So you can violate the laws on the order of Kṛṣṇa. You cannot do. This is surrender. When Kṛṣṇa says that "You do this," although it is wrong, you have to do it. There is no consideration. Just like in fight, the commander says to the soldiers, "Do this." His duty is to do that. He should not think at that time what is right or wrong. Just like Yudhiṣṭhira Mahārāja, he was advised by Kṛṣṇa that "Yudhiṣṭhira, Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira, you go to Droṇācārya and inform him that 'Your son is dead.' " It was a false information. Because Droṇācārya would not die if he is not affected with some lamentation. So Kṛṣṇa asked Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira that "You go because you are recognized truthful, Dharmarāja. So when you will say, this is also false, he will believe." But Yudhiṣṭhira hesitated, "How can I tell lie?" He disobeyed the order of Kṛṣṇa, and he wanted to become very truthful. For this reason he had to see hell. So in the mundane consideration there are so many things, right and wrong. So long you are on the mundane platform, you have to obey all these right and wrong. But in the spiritual platform, when it is ordered by Kṛṣṇa... He is above all this duality. He is Absolute. So even if He says to do something wrong... Because He cannot say anything which is wrong. God is all-good. If you discriminate God's order from the mundane platform, then you will be misguided. Anyone who has got firm and fixed up faith that whatever God does, whatever God orders, even from mundane calculation it may be wrong, that is right... That is absolute understanding.
Right and wrong (Lectures)
Expressions researched:
"giving up the wrong thing and accepting the right thing"
|"right and wrong"
|"right from wrong"
|"right or wrong"
|"the right way and the wrong way"
|"this is right; this is wrong"
|"what is right and what is wrong"
|"what is right doing and what is wrong doing"
|"which is right, which is wrong"
|"wrong and right"
|"wrong from right"
|"wrong or right"
Lectures
Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures
So he has selected that the right person, guru, and he said that "Unless I hear from You what is right and wrong, I cannot decide whether I shall fight or I shall not fight. Which way is better for me I cannot understand." In this way,
- evam uktvā hṛṣīkeśaṁ
- guḍākeśaḥ parantapaḥ
- na yotsya iti govindam
- uktvā tūṣṇīṁ babhūva ha
- (BG 2.9)
"After addressing Kṛṣṇa that 'You give me the right direction; otherwise I am not going to fight,' he left his weapon and became silent."
As in this world also, if you fight for some right cause, you are rewarded. Even after your death, your memory is commemorated. Just like in your country so many brave soldiers, leaders, they have died, but you have honored them by keeping their statues because they fought and died for right cause, whatever we think, right or wrong. So the kṣatriyas, this is the Vedic injunction, who dies for the right cause, he is promoted to the heavenly planet. Now Kṛṣṇa says "Now it is a great opportunity for you. Suppose either you or your grandfather, the opposite party, die in this fight, so your promotion to heavenly planet is sure. And if you gain, then you get the kingdom. Both ways it is profitable for you." Go on.
So materialists, they see what a nonsense he is, that he has given up all material enjoyment. He's now engaged in something which is vague or which is... There is no understanding whether he's right or wrong. He sees like that. So the materialist sees the spiritualist sleeping in the enjoyment of life. And the spiritualist sees the materialist that "What nonsense he is, that he has got this elevated, conscious life of human form of life, and he's spoiling in the material senses, in the material enjoyment. He's not taking interest in spiritual life. So he sees that he's sleeping, and he sees that he's sleeping. The materialist sees the spiritualist that he's nonsense; he's sleeping.
If everyone's religion is right... I may like or not like. That doesn't matter. You may like my religion. Then there is no question that any religion is irreligion. Just like the, some religions, they think killing of animal is their religion, and somebody thinks that killing of animal is irreligious. Then which is right, which is wrong? So dharma does not mean that you manufacture something, I manufacture something at home, or by some assembly, resolution passed. Just like in western countries there are so many... Here also, by passing resolution, it is accepted as dharma. So Kṛṣṇa is not speaking of that type of dharma.
Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: The question is that man knows right from wrong because of his karma, or...
Prabhupāda: No. Karma may be. Just like you are sent to school, college, to understand the right and wrong. Therefore you must be educated to know what is right and wrong, not that you do like animals, whatever you like. There is education required, and because we have no education, therefore there are so many books of knowledge, Vedic knowledge. You have to take advantage of it, and then you'll understand what is right and wrong. Otherwise not.
Of course, when there is something, talks about God, it is taken as religious. So religious, the meaning of religion in the English dictionary is different from what we mean by religion, that in the dictionary it is said, "Religion is a kind of faith." Faith may be wrong or right, but religion cannot be wrong or right. Religion must be correct. That is the meaning of religion. the example is that the sugar is sweet. It is not the question of wrong or right. Sugar must be always sweet. You cannot change it. That is religion. Chili is hot. That is correct. Chili cannot be sweet, and sugar cannot be hot. So religion means that. Religion described in the Vedic śāstras is said, dharmaṁ tu sākṣād bhagavat-praṇītam: (SB 6.3.19) "Dharma means..." The plain description of religion is "the code, or the laws, given by God." Dharmaṁ tu sākṣād bhagavat-praṇītam (SB 6.3.19).
Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures
I do not wish to take your more time. Dharma means your occupational duty. Dharma means it is a fanaticism. That is not. That is not the meaning of dharma. The meaning of dharma, in English, it is called "religion." And religion is a kind of faith. So faith may be wrong or right. That is not dharma. Dharma means your constitutional position and duty. That is called dharma. Just like the other day I explained. Just like chili should be pungent, sugar must be sweet, this is the idea. Water must be liquid. A stone must be solid. This is the dharma. You cannot say "liquid stone." No. That is not dharma. As soon as you say "stone," it must be solid. As soon as you say "water," it must be liquid.
"No vacancy, sir." Therefore it is said, kalau śūdra-sambhavaḥ. In the Kali-yuga everyone is śūdra. And how you can have good government by the śūdras? Kṣatriya required. Just like Mahārāja Parīkṣit. He was touring. As soon as he saw one man is killing cow, "Who are you, rascal, killing cow in my kingdom?" Kṣatriya. Give protection. Even to the cows. Prajā means one who has taken birth in that land. Why he should not be given protection? But because they are śūdras, they do not know what is the kṣatriya's duty, what is the government's duty. This is the position. Am I right or wrong?
So if it is possible to float a big body... There are many big bodies. The whale fish, it is as big as a ship. Still, it is floating. Why? That small particle of spiritual entity is there. Therefore it is floating. Then, if the Supreme Person enters into a big lump of matter, why it will not float? What is the reason? At least I try to understand in this way. Am I wrong or right? What is your opinion? Eh? No, it is...
Prabhupāda: Yes, that degree is there. (laughter)
Indian woman: Well, but Lord Kṛṣṇa still helped me, you know, whether I was right or wrong.
Prabhupāda: Huh?
Indian woman: I still got His grace and help.
Prabhupāda: Well, when you go to the fire, the heat is there. (laughter) But the temperature may be different. Anyway, some way or other, if you go to the heat, fire, you'll get some heat. But that temperature may be different. Hmm?
Why he deviated from the Jews? Because when he saw in his young age that animals are being killed in the synagogue, he differed, "No, no, this is horrible. This should be stopped." Therefore, his first commandment is "Thou shall not kill." Am I wrong or right? Eh? That was his first impression, that people should stop killing. So who is Christian? Everyone is violating this first commandment, what to speak of other commandments. Everyone. So it is very difficult to find a real Christian. But if you violate the commandments of Christ, then what kind of Christian you are? This is our question. Who will answer this?
"What is the most wonderful thing within this world?" He answered this, ahany ahani bhūtāni gacchantīha yamālayam, "Everyone, every moment, is going to the Yamarāja's place, the superintendent of death, where a man's life is scrutinizingly studied, what he has done, and..." I say man, not animal. Animal, they have no such thing wrong or right, because it is animal. But a human being must have this conscience, right or wrong. Pravṛtti, nivṛtti.
They are becoming the great philosophers, leaders, scientists. They have no knowledge of Kṛṣṇa, no knowledge of God. Still, they are leading the society. And who praise them? This class of men—dogs, hogs, camels, and asses. This is the verdict. Now you can challenge. You can talk, if it is right or wrong. This is the challenge given by Bhāgavatam, that "Persons who have no knowledge of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, they are praised by these dogs, hogs, camels, and asses." This is the challenge. Now how can you refute it? Can you refute it? This is a great challenge. We are not only... We are accepting some rascal as God, as incarnation of God. So who accept this so-called God? These classes of men. These classes of men: camel, hogs, dogs. So by the vote of camels, dogs, hogs, one cannot become God.
So Parīkṣit Mahārāja, he said that everyone in this material world know what is, to some extent at least, or to his capacity, knows "This is right" or "This is wrong." May not be very advanced in knowledge, but something they know, "This is right; this is wrong."
Therefore he should consult spiritual master. The guide is there. Then it is all right. He should take sanction from Kṛṣṇa or Kṛṣṇa's representative. If he wants to do something, that's good, but whether that doing is right or wrong you have to know it from Kṛṣṇa or His representative. Is it clear or not? Yes.
Therefore, at the present moment, kalau śūdra-sambhavaḥ. Śūdra means equal to the animal. Tulasī dāsa has classified, dhol guṇar śūdra paśu nārī, ihe sab sasan ke adhikārī.(?) So women will be sorry, but he has classified in that way. Anyway... So nobody is taking care of the Vedic literature. Therefore they do not know what is right, what is wrong. Dharma, dharma means right and wrong.
So the yamadūta ūcuḥ. Then the reply is given by the Yamadūtas, the representatives, the constables of Yamarāja. They are working under Yamarāja, who is an authority. They must know. They must know what is right and wrong. So how nicely they are replying. So the first challenge was given: "What is dharma? What is religion? What is piety?" So they are replying, veda-praṇihito dharmaḥ: "Dharma means the injunctions given in the Vedas. That is dharma." Just like if you ask, "What is law?" then the immediate answer is, "Law means the injunction of the state." You cannot make it law. The state, the government, whatever the government orders, that is law. The word of the government is law.
Then where is the difference between cats and dogs? The difference is that I can be trained up to become religious; the cats and dogs cannot be trained. That is the difference. Dharmeṇa hīnā paśubhiḥ samānāḥ. So if I don't take education and enlightenment how to become religious, I do not know how to distinguish between right and wrong, then yathā paśu—then I am as good as animal.
Harikeśa: Translation: "For this reason, a person who is fully competent to distinguish wrong and right while keeping himself in material existence, bhavam āśritaḥ, must endeavor for achieving the highest goal of life so long the body is stout and strong and is not embarrassed by the dwindling condition of life."
Prabhupāda:
- tato yateta puruṣaḥ
- ksemāya bhavam āśritaḥ
- śarīraṁ pauruṣaṁ yāvan
- na vipadyeta puṣkalam
- (SB 7.6.5)
So Prahlāda Mahārāja said that people are engaged for improving economic condition. He has cancelled that tat prayāso na kartavyo yata āyur vyayaḥ param. Prahlāda Mahārāja derides that "These people who are simply wasting time for improving material condition, āhāra-nidrā-bhayaṁ maithun, they are not at all intelligent, because simply wasting time, valuable time."
Pradyumna: (leads chanting, etc.) Translation: "Therefore, while in material existence (bhavam āśritaḥ), a person fully competent to distinguish wrong from right must endeavor to achieve the highest goal of life as long as the body is stout and strong and is not embarrassed by dwindling."
Prabhupāda:
- tato yateta kuśalaḥ
- kṣemāya bhavam āśritaḥ
- śarīraṁ pauruṣaṁ yāvan
- na vipadyeta puṣkalam
- (SB 7.6.5)
So this should be the human activity, that śarīraṁ pauruṣaṁ yāvan na vipadyeta puṣkalam. So long we are stout and strong and we can work very nicely, the health is quite all right, take advantage of it. It is not Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is for the lazy fellow. No.
Nectar of Devotion Lectures
That is the first qualification of the demons. They do not know what is right doing and what is wrong doing. Suppose we, just like we restrict anyone who comes to our camp to become our student, we restrict that "You should not do this" or "You should do this." Anywhere, if you go to a physician, he'll say also that "You shall do this." Some "do's" and some "do not's." So the asuras, they do not know, because they have no direction, they do not know what are the "do's" and what are the "do not's." This is the first qualification of the asuras. They do not know. Because they do not like to take lesson from superior. They manufacture their own lesson. Then?
Initiation Lectures
You must have something better. Paraṁ dṛṣṭvā nivartate (BG 2.59). If you get something better, then you give up something inferior. Our Vaiṣṇava philosophy, renouncement means renouncement of sense gratification. The Māyāvāda sannyāsa means karma-tyāga, simply reading Vedānta philosophy, sāṅkhya philosophy, and everything given up. But our Vaiṣṇava philosophy is giving up the wrong thing and accepting the right thing. Side by side. Simply if I give up, it will not stay very long time. If I simply by sentiment give up, brahma satyaṁ jagan mithyā, "This world is false and Brahman is the real, reality," so there are so many sannyāsīs, we see, they give up the so-called mithyā world and come to the Brahman realization by meditation, by meditation, meditation...
General Lectures
That is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. We act in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. If Kṛṣṇa says, if God says, "This is right," we accept it right. If God says it is wrong, we accept it wrong. Because we think, we have poor fund of knowledge. We do not know what is right and wrong. Therefore if God says or Kṛṣṇa says this is right, we accept it right. If God says or Kṛṣṇa says it is wrong, we accept it wrong. Yes?
That is in India. And outside India or outside Vedic culture, there are many scriptures. Therefore it is said, śrutayo vibhinnā. There are innumerable Vedic scriptures. So we cannot come to the conclusion what is right or wrong, because sometimes you will find contradiction from one... Of course, there is no contradiction, but because we are not advanced in knowledge, sometimes we will find contradiction. Just like in India there are two classes of transcendentalists: the impersonalist and the personalist. That is not contradiction. The Absolute Truth is both impersonal and personal, but somebody is stressing on the impersonal point of view and somebody is stressing on the personal point of view. But we Vaiṣṇava, we know what is the meaning of impersonalism and what is the meaning of personalism.
Today's subject matter is "What is Religion?" So we are reciting some verses from the Sixth Canto of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, where the subject matter, dharma, is discussed. It is said that dharmaṁ tu sākṣād bhagavat-praṇītam (SB 6.3.19). Dharma, it is Sanskrit word, and the English translation, generally, it is made as "religion." Religion is accepted as a kind of faith. But faith may be wrong or right—according to the different time, persons, climate, condition, so many consideration. But Śrīmad-Bhāgavata says, dharmaṁ tu sākṣād bhagavat-praṇītam. Dharma, or religion, means the law given by God. Simple formula.
Philosophy Discussions
Prabhupāda: What does he understand of philosophy? He is mad; he is less than an animal. He does not understand philosophy. He does not know that the animal has also a soul, the animal has also life. Then he should be killed first.
Śyāmasundara: He said that one standard whether something is right or wrong is that if it is self-contradictory, if somebody's action is self-contradictory.
Prabhupāda: He is actually self-contradictory. He is going to give right to others that he does not want to give the same right to the animals. That is self-contradictory.
Prabhupāda: Yes.
Śyāmasundara: Whether I'm doing right or wrong will be measured by how much pain or pleasure I am getting from it.
Prabhupāda: Yes, this definition we can also accept because we are try to Kṛṣṇa conscious, to derive the permanent happiness, first quality happiness.
Śyāmasundara: So if I'm feeling happy that means I am proceeding...
Prabhupāda: You will be aware as soon as you approach the higher authority. He'll give you order, "Do this," "Do not do this."
Śyāmasundara: Then my conscience tells me if I am doing it right or wrong, my inner conscience, it tells me...
Prabhupāda: Yes. That anyone can understand. Even a dog can understand. You see, if the dog is trying to enter the room, I say "Hut!" he can also, he has got conscience, "Oh, the master does not want me to enter." That conscience is there in cats and dogs. That is not very high consciousness. Real consciousness is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. That discrimination is there.
Hayagrīva: Well man, Mill concludes that conformity to nature has no connection whatever with right and wrong, and that man must amend nature. He must not act according to nature, but must—the word he uses is "amend"...
Prabhupāda: Yes, amend. Not only amend. The nature, that we discussed, almost always, the nature is animal nature. But man must be above the animal nature. That is rationality. Normally a man is called rational animal, so he should advance in rationality. Just for eating, eating is common to the man and to the animal, but man should be advanced, what kind of eating it should be. Not only natural, although natural tendency is... Just like man, some of, not all, some of them want to eat meat.
Hayagrīva: He says, "Belief in the supernatural, great as though the service is which it rendered in the early stages of human development, cannot be considered to be any longer required either for enabling us to know what is right and wrong in social morality, or for supplying us with motives to do right and abstain from wrong." That is God is not actually necessary for a sense of morality and in communist countries today we see that they instill a social morality in their citizens that is devoid of any conception of God.
Prabhupāda: Morality means to abide by the orders of God. That is real morality. Other things which we manufacture, that you will find different in different countries. But religion and morality both of them are the same principle because religion means to carry out the orders of God, and morality means only the, I mean the principle to fulfill the desires of God. Just like in the battle of Kurukṣetra, Arjuna was considering, "Killing is immorality."
Revatīnandana: Conscience means if I'm..., a sense of whether what I am doing is right or wrong. That is conscience. That's different from consciousness.
Prabhupāda: What is consciousness? Conscience means living force.
Revatīnandana: So not consciousness.
Prabhupāda: Oh.
Revatīnandana: Conscience.
Prabhupāda: Conscious. Discrimination of good and bad.
Devotees: Yes.
Śyāmasundara: So the method of... An authoritative basis for right and wrong, given by God Himself, then we can never know absolutely...
Prabhupāda: Unless one comes to Kṛṣṇa consciousness, his conscience has no value.
Śyāmasundara: But what about a person, say like this person, who had no access to God's laws, but he was simply speculating with his intelligence to try to find out what is right and what is wrong? Can he ever understand?
Prabhupāda: No. Responsibility is there, and still freedom is there. Just like ordinarily, in our dealing, out of responsibility the direction is "Stick to the right." Or there is a red light, "Stop." So if I do not care about the red light, then I become criminal. That is responsibility. You have responsibility, but at the same time you have got the discrimination. Without discrimination there cannot be any responsibility. So responsibility is not blind. That means you should discriminate. You should know what is right and wrong. That is responsibility. If we do wrongly, then we will have to suffer. That is responsibility.
Śyāmasundara: Yes. But his idea is that because we are free, we tend to avoid responsibility.
Prabhupāda: That is freedom, that you can make your choice between right and wrong. That is freedom. Freedom does not mean you are dull.
Śyāmasundara: But what if you avoid even choosing right or wrong, you simply drift without any decision of right or wrong?
Prabhupāda: We are free means you have to make your choice between right and wrong. That is freedom.
Śyāmasundara: Yes. But his idea is that because we are free, sometimes we neglect to even choose between right and wrong.
Prabhupāda: That is wrong decision. Then you should suffer. That is responsibility. Why you have done wrong?
Devotee: That is choice.
Prabhupāda: Eh?
Śyāmasundara: No. It's not like that. Supposing there is a war, a country goes to war. There is the choice whether to say, to choose whether it is right or wrong, but I avoid the choice altogether. I don't enter into it. Apathetic.
Prabhupāda: No. You cannot avoid the choice. At the present age there is democratic government. When we agree to fight with another, that means you have got your assent. Why should you not fight?
Śyāmasundara: He says that because we are free, that we are susceptible to this condition. That's all. But he says that this condition...
Prabhupāda: Free means to make right or wrong decision. That is free. Freedom does not mean dullness or passive.
Śyāmasundara: Yes. But because we are free we become susceptible to being dull.
Prabhupāda: Just like a dog. A dog is free. He can go to the right or the wrong side, and nobody cares for it. That is for the dog. But if a human being, if he decides instead of going to the right, to the left, then he is criminal, because he has got responsibility. So either you take dog's philosophy or man's philosophy. Dog's philosophy, he has no decision. He is an animal. He can go this side or that side. But we cannot do that. So whether he is man or dog. If he is a man, he must decide right and wrong. He is responsible. That is a man.
Prabhupāda: But if his decision is wrong, then what is the use of such heroism?
Śyāmasundara: He says there's no such scale of right and wrong. There is no absolute right and wrong, that everything depends upon how...
Prabhupāda: Then where is the question of responsibility if there is no right and wrong?
Śyāmasundara: Yes.
Prabhupāda: So that means he must have the power to make decisions, right and wrong. That is responsible.
Śyāmasundara: The main thing, though, is that he must abide by his decision. Whatever he chooses, that he must live it.
Prabhupāda: Not necessarily. If I decide to steal, it is better to avoid it. Not that because I have to decided to steal, I must do it just like a hero and then go to prison.
Śyāmasundara: For Sartre there is no absolute right and wrong. Some of his main heroes are great thieves and debauchers, like there's one... What is his name?
Prabhupāda: Alexander. Alexander and the robber. There is a story that a robber was arrested by Alexander and there was talk between Alexander and the robber: "You proved that you are big robber, that's all. Why you are going to punish me?" And he was released: "Yes. I'm a big robber. I have no difference between you and me."
Prabhupāda: So if your decision is wrong?
Śyāmasundara: There's no question of right or wrong in that case.
Prabhupāda: Whatever decision I make, that is final, absolute?
Śyāmasundara: Yes.
Prabhupāda: How it is possible? Then the same philosophy comes with the insect's decision. Absolute decision, even if it is wrong, it's all right. That is seen in lower animals also.
Prabhupāda: We don't say how it is all vain. That I have already explained: everything has got a plan. Just like we are moving this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. There is a plan. There is an objective. (indistinct) vainly we are doing that. Nothing is done in that we or you or anyone. There must be some plan. There is a plan. That plan may be right or wrong—there is a plan.
Śyāmasundara: Our philosophy is based first of all that there is a purpose in the universe. If to begin with, his thesis is that there's no purpose in the universe, then he can't say anything is right or wrong.
Devotee: Then what is the point of any philosophy? If there's no purpose, why should I read his philosophy? His philosophy also is meaningless.
Prabhupāda: Just to say there is no purpose?
Śyāmasundara: No. There is only existence. There is no essence.
Devotee: Then why write?
Śyāmasundara: This Bertrand Russell says that ethics, or what is right and wrong, is simply a set of emotional attitudes, and it cannot be, we cannot regard anything as good or bad. That nothing...
Prabhupāda: He does not make any distinction between good and bad?
Śyāmasundara: That there's no absolute good and bad. Nothing can be said "This is true or false," that "This is good," or that "This is bad."
Prabhupāda: That means he could not observe the distinction between good and bad. Does it mean like that?
Śyāmasundara: He says the only knowledge which is valid is proven scientifically, and he says that since moral right and wrong is not...
Prabhupāda: What is his proposal? What is scientifically proven? What is scientifically bad?
Śyāmasundara: He says good and bad are not subject to scientific proof.
Prabhupāda: But proof to him. But there is proof, what is really good and what is really bad. Has he given any practical example, that "This is scientifically good" and that "this is scientifically bad"?
Prabhupāda: Free will means that you can act wrongly. That is free will. Unless there is chance of doing wrong or right, there is no question of free will. Where is free will then? If I act only one sided, that means I have no free will. Because we act sometimes wrongly, that means free will.
Hayagrīva: A man may know better but still act wrongly.
Prabhupāda: Yes.
| Page Title: | Right and wrong (Lectures) |
| Compiler: | Visnu Murti, RupaManjari |
| Created: | 23 of Nov, 2011 |
| Totals by Section: | BG=0, SB=0, CC=0, OB=0, Lec=48, Con=0, Let=0 |
| No. of Quotes: | 48 |