This chapter describes the duties allotted to Manu by the Supreme Personality of Godhead. All the Manus, as well as their sons, the sages, the demigods and the Indras, act under the orders of various incarnations of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. At the end of every catur-yuga, consisting of Satya-yuga, Dvāpara-yuga, Tretā-yuga and Kali-yuga, the sages, acting under the orders of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, distribute the Vedic knowledge and thus reinstate eternal religious principles. Manu's duty is to reestablish the system of religion. Manu's sons execute Manu's orders, and thus the entire universe is maintained by Manu and his descendants. The Indras are various rulers of the heavenly planets. Assisted by the demigods, they rule the three worlds. The Supreme Personality of Godhead also appears as incarnations in different yugas. He appears as Sanaka, Sanātana, Yājñavalkya, Dattātreya and others, and thus He gives instructions in spiritual knowledge, prescribed duties, principles of mystic yoga, and so on. As Marīci and others, He creates progeny; as the king, He punishes the miscreants; and in the form of time, He annihilates the creation. One may argue, "If the all-powerful Supreme Personality of Godhead can do anything simply by His will, why has He arranged for so many personalities to manage?" How and why He does this cannot be understood by those who are under the clutches of māyā.
One may argue...
Expressions researched:
"it may be argued"
|"one may also argue"
|"one may argue"
|"one may then argue"
Bhagavad-gita As It Is
BG Chapters 1 - 6
In the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (1.5.17) Śrī Nārada Muni instructs Vyāsadeva as follows:
- tyaktvā sva-dharmaṁ caraṇāmbujaṁ harer
- bhajann apakvo 'tha patet tato yadi
- yatra kva vābhadram abhūd amuṣya kiṁ
- ko vārtha āpto 'bhajatāṁ sva-dharmataḥ
"If someone gives up all material prospects and takes complete shelter of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, there is no loss or degradation in any way. On the other hand a nondevotee may fully engage in his occupational duties and yet not gain anything." For material prospects there are many activities, both scriptural and customary. A transcendentalist is supposed to give up all material activities for the sake of spiritual advancement in life, Kṛṣṇa consciousness. One may argue that by Kṛṣṇa consciousness one may attain the highest perfection if it is completed, but if one does not attain such a perfectional stage, then he loses both materially and spiritually. It is enjoined in the scriptures that one has to suffer the reaction for not executing prescribed duties; therefore one who fails to discharge transcendental activities properly becomes subjected to these reactions. The Bhāgavatam assures the unsuccessful transcendentalist that there need be no worries. Even though he may be subjected to the reaction for not perfectly executing prescribed duties, he is still not a loser, because auspicious Kṛṣṇa consciousness is never forgotten, and one so engaged will continue to be so even if he is lowborn in the next life. On the other hand, one who simply follows strictly the prescribed duties need not necessarily attain auspicious results if he is lacking in Kṛṣṇa consciousness.
BG Chapters 7 - 12
It may be argued that since Krsna was visible to everyone when He was present on this earth, how can it be said that He is not manifest to everyone? But actually He was not manifest to everyone. When Kṛṣṇa was present there were only a few people who could understand Him to be the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In the assembly of Kurus, when Śiśupāla spoke against Kṛṣṇa's being elected president of the assembly, Bhīṣma supported Him and proclaimed Him to be the Supreme God. Similarly, the Pāṇḍavas and a few others knew that He was the Supreme, but not everyone. He was not revealed to the nondevotees and the common man. Therefore in the Bhagavad-gītā Kṛṣṇa says that but for His pure devotees, all men consider Him to be like themselves. He was manifest only to His devotees as the reservoir of all pleasure. But to others, to unintelligent nondevotees, He was covered by His internal potency.
BG Chapters 13 - 18
When one acts in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, he does not act as the master of the world. Just like a servant, one should act fully under the direction of the Supreme Lord. A servant has no individual independence. He acts only on the order of the master. A servant acting on behalf of the supreme master is unaffected by profit and loss. He simply discharges his duty faithfully in terms of the order of the Lord. Now, one may argue that Arjuna was acting under the personal direction of Kṛṣṇa but when Kṛṣṇa is not present how should one act? If one acts according to the direction of Kṛṣṇa in this book, as well as under the guidance of the representative of Kṛṣṇa, then the result will be the same. The Sanskrit word mat-paraḥ is very important in this verse. It indicates that one has no goal in life save and except acting in Kṛṣṇa consciousness just to satisfy Kṛṣṇa. And while working in that way, one should think of Kṛṣṇa only: "I have been appointed to discharge this particular duty by Kṛṣṇa." While acting in such a way, one naturally has to think of Kṛṣṇa. This is perfect Kṛṣṇa consciousness. One should, however, note that after doing something whimsically he should not offer the result to the Supreme Lord. That sort of duty is not in the devotional service of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. One should act according to the order of Kṛṣṇa. This is a very important point. That order of Kṛṣṇa comes through disciplic succession from the bona fide spiritual master. Therefore the spiritual master's order should be taken as the prime duty of life. If one gets a bona fide spiritual master and acts according to his direction, then one's perfection of life in Kṛṣṇa consciousness is guaranteed.
Srimad-Bhagavatam
SB Canto 1
According to the Vedic literatures, Brahmā, who may be compared to the sun, is not the ultimate creator. It is stated in this śloka that Brahmā was taught Vedic knowledge by the Personality of Godhead. One may argue that Brahmā, being the original living being, could not be inspired because there was no other being living at that time. Herein it is stated that the Supreme Lord inspired the secondary creator, Brahmā, in order that Brahmā could carry out his creative functions. So, the supreme intelligence behind all creations is the Absolute Godhead, Śrī Kṛṣṇa. In Bhagavad-gītā, Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa states that it is He only who superintends the creative energy, prakṛti, which constitutes the totality of matter. Therefore, Śrī Vyāsadeva does not worship Brahmā, but the Supreme Lord, who guides Brahmā in his creative activities.
One may argue that the Vedic activities are based on sacrificial ceremonies. That is true. But all such sacrifices are also meant for realizing the truth about Vāsudeva. Another name of Vāsudeva is Yajña (sacrifice), and in the Bhagavad-gītā it is clearly stated that all sacrifices and all activities are to be conducted for the satisfaction of Yajña, or Viṣṇu, the Personality of Godhead. This is the case also with the yoga systems. Yoga means to get into touch with the Supreme Lord.
Dhanur-veda, or military science, was taught by Droṇācārya with all its confidential secrets of throwing and controlling by Vedic hymns. Gross military science is dependent on material weapons, but finer than that is the art of throwing the arrows saturated with Vedic hymns, which act more effectively than gross material weapons like machine guns or atomic bombs. The control is by Vedic mantras, or the transcendental science of sound. It is said in the Rāmāyaṇa that Mahārāja Daśaratha, the father of Lord Śrī Rāma, used to control arrows by sound only. He could pierce his target with his arrow by only hearing the sound, without seeing the object. So this is a finer military science than that of the gross material military weapons used nowadays. Arjuna was taught all this, and therefore Draupadī wished that Arjuna feel obliged to Ācārya Droṇa for all these benefits. And in the absence of Droṇācārya, his son was his representative. That was the opinion of the good lady Draupadī. It may be argued why Droṇācārya, a rigid brāhmaṇa, should be a teacher in military science. But the reply is that a brāhmaṇa should become a teacher, regardless of what his department of knowledge is. A learned brāhmaṇa should become a teacher, a priest and a recipient of charity. A bona fide brāhmaṇa is authorized to accept such professions.
In the Vedas and Vedic literatures (Śruti and Smṛti) it is affirmed that in the Divinity there is nothing material. He is transcendental (nirguṇa) only, the supreme cognizant. Hari, or the Personality of Godhead, is the supreme transcendental person situated beyond the range of material affection. These statements are also confirmed even by Ācārya Śaṅkara. One may argue that His relation with the goddesses of fortune may be transcendental, but what about His relation with the Yadu dynasty, being born in that family, or His killing the nonbelievers like Jarāsandha and other asuras directly in contact with the modes of material nature. The answer is that the divinity of the Personality of Godhead is never in contact with the qualities of material nature in any circumstances. Actually He is in contact with such qualities because He is the ultimate source of everything, yet He is above the actions of such qualities. He is known, therefore, as Yogeśvara, or the master of mystic power, or in other words the all-powerful. Even His learned devotees are not affected by the influence of the material modes. The great six Gosvāmīs of Vṛndāvana all came from greatly rich and aristocratic families, but when they adopted the life of mendicants at Vṛndāvana, superficially they appeared to be in wretched conditions of life, but factually they were the richest of all in spiritual values. Such mahā-bhāgavatas, or first-grade devotees, although moving amongst men, are not contaminated by honor or insult, hunger or satisfaction, sleep or wakefulness, which are all resultant actions of the three modes of material nature. Similarly, some of them are engaged in worldly dealings, yet are unaffected. Unless these neutralities of life are there, one cannot be considered situated in transcendence. The Divinity and His associates are on the same transcendental plane, and their glories are always sanctified by the action of yogamāyā, or the internal potency of the Lord.
We must know for certain that the particular position in which we are now set up is an arrangement of the supreme will in terms of our own acts in the past. The Supreme Lord is present as the localized Paramātmā in the heart of every living being, as it is said in the Bhagavad-gītā (13.23), and therefore he knows everything of our activities in every stage of our lives. He rewards the reactions of our actions by placing us in some particular place. A rich man gets his son born with a silver spoon in his mouth, but the child who came as the rich man's son deserved such a place, and therefore he is placed there by the will of the Lord. And at a particular moment when the child has to be removed from that place, he is also carried by the will of the Supreme, even if the child or the father does not wish to be separated from the happy relation. The same thing happens in the case of a poor man also. Neither rich man nor poor man has any control over such meetings or separations of living beings. The example of a player and his playthings should not be misunderstood. One may argue that since the Lord is bound to award the reactionary results of our own actions, the example of a player cannot be applied. But it is not so. We must always remember that the Lord is the supreme will, and He is not bound by any law. Generally the law of karma is that one is awarded the result of one's own actions, but in special cases, by the will of the Lord, such resultant actions are changed also. But this change can be affected by the will of the Lord only, and no other. Therefore, the example of the player cited in this verse is quite appropriate, for the Supreme Will is absolutely free to do whatever He likes, and because He is all-perfect, there is no mistake in any of His actions or reactions. These changes of resultant actions are especially rendered by the Lord when a pure devotee is involved. It is assured in the Bhagavad-gītā (9.30-31) that the Lord saves a pure devotee who has surrendered unto Him without reservation from all sorts of reactions of sins, and there is no doubt about this. There are hundreds of examples of reactions changed by the Lord in the history of the world. If the Lord is able to change the reactions of one's past deeds, then certainly He is not Himself bound by any action or reaction of His own deeds. He is perfect and transcendental to all laws.
SB Canto 2
It may be argued that Śukadeva Gosvāmī is not the only authority of perfect knowledge in transcendence because there are many other sages and their followers. Contemporary to Vyāsadeva or even prior to him there were many other great sages, such as Gautama, Kaṇāda, Jaimini, Kapila and Aṣṭāvakra, and all of them have presented a philosophical path by themselves. Patañjali is also one of them, and all these six great ṛṣis have their own way of thinking, exactly like the modern philosophers and mental speculators. The difference between the six philosophical paths put forward by the renowned sages above mentioned and that of Śukadeva Gosvāmī, as presented in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, is that all the six sages mentioned above speak the facts according to their own thinking, but Śukadeva Gosvāmī presents the knowledge which comes down directly from Brahmājī, who is known as ātma-bhūḥ, or born of and educated by the Almighty Personality of Godhead.
SB Canto 3
The Lord points out material nature in its subtle stage, which is called pradhāna, and He analyzes this pradhāna. The explanation of pradhāna and prakṛti is that pradhāna is the subtle, undifferentiated sum total of all material elements. Although they are undifferentiated, one can understand that the total material elements are contained therein. When the total material elements are manifested by the interaction of the three modes of material nature, the manifestation is called prakṛti. Impersonalists say that Brahman is without variegatedness and without differentiation. One may say that pradhāna is the Brahman stage, but actually the Brahman stage is not pradhāna. pradhāna is distinct from Brahman because in Brahman there is no existence of the material modes of nature. One may argue that the mahat-tattva is also different from pradhāna because in the mahat-tattva there are manifestations. The actual explanation of pradhāna, however, is given here: when the cause and effect are not clearly manifested (avyakta), the reaction of the total elements does not take place, and that stage of material nature is called pradhāna. Pradhāna is not the time element because in the time element there are actions and reactions, creation and annihilation. Nor is it the jīva, or marginal potency of living entities, or designated, conditioned living entities, because the designations of the living entities are not eternal. One adjective used in this connection is nitya, which indicates eternality. Therefore the condition of material nature immediately previous to its manifestation is called pradhāna.
The example set herein is that the sinful person suffers just like a man who has lost his wealth. The human form of body is achieved by the conditioned soul after many, many births and is a very valuable asset. Instead of utilizing this life to get liberation, if one uses it simply for the purpose of maintaining his so-called family and therefore performs foolish and unauthorized action, he is compared to a man who has lost his wealth and who, upon losing it, laments. When wealth is lost, there is no use lamenting, but as long as there is wealth, one has to utilize it properly and thereby gain eternal profit. It may be argued that when a man leaves his money earned by sinful activities, he also leaves his sinful activities here with his money. But it is especially mentioned herein that by superior arrangement (daivenāsāditam), although the man leaves behind him his sinfully earned money, he carries the effect of it. When a man steals some money, if he is caught and agrees to return it, he is not freed from the criminal punishment. By the law of the state, even though he returns the money, he has to undergo the punishment. Similarly, the money earned by a criminal process may be left by the man when dying, but by superior arrangement he carries with him the effect, and therefore he has to suffer hellish life.
SB Canto 4
It may be argued that since Dakṣa was very learned, wealthy and austere and had descended from a very exalted heritage, how could he be unnecessarily angry towards another? The answer is that when the qualities of good education, good parentage, beauty and sufficient wealth are misplaced in a person who is puffed up by all these possessions, they produce a very bad result. Milk is a very nice food, but when milk is touched by an envious serpent it becomes poisonous. Similarly, material assets such as education, wealth, beauty and good parentage are undoubtedly nice, but when they decorate persons of a malicious nature, then they act adversely. Another example, given by Cāṇakya Paṇḍita, is that a serpent that has a jewel on its head is still fearful because it is a serpent. A serpent, by nature, is envious of other living entities, even though they be faultless. When a serpent bites another creature, it is not necessarily because the other creature is at fault; it is the habit of the serpent to bite innocent creatures. Similarly, although Dakṣa was qualified by many material assets, because he was proud of his possessions and because he was envious, all those qualities were polluted.
It may be argued that since Dakṣa was the father-in-law of Lord Śiva, it was certainly the duty of Lord Śiva to offer him respect. In answer to that argument it is explained here that when a learned person stands up or offers obeisances in welcome, he offers respect to the Supersoul, who is sitting within everyone's heart. It is seen, therefore, among Vaiṣṇavas, that even when a disciple offers obeisances to his spiritual master, the spiritual master immediately returns the obeisances because they are mutually offered not to the body but to the Supersoul. Therefore the spiritual master also offers respect to the Supersoul situated in the body of the disciple. The Lord says in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam that offering respect to His devotee is more valuable than offering respect to Him. Devotees do not identify with the body, so offering respect to a Vaiṣṇava means offering respect to Viṣṇu. It is stated also that as a matter of etiquette as soon as one sees a Vaiṣṇava one must immediately offer him respect, indicating the Supersoul sitting within. A Vaiṣṇava sees the body as a temple of Viṣṇu. Since Lord Śiva had already offered respect to the Supersoul in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, offering respect to Dakṣa, who identified with his body, was already performed. There was no need to offer respect to his body, for that is not directed by any Vedic injunction.
It may be argued that all householders are not very rich and that one cannot receive great saintly persons or preachers because they are always accompanied by their disciples. If a householder is to receive a saintly person, he has to receive his entourage also. It is said in the śāstras that Durvāsā Muni was always accompanied by sixty thousand disciples and that if there was a little discrepancy in their reception, he would be very angry and would sometimes curse the host. The fact is that every householder, regardless of his position or economic condition, can at least receive saintly guests with great devotion and offer them drinking water, for drinking water is available always. In India the custom is that even an ordinary person is offered a glass of water if he suddenly visits and one cannot offer him foodstuff. If there is no water, then one can offer a sitting place, even if it is on straw mats. And if one has no straw mat, he can immediately cleanse the ground and ask the guest to sit there. Supposing that a householder cannot even do that, then with folded hands he can simply receive the guest, saying, "Welcome." And if he cannot do that, then he should feel very sorry for his poor condition and shed tears and simply offer obeisances with his whole family, wife and children. In this way he can satisfy any guest, even if the guest is a saintly person or a king.
To try to stop desires is impossible. One has to desire the Supreme in order not to be entangled in inferior desires. Jñānīs maintain a desire to become one with the Supreme, but such desire is also considered to be kāma, lust. Similarly, the yogīs desire mystic power, and that is also kāma. And the bhaktas, not being desirous of any sort of material enjoyment, become purified. There is no artificial attempt to stop desire. Desire becomes a source of spiritual enjoyment under the protection of the toes of the lotus feet of the Lord. It is stated herein by the Kumāras that the lotus feet of Lord Kṛṣṇa are the ultimate reservoir of all pleasure. One should therefore take shelter of the lotus feet of the Lord instead of trying unsuccessfully to stop desires for material enjoyment. As long as one is unable to stop the desire for material enjoyment, there is no possibility of becoming liberated from the entanglement of material existence. It may be argued that the waves of a river are incessantly flowing and that they cannot be stopped, but the waves of the river flow toward the sea. When the tide comes over the river, it overwhelms the flowing of the river, and the river itself becomes overflooded, and the waves from the sea become more prominent than the waves from the river. Similarly, a devotee with intelligence plans so many things for the service of the Lord in Kṛṣṇa consciousness that stagnant material desires become overflooded by the desire to serve the Lord.
This material world is often described as an ocean of nescience. In such an ocean, everything is agitated. The mind of a great devotee is also like an ocean or a very large lake, but there is no agitation. As stated in Bhagavad-gītā (2.41): vyavasāyātmikā buddhir ekeha kuru-nandana. Those who are fixed in the service of the Lord are not agitated by anything. It is also stated in Bhagavad-gītā (6.22): yasmin sthito na duḥkhena guruṇāpi vicālyate. Even if he suffers some reversals in life, a devotee is never agitated. Therefore whoever takes shelter of a great soul or a great devotee becomes pacified. In the Caitanya-caritāmṛta (CC Madhya 19.149) it is stated: kṛṣṇa-bhakta-niṣkāma, ataeva 'śānta.' A devotee of Lord Kṛṣṇa is always peaceful because he has no desire, whereas the yogīs, karmīs and jñānīs have so many desires to fulfill. One may argue that the devotees have desires, for they wish to go home, back to Godhead, but such a desire does not agitate the mind. Although he wishes to go back to Godhead, a devotee is satisfied in any condition of life. Consequently, the word mahan-manaḥ is used in this verse to indicate that the reservoir of water was as calm and quiet as the mind of a great devotee.
SB Canto 5
In the Fourth Canto, Śrīla Śukadeva Gosvāmī explains that Nārada Muni perfectly instructed King Priyavrata about the mission of human life. The mission of human life is to realize one's self and then gradually to go back home, back to Godhead. Since Nārada Muni instructed the King fully on this subject, why did he again enter household life, which is the main cause of material bondage? Mahārāja Parīkṣit was greatly astonished that King Priyavrata remained in household life, especially since he was not only a self-realized soul but also a first-class devotee of the Lord. A devotee actually has no attraction for household life, but surprisingly, King Priyavrata enjoyed household life very much. One may argue, "Why is it wrong to enjoy household life?" The reply is that in household life one becomes bound by the results of fruitive activities. The essence of household life is sense enjoyment, and as long as one engrosses his mind in working hard for sense enjoyment, one becomes bound by the reactions of fruitive activities. This ignorance of self-realization is the greatest defeat in human life. The human form of life is especially meant for getting out of the bondage of fruitive activities, but as long as one is forgetful of his life's mission and acts like an ordinary animal—eating, sleeping, mating and defending—he must continue his conditioned life of material existence. Such a life is called svarūpa-vismṛti, forgetfulness of one's real constitutional position. Therefore in Vedic civilization one is trained in the very beginning of life as a brahmacārī. A brahmacārī must execute austerities and refrain from sex indulgence. Therefore if one is completely trained in the principles of brahmacarya, he generally does not enter household life. He is then called a naiṣṭhika-brahmacārī, which indicates total celibacy. King Parīkṣit was thus astonished that the great King Priyavrata, although trained in the principles of naiṣṭhika-brahmacarya, entered household life.
Since the material world is compared herein to a forest, it may be argued that in Kali-yuga modern civilization is mainly situated in the cities. A great city, however, is like a great forest. Actually city life is more dangerous than life in the forest. If one enters an unknown city without friend or shelter, living in that city is more difficult than living in a forest. There are many big cities all over the surface of the globe, and wherever one looks he sees the struggle for existence going on twenty-four hours a day, people rush about in cars going seventy and eighty miles an hour, constantly coming and going, and this sets the scene of the great struggle for existence. One has to rise early in the morning and travel in that car at breakneck speed. There is always the danger of an accident, and one has to take great care. In his automobile, the living entity is full of anxieties, and his struggle is not at all auspicious. Apart from human beings, other species like cats and dogs are also struggling very hard day and night for existence. Thus the struggle for existence continues, and the conditioned soul changes from one position to another.
It may be argued that the demigods are as important as Lord Viṣṇu because the names of the demigods are different names of Viṣṇu. This, however, is not a sound conclusion, for it is contradicted in the Vedic literatures. The Vedas declare:
- candramā manaso jātaś cakṣoḥ sūryo ajāyata; śrotrādayaś ca prāṇaś ca mukhād agnir ajāyata; nārāyaṇād brahmā, nārāyaṇād rudro jāyate, nārāyaṇāt prajāpatiḥ jāyate, nārāyaṇād indro jāyate, nārāyaṇād aṣṭau vasavo jāyante, nārāyaṇād ekādaśa rudrā jāyante.
"The demigod of the moon, Candra, came from the mind of Nārāyaṇa, and the sun-god came from His eyes. The controlling deities of hearing and the life air came from Nārāyaṇa, and the controlling deity of fire was generated from His mouth. Prajāpati, Lord Brahmā, came from Nārāyaṇa, Indra came from Nārāyaṇa, and the eight Vasus, the eleven expansions of Lord Śiva and the twelve Ādityas also came from Nārāyaṇa." In the smṛti Vedic literature it is also said:
- brahmā śambhus tathaivārkaś
- candramāś ca śatakratuḥ
- evam ādyās tathaivānye
- yuktā vaiṣṇava-tejasā
- jagat-kāryāvasāne tu
- viyujyante ca tejasā
- vitejaś ca te sarve
- pañcatvam upayānti te
"Brahmā, Śambhu, Sūrya and Indra are all merely products of the power of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is also true of the many other demigods whose names are not mentioned here. When the cosmic manifestation is annihilated, these different expansions of Nārāyaṇa's potencies will merge into Nārāyaṇa. In other words, all these demigods will die. Their living force will be withdrawn, and they will merge into Nārāyaṇa."
Therefore it should be concluded that Lord Viṣṇu, not Lord Brahmā or Lord Śiva, is the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
SB Canto 6
One may argue, "Since he was constantly chanting the name of Nārāyaṇa, how was it possible for him to be associating with a prostitute and thinking of wine?" By his sinful actions he was bringing suffering upon himself again and again, and therefore one may say that his ultimate chanting of Nārāyaṇa was the cause of his being freed. However, his chanting would then have been a nāma-aparādha. Nāmno balād yasya hi pāpa-buddhiḥ: one who continues to act sinfully and tries to neutralize his sins by chanting the holy name of the Lord is a nāma-aparādhī, an offender to the holy name. In response it may be said that Ajāmila's chanting was inoffensive because he did not chant the name of Nārāyaṇa with the purpose of counteracting his sins. He did not know that he was addicted to sinful actions, nor did he know that his chanting of the name of Nārāyaṇa was neutralizing them. Thus he did not commit a nāma-aparādha, and his repeated chanting of the holy name of Nārāyaṇa while calling his son may be called pure chanting. Because of this pure chanting, Ajāmila unconsciously accumulated the results of bhakti. Indeed, even his first utterance of the holy name was sufficient to nullify all the sinful reactions of his life. To cite a logical example, a fig tree does not immediately yield fruits, but in time the fruits are available. Similarly, Ajāmila's devotional service grew little by little, and therefore although he committed very sinful acts, the reactions did not affect him. In the śāstras it is said that if one chants the holy name of the Lord even once, the reactions of past, present or future sinful life do not affect him. To give another example, if one extracts the poison fangs of a serpent, this saves the serpent's future victims from poisonous effects, even if the serpent bites repeatedly. Similarly, if a devotee chants the holy name even once inoffensively, this protects him eternally. He need only wait for the results of the chanting to mature in due course of time.
One may argue that the sacrifice of animals is recommended in the Vedas. This recommendation, however, is a restriction. Without Vedic restrictions on the purchase of meat, people will purchase meat from the market, which will be overflooded with meat shops, and slaughterhouses will increase. To restrict this, sometimes the Vedas say that one may eat meat after sacrificing an insignificant animal like a goat before the goddess Kālī. In any case, a system of religion in which animal sacrifices are recommended is inauspicious for those who perform the sacrifices and for the animals. Envious persons who perform ostentatious animal sacrifices are condemned in Bhagavad-gītā (16.17) as follows:
- ātma-sambhāvitāḥ stabdhā
- dhana-māna-madānvitāḥ
- yajante nāma-yajñais te
- dambhenāvidhi-pūrvakam
"Self-complacent and always impudent, deluded by wealth and false prestige, they sometimes perform sacrifices in name only without following any rules or regulations." Sometimes animal sacrifices are performed very gorgeously with grand arrangements for worshiping the goddess Kālī, but such festivals, although performed in the name of yajña, are not actually yajña, for yajña means to satisfy the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore it is recommended that in this age specifically, yajñaiḥ saṅkīrtana-prāyair yajanti hi sumedhasaḥ: (SB 11.5.32) those who have good intelligence satisfy the yajña-puruṣa, Viṣṇu, by chanting the Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra.
SB Canto 7
Another point is that trees also should be given protection. During its lifetime, a tree should not be cut for industrial enterprises. In Kali-yuga, trees are indiscriminately and unnecessarily cut for industry, in particular for paper mills that manufacture a profuse quantity of paper for the publication of demoniac propaganda, nonsensical literature, huge quantities of newspapers and many other paper products. This is a sign of a demoniac civilization. The cutting of trees is prohibited unless necessary for the service of Lord Viṣṇu. Yajñārthāt karmaṇo'nyatra loko'yaṁ karma-bandhanaḥ: (BG 3.9)) "work done as a sacrifice for Lord Viṣṇu must be performed, otherwise work binds one to this material world." But if the paper mills stop producing paper, one may argue, how can our ISKCON literature be published? The answer is that the paper mills should manufacture paper only for the publication of ISKCON literature because ISKCON literature is published for the service of Lord Viṣṇu. This literature clarifies our relationship with Lord Viṣṇu, and therefore the publication of ISKCON literature is the performance of yajña. Yajñārthāt karmaṇo 'nyatra loko 'yaṁ karma-bandhanaḥ (BG 3.9)). Yajña must be performed, as indicated by the superior authorities. The cutting of trees simply to manufacture paper for the publication of unwanted literature is the greatest sinful act.
One may argue, "When we analyze the body we find a head, hands, legs, a belly, blood, bones, urine, stool and so on, but after everything is considered, where is the existence of the soul?" A sober man, however, avails himself of this Vedic instruction:
yato vā imāni bhūtāni jāyante; yena jātāni jīvanti; yat prayanty abhisaṁviśanti; tad vijijñāsasva; tad brahmeti.
- (Taittirīya Upaniṣad 3.1.1)
Thus he can understand that the head, hands, legs and indeed the entire body have grown on the basis of the soul. If the soul is within, the body, head, hands and legs grow, but otherwise they do not. A dead child does not grow up, for the soul is not present. If by a careful analysis of the body one still cannot find the existence of the soul, this is due to his ignorance. How can a gross man fully engaged in materialistic activities understand the soul, which is a small particle of spirit one ten-thousandth the size of the tip of a hair? Such a person foolishly thinks that the material body has grown from a combination of chemicals, although he cannot find them. The Vedas inform us, however, that chemical combinations do not constitute the living force; the living force is the ātmā and Paramātmā, and the body grows on the basis of that living force. The fruit of a tree grows and undergoes six kinds of change because of the presence of the tree. If there were no tree, there could be no question of the growth and maturity of fruit. Therefore, beyond the existence of the body are the Paramātmā and ātmā within the body. This is the first understanding of spiritual knowledge explained in Bhagavad-gītā.
It is recommended that one honor the spiritual master as being on an equal status with the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Sākṣād dharitvena samasta-śāstraiḥ. This is enjoined in every scripture. Ācāryaṁ māṁ vijānīyāt (SB 11.17.27). One should consider the ācārya to be as good as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In spite of all these instructions, if one considers the spiritual master an ordinary human being, one is doomed. His study of the Vedas and his austerities and penances for enlightenment are all useless, like the bathing of an elephant. An elephant bathes in a lake quite thoroughly, but as soon as it comes on the shore it takes some dust from the ground and strews it over its body. Thus there is no meaning to the elephant's bath. One may argue by saying that since the spiritual master's relatives and the men of his neighborhood consider him an ordinary human being, what is the fault on the part of the disciple who considers the spiritual master an ordinary human being? This will be answered in the next verse, but the injunction is that the spiritual master should never be considered an ordinary man. One should strictly adhere to the instructions of the spiritual master, for if he is pleased, certainly the Supreme Personality of Godhead is pleased. Yasya prasādād bhagavat-prasādo yasyāprasādān na gatiḥ kuto 'pi **.
One may argue that one may achieve the ultimate goal of life—realization of the Supersoul—by practicing the yoga system and ritualistic performances according to the Vedic principles, even without staunch devotion to the spiritual master. The actual fact, however, is that by practicing yoga one must come to the platform of meditating upon the Supreme Personality of Godhead. As stated in the scriptures, dhyānāvasthita-tad-gatena manasā paśyanti yaṁ yoginaḥ: (SB 12.13.1) a person in meditation achieves the perfection of yoga practice when he can see the Supreme Personality of Godhead. By various practices, one may come to the point of controlling the senses, but simply controlling the senses does not bring one to a substantial conclusion. However, by staunch faith in the spiritual master and the Supreme Personality of Godhead, one not only controls the senses but also realizes the Supreme Lord.
SB Canto 8
In Bhagavad-gītā the Lord clearly says, mṛtyuḥ sarva-haraś cāham: (BG 10.34) "I am all-devouring death." Thus mṛtyu, or death, is the representative who takes everything away from the living entity who has accepted a material body. No one can say, "I do not fear death." This is a false proposition. Everyone fears death. However, one who seeks shelter of the Supreme Personality of Godhead can be saved from death. One may argue, "Does the devotee not die?" The answer is that a devotee certainly must give up his body, for the body is material. The difference is, however, that for one who surrenders to Kṛṣṇa fully and who is protected by Kṛṣṇa, the present body is his last; he will not again receive a material body to be subjected to death. This is assured in Bhagavad-gītā (4.9). Tyaktvā dehaṁ punar janma naiti mām eti so'rjuna: a devotee, after giving up his body, does not accept a material body, but returns home, back to Godhead. We are always in danger because at any moment death can take place. It is not that only Gajendra, the King of the elephants, was afraid of death. Everyone should fear death because everyone is caught by the crocodile of eternal time and may die at any moment. The best course, therefore, is to seek shelter of Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and be saved from the struggle for existence in this material world, in which one repeatedly takes birth and dies. To reach this understanding is the ultimate goal of life.
SB Canto 9
For a devotee there is no pain, pleasure or material perfection. One may argue that at the time of death a devotee also suffers because of giving up his material body. But in this connection the example may be given that a cat carries a mouse in its mouth and also carries a kitten in its mouth. Both the mouse and the kitten are carried in the same mouth, but the perception of the mouse is different from that of the kitten. When a devotee gives up his body (tyaktvā deham), he is ready to go back home, back to Godhead. Thus his perception is certainly different from that of a person being taken away by Yamarāja for punishment. A person whose intelligence is always concentrated upon the service of the Lord is unafraid of accepting a material body, whereas a nondevotee, having no engagement in the service of the Lord, is very much afraid of accepting a material body or giving up his present one. Therefore, we should follow the instruction of Caitanya Mahāprabhu: mama janmani janmanīśvare bhavatād bhaktir ahaitukī tvayi (Cc. Antya 20.29, Śikṣāṣṭaka 4). It doesn't matter whether we accept a material body or a spiritual body; our only ambition should be to serve the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
SB Canto 10.1 to 10.13
One may argue that the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who creates the whole cosmic manifestation simply by His glance, cannot come within the womb of Devakī, the wife of Vasudeva. To eradicate this argument, Vasudeva said, "My dear Lord, it is not very wonderful that You appeared within the womb of Devakī, for the creation was also made in that way. You were lying in the Causal Ocean as Mahā-Viṣṇu, and by Your breathing, innumerable universes came into existence. Then You entered into each of the universes as Garbhodakaśāyī Viṣṇu. Then again You expanded Yourself as Kṣīrodakaśāyī Viṣṇu and entered into the heart of all living entities and entered even within the atoms. Therefore Your entrance into the womb of Devakī is understandable in the same way. You appear to have entered, but You are simultaneously all-pervading. We can understand Your entrance and nonentrance from material examples. The total material energy remains intact even after being divided into sixteen elements. The material body is nothing but a combination of the five gross elements—namely earth, water, fire, air and ether. Whenever there is a material body, it appears that such elements are newly created, but actually the elements are always existing outside of the body. Similarly, although You appear as a child in the womb of Devakī, You are also existing outside. You are always in Your abode, but still You can simultaneously expand Yourself into millions of forms."
The word dharma means "engagement." One who is engaged in the service of the Lord (yato bhaktir adhokṣaje), without impediment and without cessation, is understood to be situated in his original, spiritual status. When one is promoted to this status, one is always happy in transcendental bliss. Otherwise, as long as one is in the bodily concept of life, one must suffer material conditions. Janma-mṛtyu jarā-vyādhi-duḥkha-doṣānudarśanam (BG 13.9). The body is subject to its own principles of birth, death, old age and disease, but one who is situated in spiritual life (yato bhaktir adhokṣaje) has no birth, no death, no old age and no disease. One may argue that we may see a person who is spiritually engaged twenty-four hours a day but is still suffering from disease. In fact, however, he is neither suffering nor diseased; otherwise he could not be engaged twenty-four hours a day in spiritual activities. The example may be given in this connection that sometimes dirty foam or garbage is seen floating on the water of the Ganges. This is called nīra-dharma, a function of the water. But one who goes to the Ganges does not mind the foam and dirty things floating in the water. With his hand, he pushes away such nasty things, bathes in the Ganges and gains the beneficial results. Therefore, one who is situated in the spiritual status of life is unaffected by foam and garbage—or any superficial dirty things.
Gargamuni indirectly disclosed that Kṛṣṇa was the son of Devakī, not of Yaśodā. Since Kaṁsa was already searching for Kṛṣṇa, if the purificatory process were undertaken by Gargamuni, Kaṁsa might be informed, and that would create a catastrophe. It may be argued that although Gargamuni was the priest of the Yadu dynasty, Nanda Mahārāja also belonged to that dynasty. Nanda Mahārāja, however, was not acting as a kṣatriya. Therefore Gargamuni said, "If I act as your priest, this will confirm that Kṛṣṇa is the son of Devakī."
By His one plenary portion as Paramātmā, the Lord controls innumerable universes, with all their demigods; yet He agrees to be controlled by a devotee. In the Upaniṣads it is said that the Supreme Personality of Godhead can run with more speed than the mind, but here we see that although Kṛṣṇa wanted to avoid being arrested by His mother, He was finally defeated, and mother Yaśodā captured Him. Lakṣmī-sahasra-śata-sambhrama-sevyamānam: (Bs. 5.29) Kṛṣṇa is served by hundreds and thousands of goddesses of fortune. Nonetheless, He steals butter like one who is poverty-stricken. Yamarāja, the controller of all living entities, fears the order of Kṛṣṇa, yet Kṛṣṇa is afraid of His mother's stick. These contradictions cannot be understood by one who is not a devotee, but a devotee can understand how powerful is unalloyed devotional service to Kṛṣṇa; it is so powerful that Kṛṣṇa can be controlled by an unalloyed devotee. This bhṛtya-vaśyatā does not mean that He is under the control of the servant; rather, He is under the control of the servant's pure love. In Bhagavad-gītā (1.21) it is said that Kṛṣṇa became the chariot driver of Arjuna. Arjuna ordered Him, senayor ubhayor madhye rathaṁ sthāpaya me 'cyuta: "My dear Kṛṣṇa, You have agreed to be my charioteer and to execute my orders. Place my chariot between the two armies of soldiers." Kṛṣṇa immediately executed this order, and therefore one may argue that Kṛṣṇa also is not independent. But this is one's ajñāna, ignorance. Kṛṣṇa is always fully independent; when He becomes subordinate to His devotees, this is a display of ānanda-cinmaya-rasa, the humor of transcendental qualities that increases His transcendental pleasure. Everyone worships Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and therefore He sometimes desires to be controlled by someone else. Such a controller can be no one else but a pure devotee.
As stated by Caitanya Mahāprabhu (CC Madhya 22.54):
'sādhu-saṅga,' 'sādhu-saṅga'—sarva-śāstre kaya
- lava-mātra sādhu-saṅge sarva-siddhi haya
If by chance one meets a sādhu, a devotee, one's life is immediately successful, and one is freed from material bondage. It may be argued that whereas someone may receive a sādhu with great respect, someone else may not receive a sādhu with such respect. A sādhu, however, is always equipoised toward everyone. Because of being a pure devotee, a sādhu is always ready to deliver Kṛṣṇa consciousness without discrimination. As soon as one sees a sādhu, one naturally becomes free. Nonetheless, persons who are too much offensive, who commit vaiṣṇava-aparādhas, or offenses to a sādhu, will have to take some time before being rectified. This is also indicated herein.
But the liberation of those who are on the transcendental platform of love and affection is vimukti, special liberation. Thus the serpent first entered the body of Kṛṣṇa personally and mixed with the Brahman effulgence. This merging is called sāyujya-mukti. But from later verses we find that Aghāsura attained sārūpya-mukti. Text 38 explains that Aghāsura attained a body exactly like that of Viṣṇu, and the verse after that also clearly states that he attained a completely spiritual body like that of Nārāyaṇa. Therefore in two or three places the Bhāgavatam has confirmed that Aghāsura attained sārūpya-mukti. One may then argue, How is it that he mixed with the Brahman effulgence? The answer is that as Jaya and Vijaya, after three births, again attained sārūpya-mukti and association with the Lord, Aghāsura received a similar liberation.
The process for receiving the favor of the Supreme Personality of Godhead is described here. Yat-pāda-paṅkaja-palāśa-vilāsa-bhaktyā (SB 4.22.39). Simply by thinking of Kṛṣṇa, one can attain Him very easily. Kṛṣṇa is also described as having His lotus feet always within the hearts of His devotees (bhagavān bhakta-hṛdi sthitaḥ). In the case of Aghāsura, one may argue that he was not a devotee. The answer to this is that he thought of Kṛṣṇa for a moment with devotion. Bhaktyāham ekayā grāhyaḥ. Without devotion, one cannot think of Kṛṣṇa; and, conversely, whenever one thinks of Kṛṣṇa, one undoubtedly has devotion. Although Aghāsura's purpose was to kill Kṛṣṇa, for a moment Aghāsura thought of Kṛṣṇa with devotion, and Kṛṣṇa and His associates wanted to sport within Aghāsura's mouth. Similarly, Pūtanā wanted to kill Kṛṣṇa by poisoning Him, but Kṛṣṇa took her as His mother because He had accepted the milk of her breast. Svalpam apy asya dharmasya trāyate mahato bhayāt (BG 2.40). Especially when Kṛṣṇa appears as an avatāra, anyone who thinks of Kṛṣṇa in His different incarnations (rāmādi-mūrtiṣu kalā-niyamena tiṣṭhan (Bs. 5.39)), and especially in His original form as Kṛṣṇa, attains salvation. There are many instances of this, and among them is Aghāsura, who attained the salvation of sārūpya-mukti. Therefore the process is satataṁ kīrtayanto māṁ yatantaś ca dṛḍha-vratāḥ (BG 9.14). Those who are devotees always engage in glorifying Kṛṣṇa. Advaitam acyutam anādim ananta-rūpam: (Bs. 5.33) when we speak of Kṛṣṇa, we refer to all His avatāras, such as Kṛṣṇa, Govinda, Nārāyaṇa, Viṣṇu, Lord Caitanya, Kṛṣṇa-Balarāma and Śyāmasundara. One who always thinks of Kṛṣṇa must attain vimukti, special salvation as the Lord's personal associate, not necessarily in Vṛndāvana, but at least in Vaikuṇṭha. This is called sārūpya-mukti.
Sri Caitanya-caritamrta
CC Adi-lila
In the Laghu-bhāgavatāmṛta, Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī, commenting upon the Lord's transcendental position beyond the material qualities, says that Viṣṇu, as the controller and superintendent of material nature, has a connection with the material qualities. That connection is called yoga. However, the person who directs a prison is not also a prisoner. Similarly, although the Supreme Personality of Godhead Viṣṇu directs or supervises the qualitative nature, He has no connection with the material modes of nature. The expansions of Lord Viṣṇu always retain their supremacy; they are never connected with the material qualities. One may argue that Mahā-Viṣṇu cannot have any connection with the material qualities, because if He were so connected, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam would not state that material nature, ashamed of her thankless task of acting to induce the living entities to become averse to the Supreme Lord, remains behind the Lord in shyness. In answer to this argument, it may be said that the word guṇa means "regulation." Lord Viṣṇu, Lord Brahmā and Lord Śiva are situated within this universe as the directors of the three modes, and their connection with the modes is known as yoga. This does not indicate, however, that these personalities are bound by the qualities of nature. Lord Viṣṇu specifically is always the controller of the three qualities. There is no question of His coming under their control.
One may argue that since Śaṅkarācārya is an incarnation of Lord Śiva, how is it that he cheated people in this way? The answer is that he did so on the order of his master, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is confirmed in the Padma Purāṇa, in the words of Lord Śiva himself:
- māyāvādam asac chāstraṁ pracchannaṁ bauddham ucyate
- mayaiva kalpitaṁ devi kalau brāhmaṇa-rūpiṇā
- brahmaṇaś cāparaṁ rūpaṁ nirguṇaṁ vakṣyate mayā
- sarva-svaṁ jagato ’py asya mohanārthaṁ kalau yuge
- vedānte tu mahā-śāstre māyāvādam avaidikam
- mayaiva vakṣyate devi jagatāṁ nāśa-kāraṇāt
"The Māyāvāda philosophy," Lord Śiva informed his wife Pārvatī, "is impious (asac chāstra). It is covered Buddhism. My dear Pārvatī, in Kali-yuga I assume the form of a brāhmaṇa and teach this imagined Māyāvāda philosophy. In order to cheat the atheists, I describe the Supreme Personality of Godhead to be without form and without qualities. Similarly, in explaining Vedānta I describe the same Māyāvāda philosophy in order to mislead the entire population toward atheism by denying the personal form of the Lord." In the Śiva Purāṇa the Supreme Personality of Godhead told Lord Śiva:
- dvāparādau yuge bhūtvā kalayā mānuṣādiṣu
- svāgamaiḥ kalpitais tvaṁ ca janān mad-vimukhān kuru
"In Kali-yuga, mislead the people in general by propounding imaginary meanings for the Vedas to bewilder them." These are the descriptions of the Purāṇas.
Nondevotees factually appreciate the wonderful creation of material nature, but they cannot appreciate the intelligence and energy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is behind this material creation. Śrīpāda Rāmānujācārya, however, refers to a sūtra from the Aitareya Upaniṣad (1.1.1), ātmā vā idam agra āsīt, which points out that the supreme ātmā, the Absolute Truth, existed before the creation. One may argue, "If the Supreme Personality of Godhead is completely spiritual, how is it possible for Him to be the origin of creation and have within Himself both material and spiritual energies?" To answer this challenge, Śrīpāda Rāmānujācārya quotes a mantra from the Taittirīya Upaniṣad (3.1) that states:
- yato vā imāni bhūtāni jāyante yena jātāni jīvanti yat prayanty abhisaṁviśanti
This mantra confirms that the entire cosmic manifestation emanates from the Absolute Truth, rests upon the Absolute Truth and after annihilation again reenters the body of the Absolute Truth, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The living entity is originally spiritual, and when he enters the spiritual world or the body of the Supreme Lord, he still retains his identity as an individual soul. In this connection Śrīpāda Rāmānujācārya gives the example that when a green bird enters a green tree it does not become one with the tree: it retains its identity as a bird, although it appears to merge with the greenness of the tree. To give another example, an animal that enters a forest keeps its individuality, although apparently the beast merges with the forest. Similarly, in material existence, both the material energy and the living entities of the marginal potency maintain their individuality. Thus although the energies of the Supreme Personality of Godhead interact within the cosmic manifestation, each keeps its separate individual existence. Merging with the material or spiritual energies, therefore, does not involve loss of individuality. According to Śrī Rāmānujapāda's theory of Viśiṣṭādvaita, although all the energies of the Lord are one, each keeps its individuality (vaiśiṣṭya).
Other Books by Srila Prabhupada
Krsna, The Supreme Personality of Godhead
One may argue that the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who creates the whole cosmic manifestation simply by His glance, cannot come within the womb of Devakī, the wife of Vasudeva. To eradicate this argument, Vasudeva said, “My dear Lord, it is not a very wonderful thing that You have appeared within the womb of Devakī, because the creation was also made in that way. You were lying in the Causal Ocean as Mahā-Viṣṇu, and by Your breathing process, innumerable universes came into existence. Then You entered into each of the universes as Garbhodakaśāyī Viṣṇu. Then again You expanded Yourself as Kṣīrodakaśāyī Viṣṇu and entered into the hearts of all living entities and even within the atoms. Therefore Your entrance into the womb of Devakī is understandable in the same way. You appear to have entered, but You are simultaneously all-pervading. We can understand Your entrance and nonentrance from material examples. The total material energy remains intact even after being divided into sixteen elements. The material body is nothing but the combination of the five gross elements—namely earth, water, fire, air and ether. Whenever there is a material body, it appears that such elements are newly created, but actually the elements are always existing outside of the body. Similarly, although You have appeared as a child in the womb of Devakī, You are also existing outside. You are always in Your abode, but still You can simultaneously expand Yourself into millions of forms.
One may also argue that since Kṛṣṇa is the supreme authority, His activities should be followed. In answer to this argument, Śukadeva Gosvāmī has very clearly said that the īśvara, or supreme controller, may sometimes violate His own instructions, but this is possible only for the controller Himself, not for the followers. Unusual and uncommon activities by the controller can never be imitated. Śukadeva Gosvāmī warned that the conditioned followers, who are not actually in control, should never even imagine imitating the uncommon activities of the controller. A Māyāvādī philosopher may falsely claim to be God or Kṛṣṇa, but he cannot actually act like Kṛṣṇa. He can persuade his followers to falsely imitate the rāsa dance, but he is unable to lift Govardhana Hill. We have many experiences in the past of Māyāvādī rascals who delude their followers by posing themselves as Kṛṣṇa in order to enjoy rāsa-līlā. In many instances they were checked by the government, arrested and punished. In Orissa, Ṭhākura Bhaktivinoda punished a so-called incarnation of Viṣṇu who was imitating the rāsa-līlā with young girls. There were many complaints against the so-called incarnation. At that time Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura was a magistrate, and the government deputed him to deal with that rascal, and he punished him very severely. The rāsa-līlā dance cannot be imitated by anyone. Śukadeva Gosvāmī warns that one should not even think of imitating it. He specifically mentions that if, out of foolishness, one tries to imitate Kṛṣṇa's rāsa dance, he will be killed, just like a person who wants to imitate Lord Śiva's drinking of an ocean of poison. Lord Śiva drank an ocean of poison and kept it within his throat. The poison made his throat turn blue, and therefore Lord Śiva is called Nīlakaṇṭha. But if any ordinary person tries to imitate Lord Śiva by drinking poison or smoking gañjā, he is sure to be vanquished and will die within a very short time. Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa's dealings with the gopīs occurred under special circumstances.
One may argue that because this material world is created by the Lord, He is therefore responsible for its condition. Certainly He is indirectly responsible for the creation and maintenance of this material world, but He is never responsible for the different conditions of the living entities. The Lord's creation of this material world is compared to a cloud's creation of vegetation. In the rainy season the cloud creates different varieties of vegetation. The cloud pours water on the surface of the earth, but it never touches the earth directly. Similarly, the Lord creates this material world simply by glancing over the material energy. This is confirmed in the Vedas: "He threw His glance over the material nature, and thus there was creation." In the Bhagavad-gītā it is also confirmed that simply by His transcendental glance over the material nature, He creates different varieties of entities, both movable and immovable, living and dead.
It may be argued that because the living entities are born of the material nature they are all equal and independent. In the Vedic literature, however, it is said that the Supreme Personality of Godhead impregnates the material nature with the living entities and then they come out. Therefore, the appearance of the individual living entities is not factually due to material nature alone, just as a child produced by a woman is not her independent production. A woman is first impregnated by a man, and then a child is produced. As such, the child produced by the woman is part and parcel of the man. Similarly, the living entities are apparently produced by the material nature, but not independently. It is due to the impregnation of the material nature by the supreme father that the living entities are present. Therefore the argument that the individual living entities are not parts and parcels of the Supreme cannot stand.
Mukunda-mala-stotra (mantras 1 to 6 only)
The Lord's birth on the face of the earth is certainly very mysterious, and therefore it is difficult for ordinary men to believe in His birth. How can the all-powerful Lord take birth, seemingly like an ordinary man? The matter is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā (4.6), where the Lord says,
- ajo 'pi sann avyayātmā bhūtānām īśvaro 'pi san
- prakṛtiṁ svām adhiṣṭhāya sambhavāmy ātma-māyayā
"Although I am unborn and My transcendental body never deteriorates, and although I am the Lord of all living entities, by My transcendental potency I still appear in every millennium in My original transcendental form." From the śāstra we learn that the Lord takes birth not only in the family of human beings but also in the families of demigods, aquatics, animals, and so on. One may argue that an ordinary living being is eternal and unborn like the Lord and also takes birth in different species of life, and so there is no difference between the Lord and an ordinary living being. The difference is, however, that while an ordinary living being changes his body when he transmigrates from one species of life to another, the Lord never changes His body: He appears in His original body, without any change. Also, while there is a vast difference between the ordinary living entity and his body, there is no difference between the Lord and His body because He is pure spirit. In other words, there is no distinction between His body and His soul.
Lectures
Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures
So Pāñcarātrikī vidhi means that it doesn't matter whether man is śūdra or caṇḍāla... Caṇḍāla means less than śūdra. Pañcama The fifth grade. First class, brāhmaṇa; second class, kṣatriya; third class, vaśya; fourth class, śūdra; and below this fourth class, they're all caṇḍālas. Caṇḍālas means pañcama. Untouchable. They are called untouchable. So even the untouchables... Because Kṛṣṇa has said: Māṁ hi pārtha vyapāśritya ye 'pi syuḥ pāpa-yonayaḥ (BG 9.32). The pāpa-yoni, caṇḍāla means pāpa-yoni, born of low-grade family... The Bhāgavata says, Śukadeva Gosvāmī says, that: Kirāta-hūnāndhra-pulinda-pulkaśā ābhīra-śumbhā yavanā khasādayaḥ (SB 2.4.18). Yavana, mlecca yavana. They, they are called... They are also counted amongst the caṇḍālas. Ye 'nye ca pāpāḥ, even lower than that. Ye 'nye ca pāpāḥ śuddhyanti. They becomes purified. How? Prabhaviṣṇave namaḥ. When they are initiated to become Kṛṣṇa conscious. So if a, one may argue, "How it is possible to make a caṇḍāla a Vaiṣṇava?" No, that is possible. Prabhaviṣṇave namaḥ. Viṣṇu is so powerful, omnipotent. He can do that. So only by Viṣṇu mantra, by becoming a Vaiṣṇava, one can transcend all this restriction, sociology. They can be. That is confirmed by Kṛṣṇa: māṁ cāvyabhicāriṇī bhakti-yogena yaḥ sevate sa guṇān brahmātītyaitan brahma-bhūyaya kalpate (BG 14.26). Immediately he transcends. He's in the Brahman platform. One who has taken very seriously this devotional service, he's no more on this material platform.
The primary sense enjoyment is eating, sleeping, sex life and defense. So where there is want of these four facilities? The birds have got these facilities. The beasts, they... For sex life, the birds and beasts, they have got automatically. Two birds are born, two eggs one male, one female, from the very beginning. We are also born brother and sister. But human society does not allow sex between brother and sister. Still formality is there. But that is also going on. Human life has advanced. That is going on. In India one Punjabi, that father was anxious to get the daughter married, and the brother wrote the father, "My dear father, don't bother about my sister's marriage. We have arranged ourself, brother and sister." You see? So sex life is so strong. Although socially it is forbidden that brother and sister should not marry or should not have sex life, but that is also come. It is Kali-yuga. So that sex life facility is there automatically by nature. So why there is forbidden, "Not this sex life, not that..." Just like we forbid, no illicit sex, that without marriage, there is no sex. One may argue, "What is the difference, married sex and not-married sex? The business is the same."
No, there is some meaning. This restriction mean to bring him to the position of the daivī sampat, sattva-saṁśuddhiḥ. The purpose is to bring him to the platform of daivī sampat. If he becomes like cats and dogs, then he cannot attain this daivī sampat. If there is rules and regulation, restriction following, then gradually he will come to the platform of daivī sampat. And what is the purpose of daivī sampat? Daivī sampad vimokṣāya: (BG 16.5) "If you develop your daivī sampat, then you become fit for vimokṣāya, for liberation." What is that liberation? Liberation means janma-mṛtyu-jarā-vyādhi (BG 13.9), liberation from these four things: no more birth, no more death, no more disease, no more old age.
Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures
So one may argue that "These bhaktas are not always very learned scholars. Mostly, they are mediocre. And there are so many big, big scholars. They cannot see God easily and only the bhaktas can do?" Yes. That is the process. Kṛṣṇa says, bhaktyā mām abhijānāti yāvān yaś cāsmi tattvataḥ. In bhakti, one can immediately... Because real process is to surrender to God. That is the real process. But these jñānīs, yogis, and karmīs, they are not prepared to surrender to God. The karmīs will say, "Let us act nicely," I mean to say, "virtuously. We are karmīs. So God must give us the result." This is called karma-mimāṁsā. They say that... Just like the so-called scientists say that "God has created this universe. The laws are there. So we have to study the laws. What we shall do with the God?" Is it not? "God has created these... The physical laws are there. So let us study these physical laws. What is the use of studying God?" That is their view. The karma-mimāṁsā also, that, they say that "After all, if we act virtuously, then we shall get good result. So what is the use of worshiping God? Let us work virtuously." This is their view. Karmī. And jñānī. Jñānī also, they say. Jñānī, the scientists, they are jñānī, that "What is the use of worshiping God? Let us study the laws of God." So jñānī, karmī... And yogi, they are also of the same view.
So karmī, jñānī, yogi, and the last is bhakta. So bhakta can see God very quickly because Kṛṣṇa recommends, bhaktyā mām abhijānāti yāvān yaś cāsmi tattvataḥ (BG 18.55). Tattvataḥ, in truth, one can understand what is God by following the process of bhakti-yoga.
So one may argue, especially those who are atheists, that "Suppose we get a material body and little miserable. What is the wrong there? It will be finished. Then there will be no more pains and pleasures." That is the Buddhist theory, that the body is combination of matter, and there is pains and pleasures, so make this body zero. Then there will be no more pains and pleasures, and you will have to accept another body. And so long you shall continue to accept one body after another, the miserable condition of material existence will continue. Therefore in the beginning it was said that "This body, human body, is not to be misused simply for sense gratification like the dogs and hogs." That was the beginning.
We have several times explained this, who is bona fide spiritual master, confirmed by Caitanya Mahāprabhu. Caitanya Mahāprabhu said that āmāra ājñāya guru hañā, "You become a guru on My instruction." So those who are affiliated with Caitanya Mahāprabhu's instruction, he is guru. Not anyone else. Āmāra ājñāya guru hañā tāra' ei deśa (CC Madhya 7.128). Then one may argue that if Caitanya Mahāprabhu is ordering, so anyone can order? No, Caitanya Mahāprabhu is not ordering something new. Caitanya Mahāprabhu says that "Under My instruction you become guru." But the instruction is Kṛṣṇa's, the same instruction, yāre dekha tāre kaha kṛṣṇa-upadeśa. Caitanya Mahāprabhu also does not deviate from kṛṣṇa-upadeśa, what to speak of others. And those rascals who are deviating from the instruction of Kṛṣṇa, how he can become guru? They are interpreting in a different way, how they can become guru? That is not guru. We should simply remember this fact, whether this person is speaking the same thing as Kṛṣṇa says, as Caitanya Mahāprabhu says, as Rāmānujācārya says, even Śaṅkarācārya.
You have to cultivate Kṛṣṇa consciousness as it pleases Kṛṣṇa, not whimsically. Ānukūlyena. Just like Arjuna got ordered directly from Kṛṣṇa. One may argue that "Where is Kṛṣṇa?" No, you have got Kṛṣṇa's representative, guru. Yasya prasādād bhagavat-prasādo **. The representative is there. If you act according to his instruction, if you want to please him, then Kṛṣṇa is pleased. Just like in office the managing director or the proprietor is not in contact. Of course, Kṛṣṇa is in contact with everyone: īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānāṁ hṛd-deśe (BG 18.61). But even taking this crude example, still, the office superintendent, if he recommends somebody, some clerk, that "This man is working very nice," that is accepted by the managing director. There is no difficulty. Therefore yasya prasādād bhagavat-prasādo: ** if you want to please Kṛṣṇa, you please Kṛṣṇa's representative... Śrī-guru-caraṇe rati, sei se uttama-gati. We are singing daily. So Kṛṣṇa is not absent. Kṛṣṇa is already within you, but He manifests Himself as guru, prakāśa. This is stated in the Caitanya-caritāmṛta.
F one can understand nitya-siddha bhāgavata, then he immediately becomes eligible to go back to home, to back to godhead. This is the privilege of associating with mahā-bhāgavata. So our system is, (child crying—aside:) try and maintain (?). Evaṁ paramparā, to associate with the mahā-bhāgavata by words or by physical exposition (?). So mahā-bhāgavata arbhakaḥ. One may argue, arbhakaḥ means foolish child, who has no knowledge, he is called arbhakaḥ. How we can say mahā-bhāgavata? Arbhakaḥ, he has no knowledge. No. It is possible. Ahaituky apratihatā. Bhakti does not depend on age, or on advanced knowledge, or richness, or so many other things. Janmaiśvarya-śruta-śrī (SB 1.8.26). To take birth in high family, aristocracy, and to become rich, to become beautiful, to become very learned scholar. These things are material assets, but spiritual life does not depend on these things. One can become spiritually very advanced even though he is poor, he is born in a low, low-grade family. Just like Haridāsa Ṭhākura. He was born in Muhammadan family, but mahā-bhāgavata. There are so many examples. Not that because he was born in a Muhammadan family therefore he cannot. This Marchoism (?) is like that, but actually it is not. Ahaituky apratihatā. Bhakti is so purifying that any condition, any circumstances, one can become devotee.
Nectar of Devotion Lectures
Actually, simply by executing devotional service, being freed from all material contamination, when one is engaged in devotional service, bhakti, that process, bhakti process can help one to understand what is God. Bhaktyā mām abhijānāti. It is not said that by karma, "karmaṇā mām abhijānāti." No. "Jñānena mām abhijānāti." Abhijānāti, tattvataḥ, if one wants to know God in truth, then he must take to devotional service. And this devotional service, actual devotional service begins when one is Brahman realized.
So one may argue, "Does it mean that all the bhaktas... We see they are not even educated... How he has realized Brahman?" That answer is given in the Bhagavad-gītā that
- māṁ ca avyabhicāriṇi
- bhakti-yogena yaḥ sevate
- sa guṇān samatītyaitān
- brahma-bhūyāya kalpate
- (BG 14.26)
This very platform of serving Kṛṣṇa, avyabhicāriṇi, without any adulteration, means without any motive... When one is engaged in Kṛṣṇa's service without any motive... Not that "I establish a Deity in the temple with a motive that people will come, will give money, and I shall make it a path of earning my livelihood." That is not devotion. Devotion is without any motive. Anyābhilāṣitā-śūnyam (Brs. 1.1.11). So without any motive, when one is engaged in devotional service, that is brahma-bhūtaḥ stage. That is liberated stage. According to Bhāgavata, liberation, mukti, means to be situated in one's constitutional position. That is called mukti. Muktir hitvā anyathā rūpaṁ svarūpeṇa vyavasthitiḥ (SB 2.10.6). Hitvā anyathā rūpa.
Festival Lectures
So this Sanātana Gosvāmī, just after giving up his ministerial post, with great difficulty, he came to Benares and Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu gave him instruction for two months for guiding the Vaiṣṇava principles. So he's approaching his spiritual master with humble attitude. Therefore he's speaking like that. "I am born of lower family. My associations are all abominable, and I am fallen." Actually, he was minister. He was coming of a brāhmaṇa family. But these material qualifications are not sufficient to improve one's Kṛṣṇa consciousness. One must approach a bona fide spiritual master. That is being exhibited by Sanātana Gosvāmī. He's approaching the original spiritual master, Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu, with due humbleness. Tasmād guruṁ prapadyeta (SB 11.3.21). Tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet samit-pāṇi śrotriyaṁ brahma-niṣṭham (MU 1.2.12). One must approach. Sanātana Gosvāmī's teaching us the Vaiṣṇava principle that one should approach a proper spiritual master. So he's approaching Caitanya Mahāprabhu. So one may argue that "Where is Caitanya Mahāprabhu now? Where is Kṛṣṇa now?" It doesn't matter. Kṛṣṇa's words are there. Caitanya Mahāprabhu's words are there. Instructions are there. So if we follow the direction and instruction of Caitanya Mahāprabhu or Kṛṣṇa under the guidance of a superior, bona fide spiritual master, then we associate with Kṛṣṇa or Caitanya Mahāprabhu without any deviation.
Initiation Lectures
If we serve the Supreme Nārāyaṇa, the daridra-nārāyaṇa is automatically... There is no such word as daridra-nārāyaṇa. The poor souls, they can be served automatically. Just like taror mūla-niṣecanena tṛpyanti tat-skandha-bhujopaśākhāḥ. If the root is watered, then the trunk and branches and the twigs and the flowers, automatically... Prāṇopahārāc ca yathendriyāṇām. Prāṇopahārāc. Just like offering foodstuff to the stomach. Then every indriya, every sense is satisfied. Two, two examples are given. One may argue, "Suppose I am watering. That is also nice. I water to the root, I water to the leaf also." The injunction is that there is no necessity of watering the leaves. You simply water the root. But if you argue that "What is the harm...? Suppose I... Root, offer water to the root, as well as to the leaves and twigs." Just like somebody says, "All right. Why we shall only worship Kṛṣṇa? Why not other demigods?" although it is not necessary. But the next example is given that, prāṇopahārāc ca yathendriyāṇām. Just like offering foodstuff to the stomach, the senses automatically become healthy, then now, if you say, in the same way... Just like offering to the root as well as to the leaves, that "Yes, I shall offer foodstuff to the stomach as well as to the ears and eyes." Then what the result will be? The result will be that your eyes and ears will be stopped functioning. Therefore this very example is given. This, this is not required at all. Similarly, by worshiping Kṛṣṇa, you don't require to endeavor to worship the demigods, to worship the daridras, to worship the this and that. It will be automatically done.
Conversations and Morning Walks
1974 Conversations and Morning Walks
Haṁsadūta: Yeah. (break) Everything that has to do with propagating Kṛṣṇa...
Prabhupāda: Yes.
Haṁsadūta: ...in any way.
Prabhupāda: That is preaching. Just like... Nava-vidhā-bhakti.
- śravaṇaṁ kīrtanaṁ viṣṇoḥ
- smaraṇaṁ pāda-sevanam
- arcanaṁ vandanaṁ dāsyaṁ
- sakhyam ātma-nivedanam
- (SB 7.5.23)
They're all perfect, but it appears śravaṇa, hearing, is different from kīrtana. Or kīrtana is different from smaraṇam or pāda-sevanam or arcanam. But they're all perfect. So one should be engaged either in śravaṇam, kīrtanam, smaraṇam—as he's fit. This is the... Suppose I cannot speak, kīrtanam, but I can hear. That is as perfect. Ah? Śravaṇaṁ kīrtanaṁ viṣṇoḥ. So one may argue that "Speaking is better than hearing." No. Both ways, either hearing or speaking, they're the same thing. Because it is for Kṛṣṇa. Śravaṇaṁ kīrtanaṁ viṣṇoḥ. In our society every work is transcendental: for preaching. Every work. But one must be engaged with some work.
1975 Conversations and Morning Walks
Bahulāśva: Śrīla Prabhupāda, sometimes philosophers make a distinction between knowledge and a belief. They say you can believe in something, but that doesn't mean that you necessarily know that thing which you believe in.
Prabhupāda: Yes, that's fact. Therefore for the neophytes, less intelligent, they should believe. That is the only way, viśvāsa. So generally mass of people they are not so educated. They should believe.
Devotee (6): It says in the Bhāgavatam...
Prabhupāda: Therefore in the Caitanya-caritāmṛta it is said that viśvāsa śabde śudṛdha niścaya. Śudṛdha niścaya, kṛṣṇe bhakti kaile sarva-karma kṛta haya. Śraddhā, śraddhā. Śraddhā means faith. So in Christian science also, there is state, faithful. So this faith may be blind, but that is required.
Paramahaṁsa: Like a child.
Prabhupāda: Yes. Śraddha-śabde viśvāsa. Śraddhā, faith, means believing firmly. That is śraddhā, or faith. There is no question, "Yes." Śraddha-śabde viśvāsa. Therefore we have to believe in the Vedas. Vedas also says like that. That example I give sometimes, that cow dung is stool. In one place it is said stool is impure; in another place it is said cow dung is pure. Now, one may argue, "What is this, contradiction?" But you have to believe it. That is Veda. And that is actually being done. So without faith, you cannot make advance. The skeptics, they have no faith. Therefore they are lost. You must have faith.
1976 Conversations and Morning Walks
Harikeśa: One may argue that in nature there is this leveling out of the species, that one species kills another off so that the population is maintained at the proper level.
Prabhupāda: No species killed by another species. It is rascal proposal.
Harikeśa: Well, members of the species are killed by...
Prabhupāda: That is another thing. Jīvasya jīva... jivo jīvanam. One animal is eating another animal. That is another thing. But that does not mean species finished. That is nonsense.
| Page Title: | One may argue... |
| Compiler: | Labangalatika |
| Created: | 25 of Dec, 2009 |
| Totals by Section: | BG=3, SB=32, CC=3, OB=5, Lec=10, Con=3, Let=0 |
| No. of Quotes: | 56 |