Distinct (Lectures)

Expressions researched:
"distinct" |"distinct" |"distinctive" |"distinctively" |"distinctness"

Notes from the compiler: VedaBase query: distinct or distinctness or distinctive or distinctively not "distinct from"

Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures

Lecture on BG 4.3-6 -- New York, July 18, 1966:

Sarva-jña means one who knows everything, past, present, future, everything. He's sa... That is the qualification of the Supreme Lord, sarva-jña. We are not sarva-jña. Even as the most perfect living entity, just like Brahmā, Śiva, they are, they are also not sarva-jña. Sarva-jña is only Viṣṇu, Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa is sarva-jña. So that is the difference between man and God, or living entity and the Supreme Absolute Personality of Godhead. He knows. He knows.

Here it is distinct... If you have to believe Bhagavad-gītā, then the distinction you have to believe, you have to take. You cannot say that "There is no difference between me and Kṛṣṇa." No, there is difference. Here the difference is clearly explained that "That is the difference between you and Me, that you forget. You cannot remember all the incidences of your life, past, present and future, but I can remember." That is the difference.

Lecture on BG 4.5 -- Montreal, June 10, 1968:

Now Kṛṣṇa is explaining to Arjuna the difference between a living entity and the Supreme Personality of Godhead. It is very distinct here that both you and Me had many, many, many other appearances and disappearances. "Birth and death," that is ordinary word. Actually, the word is "appearance and disappearance." Just like the sun. The sun sets and sun rise. This is our calculation. The sun is there always, twenty-four hours, but to our limited understanding, because we cannot see... Now just, this is sun-setting time. After setting of the sun the people on this part of the world, they will not see the sun. That does not mean that sun is not there. Sun is there, but this part of the world cannot see it, and that we say sunset.

Lecture on BG 4.19-25 -- Los Angeles, January 9, 1969:

"The work of a man who is unattached to the modes of material nature." The modes of material nature are three: goodness, passion, and ignorance. Somebody is working in the material world in the quality of goodness. In Vedic culture these divisions are very distinct. Just like brāhmaṇas, sannyāsīs. They are supposed to be working in goodness because they are simply working for Kṛṣṇa consciousness or Kṛṣṇa consciousness, brāhmaṇas business.

Lecture on BG 7.5 -- Nairobi, November 1, 1975:

This is called acintya-bhedābheda philosophy, simultaneously one and different. As part of the body, the anus or the genital, it is part of the body, and the brain is also part of the body. Both of them are part of the body, but still, brain is superior than the anus and genital. So in this way, and upon this philosophy... It is called acintya-bhedābheda. Bheda means distinct, and abheda means one. We should not take one part of the philosophy, that "Everything is one." No. Everything is one, that is a fact, and still, they are different. That is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā in the Thirteenth Chapter. Mayā tatam idaṁ sarvaṁ jagad avyakta-mūrtinā: "In My impersonal form I am all-pervading," jagad avyakta, "but," mat-sthāni sarva-bhūtāni (BG 9.4), "everything is maintained by Me," mat-sthāni sarva-bhūtāni nāhaṁ teṣu avasthitaḥ, "but I am not there." Just like the jail department is also part of the government, but the president does not live in the jail. Mat-sthāni sarva-bhūtāni. If the president says that "The jail department is also my department," that does not mean that president has to live in the jail. It is a gross example. Similarly, Kṛṣṇa, God, is everywhere. Not everywhere; His energy is acting everywhere.

Lecture on BG 7.8 -- Bombay, February 23, 1974:

So we have got so many senses. And we taste different senses. We can see by eyes. We can taste by the tongue. We can hear by the ear. We can smell by the nose. We can touch by the hand. So we have got all senses. And by senses we get experience. So if you try to experience Kṛṣṇa by this process, that whenever you drink something liquid and taste it very nicely, you consider "This taste is Kṛṣṇa," is it very difficult for Kṛṣṇa realization? And because you'll remember Kṛṣṇa... Actually that taste is Kṛṣṇa. Because that water is also Kṛṣṇa. Water is Kṛṣṇa in this sense: the energy of Kṛṣṇa. Just like fire and the heat. Heat is the energy of Kṛṣṇa. So heat and fire is not distinct. They are the same. Still, the heat is not fire. This is called acintya-bhedābheda philosophy, simultaneously one and different. Simultaneously. Everything. Idaṁ hi viśvaṁ bhagavān ivetaraḥ. It requires only realization that "Whole universe is Kṛṣṇa." Idaṁ hi viśvaṁ bhagavān. But it appears different from Bhagavān. Actually, it is not different. You have to understand by purified senses. That is required. Unless you have got purified senses, you cannot understand. But this is the beginning: raso 'ham apsu kaunteya (BG 7.8). You just try to understand. This rasa... It is said by Kṛṣṇa. It is not our manufacture. When... If I say that "The taste of water is Kṛṣṇa," that may be different. But Kṛṣṇa says raso 'ham apsu kaunteya. So why not think of Kṛṣṇa?

Lecture on BG 9.4 -- Calcutta, March 9, 1972:

This verse, we have been discussing last night, this is distinct explanation of impersonalism and personalism. Actually, there cannot be any impersonal idea. Here, Kṛṣṇa says avyakta-mūrtinā. Even avyakta, nonmanifested, it has also a mūrti, a form. Generally we conceive impersonalism, voidism, voidism, compared with the sky. Sky is called zero, void, but sky has also a form. We see daily, a big round form. So there cannot be anything without form. That is not possible. Therefore Kṛṣṇa particularly says avyakta-mūrtinā. Although it is nonmanifested, but it has got a form. But one who does not take to the real form and takes to the imaginary form, that has been explained in the Bhagavad-gītā, kleśaḥ adhika-taras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām. Those who are attached to the impersonal form, they unnecessarily take some trouble, kleśaḥ adhika-taraḥ.

Lecture on BG 9.10 -- Calcutta, June 29, 1973:

...Nobel Prize. He came to California University. So he was lecturing on his theory that life has begun by combination of certain chemicals. He has mentioned those chemicals, but in that meeting, there was a member. He's my student, my disciple. He's doctor in chemistry. He has learned something about our philosophy. So he challenged that gentleman that: "If I give you all these chemicals, whether you can produce life?" The answer was: "That I cannot say." The answer was not very distinct. Actually, that is not the fact. If the scientist says that life begins from chemicals, wherefrom the chemicals came? The next question will be. You cannot get chemicals without being supplied by somebody else. So we are presenting this theory. People are being misled. It is a great question at the present moment, that the scientists says that from matter life begins. We are challenging: "No. From life, matter comes." Just the opposite.

Lecture on BG 12.13-14 -- Bombay, May 12, 1974:

Paṇḍitāḥ sama-darśinaḥ. That is the real vision. A paṇḍita means he sees. There is... For a advanced spiritualist, advanced Kṛṣṇa consciousness person, there is no such distinctive, "Here is American; here is Indian; here is brāhmaṇa; here is śūdra; here is Hindu; here is Muslim." No. He has no such vision. He has the vision that within this body, the spirit soul is there. That is part and parcel of God, or Kṛṣṇa. He is suffering on account of different dresses, different conception of... Therefore he should be released from this misconception of life. That is called paṇḍita.

Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures

Lecture on SB 1.8.28 -- Los Angeles, April 20, 1973:

The same example as I have repeated many times. Just like we see sometimes the hills from our room. Here there are many hills in Los Angeles. But they are not distinct. When you are seeing the hills from a distant place, it looks like something cloudy. But if you go still further towards the hill, you'll distinctly find that there is something, hill. And if you come to the hill, then you'll find so many persons are working there, so many houses are there. There are streets, motorcars, everything, all varieties. So similarly, when one wants to know the Absolute Truth by his teeny brain, "I shall make research to find out the Absolute Truth," then you'll have vague idea, impersonal idea. And if you become a meditator, then you will find that God is situated within your heart. Dhyānāvasthita-tad-gatena manasā paśyanti yaṁ yoginaḥ (SB 12.13.1). The yogis, the real yogis, they, by meditation, they see viṣṇu-mūrti within the heart. And those who are devotees, they meet the Supreme Person face to face just like we are meeting face to face, talk face to face, serve directly. The Supreme Personality of Godhead orders that: "You supply me this," and he supplies. That is the difference.

Lecture on SB 1.16.11 -- Los Angeles, January 8, 1974:

So each king had different colored horses and differently marked flag on the top of the chariot. Just like Arjuna's chariot was drawn by white horses. Śveta. Śveta means white. And his grandson, his horses are of blackish. Not... Śyāma is not black. Blackish. Swarthy. No, blackish. Turaṅga, jeweled. They have four horses in chariot, and there is a charioteer and flag marked with lion. This lion is not to be considered an ordinary lion. This lion is Mṛgendra or Narahari, Nṛsiṁhadeva. Arjuna's chariot was with flag marked with Vajrāṅga, Hanumānjī, Hanumānjī. Kṛṣṇa's chariot flag is marked with Garuḍa. So these are the distinctive marks. One will understand immediately, "This is such and such king's chariot." That mark is there.

Lecture on SB 6.1.14 -- Bombay, November 10, 1970:

That is another thing, but that is judged by the expert lawyer that your interpretation is right. And when interpreted. Not ordinarily interpret everything. When it is not distinct. The law point, when it is not distinct then interpretation required. When it is distinct, is there any necessity of interpretation? It is clear. Similarly, Kṛṣṇa says, "I am God. I am the Supreme." So how you can interpret that "No, no, not Kṛṣṇa. Something within Kṛṣṇa." Dr. Radhakrishnan says like that. Yes. That is foolishness. Kṛṣṇa says, man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad... (BG 18.65).

Lecture on SB 7.9.12 -- Mayapur, February 19, 1976:

This verse is given by Caitanya Mahāprabhu in another distinct form, ceto-darpaṇa-mārjanaṁ bhava-mahā-dāvāgni-nirvāpanam (CC Antya 20.12). It doesn't matter where I am born. That is not important thing. Nīco, even one is very lowborn by breaks of nature... Nobody can guarantee where he'll take his birth. Karmaṇā daiva netreṇa (SB 3.31.1). I'll have to take my birth according to my fruitive activities, controlled by nature. Prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni guṇaiḥ karmāṇi sarvaśaḥ (BG 3.27). We are all completely under the control of the laws of material nature, guṇa-visarga. So according to the quality or modes of material nature we associate, we create another body. There are many places this thing has been described in the Bhagavad-gītā. Māyayā, yantrārūḍhāni māyayā. Īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānāṁ hṛd-deśe 'rjuna tiṣṭhati, bhrāmayan sarva-bhūtāni (BG 18.61). Just like that Jumnagar(?) Agarwal, that... He is now in the police custody. Now he is crying, "Save me, save me, save me." But nature's law is very strict. Daivī hy eṣā guṇamayī mama māyā duratyayā (BG 7.14). Once you have committed mistake, immediately nature's law reacts, and it is very difficult to come out of it. Daivī hy eṣā guṇamayī mama māyā duratyayā.

Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.152-154 -- New York, December 5, 1966:

So Lord Caitanya is describing about the personal feature of Lord Kṛṣṇa. The (im)personal feature of Lord Kṛṣṇa, as described in the Bhagavad-gītā, that is the manifestation of His material energy. Now the personal feature as described by Lord Caitanya in the Caitanya-caritāmṛta, this is the description of His spiritual feature. We have already studied in the Bhagavad-gītā that the Lord has two distinctive features: material and spiritual, superior and inferior. Of course, for Him there is no superior or inferior. But for us, it is superior, inferior. We cannot say that because everything is emanation from the Supreme, therefore there is no superior or inferior. No. Superior, inferior, in relationship with the energy. Just like īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānāṁ hṛd-deśe 'rjuna tiṣṭhati: (BG 18.61) "Īśvara, the Supreme Lord, is situated in everyone's heart." So He is in the heart of a hog, of a dog, and the learned brāhmaṇa as well. For Him there is no such discrimination—what is hog, what is dog, what is brāhmaṇa, what is good, what is bad—because He is Absolute. But here we have to distinguish between the hog and the dog, at least so far the material body is concerned.

General Lectures

Rotary Club Lecture -- Hyderabad, November 29, 1972:

Just like we have got body, similarly, the Absolute Supreme Person has also body. But His body is different from ours. Sac-cit-ānanda-vigraha. His body is eternal. Our body, this material body, is not eternal. Sat cit. His body is full of knowledge. Our, this body, is full of ignorance. And ānanda. He's full of joyfulness. In the Vedānta-sūtra it is said, ānandamayo 'bhyāsāt (Vedānta-sūtra 1.1.12). The Supreme Person is always joyful, abhyāsāt, naturally. So our, this body is not ānandamaya; it is, rather, always miserable. Therefore we must distinct the body of the Supreme Person from our body.

Lecture on Science of Krsna -- Hyderabad, April 14, 1975:

Kṛṣṇa also says in the Bhagavad-gītā, "My dear Arjuna, you, Me and all these soldiers and kings who have assembled there, they existed like this in the past, they're existing in the same way, and they'll continue to exist like that." There is no question of becoming one. Past, present, future, always we are distinct. So how they can be one sanātana? We are part and parcel sanātana, eternally. But in quality we are one. In quality we are one. Kṛṣṇa is eternal. We are eternal. Kṛṣṇa is spirit. We are spirit. Kṛṣṇa is also person. We are also person. In this way, we are one but He is the great, and we are servants. This is actual position. And if we claim that after being freed from māyā, we shall become one with the Supreme, that is called Māyāvāda. We eternally, we are separate. Dvaitavāda. That is Madhvācārya's philosophy, dvaitavāda. So if you consider very cool-headed, then Vaiṣṇava philosophy is the best, not this Māyāvāda philosophy.

Philosophy Discussions

Philosophy Discussion on Carl Gustav Jung:

Prabhupāda: Vedic culture or non-Vedic culture, there are so many similarities. It doesn't matter. Because you are living being, the similarities are there. Just like every living being eats. It is similar to everyone. Every living being sleeps. It is similar to everyone. Every living being mates. It is similar to everyone. Every living being fears. So you have to take the greatest common factor. There are so many similarities.

Śyāmasundara: He would say also that every human being may draw a circle to represent something which is whole and complete.

Prabhupāda: That is religion. These four principles are similar to every living entity. But when you come to the human platform, there is religion. That is not in the animal. That is the distinctive function of the human being. So if human being (is) without any religious principles, he is similar to animal. Dharmeṇa hīna paśubhiḥ samānāḥ. Therefore in every group of civilized human society, there is some sort of religion. It may be Hindu religion, Christian religion, Buddhist religion, but tendency is to accept some religion. And religion means understanding of God and our relationship with Him. So the modern civilization, according to Darwin's theory, they are advancing to become animal. That's it. Therefore they are claiming their forefathers are coming from monkeys. That somebody said on the other day, Vivekananda was asked that "Why your Indian forefathers did not come, long years ago?" He answered, "Because your forefathers were jumping in the tree." (laughter) It is very nice answer. "Our forefathers did not come because your forefathers were jumping in the tree."

Philosophy Discussion on Plotinus:

Prabhupāda: Brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate (SB 1.2.11). By His impersonal feature He is all-pervading. By His localized aspect He is living everywhere, omnipresent, within the heart of all living entities, within the atom even. And by His personal feature He is worshiped by the devotee. Wherever the devotee is there, He is present personally. Tatra dṛṣṭami dhanataḥ yatra nayanti mad-bhaktaḥ (?). That is His omnipresent, although He is in Goloka Vṛndāvana. So nobody can calculate how many miles away that planet is, still, when a devotee like Prahlāda is in danger, He is immediately present there. That is the meaning of omnipresence. Not that because He is millions and trillions of miles away He cannot give protection to His devotee millions and trillions of miles away from His abode. That is the meaning of omnipresent.

Hayagrīva: Yes. He also believed that God is present in all objects yet remains distinct and transcendental to all created things. Prabhupāda: That is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā, mat-sthāni sarva-bhūtāni nāhaṁ teṣu avasthitaḥ: (BG 9.4) "Everything is resting in Me, but I am not present there."

Philosophy Discussion on Rene Descartes:

Prabhupāda: In the Bhagavad-gītā also it is said, vedāhaṁ sarvam, "I know everything." That is the difference. When Arjuna questioned Kṛṣṇa that "How it is that You remember millions of years ago, You taught Bhagavad-gītā?" And that Kṛṣṇa says, "Yes, that is the difference between you and Me. I remember; you forgot." So therefore in all cases God is also living being, I am also living being, but I am very, very small, finite, and He is infinite. He is also living being. (break)

Hayagrīva: Continuing Descartes, he writes, "It is not an imperfection in God that He has given me the freedom of assenting or not assenting to things of which He has not placed a clear and distinct knowledge in my understanding. On the other hand, unquestionably it is an imperfection in me that I do not use this freedom right, yet..." So but one may then ask, Why doesn't God give us the understanding whereby we can choose properly in all cases? Prabhupāda: Yes. Hayagrīva: Why can't we have free will and at the same time... Prabhupāda: Free will means... Hayagrīva: ...infallible judgment? Prabhupāda: Free will means that you can act wrongly. That is free will. Unless there is chance of doing wrong or right, there is no question of free will. Where is free will then? If I act only one sided, that means I have no free will. Because we act sometimes wrongly, that means free will.

Philosophy Discussion on Samuel Alexander:

Prabhupāda: Hm? Finite? He is not finite.

Hayagrīva: No, He is distinct, He is different. He is an individual...

Prabhupāda: Yes, yes.

Hayagrīva: ...but He is different from the finite beings...

Prabhupāda: So that is the Vedic injunction, nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.13). He is also eternal, He is also living being; we are also eternal, we are also living being. But He is the chief. How He is chief? Eko yo bahūnāṁ vidadhāti kāmān. That single number eternal living being, He is maintaining all these plural number living beings. Therefore you will find either in this material world or in the spiritual world there is so much arrangement. The sky is there, the air is there, the fire is there, the water is there, the land is there. He has made, even in this conditioned state, God has given us so much things, made for our maintenance. We require water—we find; we require air, so many things, and God has given us ample opportunity. So He is maintaining. Without air we cannot breathe; without water we cannot live; without fire we cannot live. So He has given; therefore He is maintaining, He is maintainer. So one, the chief eternal living being is God, and the subordinate eternal living being are the jīvas, or the conditioned soul.