Evidence (Lectures, BG)

Expressions researched:
"evidence" |"evidenced" |"evidences" |"evident" |"evidential" |"evidentially" |"evidently"

Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures

Lecture on BG 2.1-10 and Talk -- Los Angeles, November 25, 1968:

Prabhupāda: These are his causes of perplexities, how he was thinking, that has been tried to be explained. Yes, go on.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: "Even if there were victory awaiting them, because their cause was justified, still if the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra should die in battle, it would be very difficult to live in their absence. Under the circumstances that would be another kind of defeat. All these considerations by Arjuna definitely proved that he was not only a great devotee of the Lord but that he was also highly enlightened and had complete control over his mind and senses. His desire to live by begging although he was born in the royal household is another sign of detachment. He was fully in the quality of forbearance as all these qualities combined with his faith in the words of instruction of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, his spiritual master, give evidence. It is concluded that Arjuna was quite fit for liberation. Unless the senses are controlled, there is no chance of elevation to the platform of knowledge, and without knowledge and devotion there is no chance of liberation. Arjuna was competent in all these attributes over and above his enormous attributes in his material relationships."

Prabhupāda: Go on. (coughs)

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: "Now I am confused about..."

Prabhupāda: Yes, what is there?

Lecture on BG 2.1-11 -- Johannesburg, October 17, 1975:

First-class guru. Guru means the Supreme Lord. He is guru of everyone, parama-guru. So anyone who represents Kṛṣṇa, he is also guru. That will be explained in the Fourth Chapter. Evaṁ paramparā-prāptam imaṁ rājarṣayo viduḥ (BG 4.2). So Kṛṣṇa is showing example, where we should offer our surrender and accept guru. Here is Kṛṣṇa. So you have to accept Kṛṣṇa or His representative as guru. Then your problems will be solved. Otherwise it is not possible, because he can say what is good for you, what is bad for you. He is asking, yac chreyaḥ syān niścitaṁ brūhi tat (BG 2.7). Niścitam. If you want advice, instruction, niścitam, which is without any doubt, without any illusion, without any mistake, without any cheating, that is called niścitam. That you can get from Kṛṣṇa or His representative. You cannot get right information from the imperfect person or a cheater. That is not right instruction. Nowadays it has become a fashion; everyone is becoming guru and he is giving his own opinion, "I think," "In my opinion." That is not guru. Guru means he should give evidences from śāstra. Yaḥ śāstra-vidhim utsṛjya vartate kāma-kārataḥ: (BG 16.23) "Anyone who does not give evidences, proof, from the śāstra, then" na siddhiṁ sa avāpnoti, "he does not get at any time success," na sukham, "neither any happiness in this material world," na parāṁ gatim, "and what to speak of elevation in the next life." These are the injunction.

Lecture on BG 2.4-5 -- London, August 5, 1973:

So the first problem was for Arjuna how to kill the kinsmen, family men. Now, when he was chastised by Kṛṣṇa as a friend that "Why you are so weak? Don't be weak. This is sentiment. This kind of compassion is sentiment. Uttiṣṭha. You better get up and fight." If I do not want to do something, I can offer so many pleas. You see. So next he is presenting gurūn: "All right, Kṛṣṇa, you are talking about my kinsmen. I accept that it is my weakness. But how do You advise me to kill my guru? Droṇācārya is my guru. And Bhīṣmadeva is also my guru. So do you want me to kill my guru? Gurūn hi hatvā. And not only ordinary guru. This is not that they are ordinary men. Mahānubhāvān. Bhīṣma is a great devotee, and similarly, Droṇācārya also, a great personality. Mahānubhāvān. So kathaṁ bhīṣmam ahaṁ saṅkhye droṇaṁ ca madhusūdana (BG 2.4). "They are two great personalities. They are not only my gurus, but they are great personalities." And Kṛṣṇa is addressed "Madhusūdana." Madhusūdana means... Madhu was Kṛṣṇa's enemy, a demon. So He killed. So "You are Madhusūdana, You are killer of Your enemies. Can You give me any evidence that You have killed Your guru? So why You are asking me?" This is the purport. Iṣubhiḥ pratiyotsyāmi pūjārhāv ari-sūdana. Again Ari-sūdana. Ari means enemy. Madhusūdana, particularly "the killer of the Madhu demon." And next is Arisudana. Ari means enemy. So Kṛṣṇa has killed so many demons, ari, who came to fight with Him as enemy. Therefore His name is Arisudana.

Lecture on BG 2.6 -- London, August 6, 1973:

In the Vedic culture, those who are meat-eaters, they have been advised that "Don't eat meat purchased from the slaughterhouse or from the market." Actually, this system was never current anywhere, all over the world, that to maintain slaughterhouse. This is latest invention. We talk with sometimes with Christian gentlemen, and when we inquire that "Lord Christ says 'Thou shalt not kill'; why you are killing?" they give evidence that "Christ also ate meat sometimes." Sometimes Christ ate meat, that's all right, but did Christ say that "You maintain big, big slaughterhouse and go on eating meat?" There is no common sense even. Christ might have eaten. Sometimes he... If there was no, nothing available for eating, what could you do? That is another question. In great necessity, when there is no other food except taking meat... That time is coming. In this age, Kali-yuga, gradually food grains will be reduced. It is stated in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Twelfth Canto. No rice, no wheat, no milk, no sugar will be available. One has to eat meat. This will be the condition. And maybe to eat the human flesh also.

Lecture on BG 2.8-12 -- Los Angeles, November 27, 1968:

If one can give reference from the Upaniṣads, then his argument is very strong. Śabda-pramāṇa. Pramāṇa means evidence. Evidence... If you want to gain in your case... Just like you have to give very nice evidence in a court, similarly, according to Vedic culture, the evidence is pramāṇa. Pramāṇa means evidence. Śabda-pramāṇa. There are three kinds of evidences accepted by the learned scholars in Vedic culture. One evidence is pratyakṣa. Pratyakṣa means direct perception. Just like I am seeing you, you are seeing me. I am present, you are present. This is direct perception. And there is another evidence which is called anumāna. Suppose in that room, and I am coming just now, I do not know whether any person there is or not. But there is some sound, I can imagine, "Oh, there is somebody." This is called anumāna. In logic it is called hypothesis. That is also evidence. If by my bona fide suggestions I can give evidence, that is also accepted. So direct evidence, and, what is called, hypothesis or suggestion evidence. But the strong evidence is śabda-pramāṇa. Śabda, śabda-brahman. That means Vedas. If one can give evidence from the quotation of the Vedas, then it has to be accepted. Nobody can deny the Vedic evidence. That is the system. How it is so? Caitanya Mahāprabhu has given very nice example. That is in the Vedas.

Lecture on BG 2.8-12 -- Los Angeles, November 27, 1968:

Just like sometimes our students are perplexed when we say that onion is not to be taken, but onion is a vegetable. So śabda-pramāṇa means the Vedic evidence should be taken in such a way that no argument. There is meaning; there is no contradiction. There is meaning. Just like several times I have told you that cow dung. Cow dung is, according to Vedic injunction, is pure. In India it is actually used as antiseptic. In villages especially, there is large quantity of cow dung, and they're, all over the house they have smeared to make the house antiseptic. And actually after smearing cow dung in your room, when it is dried, you'll find refreshed, everything antiseptic. It is practical experience. And one Dr. Ghosh, a great chemist, he examined cow dung, that why cow dung is so much important in the Vedic literature? He found that cow dung contains all the antiseptic properties. In Āyur-veda, cow dung dried and burned into ashes is used as toothpowder. It is very antiseptic toothpowder.

Lecture on BG 2.8-12 -- Los Angeles, November 27, 1968:

Just like a father says to his child that "My dear child, you take this food. It is very nice." And the child takes it, believing the father, authority. The child knows that "My father..." He is confident that "My father will never give me anything which is poison." Therefore he accepts it blindly, without any reason, without any analysis of the food, whether it is pure or impure. You have to believe in such a way. You go to a hotel because it is licensed by the government. You have to believe when you take foodstuff there it is nice, it is pure, or it is antiseptic, or it is... But how do you know it? The authority. Because this hotel is authorized by the government, it has got license, therefore you believe. Similarly śabda-pramāṇa means as soon as there is evidence in the Vedic literature, "This is this," you have to accept. That's all. Then your knowledge is perfect because you are accepting things from the perfect source. Similarly Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa is accepted as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Whatever He says, it is all right. Accept. Arjuna said at last, sarvam etad ṛtaṁ manye (BG 10.14). "My dear Kṛṣṇa, whatever You say I accept it." That should be our principle. Why should we bother about researching when the evidence is there from the authority?

Lecture on BG 2.8-12 -- Los Angeles, November 27, 1968:

Just like a small ant, it is spirit soul. It has got its individuality. But a big dead stone, hill or mountain, it has no individuality. So matter has no individuality. Spirit has individuality. So if the points of similarity differ, then there is no analogy. That is the law of analogy. So you cannot analogize with matter and spirit. Therefore this analogy is fallacious. Ghaṭākāśa poṭākāśa. Then another evidence is in the Bhagavad-gītā. Kṛṣṇa says that mamaivāṁśo jīva-bhūta (BG 15.7). "This individual souls, they are My part and parcel." Jīva-loke sanātanaḥ. And they are eternal. That means eternally they are part and parcel. Then when... How this Māyāvāda theory can be supported, that due to māyā, being covered by māyā, they are now appearing individual, separate, but when the covering of māyā will be taken away, they will mix up just like the small sky within the pitcher and the big sky outside mixes? So this analogy is fallacious from logical point of view, as well as from authentic Vedic point of view. They are eternally fragments. There are many other evidences from Bhagavad-gītā. Bhagavad-gītā says that spirit cannot be fragmented. So if you say that by covering of māyā the spirit has become fragment, that is not possible. It cannot be cut.

Lecture on BG 2.8-12 -- Los Angeles, November 27, 1968:

The Vedic principle is that unless one is not liberated from the material conditions, he cannot give us any perfect knowledge. The conditioned soul, however he may be academically advanced, educated, he cannot give us any perfect knowledge. Only one who is above the condition of these material laws, he can give us the perfect knowledge. Similarly Śaṅkarācārya, he's also impersonalist, but he accepts Kṛṣṇa the supreme authority. Sa bhagavān svayaṁ kṛṣṇa. "Kṛṣṇa is that Supreme Personality of Godhead." The modern Māyāvādī philosophers, they do not disclose this statement of Śaṅkarācārya. To cheat people. But Śaṅkarācārya's statement is there. We can give evidence. He accepts Kṛṣṇa as the supreme authority. He has written so many nice poems praising or worshiping Kṛṣṇa. And at the last time he says, bhaja govindaṁ bhaja govindaṁ bhaja govindaṁ mūḍha-mate. "You rascal fools. Oh, you are depending on grammar to understand. This is all nonsense." Bhaja govindam. "Just worship Govinda." Bhaja govindaṁ bhaja... Three times he says. "Just worship Govinda." Bhaja govindaṁ bhaja govindaṁ bhaja govindam. Just like Caitanya Mahāprabhu says three times, harer nāma harer nāma harer nāma (CC Adi 17.21). Three times means giving too much stress. Just like we sometimes say, "You do this, do this, do this." That means no more denial. Finish all stress.

Lecture on BG 2.9 -- Auckland, February 21, 1973:

Formerly, during Kṛṣṇa's time, there were authorities like Vyāsadeva, like Nārada. They also accepted that Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. And you will find in the Tenth Chapter of the Bhagavad-gītā Arjuna, after understanding Kṛṣṇa, he expressed his opinion, paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān puruṣaṁ śāśvatam ādyam (BG 10.12). He accepted. And he also said that "I am not accepting... Because it may be said that I am Your friend, so I am accepting You as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but great ācāryas or great stalwart authorities like Parāśara Muni, Vyāsadeva, Nārada, Asita, Devala..." He gave evidence. So Kṛṣṇa is accepted. So far Vedic literature is concerned, the ācāryas are concerned... Recently, within, say, two thousand years, there have been many ācāryas like Śaṅkarācārya, Madhvācārya, Nimbārka, Rāmānujācārya. They have all accepted Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. And, say, within five hundred years, Lord Caitanya, He also accepted Kṛṣṇa. By His symptoms, by the historical fact, by the evidence of the Vedas, He is accepted as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore, when Kṛṣṇa is speaking, the very words are used, śrī bhagavān uvāca. Bhagavān means the Supreme Personality of Godhead is speaking. Uvāca means speaking.

Lecture on BG 2.9 -- Auckland, February 21, 1973:

The whole world is—I may say whole world, but at least the majority portion—everyone is under the impression that "I am this body." But I am not this body. I am soul. That will be instructed in the Bhaga... I am not this body. I am soul. I am spirit soul. There are so many evidences. If I am this body, then when the soul is not there, the living entity is not there, the body is simply a lump of matter. That is the difference between a dead body and living body. Living body means that the soul is there. Therefore the body is moving. And as soon as the soul is not there, the body is nothing but a lump of matter. I think somebody as my father. I call, "Father," Father immediately replies, "Yes, my son." But when the soul of the father is not there, then the father, this body of the father, whom I am seeing as father, although he is there, still, he cannot reply. This is the distinction.

Lecture on BG 2.9 -- Auckland, February 21, 1973:

Even a child. You ask child, you show him the finger, "What is this?" The child will reply, "It is my finger." The child will never say, "I finger." He will say, "my." So everything is "mine." "My body, my head, my leg." Everything is "mine," but where is the "I?" That should be the inquiry, that "Everything, I am speaking 'mine.' Where is that 'I'?" As soon as we come to this point, "Where is that 'I'?" then our human sense is developed. Otherwise we are in the animal sense of life. So Kṛṣṇa is, I mean to say, instructing Arjuna that aśocyān anvaśocas tvam: (BG 2.11) "My dear Arjuna, you are lamenting on the subject matter which is not the subject matter of lamentation." Aśocyān anvaśocas tvaṁ prajñā-vādāṁś ca bhāṣase. Prajñā-vādāṁś ca bhāṣase. "You are talking like a very intelligent, learned scholar." Because in the previous chapter he was arguing with Kṛṣṇa, giving evidences from śāstra on the bodily concept of life. But he does not know the śāstras say, "One who is in the bodily concept of life, he is no better than an ass or cow." That he did not know.

Lecture on BG 2.12 -- New York, March 7, 1966:

Although they are four in number, their conclusion is the same. And another sect is Śaṅkarite sampradāya. So all these four, I mean, five different section of the Hindus, they accept Śrī Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. All of them. There is no denial. Although they are five, they have got different theses and philosophies, little, little difference, not, I mean, conclusion, but still... Now, Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya, he, he is supposed, he is considered to be impersonalist. Impersonalist means he does not believe in the personal form of God. But still, he has commented in this, of this Bhagavad-gītā, Śaṅkara-bhāṣya. He has admitted there that "Śrī Kṛṣṇa is the Personality of Godhead." He has also admitted. Others, they are Vaiṣṇavites, other ācāryas, other authorities, they are Vaiṣṇavites. They have naturally admitted because they believe from the beginning. But even Śaṅkarācārya, who is impersonalist, he has also clearly written that sa bhagavān svayaṁ kṛṣṇaḥ: "Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead." And there are many evidences in many scriptures and Vedic scriptures that Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

Lecture on BG 2.13 -- New York, March 11, 1966:

Now I see with my eyes, but I cannot see my eyelid. You see? The eyelid is always attached with my eye, but I cannot see. So our power of using the senses, that is very limited. So we should not depend only on the senses. Pratyakṣa. It is called pratyakṣa-anumāna. There are three kinds of evidences, pratyakṣa, anumāna, and aitihya. Pratyakṣa means that you can directly perceive. That is called pratyakṣa. And anumāna. Anumāna means you can conjecture, make an..., "It may be like this. It may be like this. Perhaps it is like this." This is called anumāna. And the other evidence is aitihya. Aitihya means to take evidences from the authority. So according... Out of these three evidences, this aitihya evidence, just like we are taking instruction of Bhagavad-gītā, sound, sound vibrated by the greatest personality, Śrī Kṛṣṇa, that sort of pramāṇa is acceptable. That is the best. This is the best way of acquiring knowledge. Because so far direct evidence is concerned, it is impossible. Because our senses are so imperfect, we cannot have anything. We can, we can have some direct experience of certain things, but not for all, especially for these spiritual things which is beyond our experience.

Lecture on BG 2.13 -- New York, March 11, 1966:

So pratyakṣa means direct evidence you cannot have. And anumāna means speculation, simply, "It may be like this. It may be like that." Oh, that is also imperfect because our thinking is also limited, because our senses are limited. So our thinking power, mind, is one of the senses. Out of the ten, mind is considered to be the eleventh sense. There are five karmendriya and five sensory organs and working organs, ten, and the mind is the chief. So mind is also considered as one of the senses, the chief senses. You see? So because it is sense, it is imperfect. So by mental speculation we cannot have a into right conclusion, by mental speculation. Those are simply speculating on mind, they can make some progress to a certain extent, but they cannot reach the ultimate goal. It is not possible by mental speculation; neither it is possible by direct evidence. The only, only possible evidence is authority, authority. Just like yesterday also I gave you that example. Just like if a child asks his mother that "Who is my father?" now the mother says, "Here is your father." Now, if the child says, "I don't believe it," so he has no other source of knowledge. Except the mother's version, that "Here is your father," he has no other alternative to know who is father. It is such a thing that neither he can imagine, speculate, "Oh, he may be my father, he may be my father, he may be my father." Lots of father he can gather. That is not possible. And neither it is possible for direct perception. The only possibility is the mother's evidence. Similarly, as the mother is authority for the child, similarly, the śruti, the Vedas, they are called mother, mother of knowledge.

Lecture on BG 2.13 -- Hyderabad, November 18, 1972:

And recently, in the modern age, by our ācāryas, Śrī Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, Rāmānuja, yes, Śaṅkarācārya, Viṣṇu Svāmī. All these great sages, great ācāryas, they came from your South India. So you are fortunate in that sense. So we have to follow the ācāryas. All these ācāryas accept Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Lord. All these ācāryas. And later, lately, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, five hundred years ago, He also accepted that Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam (SB 1.3.28). That is the acceptance in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Similarly, Lord Brahmā also accepted Kṛṣṇa:

īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ

sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ

anādir ādir govindaḥ

sarva-kāraṇa-kāraṇam

(Bs. 5.1)

So we have got so many evidences. So we have to accept Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. There is no doubt about it. But why people do not accept? Why are so many big, big scholars and big, big scientists, why they do not accept Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead? That is also stated in the Bhagavad-gītā, how these people do not accept.

Lecture on BG 2.13 -- Hyderabad, November 18, 1972:

So here is Kṛṣṇa. From śāstric evidences, by His opulences, by His power... Because Bhagavān means full of six opulences. Aiśvaryasya samagrasya vīryasya yaśasaḥ śriyaḥ (Viṣṇu Purāṇa 6.5.47). He must be the richest. He must be the strongest. He must be the most famous. He must be the most beautiful. He must be the great renouncer. In this way, that is the definition of God. So that definition is confirmed by Lord Brahmā: īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ (Bs. 5.1). Īśvara means controller. Unless one is powerful, how he can control? So every one of us is little, a small controller. Somebody controls in his office. Somebody controls in his family life. Somebody controls a few factories. There are controllers. But nobody can say that "I am the supreme controller." That is not possible. The supreme controller is Kṛṣṇa.

Lecture on BG 2.16 -- London, August 22, 1973:

The modern so-called philosophers, scientists, scholars, they say, "I think. I think." What is your value? The great personalities, they will not say like that. Never they will say. Therefore Kṛṣṇa even says, tattva-darśibhiḥ: "It has been concluded by higher authorities." He is Himself authority; still He's not speaking that "I say." No. Sometimes He says mataṁ mama: "That is My opinion." But He's also following the principle, authoritative, tattva-darśibhiḥ. Tattva-darśibhiḥ saṅkhye (?) ubhayor api dṛṣṭo 'ntaḥ, conclusion. Although Kṛṣṇa is saying that this is sat and this is asat, this is permanent and this is nonpermanent, but still, He is giving evidences that tattva-darśibhiḥ, those who have seen the truth, they have concluded like that. This is, means, authority. "They have concluded like that. Don't think that I am manufacturing something. No." Tattva-darśibhiḥ. This is the way of understanding. Whether tattva-darśibhiḥ. We also give reference sometimes in the modern age that such and such professor says such and such. But they are not tattva-darśibhiḥ. They are all speculator. They are not tattva-darśibhiḥ. But we have to go to the tattva-darśī.

Lecture on BG 2.18 -- London, August 24, 1973:

Now Kṛṣṇa here also says ukta. Ukta means "it is said." Not that dogmatically I am speaking, I am putting up some theory. No. It is said. It is already settled, it is already ascertained. And in the Vedic literature, by authorities it is so said. This is the way of presenting evidence. Even Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, He does not theorize. He said, "It is said," authorized. Anāśino 'prameyasya. Anāśinaḥ. Nāśinaḥ means destructible, and anāśinaḥ means not destructible. Śarīriṇaḥ, the soul, anāśinaḥ, it will never be destroyed. And aprameyasya. Aprameyasya, immeasurable. It cannot be measured also. In the Vedic literature the measurement is described there, but you cannot measure it. Anything, so many things are described in the Vedic literature. So you are so advanced in scientific knowledge, but neither you can say that it is not fact. Neither you can estimate. Just like in the Padma Purāṇa, the varieties of living entities are expressed: jalajā nava-lakṣāṇi. The aquatic animals or living entities are nine hundred thousand. So you cannot say, "No, it is not nine hundred thousand. It is less or more." It is not possible for you to see within the water how many varieties of. You might have, the biologists, they might have experimented, but it is not possible to see nine hundred thousand forms. That is not possible. Jalajā nava-lakṣāṇi sthāvarā lakṣa-viṁśati.

Lecture on BG 2.18 -- London, August 24, 1973:

So the soul is in the heart and Kṛṣṇa is also in the heart. Because they remain both together. So place is also located. You can perceive also by consciousness where there is presentation of soul, but if you want to measure by experiment, that is not possible. Therefore it is called aprameya. Prameya means direct perception. I can see or I can touch, I can handle. So that is... Kṛṣṇa says no, it is not possible. Aprameya. Then, how I shall accept? Now Kṛṣṇa says. So how I can believe Kṛṣṇa? Kṛṣṇa says ukta, it is already settled up by authorities. Ukta. This is paramparā system. Kṛṣṇa also says ukta. Kṛṣṇa does not say that "I speak," no. Ukta, there is Vedic evidence. Where it is? In the Upaniṣads there is.

Lecture on BG 2.18 -- London, August 24, 1973:

It is in the Upaniṣad, Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad. This is called Vedic evidence. In another, in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, there is evidence. What is that? Keśāgra-śata-bhāgasya śatadhā, sadṛśaṁ jīvaḥ sūkṣma (CC Madhya 19.140). Sūkṣma, very fine. Jīvaḥ sūkṣma-svarūpo 'yaṁ saṅkhyātītaḥ kalpate. This jīva, not one, two, three, four—you cannot calculate. Asaṅkhya. So these are evidences in the Vedic literature. So we have to accept it. Kṛṣṇa confirms it and actually also you cannot measure. But we get evidence, the presence of the soul, presence of the soul. Still, how we can say there is no soul? No. This is foolishness. The whole world is going on under this foolishness. Not only now, before also. Like Cārvāka Muni, he was atheist, he did not believe. Lord Buddha also said like that, but He cheated. He knew everything because He is incarnation of God. But He had to cheat the people in that way because they are not intelligent enough. Why not intelligent? Because they were killers of animals, they lost their intelligence. Keśava dhṛta-buddha-śarīra jaya jagadīśa hare. Those who are animal killers, their brain is dull as stone. They cannot understand any thing. Therefore meat-eating should be stopped. In order to revive the finer tissues of the brain to understand subtle things, one must give up meat-eating.

Lecture on BG 2.20-25 -- Seattle, October 14, 1968:

Viṣṇujana: "...confirm this concept of two kinds of souls by comparing them to two friendly birds sitting on the same tree. One of the birds, the individual atomic soul, is eating the fruit of the tree, and the other bird is simply watching his friend. Of these two birds, although they are the same in quality, one is captivated by the fruits of the material tree, while the other is simply witnessing his activity. Kṛṣṇa is the witnessing bird and Arjuna is the eating bird. Although they are friends, one is still the master and the other is the servant."

Prabhupāda: That is the eternal relationship. These are confirmed in Vedic literature just like Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad, Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad. The system is whatever is mentioned in the Vedas, that is authoritatively accepted. That is the Vedic understanding. If there is some evidence in the Vedas... Just like in law court, if there is some section in the lawbook, then the lawyers, the judge, accept it. "Yes, it is like this." Similarly knowledge. Vedas means knowledge. So perfect knowledge is there. Therefore if the evidence is there in the statement of Vedas, that is the proof. Śabda-pramāṇa. There are three kinds of evidences. Pratyakṣa, direct sense perception, and śabda-pramāṇa, evidence from the Vedic statement, and anumāna, aitihya, historical or hypothesis. So out of all evidences, the evidence which is called, derived from Vedic statement, that is accepted as most authoritative. Therefore Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad and Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad, they are Vedas. There is statement that two birds are sitting on the same tree. The tree is compared, the body is compared with the tree. And two birds, namely the Supersoul, Kṛṣṇa, and the living entity, individual soul, they are sitting together. And one is eating the fruit of the tree and the other is simply witnessing. This is our position. The other friendly bird, Kṛṣṇa or Supersoul, is giving us opportunity to act with this body as I like. He's giving us opportunity. Kṣetra-jña. I am the proprietor of this body. I have been allowed to utilize this body as I like. And the facility is given by the Supersoul.

Lecture on BG 2.20-25 -- Seattle, October 14, 1968:

Now here Kṛṣṇa says that "Don't care for this body. There is soul." That is śruti. Śruti means you hear from Kṛṣṇa; then you understand. Otherwise there is no possibility to understand. The same example, as I have several times said, that who is your father? That you can under(stand) simply by hearing from your mother. That's all. The mother says, "He is your father." What is the evidence? Hearing from the mother. That's all. Similarly anything spiritual, spiritual identity, spiritual God, spiritual kingdom, you have to learn simply by hearing from authorities. There is no other process. There is no other second process. Simply we have to hear. Just the same example. Who is your father? You have to simply believe your mother. Even if he... Of course, it is not expected that she'll give a false information. Understanding, the mother is nice, she'll give me. So that is the only way. You have to believe your mother, and that's all. Similarly, if you want to understand anything spiritual, you have to take information by hearing from such authorities as Kṛṣṇa or His representative, and there is no other alternative. Other alternative, it will ever remain invisible and not understandable and so many things, negative.

Lecture on BG 2.20-25 -- Seattle, October 14, 1968:

Now everyone knows that "When I am born, there must have been somebody my father." This is the conclusion. "And now, who is my father?" That is evidence to be taken from mother. Similarly nobody can deny the existence of God because everything has got a father, generator. So therefore this whole creation, there must be generator. Now how we can see the father? Through the mother, Vedas. That's all. As we understand our father through the mother, similarly through the mother of Vedic knowledge you can understand what is God.

Lecture on BG 2.26 -- Los Angeles, December 6, 1968:

So Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Bhagavad-gītā is not a literature like that. Can you give any evidence, any book written five thousand years ago is still being read with still greater veneration, with greater respect, with greater attention. Is there any book in the world? Find out. Not a single book you'll find. You cannot trace out of any book written, say, thousand years or two thousand years ago. But here is a book which was spoken five thousand years ago; still, all over the world... It is not that Bhagavad-gītā is supposed to be Hindu literature, Vedic literature, it is read simply by the Hindus. Now the number of Hindus has minimized. Practically, in some portion of that India there are few Hindus only, actually speaking. So what is the number of Hindus? That is the, what is called, minority in the whole world. If you take calculation of other religion... I have seen the other day in the World Almanac the Hindus, the Hindus are the lowest. So how many Hindus are reading? In India not that 90% people are illiterate. So what they will read? And who is reading Bhagavad-gītā? It is all over the world. Still, you'll find in Germany Bhagavad-gītā is being read. In England you'll find. Even in Muhammadan countries you'll find, and what to speak of your country. There are so many editions of Bhagavad-gītā. I mean to say that see the importance of real literature.

Lecture on BG 2.26 -- Hyderabad, November 30, 1972:

Our process is descending process. We are not trying to understand by the ascending process. Inductive or deductive. We accept the statements of the Vedas. Therefore we haven't got to make much effort to understand a thing. Veda-vacana, śruti, śruti-pramāṇa. There are three kinds of evidences: direct perception, and evidence from the Vedas, and evidence from history. Aitihya. Pratyakṣa, aitihya, śruti. Three kinds of evidences. So pratyakṣa and aitihya is neglected. According to our Vedic system, śruti-pramāṇa, if it is statement, the statement is there in the śruti, in the Vedas, then we accept. We have got a society in India. They call veda-pramāṇa. "We cannot accept without it is not mentioned in the Vedas." That's a, that's nice. But there is another class who are described in the Bhagavad-gītā by Kṛṣṇa Himself: veda-vāda-ratāḥ. They are simply unnecessarily fight on the basis of so-called Vedic knowledge. Vedic knowledge must be understood from the guru. That is injunction. They defy that. They... The Vedic injunction is... Kaṭhopaniśad. Tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum eva abhigacchet (MU 1.2.12). You... To understand the Vedas, you must approach a guru. Otherwise, you cannot understand.

Lecture on BG 2.26 -- Hyderabad, November 30, 1972:

Now people may say that Arjuna was Kṛṣṇa's friend. To satisfy his friend, he has accepted Him as paraṁ brahma. But that is not the fact. Arjuna gives evidences that "Not only I, but the great authorities like Vyāsa, Nārada, Asita, Devala, they have also accepted You as the Supreme Personality of Godhead." In the recent ages... This is five thousand years ago. Even one thousand, five hundred... Śaṅkarācārya, who is impersonalist, he has also accepted Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Sa bhagavān svayaṁ kṛṣṇa. He has written in his commentary on the Bhagavad-gītā: nārāyaṇaḥ avyakta, avyaktāt, para avyaktāt. Nārāyaṇaḥ para avyaktāt. "Nārāyaṇa is not a creation of this material world. He's transcendental." He has accepted. And what to speak of the Vaiṣṇava ācāryas, Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, all. They have written so many nice commentaries on the Bhagavad-gītā, Brahma-sūtra, establishing that the Supreme Absolute Truth is person, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Kṛṣṇa is speaking as person. And He is warning the rascals: avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritam (BG 9.11). "Because I am speaking as a human being, the rascals, they deride." Paraṁ bhāvam ajānantaḥ. They do not know what is My influence, what is My power."

Lecture on BG 2.36-37 -- London, September 4, 1973:

Dharmyāddhi-yuddha. There are two kinds of of fighting. Dharma-yuddha. Dharma-yuddha means right, righteous fighting, and adharma-yuddha means political. That is... One politician, he wants to keep his position, he engages the people in fighting, declares war. That is another thing. But when right thing, violence is required. So Arjuna... Kṛṣṇa is encouraging Arjuna in dharma-yuddha, not unnecessarily killing in the slaughterhouse. Do not misunderstand Kṛṣṇa. The rascals, they misunderstand. By killing, by his whims, he gives the evidence of... Another rascal, although he is learned professor, he says that because this man has killed on the basis of Bhagavad-gītā, therefore Kṛṣṇa is immoral. Just see. This is going on. Without understanding Bhagavad-gītā, even a so-called learned scholar also talking of Kṛṣṇa as immoral. He has encouraged killing. Just see. Such envious persons. And he is teaching Bhagavad-gītā. This is going on.

Lecture on BG 2.36-37 -- London, September 4, 1973:

So it is the kṣatriya. Kṣatriya means who gives protection the citizens from being hurt by the irreligious person. That is called kṣatriya. Kṣat. Kṣat means injury, and tra means deliver. Just like Mahārāja Parīkṣit. When he saw that a black man Kali was going to kill a cow, so he was going to inflict injury to the cow, and immediately Mahārāja Parīkṣit took his sword, that to give protection to the cow from the injury of black man. So that violence required. Tit for tat. One who is going to commit violence unnecessarily, the king, government, should immediately take the sword and kill that person. That is government's duty. Had it been Vedic culture prevailing now, all these persons who are unnecessarily killing the cows in the slaughterhouse, they would have been killed by the king. "You have done so sinful." So that kind of killing is pious. To give protection innocent citizen or animals from being injured by the rascals, the government or the king should take his sword and kill immediately. This kind of killing is there in the Bhagavad-gītā. Not that general killing. You can capriciously kill anyone and give the evidence, "Oh, it is Bhagavad-gītā. It is there." How... See how rascals, they are interpreting. Therefore we are presenting Bhagavad-gītā as it is, without interpreting in a rascal's way.

Lecture on BG 2.46-62 -- Los Angeles, December 16, 1968:

The sun planet is so dazzling due to his presence. Similarly, with all impersonal conception, when you reach Kṛṣṇa, then you reach to the goal. There are so many crude examples. Just like your country. There are so many departmental government businesses going on. This department, that department, all over the country. The whole thing is concentrate in the President. How can I deny it? The everything is going on on the finger's end of the President. This is a crude example. Similarly, ultimately, unless there is the Supreme Person on the background... That, Hayagrīva has brought one book, Evidence of God. So the many scientists they have written in that book, and they have agreed that if God is there, He must be person. He must be person.

Lecture on BG 2.46-62 -- Los Angeles, December 16, 1968:

Very big, big scientists, astronomers, mathematicians, they have written in that book, Evidence of Existence of God. And they have all agreed that if there is God at all, He must be person. He cannot be imperson. And God says personally, "There is no greater truth than Me. Arjuna, there is no greater truth than Me." Ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavaḥ (BG 10.8), "I am the source of all energy." So God says, Arjuna says, Vyāsa says, Nārada says; why should we hear a street man? (laughter) (Prabhupāda laughs) A man in the street, is he greater than Nārada? Is he greater than Vyāsa? He is greater than Kṛṣṇa? Then why should I hear him? You should ask him, "Please, keep your theory with you. We are greater authority than you." Yes.

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

He has got an annotation of Bhagavad-gītā, and he has tried to prove that Bhagavad-gītā, there is proof, nonviolence. But actually, Bhagavad-gītā is being spoken in the battlefield, where everyone is prepared to start violence. Simply for a moment, when Arjuna was disturbed in his mind, that "How can I fight with my relatives and friends and sons and grandsons and so, so many things?" Bodily relations. And the Bhagavad-gītā was spoken. So that is a practical thing that Bhagavad-gītā was practically spoken to induce Arjuna to adopt violence. Now, Mahatma Gandhi, his philosophy was nonviolence. How could he prove that Bhagavad-gītā gives evidence of nonviolence? No. Therefore, anyone, Mahatma Gandhi or anyone, who has got his own ulterior motive, to prove it from the topics of Bhagavad-gītā, he must adulterate it. But that is not the process of reading Bhagavad-gītā. Bhagavad-gītā, how to read Bhagavad-gītā, that is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā. When we come to the Fourth Chapter, we'll know. So anyway, apart from the process of... But rest assured, we are speaking here of the Bhagavad-gītā as it is. We are not going to add, add in it something for fulfilling our own philosophy, our own points of view.

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

If we don't interpret in our own way. If we really want to study Bhagavad-gītā, then here is the confirmation by Arjuna how he understands Kṛṣṇa after hearing Bhagavad-gītā. Not only that, he also... In the Eleventh Chapter you'll find that Arjuna will request Kṛṣṇa to show him His gigantic universal form. Because he, Arjuna, as he is, he accepted Kṛṣṇa that He's God undoubtedly. But in future people may think that Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna were two friends. So out of friendly appreciation, Arjuna might have accepted Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but what is the evidence to us? Now, here, when Kṛṣṇa, Arjuna requested that "Kṛṣṇa, You kindly show me the gigantic form, the gigantic universal form," He showed. That is also described.

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

We have already noted, īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ sac-cid-ānanda... Sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ (Bs. 5.1). Sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ means His body is full—full of bliss, full of knowledge, and it is eternal. That is completely distinct from this body. So when there is description of the Lord that He is formless, He is formless means He is not of this form. He has got a sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ (Bs. 5.1), a different element. Therefore He's called pavitra. And paramaṁ bhavān: "You are the Supreme Original." Puruṣaṁ śāśvataṁ divyam ādi-devam ajaṁ vibhum. So "You are Puruṣa." Puruṣa means enjoyer. "In the Vedic literature, about Yourself...," āhus tvām ṛṣayaḥ sarve, "all the great sages accept You, the Supreme Lord." Āhus tvām ṛṣayaḥ sarve devarṣir nāradaḥ. Devarṣir nārada. I have already spoken to you about Nārada. He has also accepted Him. That means authorities. He's quoting authorities. Not that "I am personally accepting you as such, but there are many authorities, many authorities." So we have to understand about the science of God from the extraordinary activities and confirmed by the authorities, accepted by the revealed scriptures. Then we have to accept. You see? Not blindly. So Arjuna is giving such evidences. Asito devalo vyāsaḥ svayaṁ caiva bravīṣi me: "You are accepted by such authorities like that, and I have the opportunity that I hear all this from You directly. I am fortunate enough that I am become Your..., I am related in friendship with You, and I am hearing."

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

So here is the evidence. Now, if you want to study Bhagavad-gītā, then you have to accept all these, this statement of Arjuna. Because Bhagavad-gītā was explained directly to Arjuna, and if you don't accept the appreciation of the direct person who heard Bhagavad-gītā, then whom do we believe? Suppose I have heard something directly from one person. So what I am saying, another person who has no direct relation, he's also saying. Whom do you believe? You have to believe the person who has directly heard. So here there is no doubt about it, that Arjuna directly heard Kṛṣṇa, and his appreciations are recorded here. So therefore, if we want to study Bhagavad-gītā, then we have to accept the appreciation of the direct hearer, Arjuna. If we do that, then we can get the right thing. But if we change it for our ulterior motive, as some, so many annotators are doing in the case of Bhagavad-gītā, then we shall not be able to understand what is Bhagavad-gītā.

Lecture on BG 3.1-5 -- Los Angeles, December 20, 1968:

So if anyone is advancing by meditation or bhakti-yoga or Kṛṣṇa consciousness, one has to give evidence that he is now being proportionately detached from this material engagement. That is the test. This is not for only the meditators. It is for you also. How far you are advancing in Kṛṣṇa consciousness you test yourself—how far you have become detached from material consciousness. That's all. The proportionately you have advanced in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, the proportionately you'll not like material engagement. If you have advanced cent percent, then cent percent you become detached. That is the way.

Lecture on BG 4.1-6 -- Los Angeles, January 3, 1969:

The Māyāvādī philosopher says that "I am God, but I have forgotten myself, that I am God." So how God can forget? Here it is the evidence. How God can forget? If you forget, then you are not God, immediately. There is no other argument. God cannot forget. God remembers always. Acyuta. Acyuta means infallible. God cannot be entrapped by māyā. The Māyāvādī philosopher says that "I am God. Now I am under illusion of māyā. I have forgotten myself, that I am God, and by meditation I shall become God." This is all nonsense. Nobody... God cannot forget Himself. Then He is not God, immediately. God cannot forget Himself.

Lecture on BG 4.7 -- Montreal, June 13, 1968:

In India there is a province called Bihar. In that province there is a district Gayā. In that district Lord Buddha appeared. Lord appeared in Bihar province. He was kṣatriya, He was Hindu, and He propagated this religion of nonviolence, Buddhism. His specific propaganda was to stop animal killing. So animal killing is recommended in the Vedic literature. Therefore people wanted to give him Vedic evidences that "In the Vedic literature animal sacrifice is recommended under certain condition. So how do you preach? You are Hindu and you are followers of Vedas. Why you are preaching nonviolence?" Therefore he had to give up Hindu religion. He said that "I do not care for your Vedas. It is my propaganda to stop animal killing. So if you follow me, then you must stop animal killing." Ahiṁsā paramo dharmaḥ. So later on, of course, Lord Buddha was patronized by a great emperor, Aśoka, and therefore practically all Indian population turned to be Buddhist, with few exceptions.

Lecture on BG 4.7-10 -- Los Angeles, January 6, 1969:

Just like liquor shop is allowed by the government because there are drunkards. They must drink, but under restriction. You cannot keep liquor or wine more than the necessity. There is restriction. In India especially, there is very strict restriction. So similarly, the Vedic principle is to restrict sense gratification under certain rules and regulations. So the animal sacrifice is also restricted in that way. But when people become too much animal-eaters and simply giving the evidence of Vedas, "In the Vedas it is sanctioned," but without caring for the ritualistic process, at that time Lord Buddha appeared. It is said about Lord Buddha that sadaya-hṛdaya-darśita-paśu-ghātam. The Lord appeared as Lord Buddha, being compassionate on the poor animals, unrestricted. So this animal-killing, no religion sanctions.

Lecture on BG 4.9-11 -- New York, July 25, 1966:

But Lord Buddha, although we accept him as the incarnation of God and he was born in India and he propagated his philosophy from India, but because he denied to accept the Vedic principle, therefore he is known as atheist, because he, Buddha, did not accept the Vedic principles. He denied. And there was reason why he did not. That is a secret thing. That secret—because his whole philosophy was to stop animal killing, animal killing. Now, in the Vedic scripture, you will find, animal sacrifice is recommended. So he wanted to preach, "Stop animal killing." Now, if there is evidence from the Vedas that animal can be killed under certain circumstances, then his whole preaching becomes topsy-turvied. So he was obliged to deny the authority of the Vedas. And because he did not accept the authority of the Vedas, the Vedantists and the followers of Vedas, they called the Buddhist philosophy as atheism. This is the explanation.

Lecture on BG 4.10 -- Calcutta, September 23, 1974:

So Kṛṣṇa is sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ (Bs. 5.1). Kṛṣṇa, His body is not material body. Those who are thinking Kṛṣṇa's body as material, they are called Māyāvādīs. But actually, Kṛṣṇa's body is not material. The evidence is that Kṛṣṇa knows past, present and future. In the material body that is not possible. Just like I had my previous body in my previous birth, but I don't remember. If somebody asks me, "What you were in your previous life?" it is very difficult. Because death means forgetfulness.

Lecture on BG 4.20-24 -- New York, August 9, 1966:

Now, this sacrifice of animals was protested by Lord Buddha. He deviated from the Hindu religion. Lord Buddha was born in Hindu family. He was kṣatriya. He was a king's son. But he wanted to preach nonviolence. He wanted to preach completely, to stop completely animal killing. But because in the Vedic... Of course, I have already explained that sacrifice of animals, as stated in the Vedas, they are not for killing. They are meant for giving a new life to the animal. By Vedic mantra... The Vedic mantra are so powerful that that was a test how a dead animal can get, regain new body. An old animal is sacrificed and it gets a new youthful life. That was the test. It was not meant for killing. Don't misunderstand that sacrifice. But that is mentioned in the Vedas. So people misused that sacrifice means... That sacrifice... They wanted to give evidence from Vedas, "So here is... Animal sacrifice is mentioned in the Vedas. Why we shall stop?" So Lord Buddha started his movement, completely stopping this animal sacrifice. But he knew that "These foolish men will come and give me evidence that 'Here in the Vedas animal sacrifice is recommended. Why you are preaching? Why you are preaching stoppage of animal killing?' " Therefore he completely rejected Vedas. He said that "I don't accept Vedas."

Lecture on BG 4.23 -- Bombay, April 12, 1974:

Kṛṣṇa is accepted the Supreme Personality of Godhead by all the śāstras. Vyāsadeva, He writes, kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam (SB 1.3.28). In the Brahma-saṁhitā, Brahmā writes, īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ (Bs. 5.1). Kṛṣṇa personally says, mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat (BG 7.7). Arjuna, who heard Bhagavad-gītā, he accepts. Paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān (BG 10.12). The ācāryas, Śaṅkarācārya, Mādhvācārya, Rāma..., they accept Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Caitanya Mahāprabhu was.... Then what evidence want you more? What is your knowledge? You do not accept so many authorities? You are so proud? That is our misfortune. Manda-bhāgyā hy upadrutāḥ, and disturbed condition of life. That is our misfortune.

Lecture on BG 4.34 -- New York, August 14, 1966:

You'll find in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam. There are description of different manifestation of Viṣṇu or God because God expands Himself in various ways. We are also expansion of God. So similarly, there are degrees of expansion, and the central point, or the primal Lord, is Śrī Kṛṣṇa. We have got evidences from various Vedic literature that Śrī Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The Bhāgavata confirms, ete cāṁśa-kalāḥ puṁsaḥ kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam (SB 1.3.28), that... There is a list of incarnation of Godhead. There are many thousands and thousands of incarnation, and there is a list. Especially in Caitanya-caritāmṛta there is a specific list. Now, after giving that list, the conclusion is made that ete cāṁśa-kalāḥ puṁsaḥ kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam.

Lecture on BG 7.1 -- San Francisco, March 26, 1968:

So there is evidence of authority. And practically, if we believe the śāstras, the scriptures, authorities, then see who can be more powerful than Kṛṣṇa, who can be more beautiful than Kṛṣṇa, who can be more famous than Kṛṣṇa? Just like Kṛṣṇa appeared five thousand years before, but His knowledge, which He gave us in the shape of Śrīmad Bhagavad-gītā, still it is worshiped. It is worshiped not only by the Hindus or the Indians, but this Bhagavad-gītā is read all over the world. In your country there are at least fifty kinds of different editions of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (Bhagavad-gītā) written by different American thoughtful men. Similarly you'll find in England, in Germany, in France, in, I mean to say, all other countries you'll find hundreds of editions of Bhagavad-gītā. Just see who can be more famous and who can be more wise than Kṛṣṇa? There are many other evidences if we believe śāstra. That Kṛṣṇa married 16,108 wives, and He provided each one of them with big palaces and each one of them had ten children, and from ten children there were many other children also.

Lecture on BG 7.1 -- San Francisco, March 26, 1968:

So these are the evidences from revealed scripture. And in the Brahma-saṁhitā also, Kṛṣṇa is accepted as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is a very old book, supposed to be written by Brahma. It is called Brahma-saṁhitā. In that Brahma-saṁhitā it is said that īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ (Bs. 5.1). Īśvaraḥ means God. There are many gods, but... In Sanskrit language, about God, there are many demigods, and there is Supreme God. So this Brahma-saṁhitā says, īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ, "Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme God. He is the God of gods." Īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ (Bs. 5.1). "And His body is eternal, and full of bliss and knowledge." This is the description of the body. Īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ (Bs. 5.1). Anādi, "He has no beginning, but He is the beginning of everyone." Anādir ādir govindaḥ. "And His name is Govinda." Go means senses, and go means cow, and go means land. So He is the proprietor of all land, He is the proprietor of all cows, and He is the, I mean to say, pleasure for all senses. We are after sense pleasure, but our perfection of sense pleasure can be achieved when we reciprocate our pleasure with Kṛṣṇa. Therefore His name is Govinda. Govindam ādi-puruṣaṁ tam ahaṁ bhajāmi **. Govinda is the Supreme original Personality of Godhead.

Lecture on BG 7.1 -- Madras, February 14, 1972:

So that is Vedic injunction. Just like from lawbook when you give evidence before the Justice, it is accepted law. That is in the law. Similarly, whenever there is reference in the Vedic literature, we have to accept. And practically we have seen people did not know the name of Kṛṣṇa three, four years ago, they are mad after Kṛṣṇa, the European, American. This is the practical fact. Therefore through the grace of Lord Caitanya, through the method given by Lord Caitanya, if we approach Kṛṣṇa it becomes very easy. That was the..., detected by Rūpa Goswāmī. Namo mahā-vadānyāya kṛṣṇa-prema-pradāya te (CC Madhya 19.53). Kṛṣṇa-prema. To attain Kṛṣṇa, to understand Kṛṣṇa is very difficult. Kṛṣṇa Himself says so.

Lecture on BG 7.1 -- Hong Kong, January 25, 1975:

So śāstra-cakṣusā. Śāstra... Either you take direct perception or through the śāstra... Through the śāstra the perception is better than direct perception. Therefore our knowledge, those who are following the Vedic principles, their knowledge is derived from the Vedas. They do not manufacture any knowledge. If one thing is understood by the evidence of the Vedas, that is fact. So Kṛṣṇa is understood through the Vedas. Vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyaḥ (BG 15.15). That is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā. You cannot imagine of Kṛṣṇa. If some rascal says that "I am imagining," that is rascaldom. You have to see Kṛṣṇa through the Vedas. Vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyaḥ (BG 15.15). That is the purpose of studying Vedas. Therefore it is called Vedānta. Kṛṣṇa's knowledge is Vedānta. Anta means the end, the last word, last word. So last word... What is the last word of Vedic knowledge? Brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate (SB 1.2.11). First of all knowledge of the Brahman, then Paramātmā, then last knowledge is Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam (SB 1.3.28). Janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1). Kṛṣṇa says, ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavaḥ (BG 10.8). Sarvasya, or Brahman, Paramātmā, and Bhagavān. The Bhagavān is the origin of Paramātmā and Brahman. Brahmaṇaḥ ahaṁ pratiṣṭhā.

Lecture on BG 7.1-3 -- Ahmedabad, December 14, 1972:

So Lord Caitanya is accepted as Kṛṣṇa Himself. Kṛṣṇa-varṇaṁ tviṣākṛṣṇam... (SB 11.5.32). There are many evidences in the śāstra. So it is due to Lord Caitanya's mercy, if we go through the methods... Caitanya Mahāprabhu appeared as a devotee to teach us how to execute devotional service. So if we follow the footprints of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu, then kṛṣṇa-bhakti becomes very easily available. Therefore, first of all we offer our respect to śrī-kṛṣṇa-caitanya prabhu nityānanda, śrī-advaita gadādhara śrīvāsādi-gaura-bhakta-vṛnda. Then we chant Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa... Because by the mercy of Lord Caitanya, it will be easier to approach Kṛṣṇa.

Lecture on BG 7.4 -- Nairobi, October 31, 1975:

So this is the defect of modern education. So what is beyond your perception, sense perception, that you have to hear. There are two kinds of knowledges: by practical experience, direct perception, and by hearing from authority, aitihya. According to Vedic system, there are three kinds of evidences: direct, and pratyakṣa... Pratyakṣa means direct. And then aitihya and śruti. Śruti. Śruti means hearing from the authority. Just like here we see that there is mind. Everyone knows mind, but it is confirmed by the śāstra because we are hearing from Kṛṣṇa which is called śruti.

Lecture on BG 7.4 -- Nairobi, October 31, 1975:

Asmin dehe, "Within this body, there is the proprietor of the body," that you have to learn by hearing. If you want to see immediately, "Let me see where it is in the...," oh, your so-called scientific research cannot help you. You have to learn it simply by hearing from the authority. This is called śruti, śruti-pramāṇa, śruti-pramāṇa, evidence from śruti.

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

So there are many evidences in the Vedic literature that the spiritual energy is different from the material energy. And if you understand spiritual energy, then you can understand what is God, because spiritual energy is the sample of God. Sample of God. Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā that mamaivāṁśaḥ. Here it is said, jīva-bhūta. What is the jīva-bhūta? He is jīva-bhūta, the living entity. Mama eva aṁśa: "They are My part and parcel, minute particle of Me." Just like father and the son. Son is part of the father bodily, not spiritually. Spiritually he is part of Kṛṣṇa, and materially he is part of the body of the father. So we are not talking of the material. That is going on, of course, but this understanding, Bhagavad-gītā, is completely spiritual understanding.

Lecture on BG 8.21-22 -- New York, November 19, 1966:

So avyakto 'kṣara ity uktaḥ: "It is in the Vedic literature it is said that that spiritual world and the spirit, everything is nonmanifested, but still, that is eternal, eternal." We have to see through the books of knowledge. We have to believe. And it will be revealed, if you follow. Just like you purchase a ticket for going to India, some India Airline or Pan American Airline, you purchase. But why do you purchase? You can disbelieve. So what is the evidence that I shall go to India by purchasing the ticket? But still, with faith, because people are going there, the company's running, under certain circumstances, you create some faith, "Yes, it will take me." And actually, when you purchase ticket and sit down on the plane, ah, next morning you get down. So you have to be... But faith, why you are accepting that faith? Because it is a company which is authorized, which is recognized, and therefore you are creating faith. Faith you must have. Without faith, you cannot go a step forward, even in your ordinary life. But faith, what faith? Ah, the belief and faith should be in the authorized, authorized place. That is the process. Faith we must have. Without faith, we cannot make progress, but not blind faith, but to accept something which is recognized.

Lecture on BG 8.21-22 -- New York, November 19, 1966:

So here Bhagavad-gītā is recognized. Bhagavad-gītā is recognized, so far India is concerned, cent percent. Either they may be theist or atheist, that doesn't matter. Bhagavad-gītā is accepted by all classes of men in India. And so far outside India is concerned, all scholars, all religionists, all philosophers, they have accepted this Bhagavad-gītā as authority. So there is no doubt about Bhagavad-gītā's being authority. Even Professor Einstein, he was reading regularly this Bhagavad-gītā, such a great scientist. So there are many evidences. So you believe this, that there is a spiritual atmosphere and that is the kingdom of God. And here it is stated that yaṁ prāpya na nivartante, if you somehow or other, you can reach that spiritual atmosphere, then the result is na nivartante, you'll have no more to take this material body, na nivartante. Tad dhāma paramaṁ mama. So you'll become quietly and happily situated in your eternal life.

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

Therefore it is a miscalculation that Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Soul, is affected by this material nature. That is not possible. Therefore Kṛṣṇa says that sambhavāmy ātma-māyayā (BG 4.6). Besides that, Kṛṣṇa says that material nature works under His direction, mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ sūyate sa-carācaram (BG 9.10). There are other evidences. In Brahma-samhita:

sṛṣṭi-sthiti-pralaya-sādhana-śaktir ekā

chāyeva yasya bhuvanāni vibharti durgā

icchānurūpam api yasya ca ceṣṭate sā...

(Bs. 5.44)

Sa durgā, icchānurūpam. Yasya icchānurūpam api ceṣṭate. Sa durgā. Sṛṣṭi-sthiti-pralaya-sādhana-śaktiḥ. Durgā is so powerful that it can create..., she can create, she maintains, and she can annihilate everything; still she is working as maidservant under the direction of Govinda. Govindam ādi-puruṣaṁ tam ahaṁ bhajāmi **. And it is confirmed in the Bhagavad-gītā, mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ sūyate sa-carācaram (BG 9.10).

Lecture on BG 9.11-14 -- New York, November 27, 1966:

How we can recognize God? Some supernatural power, evidence of authorities, scriptural evidence. These things are required. So so far Kṛṣṇa is concerned, every authority has accepted Him as God. And when He was present, His activities were superhuman. And from the evidence of Vedic literature, He is God. Then, in spite of all these evidences, if you don't believe Him, then it must be considered that āsuraṁ bhāvam, that "I shall not believe. Whatever evidence you give, and whatever, I mean to say, activities you may show, I'll never believe You God. Finished." Then that is helpless. So avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritam (BG 9.11). Besides that, one must have the eyes to see God also. God cannot be seen with our imperfect senses. So the whole bhakti process, bhakti-yoga, is the process of purifying the senses to take, to understand what is God, what is spirit, what is soul. It requires... Sarvopādhi-vinirmuktaṁ tat-paratvena nirmalam (CC Madhya 19.170).

Lecture on BG 9.26-27 -- New York, December 16, 1966:

So Kṛṣṇa is the best and foremost ācārya, and He is accepted as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In India all schools of, I mean to say, transcendentalists, the impersonalists and the personalists, all of them, they have accepted Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. There is no doubt about it. So here the Lord says Himself that "I eat." So we cannot say that He does not eat. "He does not eat"—in favor of my conclusion, there is no evidence. But here is the evidence, accepted evidence, that God eats. If God eats, then why don't you offer Him to eat? Where is the harm? What is the harm? If your little fruits and flowers offered to God, He accepts it, why don't you offer it? You want to please so many. You flatter so many bosses by supplying good dishes and so many things, and why don't you try to please God? What is the harm? Is there any loss? You are eating every day, and before eating, if you offer to God, what is the harm there? Why people do not take this formula and see the result? If actually God eats from your hand, oh, how much advanced you become in spiritual life you do not know. He accepts your things from your hand. How much fortunate you are.

Lecture on BG 9.34 -- New York, December 26, 1966, 'Who is Crazy?':

"My dear Arjuna, just like the living spark, the living self, is within this body from the womb of the mother, it is developing when, after the father's-mother combination, there is a form of body just like a pea, and then that pea-like form develops within the womb of the mother and, after ten months, there is no more space in the womb of the mother. So the child comes out and again grows. So the growth of the body is going on, or the change of the body is going on." Dehino 'smin yathā dehe (BG 2.13). Dehe means in this body, and dehī means the person who is within this body, he is there, from that pea-like form. Because my form, my measurement is so small that we cannot see. It is not possible. It is ten-thousand, one ten-thousandth part of the tip of the hair. It is so small. So with our material eyes, or with your material conception, we cannot see the soul. But the soul is there, and the proof is, evidence is, because the soul is there, therefore the pea-like form, material body, is growing.

Lecture on BG 13.3 -- Hyderabad, April 19, 1974:

So Kṛṣṇa is perfect. If we take lessons from Kṛṣṇa, instruction from Kṛṣṇa, then we get perfect knowledge. That is the process of studying Bhagavad-gītā. If you accept Kṛṣṇa as ordinary human being, then we are befooled. Avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritam (BG 9.11). We should accept Kṛṣṇa. Why should we accept? Because all the śāstras accept. Kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam (SB 1.3.28). Īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ (Bs. 5.1). Sādhu-śāstra-guru—that is the evidence. According to our Vedic knowledge, we shall accept a thing when it is proved by Vedic evidence. Therefore Veda means knowledge, perfect knowledge.

Lecture on BG 13.4 -- Paris, August 12, 1973:

Just like yesterday one boy and girl came, he's poet. I asked him, "What poetry you write? What is the subject matter?" No subject matter. No subject matter. (laughter) This is pāgal, Pāgal means "mad." Piśācī pāile yena mati-cchana haya māyār grasta jīvera sei dāsa upajaya. Piśācī, ghost. Ghostly haunted. A person, when he becomes ghostly haunted, he speaks all kinds of nonsense. So māyā grasta jīvera sei dāsa upajaya. Those who have come to this material world under the influence of the external energy of Kṛṣṇa, māyā, they are all madmen.

It is not śāstra, it is the opinion of medical science also. The medical science. In India there was a case, a murderer. So his pleader, lawyer pleaded that "This man, when committed this murder, he was insane." So the judge called for the civil surgeon to examine him whether he has got such tendency, insanity. So he gave evidence, "My lord, so far my knowledge concerned, I have tested so many men, everyone is insane. It is a question of degree. Now if you consider that he was insane, you, that is your business to punish him, or not punish him. But so far my knowledge is concerned, I have studied so many men and I have found they are all insane." Actually that is the position.

Lecture on BG 13.15 -- Bombay, October 9, 1973:

Therefore the devotee gradually realizing that, "Yes, I am offering this flower directly to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. I am offering the food directly to the Supreme Personality of Godhead." He is eating. He is perceiving. He is taking the prasādam. He's advancing. He's chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra. It is self-evident. Pratyakṣāvagamaṁ dharmyam. This devotional service is directly appreciated. You haven't got to take certificate from others. If you be engaged in devotional service, you actually realize. Therefore it is called pratyakṣāvagamaṁ dharmyam. Other things will remain in theoretical, but this is such a nice thing, devotional service, that you directly understand how much you are making progress, how much you have appreciated God, how much you have understood Kṛṣṇa. Pratyakṣāvagamaṁ dharmyaṁ su-sukham. Su-sukham.

Lecture on BG 16.7 -- Hawaii, February 3, 1975:

So don't believe your so-called senses as the source of knowledge. No. The source of knowledge should be by hearing. That is called śruti. Therefore Vedas' name is śruti. Śruti-pramāṇa, śruti-pramāṇa. Just like a child or a boy wants to know who is his father. So what is the evidence? That evidence is śruti, hearing from the mother. Mother says, "He is your father." So he hears; he does not see how he became his father. Because before his body was constructed the father was there, how could he see? So by seeing, you cannot ascertain who is your father. You have to hear from the authority. The mother is the authority. Therefore śruti-pramāṇa: the evidence is hearing, not by seeing. Seeing... Our imperfect eyes... There are so many obstacles. So similarly, by direct perception, you cannot have the truth.

Lecture on BG 16.9 -- Hawaii, February 5, 1975:

You have to accept anything from the authorized source. So according to Vedic civilization, all knowledge is received from the Vedas, perfect authorized source. Śruti-pramāṇa, evidence from the śruti, from the Vedas, that is perfect. Therefore, according to Vedic civilization, if you want to establish something you have to quote the section or the injunction from the Vedas, Then it is perfect. In learned circle you cannot say anything hodge-podge. That will not be accepted. If you support your statement from the evidence of the Vedas, then you are accepted as authority. Therefore our principle is... Not only our, this is the Vedic principle. You'll find Caitanya Mahāprabhu giving instruction to Sanātana Gosvāmī, to Rūpa Gosvāmī, or He was talking with Rāmānanda Rāya—in Caitanya-caritāmṛta you'll find—and quoting support from the Vedas. Although Caitanya Mahāprabhu is God Himself, Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa-Caitanya, but He is not, what is called, autocratic or, what is called, dictator. No. You'll never find Him. Whatever He'll say, immediately He supported by Vedic evidence. He can say anything. He can manufacture anything. No, that He does not do. He does not violate the principle. In the Bhagavad-gītā also... Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He's also quoting from Vedas.

Lecture on BG 16.9 -- Hawaii, February 5, 1975:

He says, śāstra, evidence, Vedic evidence, must be accepted. The Vedic evidence is very chronologized in the Vedānta-sūtra. He especially mentioned, brahma-sūtra-padaiḥ. Brahma-sūtra means Vedānta-sūtra. Vedānta-sūtra means the summary of all Vedic knowledge. The Vedic knowledge is given in codes. That is called Brahma-sūtra. Sūtra means code, and Brahman means the Supreme Absolute Truth. Understanding of the absolute truth in code words, and the explanation... A code word requires explanation.