in this way, it will be simply useless waste of time. Simply one sweetmeat, if you put into the stomach, and immediately you will feel some energy which will be enjoyed by your eyes, by your ears, by your nose, your hands, your legs, your hair, everything. This is the process.

Lecture on SB 1.2.6 -- Rome, May 24, 1974:

That I have given you several times the example. Just like the cow dung is the stool of an animal, but the Vedic literature confirms that cow dung is pure. Now, you cannot argue, "It is stool of an animal. In one place you have condemned that if you touch the stool of an animal, you have to take bath thrice, and now you say cow dung, which is also stool of an animal, it is pure. Where is your argument?" You have to accept. That is called theism. Because the Vedas says, without any argument, you accept it. That is called theism. You cannot change. You cannot comment. That is called theism. Āstikyam. Brahma-karma svabhāva-jam (BG 18.42). And unless you have got such faith in the Vedic knowledge, you cannot make any progress. That is not possible. If you, with your poor fund of knowledge, you want to interpret, from the very beginning there is no question of progress.

Lecture on SB 1.2.7 -- Delhi, November 13, 1973:

You can understand the speed of mind. You are sitting here; immediately you can go to London, ten thousand miles away. The speed of mind you can understand. So here it is... Even on the speed of mind, not this one-thousand-mile speed or five-hundred-mile speed. On the speed of mind. The speed of mind means within second it can go millions of miles. That is the speed of mind. So it is said, panthās tu... And with that speed, if you go on, koṭi-śata-vatsara-sampragamyaḥ, for many millions of years to find out where is God, it is impossible. You cannot. You cannot. Panthās tu koṭi-śata-vatsara-sampragamyo vāyor athāpi manaso muni-puṅgavānām (Bs. 5.34). And by whom? Muni-puṅga, great, great saintly persons. So still, avicintya-tattve, still, it remains avicintya-tattva. You cannot understand. Nāyam ātmā pravacanena labhyaḥ. In the Vedas it is said, "Simply by argument, speculation, you cannot understand." You have to understand God from God or from His representative. Otherwise it is not possible. This is the process.

Lecture on SB 1.2.15 -- Vrndavana, October 26, 1972:

Therefore Vedic knowledge is called śruti. It has to be acquired by hearing. Śruti. Not by seeing, not by experimental knowledge. That is not possible. Because it is beyond, beyond our sense perception. Acintyāḥ khalu ye bhāvā na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet. Don't try to understand by false argument, dry argument, which is beyond your conception, beyond your reach. Simply waste of time. Then how to know? Now, śrotavya. You have to hear. That is the only means. The example I have given several times. Just like if you want to know who is your father, it is to be this śrotavya. From where? From the authority, my mother. You cannot manufacture your knowledge who is your father. No. You cannot speculate. That is not pos ... Because it beyond your reach. The father was existing before your birth. So how you can understand father by experimental knowledge? That is not possible. You have to accept the statement of your mother. That's all. Finished. Similarly, Vedas—our mother of knowledge. Purāṇas-our sisters of knowledge. So we have to consult from the Vedas and from the right person. Tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum eva abhigacchet (MU 1.2.12), from the guru. Not that you purchase one book, Vedas, from the market, and you become a Vedantist. No. That is not possible. Tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum eva abhigacchet. Must go to understand. Tad viddhi praṇipātena paripraśnena sevayā (BG 4.34).

Lecture on SB 1.2.19 -- Vrndavana, October 30, 1972:

So naṣṭa-prāyeṣu abhadreṣu nityaṁ bhāgavata-sevayā (SB 1.2.18). Nityam. This point we have discussed. The Bhāgavata has to be studied from a person bhāgavata. Bhāgavata-sevayā. Tad viddhi praṇipātena paripraśnena sevayā (BG 4.34). One has to learn Bhāgavatam from a person you can surrender. Praṇipātena. Paripraśnena sevayā. Two things. There must be service and surrender. And between the two things, surrender and service, there is paripraśna. You cannot ask about spiritual knowledge from a person by challenging. No. That will not help you. Just like Kṛṣṇa (Arjuna). When he was talking with Kṛṣṇa like friend, the problem was not solved. Then Arjuna surrendered unto Kṛṣṇa. Śiṣyas te 'haṁ śādhi māṁ prapannam (BG 2.7). He understood that "Simply by friendly talkings and argument, there cannot be any conclusion of spiritual life." One must surrender. He knew it. Gurum eva abhigacchet. Must. Abhigacchet is vidhilin form of verb. Means "he must." There is no other alternative. So therefore Arjuna submitted. And he was also enlightened. So simply by hearing from the authoritative sources, nityaṁ bhāgavata-sevayā, as it is described. But we don't find anywhere: saptāhaṁ bhāgavata-sevayā. No. Nityaṁ bhāgavata-sevayā.

Lecture on SB 1.2.19 -- Vrndavana, October 30, 1972:

Then the hog would have been the first-class devotee. (laughter) Because he has enjoyed sense gratification without any restriction, without caring for mother, sister, or daughter. Then the hog would have gotten the first-class certificate to become a devotee. That is not... Of course, they think like that, rascaldom, that "Let us finish our sense gratificatory process. Then we shall think of our Kṛṣṇa consciousness." That is rascaldom. You have to give up. Not that... What is that? Haviṣa kṛtam(?)... Or what is that verse? That if you pour ghee on the fire it will increase; it will not decrease. You have to stop. So they put this argument. Especially in India, they are thinking that "Now, first of all, we have to become Americans. And then we shall think of Kṛṣṇa." This is rascaldom. Chant Hare Kṛṣṇa. (end)

Lecture on SB 1.2.22 -- Los Angeles, August 25, 1972:

So "therefore." The word is "therefore." "Therefore" means after concluding something, then we say "therefore." When we talk, when we argue, when we come to the conclusion, then we say "therefore." Or when our argument is strong, then we say "therefore." So this "therefore" means that one is firmly convinced. As it is described in the previous verse, bhidyate hṛdaya-granthiś chidyante sarva-saṁśayāḥ. Sarva-saṁśayāḥ. Saṁśaya means doubtfulness.

Lecture on SB 1.2.22 -- Los Angeles, August 25, 1972:

We have begun this chapter śṛṇvatāṁ sva-kathāḥ kṛṣṇaḥ puṇya-śravaṇa-kīrtanaḥ... (SB 1.2.17). (aside:) You are sleeping, this boy... Śṛṇvatāṁ sva-kathāḥ kṛṣṇaḥ puṇya-śravaṇa-kīrtanaḥ. Anyone who is engaged in hearing about Kṛṣṇa... To whom? To Him, not those who are sleeping. Those who are actually hearing, śṛṇvatām. Śṛṇvatām means hearing, not sleeping. To such person. Bhajatāṁ prīti-pūrvakam, and engaged in devotional service. Buddhi-yogaṁ dadāmi tam, "I give intelligence." It doesn't require... If he's sincere, if he's actually a devotee, Kṛṣṇa will help him. Guru-kṛṣṇa-kṛpā. Guru is secondary, another mercy of Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa is helping within and without. That without help is guru, Kṛṣṇa's representative. So Kṛṣṇa is always ready to help us, and when Kṛṣṇa is helping us, it is very easy to understand Him. Therefore a devotee is beyond all doubts. Beyond all doubts. There is no doubt. Not that blindly we are accepting Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. No. We have got all our arguments, scientific, philosophical, anything. Then we accept Kṛṣṇa. That acceptance is nice. That is uttama-adhikārī.

Lecture on SB 1.2.25 -- Los Angeles, August 28, 1972:

Just like Arjuna. Arjuna was putting... When Arjuna surrendered himself to Kṛṣṇa, śiṣyas te 'haṁ śādhi māṁ tvāṁ prapannam: (BG 2.7) "Now I become..." Because in the beginning he was talking like friends. So friends' argument, there is no end. Because every one thinks that "I am your friend. Why shall I be defeated by you?" So that talk, sort of talks will not solve your problem how to see God. That is not possible. Therefore, you must follow the principles done by Arjuna. He surrendered to Kṛṣṇa: "Kṛṣṇa, I know You are my friend, but unless I surrender unto You, I accept You my spiritual master, it is not possible to know." Therefore he surrendered: śiṣyas te 'haṁ śādhi māṁ prapannam. Kṛṣṇa also immediately took him as disciple and immediately chastised him, aśocyān anvaśocas tvaṁ prajñā-vādāṁś ca bhāṣase: (BG 2.11) "You're talking like a very learned scholar, but you're fool number one. You do not know what is knowledge."

Lecture on SB 1.3.1-3 -- San Francisco, March 28, 1968:

The atheist class of men, they do not agree to accept that this material world is created by God. They give some reason of their own way of thinking, and most of the arguments are "perhaps like this, perhaps like this, perhaps like this." What is this nonsense, "perhaps"? Is that science? "Perhaps"? So they have no sufficient reason that there is no creator. In everything, we find there is a creator. Anything you take. Take for example this table. There is a creator. Somebody has manufactured it. Or this microphone, somebody has created it. Anything you take, you have to find out some creator. And such a vast, gigantic thing, going on so nicely and punctually... The sun is rising punctually, the moon is rising punctually, the fortnight is going on, the season is coming punctually—everything. Why there should be no creator or no superintendent? That answer is there in the Bhagavad-gītā. Mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ sūyate sa-carācaram (BG 9.10). "Under My superintendence." So if you accept this, then the whole problem is solved. But if we don't accept it, then we have to speculate. But we never to come to the right conclusion, how this creation began. That is not possible to understand by such way. Go on.

Lecture on SB 1.3.11-12 -- Los Angeles, September 17, 1972:

So these astra..., this is the astra. By argument, by philosophy, by entreating, by flattering, they are giving Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Advaita Prabhu, Nityānanda Prabhu. Yes. Otherwise, they are already killed. Kṛṣṇa, if He kills them, then everything is finished. They are already killed by so many bad habits. They are going to hell. So those who are already killed, so what will be benefit by killing them? So deliver them. Sāṅgopāṅgāstra-pārṣadam. This is the incarnation of Kṛṣṇa. It is stated. And how He is worshiped? Yajñaiḥ saṅkīrtana-prāyair yajanti hi sumedhasaḥ (SB 11.5.32). The worshiping method of Lord Caitanya incarnation of Kṛṣṇa is not very difficult. Simply yajñaiḥ saṅkīrtanaiḥ. You perform this yajña of saṅkīrtana: Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare/ Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare. So Sanātana Gosvāmī, he was a minister. So to confirm this, he asked Caitanya Mahāprabhu that "How I can accept somebody as incarnation?" So Caitanya Mahāprabhu said that "That is not difficult. Everything is stated in the śāstras, and from the evidence of śāstra, you can accept who is incarnation."

Lecture on SB 1.3.15 -- Los Angeles, September 20, 1972:

You try to understand that you are eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa and do the needful. Then get out of this māyā's webs." This is Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement, giving the right information, that "If you do not want to be carried away by the waves of this māyā, material nature, then take to this consciousness so that at the time of your death you will change this body to Kṛṣṇa planet, Kṛṣṇa, Goloka Vṛndāvana." Tyaktvā dehaṁ punar janma naiti mām eti (BG 4.9). Kṛṣṇa says. Kṛṣṇa is not making lying propaganda. He has no business. He is giving you information, that if you become Kṛṣṇa conscious, janma karma me divyam, always thinking of Kṛṣṇa—how He is acting, why He has come, why He has appeared, why He has given us the Bhagavad-gītā, what lessons He is giving—in this way, if you simply try to understand Kṛṣṇa, janma karma me divyaṁ yo jānāti tat..., in truth, not whimsically, not sentimentally, with sound philosophy, knowledge, argument, you try to understand Bhagavad-gītā as it is, then you get tyaktvā deham... Then after giving up this body, undoubtedly you go back to Kṛṣṇa, go back to home back to Godhead.

Lecture on SB 1.3.19 -- Los Angeles, September 24, 1972:

So Bali Mahārāja is one of the authorities. Out of the twelve authorities, first is Lord Brahmā; the next, Nārada; the next, Lord Śiva; then next, the Kumāras; then Kapiladeva; then Manu, Vaivasvata Manu; then Prahlāda Mahārāja; then Janaka Mahārāja; then Bhīṣmadeva; then Bali Mahārāja; then Śukadeva Gosvāmī; and then Yamarāja. It is stated in the śāstra that mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ (CC Madhya 17.186). You cannot understand transcendental subject matter simply by dry speculation and argument. You cannot understand. Neither by reading Vedic literature. The conclusion is that you have to follow those who are authorities. Mahājano yena. Dharmasya tattvaṁ nihitaṁ guhāyāṁ mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ (CC Madhya 17.186). Guhā. Guhā means the cave, mountain cave, and guhā means the heart. So suppose something is very valuable is there in the cave of the mountain, and you do not know how to search it out. But if you know somebody who knows it, if you follow him, that "He is going there so I may also follow..."

Lecture on SB 1.5.1-8 -- New Vrindaban, May 23, 1969:

If one wants to know the Absolute Truth, the Supreme Personality of Godhead in truth, not fictitiously, then bhaktyā. Bhaktyā mām abhijānāti. Bhaktyā mām abhijānāti means through devotional service. So here also it is said that bhavatānudita-prāyaṁ yaśo bhagavato 'malam (SB 1.5.8), "You have not stated very nicely, in devotion, in love, about the transcendental glories of the Lord." Yenaivāsau na tuṣyeta manye tad... And if Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is not satisfied... Yena eva asau na tuṣyeta. Asau bhagavān na tuṣyeta, is not pleased, manye tad darśanaṁ khilam. That is insignificant. That means he hinted that "You are very much proud that you have written Vedānta-sūtra. You don't think by writing your Vedānta-sūtra God is pleased. Don't think so. It is clearly said manye tad-darśanam. "You have done wonderful work in writing Vedānta-sūtra, but I think," tad darśanaṁ khilam, "it is insignificant. It is no..." Because by philosophical speculation, by argument, this or that, it is all...

God is not satisfied because you are very erudite scholar. God is satisfied by the love of gopīs. They are not philosophers, they are not even brāhmaṇas, they are not even man. Ordinary village girls, but their devotion for Kṛṣṇa, oh, there is no comparison. There is no comparison.

Lecture on SB 1.5.8-9 -- New Vrindaban, May 24, 1969:

So that Prabodhānanda Sarasvatī (is) teaching us how to preach. In this age, simply by fighting, argument, it is very difficult to preach. Better to become humble and meek. Just like Prabodhānanda Sarasvatī is teaching us: dante nidhāya tṛṇakam. In India there is a system to become humble. If you take one blade of grass in your, between your lips and approach somebody, it is to be understood that you are approaching with great humbleness. Therefore he said, dante nidhāya tṛṇakam. Tṛṇakam means blade of grass. Dante means teeth. Padayor nipatya: "And falling down on your feet." Kāku-śataṁ kṛtvā: "And flattering you hundred times, 'My dear sir, you are so great. You are so big. You are so learned. You are so rich. You are so beautiful,' and everything," although he may be not. So dante nidhāya tṛṇakaṁ padayor nipatya kāku-śataṁ kṛtvā ca. Śatam. Śatam means "Hundred times flattering, I have come to you to say something." "Why you are so humble? What is the... What do you want to talk? " "No, I am..." He sādhavaḥ. "You are very religious man. You are very upright man, sādhavaḥ. Very honest man, saintly man. Yes. But I request you that whatever you learned, please forget. That is my request." (break)

Lecture on SB 1.5.12-13 -- New Vrindaban, June 11, 1969:

Arjuna says to Kṛṣṇa, senayor ubhayor madhye rathaṁ sthāpaya me acyuta (BG 1.21). He's addressing Kṛṣṇa as Acyuta. Acyuta means "not," and cyuta means "falldown." So God never falls down. Therefore God's name is Acyuta. The Māyāvāda philosopher says that God has become man, being, I mean to say, complicated in māyā, being illusioned. But God is acyuta. God never falls down. Then what is the meaning of this acyuta? If God falls down, becomes under the clutches of māyā, then māyā is greater than God. Then how God is great? That is the fallacy of their argument. They say that "I am God, but now I am under the clutches of māyā. As soon as māyā will be cleared, then I am again God." But they cannot answer the question that "Why? You are God. Why you are under the clutches of māyā? How you fall down?" That answer, there is none. Because God is great, acyuta. He never falls down. Then how He can fall down? If He falls down under the clutches of māyā, then māyā becomes great, not God great.

Lecture on SB 1.5.14 -- New Vrindaban, June 18, 1969:

So this sacrifice, this animal killing, that is also forbidding, that... Nārada Muni said that "Why you have bothered your head in that, that way, that you have made this, this is a type of religion?" Jugupsitam: "This is abominable." Jugupsitaṁ dharma-kṛte 'nuśāsataḥ: "You are authority, and if you recommend animal sacrifice, they will take it. They have got already natural tendency, and they will accept it, 'This is the religious process.' And when they will be forbidden by other, saner persons, they'll not care for it. So it is jugupsitam. It is abominable." Jugupsitaṁ dharma-kṛte 'nuśāsataḥ sva-bhāva-raktasya mahān vyatikramaḥ: "It's a great mistake you have done." Yad-vākyato dharma itītaraḥ sthitaḥ: "They'll accept you authority, and they'll be steady in that assertion, in that conviction." And na manyate tasya nivāraṇam: "And if you say..." Just like in other religious principles, if we say that "Don't eat meat..." I had some conversation with some Christian priests. They put forward this argument, "Why should we not eat? Our Christ took flesh. And why should we not? We must do it." They say like that. But Christ said that "You should... You shall not kill." So they cannot give any proper explanation why they kill.

Lecture on SB 1.5.18 -- New Vrindaban, June 22, 1969:

So he wanted to test whether He's Kṛṣṇa. So he, he sifted all the cows and cowherds boys from the pasturing ground, and again he saw that millions times the same cows, boys and cowherd, cows and cowherd boys, are present there. So that is Kṛṣṇa. He can expand. Bṛhatvad bṛhannatvad. Brahman means He can expand unlimitedly. And He can shrink also to the minute. Just like we are very minute. We are also part and parcel. And this cosmic manifestation is also part and parcel of Kṛṣṇa. Therefore He's called paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān (BG 10.12).

So in this way we have to study to become Kṛṣṇa conscious. The, everything is there. Simply we have to become little serious. Then we can understand what is this world, what is Kṛṣṇa, what we are, how they have expanded, how this world is created, everything. All answers are there. It is not a sentiment, that we are accepting something by sentiment. All reasons, all philosophy, arguments, are there. We shall discuss by and by.

Lecture on SB 1.5.22 -- Vrndavana, August 3, 1974:

So today is Baladeva āvirbhāva. Baladeva, in the strength. Nāyam ātmā bala-hīnena labhyaḥ. You cannot understand, realize yourself without the help of Baladeva. Therefore in the Vedic literatures: nāyam ātmā bala-hīnena labhyaḥ. You cannot become self-realized without the help of, without the mercy of Baladeva. Now, our Vivekananda Swami, he interpreted that "Unless you become stout and strong like the bulls and the buffalo, you cannot realize self." He interpreted like that. So he engaged people to make gymnastics, exercise. "You become very stout and strong, eat meat, and..." This is going on. This philosophy is going on. Bala-hīnena... "Unless you become as strong as a tiger, you cannot realize yourself." This interpretation is going on. Bala-hīnena labhyaḥ. Therefore they are... Always they put this argument, that "Our countrymen is suffering. There is no food. First of all we must give them food, make them strong, stout. Then we shall talk about Kṛṣṇa consciousness." Do they not say like that?

Lecture on SB 1.5.23 -- Vrndavana, August 4, 1974:

So our... We should be fixed up on the order of Kṛṣṇa coming through the spiritual master. Then our life is successful. This is the secret of success in spiritual life. Yasya prasādād bhagavat-prasādaḥ **. This is assured. We have to please the spiritual master. And if he's pleased, then Kṛṣṇa is pleased. The argument that "We do not see Kṛṣṇa personally. How we can satisfy Him?"... You satisfy your spiritual master, then Kṛṣṇa is pleased. Yasya prasādād bhagavat-prasādo yasyāprasādāt... **. And if you want to please directly Kṛṣṇa, and show your spiritual master plantain, then na gatiḥ kuto 'pi. It will be all useless. Yasya prasādād bhagavat-prasādo yasyāprasādān na gatiḥ kuto 'pi **.

Lecture on SB 1.7.6 -- Geneva, May 31, 1974:

So in this way we have been entangled. This is called anartha. Therefore that gentleman was... "If we take everyone..." That is not possible. Everyone is not going to take Kṛṣṇa consciousness. That is not possible. But he was thinking that, that "If we..." Sometimes they put this argument, that "If everyone becomes Kṛṣṇa conscious, who will look after this business, that business?" That will be looked after. Don't bother. The śūdra class, they will take care. The brāhmaṇa class, they will take advantage, and the śūdra class, they will work hard. Just like we are taking advantage of this microphone for Kṛṣṇa, but we are not going to manufacture this. That is not our business. Let the śūdras do it. Śūdras will be there. They will do it. This is called ajagara-vṛtti. Ajagara-vṛtti means that the mouse, they make a hole in the field for his living comfortably. You know? You have seen the holes in the field? And the ajagara, the big snake, they take advantage of this holes. They enter into it and eat the mouse, and live comfortably. So the mouse makes the comfortable place for the snake. The snake business is to enter and live comfortably. So our business is like that.

Lecture on SB 1.7.12 -- Vrndavana, September 11, 1976:

Yes, body is changing. Because we do not know how the body is changing... Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā, tathā dehāntara-prāptiḥ. Dehāntara-prāptiḥ. Dehino 'smin yathā dehe kaumāraṁ yauvanaṁ jarā tathā (BG 2.13), like that. Tathā means "like that." Dehāntara-prāptiḥ. So these are dehāntara. Dehino 'smin yathā dehe kaumāraṁ yauvanaṁ jarā. This is dehāntara. Every moment we are changing our body. This is dehāntara. Kṛṣṇa says, the greatest authority. How you can say that there is no dehāntara? He has dehāntara. Suppose in my childhood I am born in a caṇḍāla family, but if by initiation, by taking shelter of a pure devotee, I become initiated, so dehāntara is there, going on. So if I take initiation seriously, so in the next dehāntara... Suppose yesterday I was a caṇḍāla. Now by this time there is dehāntara, and if I am purified by initiation... So this argument... Dehāntara, is already there. Scientifically, in modern understanding, and on the authority of Kṛṣṇa's statement, dehāntara is going on. Not that somebody was European or... We take Europeans as mlecchas or yavanas. Yes, he was yesterday mleccha and yavanas, but he has changed his body, and after changing if he's initiated, then dehāntara. Śudhyanti, he's purified. Śudhyanti.

Lecture on SB 1.7.15 -- Vrndavana, September 13, 1976:

So there are so many status (?) of planetary system. Each planet is full with living entities. The spiritual planet, they are full of living entities: they are all liberated, nitya-mukta. And those who are within this material world, planets, they are nitya-baddha. Nitya-baddha, nitya-mukta. There are two kinds of living entities. The nitya-baddhas are only few, but the nitya-muktas are many, many. This material world is only one fourth energy of the creation. The three-fourths energy is in the spiritual world. And here in the one-fourth energy there are innumerable universes, and each universe is full with different types of planets, and each planet is full of living entities. But these rascals, they say it is..., there is no living entity; it is sand and rocks. So this is not the fact. You have to understand from the Vedic literature about the planets, where which planet is existing, where is spiritual world, where is material world. All informations are there. Don't speculate and simply think that this planet is full of living entities, all other planets are vacant. This is most unusual argument. There is no meaning. But we are not concerned with that. We have got our own information from the Vedas.

Lecture on SB 1.7.15 -- Vrndavana, September 13, 1976:

Wherever there is kṛṣṇa-līlā, they go. Therefore Arjuna asked Kṛṣṇa that "How can I believe that You, first of all, many millions of years ago You spoke this philosophy to the sun-god?" Kṛṣṇa replied, bahūni me janmāni... What is that verse? Ah, bahūni me vyatītāni janmāni tava cārjuna. "Arjuna, both you and Me were together, and we have passed through many different līlās. But you have forgotten; I remember." That is the difference between God and the living entities. They cannot be equal. We forget... The Māyāvādī's philosopher, they put this argument that "Because we have forgotten. Now in māyā we have forgotten that we are God." So what kind of God he is if he forgets? God never says "I have forgotten." Kṛṣṇa says, vedāhaṁ samatītāni: (BG 7.26) "I know past, present, future." So where is the question of forgetting? So if somebody forgets, that God is different from the God who does not forget. Therefore we have to accept two. Immediately you have to accept dvaita-vāda: one forgetting-God and one not-forgetting-God. You cannot accept one. That is not possible.

Lecture on SB 1.7.44 -- Vrndavana, October 4, 1976:

So this consideration is there even in ordinary way. And actually, these sons were rogues. They fought, one is killed, another is going to be killed. But this old man will be finished. The court considered it, and he was saved. He was not hanged. He was given some long duration of imprisonment. That we have seen. The same thing, the affection is everywhere. So Draupadī is giving the best instruction, that "By the mercy of Droṇācārya you have learned this art, and now this art you are going to use for killing his son? What is this logic?" Very good argument.

A similar argument was given by Duryodhana to Droṇācārya. Droṇācārya and this Draupadī's father, they became inimical. So he got a son, Uttara. No? Anyway, that son was meant for killing Droṇācārya. And at the same time, that son was a student of Droṇācārya in the art of military science. So Duryodhana reminded Droṇācārya that "This son, Virāṭa, Virāṭa Mahārāja's son, He is meant for killing you, and you have foolishly taught him the military science. Now he's using the military science to kill you." So there are so many instances like that. Sometimes this art, guru-māra-vidyā, is done by rascals and fools. That should not be done. That is instruction from every practical point of view.

Lecture on SB 1.7.45-46 -- Vrndavana, October 5, 1976:

The left-hand side is Rādhārāṇī, right-hand side is Kṛṣṇa. Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī has explained this, rādhā kṛṣṇa-praṇaya-vikṛtir hlādinī-śaktir asmād ekātmānāv api (CC Adi 1.5). Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa, They are one, but for pastimes they have become two. Ekātmānāv api bhuvi purā deha-bhedaṁ gatau tau. Again Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa united, caitanyākhyaṁ prakaṭam adhunā tad-dvayaṁ caikyam āptam. So these things are there. So wife is considered better half. Ardhāṅginī. So the ardhāṅginī is there, and the son is there. In so many ways they are convincing that "Do not think that Droṇācārya is dead and gone." He's (She's) convincing this point. "Droṇācārya is still existing. So killing the son of Droṇācārya means killing Droṇācārya. So do not do this." He's (She's) putting so many arguments.

Lecture on SB 1.7.45-46 -- Vrndavana, October 5, 1976:

And the argument that God is everywhere, why you should go to the temple? And what is this nonsense? If God is everywhere, why not in the temple? But this is their argument, nonsense argument. God is everywhere, but not in the temple. This is their argument. So we do not care. Nobody cares. So many agitators came and gone, but the Vedic process will go on. Let the dogs bark, the caravan will pass. There is no difficulty. So on the whole, this is Vedic civilization, that the vigraha of the Supreme Personality of Godhead accepted as He is present. We should take it that Kṛṣṇa... Actually, this is the fact. As you have read in the Caitanya-caritāmṛta, there was the Sākṣi-Gopāla history, and the two brāhmaṇas, they promised before the Deity, and later on there was misunderstanding, and the Deity from Vṛndāvana went to bear witness in Orissa more than thousands of miles away. And that Sākṣi-Gopāla, witness Gopāla—Sākṣī means witness—is still being worshiped in Jagannātha Purī, near. There is a station, Sākṣi-Gopāla.

Lecture on SB 1.8.20 -- New York, April 12, 1973:

So it is clearly stated: guṇa-karma-vibhāgaśaḥ (BG 4.13). Without qualification... The brāhmaṇa means the qualification. It is not this body. There are so many arguments, but they won't hear. They are very much against, in my movement, because I am making brāhmaṇas from Europe and America. They are against me. But don't care, we don't care for them. Neither any reasonable man will care for them. But there is a propaganda against me. Even amongst my Godbrothers, they are making... Because they cannot do it, so find out some fault. You see. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu says:

pṛthivīte āche yata nagarādi grāma
sarvatra pracāra haibe mora nāma
(CB Antya-khaṇḍa 4.126)

In every town, city, village of the world, His cult will be preached. What is His cult? Does it mean that the Europeans and Americans will not become brāhmaṇa? Because Vaiṣṇava cult means past brahmanism, past brahmanism.

Lecture on SB 1.8.40 -- Los Angeles, May 2, 1973:

So our scientist friend was asking that "What is the proof of eternity?" The proof is there. Kṛṣṇa says, na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre (BG 2.20). That is the proof. Śruti. This is hearing, disciplic succession hearing from the Supreme. This is one proof. One proof is by logic, nyāya-pramāṇa. You can get your knowledge by logic, argument, philosophical research. This is all right also. But another, śruti, by hearing from the authorities. That is also knowledge. And smṛti. Smṛti means statement derived from śruti. Just like Bhagavad-gītā is called smṛti, the Purāṇas are called smṛti. But Upaniṣad is called śruti, and Vedānta is called nyāya. So three ways, nyāya-pramāṇa, śruti-pramāṇa and smṛti-pramāṇa. So of all these, the śruti-pramāṇa, or the evidence by the śruti, is very important. Pratyakṣa, anumāna and śruti. Pratyakṣa: direct perception. Direct perception has no value because our senses are all imperfect. So what is the value of direct perception? Just like we are seeing every day the sun just like a disc, say, about twelve inches or eleven inches. But it is fourteen hundred thousand times bigger than this earth.

Lecture on SB 1.8.41 -- Los Angeles, May 3, 1973:

So if you take statistics how much time He devoted for killing and how much time He devoted for protecting, we shall see He devoted more time for killing. You see. So that is also Kṛṣṇa's business. So those who are Kṛṣṇa conscious... Killing, we don't mean that you take weapon. That is not possible in this age. Neither you have got the strength. If you kill, then you will be killed also. Not that. But there are two kinds of victory. By logic, by reason, by education you can kill their demonic propensities. That is also killing. If one is demon, and if you can turn into a devotee by your logic, by your arguments, then that is also, he's killed, his demonic principle is killed—now he's a saintly person. That is also killing. Not that... Kali-yuga, they're already very poverty-stricken, poor. So this physical killing is too much for them. They should be killed by argument, reason, scientific proposition.

Lecture on SB 1.8.48 -- Mayapura, October 28, 1974:

So Yudhiṣṭhira Mahārāja says that this body is meant for others. It is others' body. Everyone should be interested for his own body. Who is interested for other's body? I eat for maintenance of my body, not that your body. It is the very good argument given by Yudhiṣṭhira Mahārāja that "First of all ascertain whether it is your body. If for the bodily sense gratification, satisfaction, you are committing so many sinful life, but first of all consider whether this body is yours."

Lecture on SB 1.15.42 -- Los Angeles, December 20, 1973:

Therefore things which are beyond your speculation, don't try to argue. Don't be foolish. Don't be rascal. How you can? Because it is beyond your conception. There is no question of it. By argument, by speculation, by logic, you cannot understand what is soul, what is God. That is not possible. Acintyāḥ khalu ye bhāvā na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet. Don't waste your time. So similarly, you do not know what is God by speculation. That is not possible. And religion means the science of God. Religion means the science of God. So how religion, you can understand that this is proper religion? Because you do not know God, neither it is possible to speculate on God, then how I shall accept religion? Just try to understand. Religion means the science of God. It is not a sentiment; it is science. So if you want to know that science... Therefore Vedic injunction is, tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum eva abhigacchet: (MU 1.2.12) "In order to know that science knowledge, you must approach guru." That is practical.

Lecture on SB 1.15.44 -- Los Angeles, December 22, 1973:

Therefore it is said, ajo 'pi sann avyayātmā bhūtānām īśvaro 'pi san. Although He has no birth and death, still, He appears just like He has taken birth from Devakī's womb. It is just like the sun is rising from the eastern side. It does not mean that the eastern side has given birth to the sun. No. Sun is very big than the eastern side. But it appears like that. Therefore Kṛṣṇa says, janma karma me divyam (BG 4.9). Because there are many theologists. They say, "Why God shall take birth?" That is their argument. So our answer is, "Why God shall not take birth? If He is omnipotent, so why you are minimizing His power that He cannot take birth? He must take birth if He likes." And īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānām hṛd-deśe 'rjuna tiṣṭhati (BG 18.61). Īśvara, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is staying within the heart of everyone. So within the heart for everyone, if He can come out, so what is the difficulty for Him, from within the womb of somebody He can come? What is the difference between heart and womb? And Kṛṣṇa entered within the womb of Mahārāja Parīkṣit's mother to save Mahārāja Parīkṣit. So Kṛṣṇa can do anything. Therefore Kuntī said that antar bahiḥ: "Kṛṣṇa is within and without. Still, we cannot see." Kṛṣṇa is within and without, both ways, but we cannot see either within or without. This is called māyā. This is called māyā.

Lecture on SB 1.15.45 -- Los Angeles, December 23, 1973:

So the Kali's friends... Just like a man is known by his company. So Kali-yuga is the age of irreligion. Therefore, quarrel and fighting. Quarrel and fighting, communal fighting. Unnecessarily they will form a community, a group, all rascals, another group, another group of rascals, and they will fight unnecessarily. Just like this nationalism. This is simply group of rascals. That's all. Why rascal? Because irreligious, therefore rascal. So "Big, big, men, big, big scientist, big, big... Still, they are rascal?' Yes. Still, they are rascal. Why? Because irreligious. They do not know what is God. Therefore they are rascal. This is the only test. "Whether you know God?" "No, sir." "Then you are rascal." That's all. No more test. One test is sufficient: "Whether you know God?" Because this human life is meant for knowing God. This temple is meant for human being, not for the cats and dogs. So if you (do not) know God, then you are a rascal. You are exactly like the cats and dogs. That's all. This is the verdict. Now you can fight. "Why you are calling me cats and dogs?" But this is the... We are talking, following Kṛṣṇa, the great authority. But what Kṛṣṇa says, that is right. If you scrutinize by your logic, argument, philosophy, science, you will find that Kṛṣṇa is perfectly right. Therefore we accept Kṛṣṇa.

Lecture on SB 1.15.49 -- Los Angeles, December 26, 1973:

So there is no need of going to a guru." This is the method to approach a guru, spiritual master: surrender, that "I know so many rubbish things which are useless. Now kindly teach me." This is called submission. Just like Arjuna said, śiṣyas te 'haṁ śādhi māṁ prapannam (BG 2.7). When there was argument between Arjuna and Kṛṣṇa, and when the matter was not solved, then Arjuna submitted to Kṛṣṇa, "My dear Kṛṣṇa, now we are talking as friends. No more friendly talking. I accept You as my spiritual master. Kindly teach me what is my duty." That is Bhagavad-gītā.

Lecture on SB 1.16.7 -- Los Angeles, January 4, 1974:

So there was argument, and their attempt was foiled by these Nārāyaṇa-dūta. So when they came to their master Yamarāja, that "This is our first experience, that somebody else took away from our hand the person who was to be brought here. So is there any greater personality like you, er, more than you?" So he explained, "Yes, I am servant of Nārāyaṇa." So in that time Yamarāja advised that "To a devotee, you shall never go. It is not your jurisdiction." Just like the police jurisdiction is for the criminals, not for the gentlemen, similarly, Yamarāja's duty and his servant's duty, to take away to the Yamarāja only these sinful men. And those who are devotees, they are supposed to be not sinful. Naturally, they should be sinless. That is confirmed in the Bhagavad-gītā. Without becoming sinless, one cannot completely devote himself in Kṛṣṇa consciousness.

Lecture on SB 1.16.12 -- Los Angeles, January 9, 1974:

So actually, everything is existing. We have to simply take the knowledge. The modern method is ascending process. The knowledge is there, but still, they are trying to understand it by āroha-panthā, ascending process. It is called inductive knowledge. Inductive knowledge means that... Suppose a man is mortal. So the so-called scientists, they are trying to discover the law, why man is mortal. They are studying, "This man is mortal, this man is mortal, this man is mortal. Therefore it is concluded that all men are mortal. Nobody is immortal." But another man will argue that "You have not studied all the human society. How you can conclude? Therefore we must study." So this study will go on for life after life. They will never come to a person who is immortal. But they will protest that "We cannot accept." But our process is deductive. We say that man is mortal, first of all. Therefore John is a man. He is also mortal. This is deductive process. First of all we accept, man is mortal. The inductive process is that "Why shall I accept man is mortal? I may not have seen a person who is immortal." So that argument can be given.

Lecture on SB 1.16.12 -- Los Angeles, January 9, 1974:

The modern scientists, they think the origin is chemicals. But we say, "No. It cannot be chemicals." Janmādy asya yataḥ anvayād itarataś ca artheṣu abhijñaḥ (SB 1.1.1). The origin of everything must be cognizant. He knows everything. Otherwise how He can be origin? It is very logical. Janmādy asya yataḥ anvayāt (SB 1.1.1), origin. Just like I have established this institution. I know how it was established perfectly, and how it is going on. And somebody may not know how it was established in New York with so great difficulty. But because I am the origin founder, I know. So similarly, so many things are going on in the nature's way. So the origin, He must know everything. And if He knows, then He cannot be inanimate. Where is the possibility of the origin becoming inanimate? No. Because the argument is, if one is origin of everything, or something he is origin of, he must have sense how things are going on.

Lecture on SB 1.16.12 -- Los Angeles, January 9, 1974:

So actually, if we want to have knowledge of everything, the source of knowledge is Vedas. And the essence of Veda is called Vedānta. And the descriptive explanation of Vedānta is Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam: bhāṣyaṁ brahma-sūtrāṇām **. Brahma-sūtra. Brahma-sūtra is the Vedānta philosophy. Kṛṣṇa has also referred to Brahma-sūtra: brahma-sūtra-padaiś caiva hetumadbhir viniścitaiḥ (BG 13.5). He recommends that hetumadbhir prasthāna. There are three prasthānas, and Brahma-sūtra is also prasthāna, the way of understanding. So Kṛṣṇa has recommended that "If you want to know things with reason and argument, then try to understand Vedānta-sūtra." Those who want to know the Absolute Truth through reasoning and argument, then one should study Vedānta-sūtra. But Vedānta-sūtra... Sūtra means codes. Just like they have got code book. One word, it is meaning so many other things. Businessmen, they have got codes. When they send cable to their customer or to their principle, they use some codes. It saves so many words. So Brahma-sūtra. Sūtra means codes. So in that code also, required explanation. That explanation is Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Bhāṣyaṁ brahma-sūtrāṇām **. Brahma-sūtrāṇām, the codes explained in the Brahma-sūtra, that is explained in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.

Lecture on SB 2.1.2 -- Mombassa, September 13, 1971:

This world is dark. Just like at night now because there is no more sunshine, it is dark. Actually it is dark. Simply by sunshine, moonshine, electricity, fire, in this way we keep it glittering. Otherwise, it is dark. This whole universe is dark. By God's arrangement, there is sun, moon, like that, illumining. But there is another world where there is no need of sun and moon, and that is spiritual world. That is spiritual world, this information is there. So, therefore, uttamam, one who is inquisitive to learn about that spiritual world, not of this dark world... The world is dark, I have already explained. Against this there is another world who is full of light. Because unless there is light, there cannot be darkness. We cannot understand what is darkness unless there is light. Or we cannot understand light unless there is darkness. So because this world is dark, therefore, you can conclude by logical argument there must be another world which is full of light. That is not very difficult to understand. Just like here is light, the other wall is darkness. So because this world is dark, tama, there must be another world which is full of light. Not only your logical conclusion, but it is confirmed by the Vedic literature.

Lecture on SB 2.1.5 -- Delhi, November 8, 1973:

We are also claimed as sons of God. Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā, sarva-yoniṣu kaunteya sambhavanti mūrtayo yāḥ (BG 14.4). There are 8,400,000 species of life, and they have got forms. They are sons of God. So where is our experience that a son who has got a form, his father is impersonal, no form? Where you have got this experience? If the son has got form and the father is formless, how it can be? What is the reason? Where is the argument? But they are concluding like that. I am the son of my father, so my father has got a form. I have got a form. His father has got form. His father has got form. Even if we do not see the tenth generation, up to, whether it was form or formless, but it is supposed that he must have a form. So similarly, if you ultimately go to the supreme father, then how it is formless? No. Formless is not the actual realization of God. That is the beginning. That may be beginning. To realize the energy of God, that is formless. Just like the sun. The sunshine is formless, but the sun globe is not formless, or the person, the predominating Deity within the sunglobe, he is not formless. The sunshine is formless. So this formless realization... Just like the sun. Sun is also light. Sun is also heat. The sunshine is also light, sunshine is also heat. But this heat and light, energy of the sun, they are not actually the sun. It is only the energy.

Lecture on SB 2.2.5 -- Los Angeles, December 2, 1968:

They do not know the solution is svārtha-gatiṁ hi viṣṇum, your interest is to love God. Unfortunately, you have been misled, durāśayā, by a false hope. Bahir-artha-māninaḥ, by external energy. The leaders... Now we are preaching love of God, nobody is interested. But if we had given some political bluff that "Here will be such and such party's meeting, and it will give you heaven hand to hand," oh, people will throng. You see. Because they are cheating. Satya bole ta mare lakta(?). There is a nice poet, he says that if you tell the truth, people will come with their logs to hurt you. And chuta jagat bolai(?): and if you bluff them, they will be very nicely follower. This is the position. Actually, this is the solution. It is not that "This Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement or Bhaktivedanta Swami who has started, he has concocted this idea." No. It is standard. You come to argument, to reason. This formula that your interest is to love God. You have no other interest in this human form of life. Then your problems of life will be solved. Otherwise there is no possibility. If any other person is giving you any other idea, he's simply misleading you.

Lecture on SB 2.3.10 -- Los Angeles, May 28, 1972:

Then where is the question of happiness? The karmīs cannot have happiness, because their method is to work hard. How they can be happy? Similarly, jñānīs, mokṣa-kāmaḥ. After being disgusted that "I worked so hard throughout my whole life. I could not get peace. Therefore it is false." Jagan mithyā. Mithyā means false. This is Śaṅkarācārya philosophy. Jagan mithyā. Mithyā means false. Brahma satyam. "Now let me search out where is Brahma and become one with him." That is also another labor. Speculating. They have to interpret all these Vedic literature to make God dead, void, impersonal, nullified. So they have to gather their arguments. That is another labor, hard labor. So they are also working hard. Yogis, they want to show some magic: "I can walk on the water. I can fly in the air without any airship. I can go this planet, that planet." Yogis can do that. They have got this magical power. "I can create immediately gold." And if you can show these magical feats, immediately you get so many...

Lecture on SB 2.3.18-19 -- Los Angeles, June 13, 1972:

Pradyumna: "Do the trees not live? Do the bellows of the blacksmith not breathe? All around us, do the beasts not eat and discharge semen? The materialistic man of the modern age will argue that life or part of it is never meant for discussion of theosophical or theological arguments. Life is meant for the maximum duration of existence for eating, drinking, sexual intercourse, making merry and enjoying life. The modern man wants to live forever by the advancement of material science, and there are many foolish theories for prolonging life to the maximum duration. But the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam affirms that life is not meant for so-called economic development or advancement of materialistic science for the hedonistic philosophy of eating, mating, drinking and merry-making. Life is solely meant for tapasya, for purifying existence, so that one may enter into eternal life just after the end of the human form of life. The materialists want to prolong life as much as possible because they have no information of the next life.

Therefore they want to get the maximum comforts of life only in this present life, thinking conclusively that there is no life after death. This ignorance about the eternity of the living being and the change of covering in the material world has played havoc in the structure of the modern human society. Consequently there are many problems multiplied by various plans of modernized man. The plans for solving the problems of society have only aggravated the troubles. Even if it is possible to prolong life more than 100 years, advancement of human civilization does not necessarily follow. The Bhāgavatam says that certain trees live for hundreds and thousands of years. At Vṛndāvana there is a tamarind tree. The place is known as Imlitala, which is said to be existing since the time of Lord Kṛṣṇa. In the Calcutta Botanical Garden there is a banyan tree said to be older than 500 years, and there are many such trees all over the world. Svāmī Śaṅkarācārya lived only 32 years, and Lord Caitanya lived 48 years.

One may doubt that trees have life because they do not breathe, but modern scientists like Bose have already proved that there is life in plants, so breathing is no sign of actual life. The Bhāgavatam says that the bellows of the blacksmith breathe very soundly, but that does not mean that the bellows has life. The materialist will argue that life in the tree and life in the man cannot be compared because the tree cannot enjoy life by eating palatable dishes or by enjoying sexual intercourse. In reply to this, the Bhāgavatam asks whether other animals like the dogs and hogs living in the same village with human beings do not eat and enjoy sexual life. The specific utterance of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam in this connection regarding other animals means that persons who are simply engaged in the matter of planning a better type of animal life consisting of eating, breathing, and mating are also animals in the shape of human beings. A society of such polished animals cannot benefit suffering humanity, for an animal can easily harm another animal but rarely do good."

Prabhupāda: So this is the situation. We have discussed in the previous verse that we are decreasing the span of life. The scientists will say, "No, we are making arrangement so that by science we shall make man immortal." Vikatate(?). When a man becomes mad, he speaks so many nonsense. Like a child. A child also speaks so many nonsense things, and the parents enjoy it. Similarly, the so-called scientist, when he says that "By scientific method, we shall stop death," so there is no evidence in the history of the human society that a man has not died. That cannot be. Hiraṇyakaśipu, he was also atheist and materialistic. He also tried to become immortal. And he made a plan, negative plan, to cheat Lord Brahmā that "I shall not die in this way, in this way, in that way, in this way, in that way." But still he was killed. Mṛtyuḥ sarva-haraś cāham (BG 10.34). Kṛṣṇa says that "I am death, and at the time of death I take away everything." Sarva-haraś ca. So we cannot cheat God or His law.

Lecture on SB 2.3.18-19 -- Los Angeles, June 13, 1972:

We may be very intelligent to cheat here the police or the government or the laws, but it is not possible to cheat the supreme laws. That is not possible. Therefore, in order to avoid the superintendence of the Supreme Lord ... because there is superintendence ... as it is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā, you have read, mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ sūyate sa-carācaram (BG 9.10). "Under My superintendence the law of nature is working." So we are under the laws of nature. The nature is very vigilant, strong agent of Kṛṣṇa. Daivī hy eṣā guṇamayī mama māyā duratyayā (BG 7.14). So we cannot avoid. Even if we deny, "There is no God, there is no systematic government or stringent laws," just to avoid our responsibility, but that will not save us. Now, the argument is in the previous verse. It is said that we are decreasing our duration of life. The scientists will say, "No, we shall stop it." Taking this argument, Bhāgavata says, "Suppose you stop death ..." It cannot be.

Lecture on SB 2.3.18-19 -- Bombay, March 23, 1977, At Cross Maidan Pandal:

"Do the trees not live? Do the bellows of the blacksmith not breathe? All around us, do the beasts not eat and discharge semen?" Purport by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Śrīla Prabhupāda. The materialistic man of the modern age will argue that life, or part of it, is never meant for discussion of theosophical or theological arguments. Life is meant for the maximum duration of existence for eating, drinking, sexual intercourse, making merry and enjoying life. The modern man wants to live forever by the advancement of material science, and there are many foolish theories for prolonging life to the maximum duration. But the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam affirms that life is not meant for so-called economic development or advancement of materialistic science for the hedonistic philosophy of eating, mating, drinking and merrymaking. Life is solely meant for tapasya, for purifying existence so that one may enter into eternal life just after the end of the human form of life.

Lecture on SB 2.9.4 -- Japan, April 22, 1972:

If God is everywhere, why not in the temple? These are the atheistic proposal. If God is everywhere, so why not in the temple? In the temple I can see God, at least. The form of God, it is being worshiped, offered prasādam. So there is a spiritual atmosphere. So why shall I not go to the temple? So actually God is everywhere. That's a fact. But so long I am not purified, I have to see God as they are prescribed in the śāstra. Here the Deity, He is God, but because I have no power to see God, therefore I see that "Oh, it is made of wood. It is made of metal." That is my imperfect senses (perception?). But God is there also. God is everywhere, so God is here also. Why you are talking of metal and wood? From reasoning, argument, if God is everywhere, why not He is in the metal or wood? In your eyes it is metal, but we see God. Just like Caitanya Mahāprabhu, as soon as saw Jagannātha, He fainted. Therefore viśuddhy-artham. Ātma-tattva-viśuddhy-artham.

Lecture on SB 3.25.9 -- Bombay, November 9, 1974:

So we are eternal, and God is also eternal. In that way we are the same quality. God is eternal; we are also eternal. God is cognizant, cetana, abhijña; we are also cetana. We are not dull matter. So what is the difference between God and me? The difference: He is great, we are small. He is vibhu, we are aṇu. He's all-pervading, we are very small. He is infinite, we are infinitesimal. That is the difference. So nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.13). That is the Vedic information. So you apply your reason, arguments. As you find here, you are more intelligent than me, somebody else more intelligent than you, other is more intelligent than he... In this way, if you analyze, there is not, all of us not on the same level. One is more intelligent, one is less intelligent. Similarly, you go on analyzing, one after another, one after another, throughout the whole universe. Then you come to the demigods. And the most important demigod is Lord Brahmā. So he's the original creature within this universe. So he is also not enough intelligent. You'll have to find out a person more intelligent than him.

Lecture on SB 3.25.31 -- Bombay, December 1, 1974:

So we have to accept one of these mahājana. Mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ (CC Madhya 17.186). Then you will be successful. Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ: If you want to learn the Absolute Truth by logic and argument, it will never be possible. Logician... You may be one logician, better logician than me, and another logician may be better than you. But the Absolute Truth is avan manasa-gocara. By logical arguments how you can reach? That is not possible. Tarko 'prati... Therefore it is useless waste of time. Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnāḥ. Scriptures, even you take the Vedic scriptures, there are so many: four Vedas... Some of them are following the Yajur-veda, some of them following Ṛg-veda, some of them Sāma-veda, Atharva-veda. Then there are Upaniṣads. Then there are Purāṇas, then Brahma-sūtra, the Rāmāyaṇa, Mahābhārata. They are all right. But because I am ill-advised, I take conclusion differently. Śrutayo vibhinnāḥ. Or you take Bible or Koran.

Lecture on SB 3.26.4 -- Bombay, December 16, 1974:

So even ordinary living entities, those who are devotees, they are not infected by the three modes of material nature. How we can expect the Supreme Lord can be infected by the three modes of material nature? That is not possible. This is not... Even from ordinary argument, it cannot be accepted.

Kṛṣṇa or Kṛṣṇa's incarnation... There are hundred and thousands of incarnation:

rāmādi-mūrtiṣu kalā-niyamena tiṣṭhan
nānāvatāram akarod bhuvaneṣu kintu
kṛṣṇaḥ svayaṁ samabhavat paramaḥ pumān yo
govindam ādi-puruṣaṁ tam ahaṁ bhajāmi
(Bs. 5.39)

Kṛṣṇa has innumerable expansions, rāmādi. Rāma, Lord Rāmacandra, is also Kṛṣṇa's expansion. Rāmādi-mūrtiṣu kalā. Kalā means expansion of the expansion. Just like... I have given this example many times: the original candle, and you ignite another candle. That is second candle, and from the second, from the third; from the third, the fourth. In this way, all the candles, although you say, "This is first candle, second candle, third candle, fourth candle," but they are all equally powerful. So far candle-power is concerned, they are equally the same.

Lecture on SB 3.26.6 -- Bombay, December 18, 1974:

The Supreme Personality can give birth through His eyesight. He doesn't require to use it, genital. Because we get information from Brahma-saṁhitā, aṅgāni yasya sakalendriya-vṛttimanti paśyanti pānti kalayanti ciraṁ jaganti, ānanda-cinmaya-sad-ujjvala (Bs. 5.32). These are description in the Brahma-saṁhitā. We can see only with our eyes, but the Brahman, Para-brahman, Viṣṇu, He can beget children also with eyesight. We can eat with our mouth, tongue, but Kṛṣṇa can eat by seeing. Sometimes the argument is put forward by the atheist class of men that "You are offering foodstuff to the Deity, but when He has eaten? The foodstuff is still lying there." (aside:) The children may be taken away. So he does not know, the atheist class man, that Kṛṣṇa can eat simply by seeing. He has eaten everything, and again He has left everything. Pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya pūrṇam evāvaśiṣyate (Īśo Invocation). This is Kṛṣṇa's eating. He can eat the whole foodstuff, and it still remains as prasādam for distribution to the devotee as it is. So the atheists cannot see it. They think that it is lying there. It is lying there, but no, that is not the fact. Kṛṣṇa has eaten. And Kṛṣṇa, simply seeing by the eyes, He has eaten. It is a great science. One has to learn.

Lecture on SB 3.26.29 -- Bombay, January 6, 1975:

So here it is said, therefore, dravya-sphuraṇa-vijñānam. Dravya means physical. Dravya-jñāna. Dravya-jñāna means physical knowledge. And brahma-jñāna means spiritual knowledge. So here it is said, dravya-sphuraṇa. The material, physical, phenomenal atmosphere is developing one after another. The medical science, they are trying to study different cells; but wherefrom the cells came into action? That is by the influence or by the manipulation of prakṛti. Prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni (BG 3.27). And prakṛti is working under the direction of Supreme Lord, Kṛṣṇa. Mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ (BG 9.10). Therefore, ultimately, by the superintendence of the Supreme Personality of Godhead everything is going on. But how it is going on, that we cannot explain. We have got limited knowledge. Therefore śāstra says, "Don't try to speculate, because you are imperfect, but things are going on like this." Try to understand. Acintyāḥ khalu ye bhāvā na tāṁs tarkeṇa yo... Simply by your so-called argument and logic you cannot understand. You have to hear from the authorities that "Things are going on like this."

Lecture on SB 3.26.30 -- Bombay, January 7, 1975:

So why if they have gone to the spiritual world and stays in the Brahman effulgence and still they are māninaḥ, not certain? Yes. Why? Because they cannot stay there. This is very logical argument and statement of the Vedic literature. Āruhya kṛcchreṇa paraṁ padaṁ tataḥ patanty adhaḥ (SB 10.2.32). They fall down because they do not get ānanda. Spiritual effulgence is simply eternity. So suppose if you live eternally without any ānanda, how long you will like to live like that? Is it possible? That you cannot do. Suppose somebody lives eternally in the sky without any death. Rather, he will try to commit suicide. It is not possible. It is not possible. Just like we have got experience. If you remain for very long time—I have got experience—in the sea or in the air, you feel very uncomfortable. You want to land down, land down, another air station, another port, and feel very uncomfortable. The airplane men, they come down and they take rest on the ground. It is not our nature because it is impersonal. In the air there is no variety, simply air. Similarly, in the sea there is no variety, simply water. So it becomes suffocating. Similarly, those who are aspiring to go to the Brahman effulgence... Brahman effulgence is spiritual world, certainly, but there is no variety. There is no Kṛṣṇa's enjoying with the cowherds boys or Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī. You cannot find there. You simply remain in the Brahman effulgence.

Lecture on SB 3.26.42 -- Bombay, January 17, 1975:

You haven't got to make research anymore. Nirūpita means it is already concluded. What is that? Yad-uttamaśloka-guṇānuvarṇanam. If you can explain the activities of Kṛṣṇa, Uttamaśloka, how He is acting, how is the chemical process is going on under His direction, if you can write a thesis on this subject matter, that ultimately Kṛṣṇa is behind that, then your this study of chemistry is perfect. Avicyutaḥ arthaḥ kavibhir nirūpitaḥ. Nirūpita means it is concluded. No more argument. That is the purpose. That means if you are intelligent enough actually, then through any source of knowledge you come ultimately to Kṛṣṇa. That mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ sūyate sa-carācaram (BG 9.10). The Kṛṣṇa says. But if by your education, if you come to the same point, that "Here is Kṛṣṇa. He is in the background, sarva-kāraṇa-kāraṇam (Bs. 5.1), cause of all causes," then that education is perfect. Otherwise it is śrama eva hi kevalam. Otherwise it is simply laboring for nothing, waste of time. This is the purpose. Avicyutaḥ arthaḥ kavibhir nirūpito yad-uttamaśloka-guṇānuvarṇanam.

Lecture on SB 5.5.2 -- Boston, April 28, 1969:

So this Kṛṣṇa conscious movement, this opening of different centers, is meant for giving association to the people in general for opening the door of liberation. That is a fact. You try to understand by all your arguments, reason and logic. And inquiry. That is a fact, because we are presenting authorized thing. So my request is that you take advantage. You have got good opportunity. You take this advantage of opening the door of liberation and don't misuse your life simply for sense gratification like cats and dogs. Then the people of your country, of your society or your family, they'll be all benefited, and because other nations, they are also imitating your procedures, they'll be benefited. And at least if one percent of the whole population becomes Kṛṣṇa conscious, the whole world will be a different world. There will be..., uh... The world itself will become kingdom of God. Of course, we cannot expect that everyone will accept this philosophy, but we are trying. If some percentage of the population takes this movement seriously, the face of the world will be changed.

Lecture on SB 5.5.2 -- Vrndavana, October 24, 1976:

Guru means whatever instruction he'll give, we have to accept without any argument. Vedic knowledge is like that. You cannot interpret. As it is, you have to accept. Similarly guru's word also you have to accept. No argument. That is Vedic knowledge. That is the Vedic system. This example we have given many times. Just like this cow dung. Cow dung is the stool of an animal. So the stool of an animal is most impure thing. As soon as you touch. Even your own stool. You may be very learned scholar or devotee, but that does not meant you can touch your own stool and remain purified. No. Immediately you have to take bath. Even his own, what to speak of others'. But in the Vedic instruction we see that the cow dung, it is the stool of an animal also, lower animal than the man, and it is pure, it is said. So you have to accept pure. No argument that "Such stool is impure, even my spiritual master's stool is also impure. How is that that animal cow dung is pure?" But because it is in the Vedas it is said pure, you have to accept. Similarly the conchshell, it is the bone of an animal. The bone, if you touch any dead body's bone, you'll have to take, immediately purify. But that, this bone is placed in the Deity room. We are daily blowing the conchshell—because the Vedic instruction. So there is no argument. If you accept Vedic instruction, you have to accept it as it is.

Lecture on SB 5.5.3 -- Hyderabad, April 15, 1975:

I may say many things to you, but when I say something directly, "Do it," your first duty is to do that. You cannot argue, "Sir, you said me like this before." No, that is not your duty. What I say now, you do it. That is obedience. You cannot argue. Of course, Kṛṣṇa never said anything contradictory, but if when one thinks foolishly that Kṛṣṇa said something contradictory, no, that is not to be. You could not understand. So even though you could not understand, you take My direct orders now. Sarva-dharmān parityajya mām e... (BG 18.66), that is your business. The master says like that, and the servant's business is to accept it as it is, without any argument. That's all right.

Lecture on SB 5.5.15 -- Vrndavana, November 3, 1976:

So there are two kinds of ruler or controller. One is the government, and the other is the teacher. Or guru means spiritual master. Spiritual master can control. The disciples obey the order of the spiritual master out of love. Guror-hitam. This is brahmacārī. Brahmacārī guru-gṛhe vasan dānto guror hitam. What guru wants, the brahmacārī has to do, not for his hitam. Just like Arjuna accepted Kṛṣṇa: śiṣyas te 'haṁ śādhi māṁ prapannam (BG 2.7). So Arjuna, for his personal benefit he did not want to fight, but for Kṛṣṇa's sahitam, hitam, for benefit of Kṛṣṇa, he fought. This is the example. He did not like to kill his kinsmen for his hitam. "Oh, if I kill my kinsmen I'll go to hell, I'll be responsible, this, that..." So many arguments he put forward. That means he was considering his hitam, not Kṛṣṇa's hitam. But Kṛṣṇa wanted that fight, and when Arjuna agreed, "No, no more my hitam. Your hitam," oh, that is wanted. That is wanted. Guror-hitam.

Lecture on SB 6.1.1-4 -- Melbourne, May 20, 1975:

So there are so many birds, eagle birds, they fly, and they go from one planet to another. They are resting... Just like a bird you see, they fly from one tree to another tree. So their resting place is one planet to another. Just see. You are trying to go to the moon planet bogusly. I'll say bogusly because you could not go there. The moon planet is far away from the sun planet. So it is not possible to go there by the so-called jets plane. No. It is far, far away. It is sixteen hundred thousand miles away from the sun. The modern scientist calculation is ninety-three million miles, the sun is situated, and above that, sixteen hundred thousand miles up, there is moon planet. So by the Vedic calculation it is not possible to go there by the method we are attempting. That is not possible. And the proof is that why, if they are going to the moon planet, why they cannot stay there? Now, the argument is that "There is no vegetation. The atmosphere is different, where living being cannot stay." They say like that. But from the Vedic information we understand that moon planet influence the vegetation in all other planets. So if the moon planet helps vegetation in all other planets, how it is that there is no vegetation? So there are many thing, contradiction, and practically we see, they are going to the moon planet, but they cannot stay, uselessly going and coming. So let them do that, but we have got our other inform..., other sources of information, that we cannot go to the moon planet. It is not possible.

Lecture on SB 6.1.1-4 -- Melbourne, May 20, 1975:

So we believe. We blindly believe, blindly or knowingly. It is not possible knowingly, but if we accept Kṛṣṇa's argument, then we have to believe. Kṛṣṇa does not say anything without any reason. Nobody says. No authority says like that. So what to speak of Kṛṣṇa? Kṛṣṇa is the greatest authority. If we blindly accept His statement, that is also good, and if we apply our reason and argument, that also you can do. Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā,

dehino 'smin yathā dehe
kaumāraṁ yauvanaṁ jarā
tathā dehāntara-prāptir
dhīras tatra na muhyati
(BG 2.13)

He is giving very practical example that because the soul is within this body, therefore bodily changes are taking place. Now, suppose if a child is born dead. That... You can keep it by some method, preservative method, but it will not grow. One can understand very easily. Because the soul is there, therefore the child from the womb of his mother grows gradually. Grows means changing body. Everything, information, is there in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.

Lecture on SB 6.1.1-4 -- Melbourne, May 20, 1975:

Now, Kṛṣṇa says, tathā dehāntara-prāptiḥ (BG 2.13). The spirit soul will change this body, as it has already changed from babyhood to childhood, childhood to boyhood. That I already explained. So what type of body I am going to accept next life? I am not going to die. I am simply changing body. Just like we change dress. If one dress is torn or old, we change another dress. Exactly like that. This body we change when it is no more usable. We have got our spiritual body. And they say the spirit is formless. No. Now if this body is my dress, then how the body has got these hands and legs? Just like because you have got actually hands and legs, therefore your coat and pant has got hands and legs. If you have no form, then how the coat and pant is made? The coat, the pant has got legs because actually I have got leg. The coat has hands or body because actually I have got body. So the argument that the spirit is formless, that is bogus. Unless I have got form, how the dress body is made with hands and legs and heads and everything?

Lecture on SB 6.1.3 -- Melbourne, May 22, 1975:

So our process of knowledge—you should take from the supreme authority. Then we save time for research work. That is Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. We take perfect knowledge from Kṛṣṇa. I may be imperfect. Just like child is imperfect, so I may be imperfect, you may be imperfect, but if you take the perfect knowledge from the supreme perfect, then your knowledge is perfect. That is the process. This is called avaroha-panthā, knowledge coming, deductive knowledge. So everything is there, and if you like to take advantage of this movement and make your life perfect, go back to home, back to Godhead, then fully utilize this center, our Melbourne center. Come here, read our books, and argue. Try to understand with your full knowledge, no blindly acceptance. There is reason. There is argument. There is philosophy. There is science. Everything is there. And if you accept that "Simply by chanting, I shall realize," that is also allowed. Both ways: if you accept this simple process, that "Chant Hare Kṛṣṇa and realize God," that is also fact, and if you think, "What is this nonsense, chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa?" then you read books. Both ways we are prepared. Come and take advantage of this movement.

Lecture on SB 6.1.7 -- San Francisco, March 1, 1967:

The scriptures indicate that we have to follow the footprints of great authorities. Tarko apratiṣṭham. You cannot come to the right conclusion simply by arguing. You may be a very good logician and you can argue very nicely, but another man, he may be a greater logician than you. He can nullify all your arguments. There is possibility. So tarko apratiṣṭhaḥ.

Therefore simply by argument and logical conclusion, you cannot approach to the Absolute Truth or real truth. Tarko apratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnāḥ. And if you consult yourself scriptures... Just like Bhagavad-gītā, if you read yourself, you get one kind of impression, and if you hear explanation from an authorized person, you get another impression. The book is the same, but by hearing from the authorities, you get a better impression, better understanding. There are so many examples like this. Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnāḥ. Now there are many scriptures in the world. The Hindus have got the Vedas; the Christians have got the Bible; the Muslims, they have got Koran. Now, if you read all these scriptures, you will find something contradictory. Just like animal killing. Animal killing, more or less, there are in every scripture, restricted or nonrestricted. There is none nonrestricted. Restricted. Even in the Koran, the animal killing is restricted. Animal is to be killed in the, in certain Bakri Eid ceremony and in the Masjid. Similarly, animal killing amongst the Hindus, they are to be done in the temple of Goddess Kālī.

Lecture on SB 6.1.7 -- San Francisco, March 1, 1967:

So if we read different scriptures, then we are also bewildered and we cannot come to the conclusions by arguments. And nāsau munir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. And if you read different speculative methods or philosophical doctrines, that is also different from one another. Because the philosophy, one philosopher is big philosopher if he can defy his predecessor philosophers. Matam na bhinnam. Therefore, dharmasya tattvaṁ nihitaṁ guhāyām. Therefore the truth of a religious path is in oblivion. How one can understand what is actual Absolute Truth, what is the religious path? The last instruction is mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ (CC Madhya 17.186). Therefore you have to follow the footprints of authority. You can take anyone as you authority, as authority, but according to Bhāgavata there are twelve authorities. That is also mentioned. They are authorized persons from the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and they have got disciplic succession. The twelve authorities are Brahmā, Nārada, Lord Śiva and Kumāra, Manu and Lord Kapila, Bhīṣma and Prahlāda, Janaka and Yamarāja and this Śukadeva Gosvāmī, who is speaking the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Vaiyāsaki.

Lecture on SB 6.1.12 -- Honolulu, May 13, 1976:

So these four-legged animals is the food for the two-legged animals. Ahastāni sahastānām. Uncivilized men means two-legged animals. They are animals, but two-legged. There are four-legged animals; there are two-legged. Ahastāni sahastānām apadāni catuṣ-padām: "And living entities who have no legs, just like the vegetables, grass, plants, trees..." They have no legs. They cannot move, but they are living entities. They are food for catuṣ-padām, for the animals who have got four legs. Ahastāni sahastānām apadāni catuṣ-padām, phalgūni mahatāṁ tatra: "And the weak is food for the strong." Phalgūni... Jīvo jīvasya jīvanam. This is the law of nature, that one life is meant for maintaining another life. That is going on. So sometimes they put forward this argument that "You are also eating vegetables. They have got life. Why you object that nonvegetarians who are eating four legged animals...?" No. We are not going to infringe to the laws of nature. That is not our business. You can eat four-legged animals because you are also animal. But when we speak of civilized animals... Civilized is not animal. That is human being. So long one is not civilized, he is animal. And the civilization begins when one understands that he is not this body. That is the beginning of civilization. Yasyātma-buddhiḥ kuṇape tri-dhātuke (SB 10.84.13). So long one is in ignorance, the bodily concept of life, he is animal. When one knows that "I am not this body; I am... Ahaṁ brahmāsmi," then civilization begins.

Lecture on SB 6.1.16 -- Denver, June 29, 1975:

But our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is teaching people that "Don't live irresponsibly." Take, for example, that you may say, "There is no life." But if I put the argument, "Suppose there is life..." Now this is also supposition, because nobody, those who are in ignorance, they do not know whether there is life or whether there is no life. So you are arguing, "There is no life," but you do not know whether there is life. That is not in your knowledge. So supposing you have to take both the ways and think over it... You are simply thinking on the point that there is no life. Now, why don't you take my proposition, "If there is life"? Because you have not ascertained whether there is life. We say there is life. We take the example: just like this child has got his next life. The child may say, "There is no life next life." But actually that is not the fact. The fact is, there is life. The child will change this body and he will become a boy. And the boy will change this body; he will become young man. That is a fact. But by simply obstinacy if you say there is no life, that you can say. But take this argument: if there is life, then how much irresponsibly you are making your future life so dark? The same example: if a child does not go to school, does not take education, if he thinks, "There is no other life than this life, I shall play all day. Why shall I go to school?" he may say so, but there is life, and if he does not take education, in next life, when he is young man, if he is not posted in a good position then he suffers. This is irresponsible life.

Lecture on SB 6.1.16 -- Honolulu, May 16, 1976:

The whole idea is that we are in this material world. That is miserable. Under the spell of illusion, we are thinking we are very happy. They do not know is actually happiness. What is happiness? But there is no argument for these rascals. They are thinking they are very happy. That is māyā's prakṣepātmika-śakti, covering energy. Just like you are seeing a hog eating stool, but he is thinking that he's very happy. But you are seeing, "Oh, what abominable life. He's eating stool." So this is the position. Those who are advanced in civilization, for them eating of stool is unthinkable. But for the hogs and dogs, it is very palatable. This is the difference. Just like we are recommending, "No illicit sex, no meat-eating, no intoxication, no gambling." So somebody is thinking, "Then what remains to enjoy? Everything is finished. Life is finished."

Lecture on SB 6.1.17 -- Denver, June 30, 1975:

So that is sādhu, no meat-eating. Here you will find. In Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement you will find, nobody is meat-eating. Nobody is prepared to kill even an ant, what to speak of big animal. They put argument that "You are vegetarian, and you are also killing vegetable life." Of course, we are killing. But we are not killing vegetables. First of all, vegetables are not killed. If I take a fruit from the tree, the tree is not killed. Or if I take the grains from the plant, before the grains are ripe the plant dies. So actually there is no question of killing. Although the law is, nature's law is that "One living entity is the food for another living entity." Jīvo jīvasya jīvanam. But a human being should be discriminative. If I can live by eating fruits and grains and milk, why shall I kill animal? This is human consciousness. Milk, if you get milk, you can prepare hundreds of nice preparations, all full of vitamins and nourishing. In our New Vrindaban we are maintaining cows and having so many nice preparations, rābri and lagdu and this peḍā and baraphi and sandeśa and rasagullā and yogurt—varieties enough. The other farmers they come, they are surprised, that "Such nice preparation can be made from milk?" Yes, you do not know. You do not know how to utilize the animal. Ignorance. The milk is also produced out of the blood.

Lecture on SB 6.1.18 -- Denver, July 1, 1975:

Therefore Rūpa Gosvāmī has recommended that "Somehow or other, you become Kṛṣṇa conscious." Yena tena prakāreṇa manaḥ kṛṣṇe niveśayet. That is the recommendation of Rūpa Gosvāmī: "Somehow or other, you engage your mind in Kṛṣṇa." Then your life will be successful. Somehow or other. Do anything, but you remember Kṛṣṇa. That is the instruction in the Bhagavad-gītā also. Yudhyasva mām anusmara: (BG 8.7) "You fight; at the same time, you remember Me." "How it is possible? I am busy, and I have to remember Kṛṣṇa?" Sometimes this argument is put forward. But that argument is not strong. Rūpa Gosvāmī has given a very nice example that a woman, if she is attached to some man and she has a fixed up time to meet the man at some place or at some hour, so she may be engaged in household affairs very busily, but she is expecting, "When that hour will come?" This is very factual example. The mind is there, "When that meeting will take place?" Similarly, you can remember Kṛṣṇa. The... It is a crude example, but it is possible that you be busy in so many ways, but at the same time you can remember Kṛṣṇa. That is wanted. That is Kṛṣṇa conscious. We have no objection. You do business, you do this, you do that. But if you can always remember Kṛṣṇa, then your life is successful. It doesn't matter. Yena tena prakāreṇa manaḥ kṛṣṇe niveśayet. And if you remember always Kṛṣṇa, that means you are becoming purified. You are purified immediately.

Lecture on SB 6.1.23 -- Chicago, July 7, 1975:

In the Bhagavad-gītā it is said that mṛtyuḥ sarva-haraś cāham (BG 10.34). We are accumulating so many things, big, big buildings, big, big estate, big, big bank balance, big, big family. That's all right, but what is the guarantee that we will be able to enjoy this? That they are not thinking. And it is a fact that death may come at any moment. Especially nowadays. So you... There is no guarantee. Even in your ordinary life you are going by the car, there may be accident. "Maybe" not. They are taking place. So many people are dying. He does not expect that "I am going to office. I shall be killed." In aeroplane crash... So there is no guarantee. Any moment we can die. But we are not thinking..., because they have made this theory, "There is no life after death. So enjoy. Enjoy life as far as possible." But that is not the fact. After death, we will have to accept another body. Tathā dehāntara-prāptiḥ (BG 2.13). But they try to forget it. And the argument they put forward, that "Even I get one body next life, I shall forget this life. So what is the wrong? Let us enjoy." This is called life of ignorance, passion. But this is not the proper life.

Lecture on SB 6.1.30 -- Philadelphia, July 14, 1975:

So God is living entity, and we have got this form after the form... God is two-handed; we have got two hands. So that is a fact. This human form of life is made according to the form of Lord. It is imitation; that is real. Sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ, īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ (Bs. 5.1). But we are thinking that God has no form. Why? Wherefrom you got your form? You are daily praying, "O God, O Father, give us our daily bread," and we accept God as the supreme father. So if I have got form, the father must have got form. It is reasonable. How you say, "There is no form"? This is all not very reasonable argument. God is also a living entity, but what is the difference between God and all these living entities? They are all dependent on God. That's all. God is great; we are small. Just like father maintains all the children, so we are all children, and the supreme father maintains. So if the children have got forms, so it is naturally concluded the father has got, even though you have not seen the father. Suppose a posthumous child, a child is born after the death or disappearance of the father. So that does not mean because he has not seen the father, he will conclude that "My father had no form." This is not conclusion. He should know from the mother that "Yes, my child, your father had form." So this is intelligence.

Lecture on SB 6.1.31 -- San Francisco, July 16, 1975:

That is also Cāṇakya Paṇḍita. He says, duṣṭā-bhāryā. Duṣṭā-bhāryā means this prostitute. Duṣṭā, who is polluted by another man, he is called duṣṭā. Strīṣu duṣṭāsu varṇa-saṅkaraḥ abhibhavāt. Therefore human civilization must be very careful that the women may not become polluted. Strīṣu duṣṭāsu. Duṣṭā means she is not satisfied with husband. She wants new, new. That is called duṣṭā. So Cāṇakya Paṇḍita says, duṣṭā-bhāryā: "If the wife is duṣṭā," duṣṭā-bhāryā śaṭhaṁ mitram, "and friend is śaṭham, hypocrite, talking very friendly, but he has got something, design..." That is called śaṭhaṁ mitram. Śaṭham means hypocrite. So "If somebody's wife is duṣṭā and friend is hypocrite," duṣṭā-bhāryā śaṭhaṁ mitraṁ bhṛtyaś ca uttara-dāyakaḥ, "and bhṛtya, servant, does not obey, he argues with the master..." Master says, "Why did you not do?" "Oh, I am this..." No argument. Bhṛtya should be very silent. Then he is faithful servant. Sometimes master may be angry, but bhṛtya should be silent. Then master becomes kind. But if he replies on equal level, oh, then it is very bad. Duṣṭā-bhāryā śaṭhaṁ mitraṁ bhṛtyaś ca uttara-dāyakaḥ, sa-sarpe ca gṛhe vāsaḥ: "And you are living in a apartment where there is a snake." So if these four things are there or one of them, not all the fours, then mṛtyur eva na saṁśayaḥ: "Then you are doomed." You are doomed. Your life is spoiled.

Lecture on SB 6.1.37 -- San Francisco, July 19, 1975:

So the Yamadūtas, they very politely submitted. They could understand immediately that these persons so nicely decorated, four hands, looking very youthful, all the good qualities... So with due submission, they said that "You look so nice, gentle. Why you are interfering with our duties?" Kim arthaṁ dharma-pālasya kiṅkarān no niṣedhatha. So they accepted the submission. Very humbly they submitted, with great respect. Therefore they were smiling. And the word is used here, tān pratyūcuḥ prahasya idam. When there is argument, dealing, if the words are exchanged very politely, so things go on nicely. So prahasya. Prahasya, now they are challenging, the Viṣṇudūta, that "You are claiming to become the servants of Yamarāja, and he is Dharmarāja, he is authority, and how is that you do not know whom to arrest and whom not to arrest? This man is now free from all sinful reaction. How is that you are claiming to be servant of Yamarāja, Dharmarāja, and do not know?" Therefore they were smiling.

Lecture on SB 6.1.37 -- San Francisco, July 19, 1975:

You have to take your bath immediately, full. Then Vedas say, "Now, the stool of cow is pure, cow dung." Now, with your reason you can say, "First of all you said that stool is impure, and as soon as you touch you must take your bathing. Otherwise you remain impure. So another stool, cow stool, you say pure? This is contradiction. You say that the bone is impure, and you are keeping the bone in the Deity's room?" The conchshell is bone. You know this conchshell is a bone of an animal. So it is being used in the Deity room, and the cow dung is also used in the Deity room. Even Kṛṣṇa is smearing His whole body with cow dung. You know Kṛṣṇa's līlā. So if you say, argue, with your poor knowledge, then it becomes contradiction. One stool is good; another stool is bad. But because it is said by the Vedas, you have to accept it. This is Vedic knowledge. You cannot argue. There is no scope of argument. Whatever is said, you have to accept. Otherwise how Vedas become authority? You can change in your own way.

Lecture on SB 6.1.39-40 -- Surat, December 21, 1970:

Similarly, this bone, any bone, animal bone, if you touch, you have to take bath. You become impure. But this conchshell, which you are sounding, vibrating in the Deity room, that is also bone. But you cannot argue that "You say bone is impure. Why you are taking one bone in the Deity room?" That you cannot say. This is acceptance of Vedas, without any argument. And if you want to know why one is accepted pure and one is accepted impure, if you make, I mean to say, research, you will find that the Vedic injunction is right. Take for..., this cow dung. Perhaps, you doctor, know, that one Dr. Lalman Ghosh in Calcutta, he analyzed this cow dung and he was a professor in the medical college. He has declared that cow dung is full of antiseptic properties. So Vedic injunction is... That is right. But sometimes it appears to be contradictory. But we cannot judge how it is so contradictory. We have to accept like that. That is the following of Vedic rules.

Lecture on SB 6.1.40 -- Surat, December 22, 1970:

Similarly, Vedas, as I gave you the example, that in the Vedas you will find that stools are considered as impure, stool of some animal, but Vedas says that "This stool, the cow stool, is pure." So there is no argument that "Once you said that stool of animal is impure, and another time you say that this stool is pure. Once you said that all bones of animals are impure; again you say that śaṅkha, conchshell... This is also a bone of an animal. You say it is pure." So there cannot be any argument. Veda says, "This is this; this is that." We have to accept it. That is the following of religion. Dharmaṁ tu sākṣād bhagavat-praṇītam (SB 6.3.19). And vedaḥ sākṣāt... Vedo nārāyaṇaḥ sākṣāt svayambhūḥ. Svayambhūr iti śuśruma. Svayambhū. Svayambhū means which is not created by any man. Just like Brahmā is sometimes called Svayambhū. His another name is Svayambhū. Svayambhū means he was not created by father and mother. The father-mother... Ordinarily, a living entity take birth by the combination of father and mother. But Brahmā is called Svayambhū because he is not created by father and mother. Then again, you can argue that Brahmā was created by Garbhodakaśāyī Viṣṇu, so He is his father. But the argument can be defied that although He is the father, but he was not born of a mother. That is all-powerful Kṛṣṇa, Nārāyaṇa, Viṣṇu. You have seen the picture that Nārāyaṇa is lying down on the water of Garbhodaka, udaka, and Lakṣmī is massaging His lotus feet, and Brahmā in a lotus flower is born.

Lecture on SB 6.1.46 -- San Diego, July 27, 1975:

So here it is said deva-pravarāḥ. The Viṣṇudūtas, they are coming from Vaikuṇṭha, so beautiful, so nicely dressed, four-handed with ornaments, helmet, garland. So they have experience of the demigods, but the Viṣṇudūtas do not belong to this material world. They belong to the spiritual world. Therefore they are addressed deva-pravarāḥ, "More than the demigods," deva-pravarāḥ. They are very much pleased to see the Viṣṇudūtas, although argument is going on. Immediately after see them, they are, the Yamadūtas, they are very much pleased upon them, that "They are not ordinary living being." And with four hands. Therefore they are addressing, deva-pravarāḥ. Yatheha deva-pravarās trai-vidhyam upalabhyate. Vidhi, tri-vidha. Tri-vidha means three varieties. Vidha mean variety, and tri means three. So from tri-vidha it is said, trai-vidhyaṁ bhavaḥ.

Lecture on SB 6.1.47 -- Detroit, June 13, 1976:

Then Bhaṭṭa Raghunātha, Dāsa Raghunātha. Raghunātha Dāsa, he was coming, more than minister. His father and uncle were the biggest zamindar, landlord, in those times. And he was the only son of the father and the uncle. Huge estate, beautiful wife, everything—he left and joined this movement, Caitanya Mahāprabhu's. Similarly, Gopal Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmī, he also coming from a very aristocratic brāhmaṇa family in South India. And Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī, the nephew of Rūpa Gosvāmī, in the learned circle, still, in Bengal, they say such a big scholar and philosophy, there was none, and nobody expects a similar philosopher and learned scholar in the future. He was such a big personality, Jīva Gosvāmī. Big, big Māyāvādīs, they were afraid of Jīva Gosvāmī's logic and argument to establish the Vaiṣṇava philosophy.

Lecture on SB 6.2.1-5 -- Calcutta, January 6, 1971:

So the speeches of the Yamadūta, assistants of Yamarāja, was thus finished, arguments. The argument was that "This man, Ajāmila, born of a brāhmaṇa father, although acquired all qualification... He was qualified brāhmaṇa, not simply born of a brāhmaṇa father, but qualified brāhmaṇa, with full knowledge of Vedic instruction, nice character, very gentle and silent and offering respects to elderly persons, spiritual master, father. In this way he was perfect brāhmaṇa. But due to his contact with a prostitute he lost his all good qualification. And later on, he had to earn money by hook and crook, and thus he degraded more and more, and therefore his sinful activities are now responsible for his punishment, and we shall take him to the court of Yamarāja." That was the summary of the speech of the Yamadūta. Evaṁ te bhagavad-dūtā yamadūtābhibhāṣitam.

Lecture on SB 6.2.1-5 -- Calcutta, January 6, 1971:

Don't follow blindly. Following blindly something, that is not good. That will not stay. But one should take everything with logic. But the servants of God, they put everything in logic. Caitanyera dayāra kathā karaha vicāra. If you study the Caitanya's philosophy with logic and argument... Don't go by sentiment. The so-called missionary, they're simply bogus propaganda without any logic. Without any logic. Just like some missionary people are propagating a man to become God. How a man can become God? There must be evidences how God incarnates. Not that somebody by worshiping a demigod becomes God. So many false propaganda is going on. That is not logical at all. So one should be intelligent to understand the philosophy of Kṛṣṇa or philosophy of Lord Caitanya with logic and argument. Don't follow blindly. But once you accept, you cannot argue. You have to accept blindly. But before accepting, you take to logic. But when you accept, then don't go back. Then that is falldown. Naya-kovidāḥ.

Lecture on SB 6.2.9-10 -- Allahabad, January 15, 1971:

So without offense, without committing offense, if we regularly chant this Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra, then we remain freed from all sinful reaction of life and our attachment for the Supreme Lord in devotional service increases. Yatas tad-viṣayā matiḥ. Brahma-vādibhiḥ. Brahma-vādī means those who are very much fond of Vedic rituals, performances, yajñas. There was an argument, conversation with Haridāsa Ṭhākura and a brāhmaṇa. The Haridāsa Ṭhākura says that offenseless chanting of the holy name of Lord, one not only becomes free, not only he becomes brahma-bhūta (SB 4.30.20), but his love of Godhead manifests. The dormant love of Godhead manifests and automatically he is liberated. So that brāhmaṇa protested that "Don't exaggerate your chanting in this way. One becomes liberated after performing so much austerities, penances, and you say simply by chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa? This is too much exaggeration." So there was argument, and the argument increased, and there was cursing also, and Haridāsa Ṭhākura was a little bit agitated, and the brāhmaṇa became offender and he suffered. That incidence is described in the Caitanya-caritāmṛta.

Lecture on SB 6.2.15 -- Vrndavana, September 18, 1975:

So you cannot understand Kṛṣṇa by argument or by your these staring eyes. No. You have to prepare your eyes, you have to prepare your ear, you have to prepare your nose, you have to prepare your tongue, you have to prepare your hand, you have to prepare your leg—all the senses.

sarvopādhi-vinirmuktaṁ
tat-paratvena nirmalaṁ
hṛṣīkena hṛṣīkeśa-
sevanaṁ bhaktir ucyate
(CC Madhya 19.170)

These senses, now it is upādhi. I am thinking, "I am American; therefore my hand is American, my leg is American, my eyes are American." No. You have to become free from these "American eyes" or "Indian eyes" or "brahminical eyes" or... No. Pure eyes. Sarvopādhi-vinirmuktaṁ tat-paratvena nirmalam (CC Madhya 19.170). When your eyes are purified from all these designations, when your senses are purified, then nirmalaṁ... Nirmalam means purified. That senses... Purification does not mean that you are senseless. No. Just like cataract operation of the eyes does not mean pluck out the eyes. No. The eyes will remain; the cataracts will be taken away. Then you will see. So when your material conception of life is finished, ahaṁ brahmāsmi. That is called ahaṁ brahmāsmi. And to simply realize ahaṁ brahmāsmi will not stay. You have to go further.

Lecture on SB 6.3.18-19 -- Gorakhpur, February 12, 1971:

Beginning... Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura was a magistrate. What do you mean by "beginning"? As soon as he is situated in his own original position, then he is pure devotee. That's all. It doesn't matter what he has done in the past. It is called nagna-mati. Nagna-mati.(?) One's mother was naked in her childhood. So one is asking, "Mother, why you are putting on those saris? You were naked. You can remain naked." This kind of argument is no argument. Whatever one may be in his past, that's all right. As soon as he is situated in pure devotee, devotional state, that's all. One hasn't got to inquire, "from the beginning" or "from the end." There is no need of such inquiry. As soon as he is situated in his original position, hitvā anyathā-rūpaṁ svarūpeṇa vyavasthitiḥ (SB 2.10.6), gives up nondevotional activities, but is situated in devotional service, immediately he is all right, pure devotee. Doesn't matter whether he was in the beginning. Because even a person, ordinary person, ordinarily, he is not contaminated. He lives aloof from this material existence. But for sometimes, even if he is influenced, that doesn't matter. As soon as he comes to his real position, he is a pure devotee. There is no question of tracing his past history. There is no question. You be situated in pure devotional service; you are pure devotee. That's all. There is no question of inquiring what he was in the past. That doesn't matter. Is it clear? Yes. Just like Ajāmila. In the past history he, simply sinful, Jagāi-Mādhāi, simply sinful, but as soon as they come to the position of pure devotional life, he is pure. That's all. Yes.

Lecture on SB 7.5.22-30 -- London, September 8, 1971:

Prahlāda Mahārāja at the age of five years only he was a great devotee. Prahlāda Mahārāja is one of the mahājanas, great authorities of this line, devotional line. (aside:) You can take your seats. To understand God and to understand our relationship with God, it is not to be done by mental speculation. It is not possible. God is not so cheap thing that one can understand by mental speculation. In the present age people are very much fond of mental speculation. In the śāstra it is said, tarko apratiṣṭhaḥ: (CC Madhya 17.186) "Simply by arguing you cannot come to the right conclusion." You may be very good arguer, but another arguer may defeat you by his argument. So in this way, simply by dry arguments it is not possible to come to the conclusion. Tarko 'pratiṣṭha śrutayo vibhinnāḥ. Scripture. There are different scriptures. If you simply... Scripture means Vedic, Vedas. There are four Vedas and many other also, corollaries. So by studying at home these books, that is also not possible to understand. And nāsau munir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. And if you follow philosophers, so one philosopher is differing from another philosopher. Just like our Śyāmasundara has brought one book, Ideas of Philosophers, different philosophers talking differently. So how you can take the conclusion? Even Aristotle, he is talking so many things nonsense. So mental speculators, philosophers. In this way you cannot.

Lecture on SB 7.5.22-30 -- London, September 8, 1971:

So devotees are generally very good, godly qualities. Just like Arjuna. Arjuna, he was insulted by his brothers, his wife was insulted, his kingdom was usurped, taken away, that..., forced to go to the forest for twelve years. So many troubles they had to undergo due to the political intrigues by the cousin-brothers. Still, while he was in front of fighting, he thought, "What is the use of fighting and killing my cousin-brothers? Better let them enjoy. I retire. Kṛṣṇa, I cannot fight," he said. Why? Because he was a devotee. He was prepared to forego his claim. It is not that he was a coward. He was a great warrior, fighter. He could fight immediately. But because he was devotee, he was avoiding, trying to avoid fight, "No." This is godly quality. So in order to induce him to fight, Kṛṣṇa had to speak to him the whole Bhagavad-gītā. When he understood that "Although I do not wish to fight, Kṛṣṇa desires," then he took: "All right. Then I change my decision because Kṛṣṇa's desire is my first duty." That is devotee's duty. If Kṛṣṇa says, God says to devotee, that "You jump on the fire," he will do immediately. That is devotee: without any argument. So there is no consideration. Just like commander in the military active field. The commander says, "You jump in this fire," he jumps. He knows that "I'll surely die." Similarly, a devotee, fully surrendered devotee, means he is prepared to do anything for God. That is pure devotee.

Lecture on SB 7.6.1 -- Boston, May 8, 1968:

This verse we have been discussing for the last three days. So Prahlāda Mahārāja's argument is that everyone, if he is intelligent... If he's a rascal, that is a different thing. Because the science of Kṛṣṇa consciousness or God consciousness is not meant for the rascals. It is meant for the intellectual person. Kṛṣṇa yei bhaje sei baḍa caturā. Unless one is very intelligent, he cannot be God conscious or Kṛṣṇa conscious. Therefore this word is used, prājñā. Prājñā means... Pra means prakṛṣṭa-rūpena, specifically. Jñā, jñā means a man of intellect. So Bhāgavata-dharma, what is that Bhāgavata-dharma? That I have already explained. Again we can repeat. Bhāgavata-dharma means to reestablish our lost relationship with God. This is Bhāga-vata.

Lecture on SB 7.6.1 -- Montreal, June 10, 1968:

So much facility is offered. And the Bhagavad-gītā is there. You can understand with all your reason, with all your argument, with all your senses what is God. It is nothing dogmatic. It is all reasonable, philosophical. Unfortunately they have decided that God is dead. How God can be dead? This is another rascaldom. You are not dead; how God can be dead? So there is no question of God's being dead. He is always present, just like sun is always present. Only the rascals, they say there is no sun. There is sun. It is out of your sight, that's all. Similarly, "Because we cannot see God, therefore God is dead," these are rascaldom. It is not very good conclusion. So one has to understand what is God, divyam. So Kṛṣṇa says anyone who understands this philosophy or science of God, philosophy... (break) ...called the science of sciences. So therefore I use this word "science." So science of God. Then, after leaving this body, tyaktvā dehaṁ punar janma na eti (BG 4.9). He does not come back again to take this conditional material body. Then, he's finished? No. He says, mām eti so 'rjuna. "My dear Arjuna, that person comes to Me." That means you are transferred to the spiritual kingdom or God's kingdom.

Lecture on SB 7.6.1 -- Hong Kong, April 18, 1972:

The mystery of religious life is very, very secret. Secret means for ordinary man it is very difficult to understand. Therefore śāstra says tarko 'pratiṣṭhāḥ. If you want to learn what is spiritual life simply by your argument, dry, philosophical speculation, it will never be achieved. Tarko 'pratiṣṭhāḥ śrutayo vibhinnā. If you study the Vedas, there are different Vedas. Principally Sāma, Yajur, Atharva, Ṛg. But you cannot understand the objective of the Vedas simply by studying yourself. Therefore Vedas says, Kaṭhopaniṣad, tad vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet śrotriyaṁ brahma-niṣṭham samit-pāṇiḥ (MU 1.2.12). Like that. In every śāstra the injunction is if you want to understand the essence of Veda, then you must approach a realized, self-realized person. In the Bhagavad-gītā also the same thing is said. Tad viddhi praṇipātena paripraśnena sevayā (BG 4.34).

Lecture on SB 7.6.6 -- Vrndavana, December 8, 1975:

This family life, gṛheṣu, gṛha-medhinām, who are very much attached, this is māyā. Prahlāda Mahārāja, from the age of five years he condemned, hitvātma-pātaṁ gṛham andha-kūpam: "The gṛha, this so-called family life, is a dark well." We are thinking we are very happily living with nice wife and children and working very hard, getting money. But śāstra says, "You are fallen in the dark well." Gṛham andha-kūpam. And "All right, let me remain here." "No." Ātma-pātam. If you remain in this way, then you will kill your soul. Ātma-pātam. Therefore in the Vedic civilization there is compulsory: "Get out." Pañcaśordhvaṁ vanaṁ vrajet. "Now you are fifty years old past. Immediately get out." "No, I have got so many duties. I have got this." "No, no." Vrajet, "compulsory." This verb is used, vidhiliṅ, where there is no argument; you must. Just like when natures calls you, you must do it, similarly... This is Vedic civilization. Not that unless you are killed or being shot down by somebody else, you are not leaving the gṛham andha-kūpam. This is not Vedic civilization. Vedic civilization is that brahmacārī, gṛhastha, vānaprastha, sannyāsa. You must be prepared, especially the higher castes, especially the brāhmaṇas.

Lecture on SB 7.6.6-9 -- Montreal, June 23, 1968:

We must know what is God. Trusting something oblivion, something fantasy, that is no trust. You must know where to put your trust. That is Bhagavad-gītā. You have to know this, what is God. You simply believe in God... Faith in God is very nice. That is said then the... Very nice. It is better than godless person, that one who believes in God. That is all right. So this writing, that "We trust in God," it is very good. It is better than the communist countries, who say, "We do not trust in God." It is better. But simply official writing or trust will not do. We have to understand. And if you want to understand God, then this is the movement, Kṛṣṇa consciousness. There is no other alternative. You cannot place any other scripture collected from the world where the science of God is so elaborately stated, which you can test with all reason and argument. That is Bhagavad-gītā and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. So we have to learn the science. As you are learning so many department of knowledge, similarly, this is also another department of knowledge, to learn the science of God. The government should come forward to popularize this movement and to educate people in the science of God.

Lecture on SB 7.6.15 -- New Vrindaban, June 29, 1976:

So aśānta-kāmo harate kuṭumbī. This family attachment is so strong that a person who is not satiated, he simply gathers money. On one side, they do not believe in the next life, and if you ask him that "Why you are gathering so much money?" he'll say that "My grandson will enjoy it." They say like that. But if you don't believe in the transmigration of the soul, then who is coming to be your grandson and son you are accumulating money? So there is no logic, there is no argument. But people do so. Anyāyenartha-sañcayan. Anyāyena, it is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā that is demonic principle. So a gṛhastha, of course, required to accumulate some money because he's living with family, but so far brahmacārī, vānaprastha and sannyāsī is concerned, they should not keep any money. Caitanya Mahāprabhu was so strict that his personal servant, one day he was taking after eating a little, what is called, myrobalum (indistinct), haritaki. So one day he was giving myrobalum (indistinct) and Caitanya Mahāprabhu inquired, "Where you got this myrobalum (indistinct)?" So he said, "I kept it from yesterday." "Oh, you are stocking?" He immediately criticized him. "You are stocking? This is not good." So this principle... Of course, even if we do not stock, don't think that we'll starve. Kṛṣṇa has provided. But we should be depending on Kṛṣṇa. There is no anxiety. Actually, there is no anxiety. We have experienced this. I was alone for many years, but not a single day I was starving. No. There was food.

Lecture on SB 7.7.19-20 -- Bombay, March 18, 1971:

So Prahlāda Mahārāja says that etair dvādaśabhir vidvān ātmano lakṣaṇaiḥ paraiḥ. Paraiḥ means superior. You have to distinguish ātmā by superior characteristics, not by inferior characteristics. And by understanding the ātmā's real position, ahaṁ mamety asad-bhāvaṁ dehādau mohajaṁ tyajet. You should give up the bodily identification which is a production of illusion, mohajaṁ. Production of illusion. As soon as I think I am American, "Why American money should go to India?" Immediately he becomes disqualified to become a member of the (indistinct), immediately. Because the same demoniac principle—"I am this." Mohajaṁ. Mohajaṁ—this is the production of illusion. Prahlāda Mahārāja says tyajet, "You should give up these demonic principles," tyajet. Tyajet, this is (indistinct)—must, must. There are different forms of verbs in Sanskrit. This form of verb means must. There is no argument, you must. Just like in Vedas says tad vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum eva abhigacchet (MU 1.2.12)—must, must go. So here also Prahlāda Mahārāja says tyajet. This dehātma-buddhi, this upādhi, this designation is dangerous for Kṛṣṇa consciousness, tyajet.

Lecture on SB 7.9.4 -- Mayapur, February 11, 1976:

So everyone has got the potency to become mahā-bhāgavata, provided he tries. Sādhana-siddha and nitya-siddha. Prahlāda Mahārāja is nitya-siddha and there are sādhana-siddhas, just like we are. We are trying to approach the topmost goal of life by bhajana, by sādhana. So anyone has got the potency to come to the stage of mahā-bhāgavata provided he follows the mahājana. You can become mahā-bhāgavata if you follow mahājana. Mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ (CC Madhya 17.186). If you follow the mahājana's path then everyone can become. Of course, it is not possible everyone to become mahā-bhāgavata, but there is possibility. Simply we have to become serious to follow the path of mahājana. Dharmasya tattvaṁ nihitaṁ guhāyāṁ mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ. Tarko apratiṣṭhaḥ. Simply by argument, you cannot make advancement. Simply by neti neti, or there are many other processes, mystic yoga process to become very austere, remain silent, mauna-vrata śruta-tapa, tapasya, education, austerity. None of them are the cause, but becoming bhakta, only devotional service, if one is fixed up, dṛḍha-vratāḥ. Mahātmānas tu māṁ pārtha daivīṁ prakṛtim āśritaḥ bhajanty, dṛḍha-vratāḥ (BG 9.13). So we should be very much firmly fixed up, following the rules and regulation.

Lecture on SB 7.9.7 -- Mayapur, February 27, 1977:

You cannot understand God by logic and arguments. It will never settle up. There are so many Māyāvādīs, they are going on perpetually: "What is God?" Neti neti: "This is not, this is not, this is not. What is Brahman?" So by that process you'll never be able to understand what is God. Jñāne prayāse udapāsya namanta eva. Caitanya Mahāprabhu has accepted this formula. By knowledge, by your erudite scholarship, if you want to understand, you may be very high standard scholar, but that is not your qualification to understand God. That is not qualification. You have to give up your vanity that "I am rich, I am very learned, I am very beautiful, I am very...," so on, so on. They are janmaiśvarya śruta śrī (SB 1.8.26). These are not qualification. Kuntīdevī has said, akincana gocaraḥ: "Kṛṣṇa, You are akiñcana gocara." Akiñcana. Kiñcana means if somebody thinks that "I possess this; therefore I can purchase Kṛṣṇa," oh, no, that is not. That is not possible. You have to become blank, akiñcana-gocaraḥ.

Lecture on SB 7.9.8 -- Hawaii, March 21, 1969:

That you also, you have to get. That's all right. He was once God, he was once rich. That's all right. But how he has become poor? He was at sometimes God, accepted. But how he has become dog instead of God? But God is susceptible to such falldown? Then what kind of God he is? If God is subjected sometimes to fall down, then he is not all-powerful. Then the cause which has made him fall down, that is powerful. Therefore he is not God. God is all-powerful. So why other power will make him to come down from the position of God? Then that power is powerful. But God is all-powerful; therefore he is not God. This is common reasoning. God cannot be subjected to any other external... Just like according to Biblical philosophy, "God and Satan." God is never under the influence of Satan. Is there any statement in the Bible that "God has become under the influence of Satan"? Then Satan become great. God is not great. Similarly, if by some cause, by Satanic cause, one has fallen down from the position of God to the position of dog, then that Satan is greater than God. But God is great. Therefore he is not God. Gaursundara? How do you think this argument?

Lecture on SB 7.9.8 -- Hawaii, March 21, 1969:

Oh. Hm. Just try. Of course, you are going to preach. You must understand. Discuss everything very nicely. Be convinced on your own argument and philosophy. Then you can preach. You don't be in doubts and hazardous way. Whatever question you are putting, just try to understand them very nicely, without any doubt. So is that, your question is answered or not?

Lecture on SB 7.9.8 -- Hawaii, March 21, 1969:

So how He should be so mean-minded that He should give somebody suffering and somebody enjoyment? Is that not meanmindedness if I treat differently? I have got so many disciples. If I treat some of my disciples very nicely and some of my disciples badly, is that very good for me? So how... God is all-kind. How He can be like that? It is my karma. This is law of karma, fruitive activities. If you work in a certain way, you get the fruit. If you study very nicely, you become very educated. The university has the facility to give you. But if you say, "Oh, why God has made me uneducated?" is that reason? But the university is open for you. Why did you not take the trouble of being educated? You cannot say, "Why the government has made me uneducated?" Government is giving facility to everyone, "Come on." And is that argument, "Why government has made me criminal?" You have made yourself criminal. So you try to understand. You have to preach. We should not be defeated by any demons, provided he is not crazy. What is the argument there with the crazy man?

Lecture on SB 7.9.8 -- Hawaii, March 21, 1969:

Sudāmā: I have seen it happening that way with saṅkīrtana on the street. Even myself, my anger sometimes has gone off till we're both in such anger, we're like this with one another, and the whole preaching is all off. They are crazy, and I have wasted my time.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That's all right. But try to your best. Your service is to Kṛṣṇa, so it is not expected that everyone should be induced by your argument. You cannot expect. One day, two day, but we have to do our work. That's all. (pause) (aside:) Oh, she is very glad. Yes. Yes. (laughter) Sit down. Sit down. She is angry now. Very angry? (laughter—Prabhupāda playing with baby) Angry. That is anger?

Girl devotee: I don't know. I've never seen anything like it.

Prabhupāda: So that's all right. Now chant Hare Kṛṣṇa. (end)

Lecture on SB 7.9.10 -- Montreal, July 9, 1968:

Prahlāda Mahārāja says, "I think..." Whatever he thinks is right, because he is a great devotee. Mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ (CC Madhya 17.186). The Vedic literatures indicate that you have to follow the footprints of great personalities, devotees. Tarko apratiṣṭhaḥ. If you want to understand the Absolute Truth by your argument and logic, oh, it is not possible. Because our argument, logic, may be defeated by another man. Another man's argument may be defeated by another man. Because all of us, we are limited. Whatever qualification we have got, they are all limited, and there is greater and greatest, comparative, superlative degree in every field of activities.

So that is not the way. Tarko apratiṣṭhaḥ. If you want to understand the Absolute Truth by your arguments, it is not possible. Tarko apratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnam. Śrutayo means scriptures. If you want to understand the Absolute Truth by studying different scriptures... Just like the Hindus have got their different scriptures.

Lecture on SB 7.9.10 -- Montreal, July 9, 1968:

So far philosophers, great thinkers, muni... Muni means great thinker. They have got their different theses. One muni, thinker, or philosopher, is trying to defeat another philosopher. This is going on. So that is also not the way to understand the Absolute Truth; neither by argument nor by study of scriptures, nor by following different kinds of thinkers and philosophers. Why? Dharmasya tattvaṁ nihitam guhāyāṁ. The essence of spiritual realization is very secret and confidential. Therefore Lord Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā that "I am... Just now I am speaking to you the most confidential part of knowledge." Sarva-guhyatamaṁ. "Why You are speaking to me the most confidential...?" "Because you are My very dear friend." And what is that? Sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja: (BG 18.66) "Give up everything. Simply surrender unto Me."

Lecture on SB 7.9.10 -- Montreal, July 9, 1968:

If there are, by nature's products, so many nice things, why one should kill another animal? Desire(?), of course, serves (?). Titikṣā, ārjavam, and jñānam. Not that simply become qualified, but these qualification are stepping stone to jñānam. Jñānam means knowledge. And vijñānam. Vijñānam means practical application. Just like in the science class there is theoretical knowledge and practical knowledge. Theoretical knowledge—if you mix hydrogen and oxygen gas, there is water. But we have to experiment it in the laboratory, mix so many parts of hydrogen and so many parts of oxygen, and actually, when we see there is water, then your knowledge is perfect. So not theoretical knowledge but practical application. Jñānam, vijñānam, and āstikyam. Āstikyam means faith in God, faith in scripture. That is called āstikyam. According to Vedic version, āstikyam means faith in the Vedas. Nobody can refute the Vedas. That is called faith, no argument.

Lecture on SB 7.9.10 -- Mayapur, February 17, 1976:

This is the mistake committed by the Māyāvādīs, that "If everything is Brahman, then whatever I worship, that is all right." That is nonsense. Kṛṣṇa says, nāhaṁ teṣu avasthitaḥ. Just like this microphone: it is Kṛṣṇa. But if I worship this microphone instead of the Deity, then I am a fool. Then I am fool. This is the mistake the Māyāvādīs commit. They put the argument, "If everything is Kṛṣṇa, everything is Brahman, so whatever I worship, that is Brahman." Kṛṣṇa says, "No. That is not. Everything is Myself." This is called simultaneously one and different, acintya-bhedābheda-tattva. Goloka eva nivasaty akhilātma-bhūtaḥ (Bs. 5.37). This is there in the Brahma-saṁhitā. Kṛṣṇa is always in Goloka. Just like here is Kṛṣṇa. He's in Goloka, but He's so powerful, omnipotent... This is called omnipotency. In spite of His becoming in Goloka, He's everywhere. That is Kṛṣṇa. That is the difference between Kṛṣṇa and you or me. I am here; I'm not in upstairs. I'm here only.

Lecture on SB 7.9.11-13 -- Hawaii, March 24, 1969:

So Prahlāda Mahārāja says, nīco ajayā guṇa-visargam anupraviṣṭaḥ pūyeta yena pumān anuvarṇitena. Now, one may question that Prahlāda is born of impure father. This is argument. Prahlāda is not impure, but it is an argument's sake, born of low father, or low family, or one, so many, so many things they may say. But Prahlāda Mahārāja says that "If I begin simply glorify the Lord, then I shall be purified." If I chant the purification... This Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra is the process of purification. Not that I'll have to purify otherwise and then take to Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra. No. You begin chanting. Then it is purified. You'll be purified. Begin chanting. In whatever condition you are, that doesn't matter. Actually I began my, this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement—not that they came in a very purified condition. That we, every one of you, know, that those who came to me, they, according, they have been trained from childhood... According to Indian standard, they do not know even the hygienic principles.

Lecture on SB 7.9.13-14 -- Montreal, August 22, 1968:

Prabhupāda: The demons will always do that. You chant Hare Kṛṣṇa. What is that?

Pradyumna: ...for Kṛṣṇa.

Prabhupāda: Yes. You remember Kṛṣṇa. That's all. The rule is that when there is blasphemy, there are three kinds of activities. First thing is that one who is blaspheming, you should argue and defeat him by your arguments, by your evidences. If you are unable to do that, then you should die. That is the injunction. And if you are unable to do that, then you should go away from that place. That's all. Three things. First of all, you should fight with him. Then if you are unable to fight, then you should die. And if you are not able to die, then leave that place and go away. Hare Kṛṣṇa. Yes?

Jayapatākā: Can you explain Śrī Rādhā's appearance day?

Prabhupāda: Yes. Tomorrow. (Hindi) (end)

Lecture on SB 7.9.16 -- Mayapur, February 23, 1976:

Then one may ask that... Then... Just like sometimes foolish persons, they say that "Kṛṣṇa, God, has kept me in this way. According to His desire, I am now in this position because nothing can happen without His desire." This argument they say. That is another rascaldom. So Prahlāda Mahārāja clears, therefore, that baddhaḥ sva-karmabhiḥ: "It is not desired by You. I have created this situation." Baddhaḥ sva-karmabhiḥ. I have been put into this condition by my own work, sva-karmabhir. Baddhaḥ sva-karmabhir uśattama. You cannot overcome this resultant action of your karma. You must suffer. The same example: just like if you infect some contaminous disease, you must suffer, similarly, we are creating karma and we are suffering. Baddhaḥ sva-karmabhiḥ. My work. Śāstra does not say that you steal. Nobody says. Neither śāstra says, nor the moral codes say, nor the law, government law, say that "You can steal whatever you like." No. Everybody says... The government says, "Don't steal." The śāstra, scriptures, they also say, "Don't drink. Don't steal. Don't do this. Don't." All forbidden. But I steal. So that is sva-karmabhiḥ. There is forbidding everywhere, but still, I steal. Then whose fault it is? It is government's fault or my fault? If I kill, I'll be hanged. "Thou shall not kill." Lord Christ says, "Thou shall not kill." But if I kill, then I must suffer. But they say, give some false argument, "Lord Christ says, 'Thou shall not kill' and if I kill, Christ has taken the contract that whatever sinful activities we do, he will excuse." This is Christian document. They say that "Our Christ is so kind that whatever sinful activities we do, he will suffer for us." Is it not? This is Christian theory. Just see foolishness. "You do something, and I suffer for that." No. You have to suffer. You have done something wrong; you must suffer.

Lecture on SB 7.9.19 -- Mayapur, February 26, 1976:

This is the constitution of this place. And the whole world, this foolish world, they are struggling to stop suffering and to remain here, permanent. Just see their foolishness. Everyone is trying to remain permanently. Just like we are constructing temples very sound, very strong, but they are constructing skyscraper building, strong, permanent. But he does not know, "Whether I shall be able to live here permanently?" So they can put the argument to us also, that "This is the case with you also." But our case is different. We are constructing this temple not for our living but for Kṛṣṇa's. That is the difference. That is the difference. We do not make any temple or house for ourself. We try to give chance to the devotees, and Kṛṣṇa shall live here. Kṛṣṇa's devotees will learn how to worship Him. That is our purpose. Here it is not a free hotel for learning how to gratify senses. No. This is not our aim and object. That is the difference. Therefore nirbandhe kṛṣṇa-sambandhe yukta-vairāgyam ucyate. The same energy is being enacted here for constructing big house, but it is nirbandhe kṛṣṇa-sambandha.

Lecture on SB 7.9.33 -- Mayapur, March 11, 1976:

We are prakṛti. Prakṛti means under the control of the puruṣa. That is natural. We cannot conceive equal rights of puruṣa and prakṛti. That is not Vedic conception. Vedic conception is puruṣa, the superior, Supreme, and prakṛti means subordinate. Puruṣa is predominator, and prakṛti is predominated. So we living entities, we are prakṛti. Falsely if we try to become puruṣa, that is māyā. We should remain prakṛti, subservient, predominated. That is this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. Because generally the people are misled, thinking himself as puruṣa, "I am the enjoyer." But that is not the fact. That false ego, that "I am enjoyer," that is false ego. And real ego is "I am servant of Kṛṣṇa." So there is no necessity of giving up egotism or egoism, but it must be real. At the present moment we are falsely thinking, "I am this body," every one of us. There is no argument. The whole material world is going on on the basis of this false conception that "I am this body." And because I am this body, therefore "I am American," "I am Indian." So this is false ego.

Lecture on SB 7.9.35 -- Mayapur, March 13, 1976:

"So how I can find out the real guru by whose words I'll be nicely directed and achieve?" That is not very difficult. You read Bhagavad-gītā. You'll understand. Just like Arjuna. When he was perplexed, he accepted Kṛṣṇa-guru. He said, śiṣyas te 'ham: (BG 2.7) "I become Your (disciple) now... We are talking friendly. The argument will not be ended. Now I become Your disciple." Śiṣyas te 'ham. Because as soon as one becomes a śiṣya... Śiṣya means under the order, regulation. A person cannot disobey the order of guru. Then he is śiṣya. If he argues, he's not śiṣya. He's not a śiṣya. Therefore Arjuna says, śiṣyas te 'ham: "I surrender, voluntarily surrender to become Your disciple. Now I shall not argue." That is called śiṣya. If you argue, then you are not a śiṣya. Guru-mukha-padma-vākya, cittete koriyā, āra nā koriyā mane āśa **. This is tapasya, that "I shall not act anything which is not ordered by my guru," that tapasya. Tapo divyaṁ putrakā (SB 5.5.1). Then we'll be nicely guided, and then sattva śuddhyam... Then our this existence will be purified. And as soon as our existence is purified, then we realize the situation, what is God, what is our relationship with Him, what is our activities, athāto brahma jijñāsā, janmādya asya yataḥ, everything.

Lecture on SB 7.12.3 -- Bombay, April 14, 1976:

They are going to the libraries for reading newspaper and nonsense literature, but they will not come to hear Bhagavad-gītā, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the essence of Vedic literature. Nigama-kalpa-taror galitaṁ phalaṁ idam (SB 1.1.3). It is stated in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, nigama. Nigama means Vedas. Agama, nigama. So nigama-kalpa-taru. Vedas just like desire tree. Whatever knowledge you want to get, there is perfectly there, without any mistake, without any illusion, without any cheating. All other literatures, man-made literatures, you will find these things: cheating, imperfectness, mistake, and illusion. In the Vedic literature you won't find these four defects. Therefore, according to Vedic civilization, if you give evidence from the Vedic literature, it is to be accepted. No more argument. Anything which is accepted in the Vedas, vedavatā, there is no more argument. This is Indian civilization. All our literatures you'll find, therefore, full of quotation from Vedic literature to prove it. That is the actual. It is not imaginary.

Lecture on SB Lecture -- Melbourne, May 19, 1975:

Later on, with the progress of Kali-yuga... Kali-yuga means the dark age or the sinful age or the age for argument, unnecessary talks and fight. This is called Kali-yuga. That is going on. Since the last five thousand years, the Kali-yuga has begun, and the beginning of Kali-yuga was cow-slaughtering. When Mahārāja Parīkṣit was touring all over the world, he saw one black man was attempting to kill one cow. And Mahārāja Parīkṣit saw this and immediately... The cow was trembling for being slaughtered. And Mahārāja Parīkṣit saw, "Who is this man, trying to kill a cow in my kingdom?" So immediately he took his sword. That is kṣatriya. Kṣatriya means that... Kṣat means injury, and trāyate—it is called kṣatriya. There are persons who want to do harm to others. It has increased now. But during the time of Mahārāja Parīkṣit's time, it was not allowed. The king is responsible. The government is responsible that any one of his subject, either animal or man, he is not disturbed, he feels secure of his property, of his person. And it is the duty of kṣatriya to save him, to protect. This was the system of government. So that's a long story.

Page Title:Argument (Lectures, SB)
Compiler:Visnu Murti, Mayapur
Created:10 of Feb, 2012
Totals by Section:BG=0, SB=0, CC=0, OB=0, Lec=116, Con=0, Let=0
No. of Quotes:116