View source for If anyone wants to possess something as his, then that should be, that possession should be Krsna. That is the ultimate conception of "mine." That is the perfection of the word "mine"

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"That is the perfection of the word"|"if anyone wants to possess something as his, then that should be, that possession should be Krsna. That is the ultimate conception of"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|Mangalavati}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|19Apr11}}
{{last|19Apr11}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=1|Con=0|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:Anyone]]
[[Category:Want To]]
[[Category:Possess]]
[[Category:Something]]
[[Category:His]]
[[Category:Then]]
[[Category:That]]
[[Category:Should Be]]
[[Category:Possession]]
[[Category:Krsna]]
[[Category:Ultimate]]
[[Category:Conception]]
[[Category:Mine]]
[[Category:Perfection]]
[[Category:Words]]
</div>
<div id="Lectures" class="section" sec_index="4" parent="compilation" text="Lectures"><h2>Lectures</h2>
</div>
<div id="Srimad-Bhagavatam_Lectures" class="sub_section" sec_index="1" parent="Lectures" text="Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures"><h3>Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures</h3>
</div>
<div id="LectureonSB7912MontrealAugust181968_0" class="quote" parent="Srimad-Bhagavatam_Lectures" book="Lec" index="814" link="Lecture on SB 7.9.12 -- Montreal, August 18, 1968" link_text="Lecture on SB 7.9.12 -- Montreal, August 18, 1968">
<div class="heading">In material sense, as soon as I say it is mine, it is nobody else's. It is my property. Law of identity or something like that. So Kṛṣṇa is not like that. So you can say Kṛṣṇa, "my," there is no harm. Rather, if anyone wants to possess something as his, then that should be, that possession should be Kṛṣṇa. That is the ultimate conception of "mine." That is the perfection of the word "mine." So it is quite nice, quite fit to... Teṣu te mayi, in the Bhagavad-gītā. "He is Mine and I am his," Kṛṣṇa says. So this is not wrong.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on SB 7.9.12 -- Montreal, August 18, 1968|Lecture on SB 7.9.12 -- Montreal, August 18, 1968]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Himāvatī: If Prahlāda Mahārāja is such a great devotee, and a devotee will always say(?) "Nothing is mine," then why does he say, "O my God"? Why does God become his? Why he questions like that?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Do you mean to say nothing, God is nothing?</p>
<p>Himāvatī: No. I mean why does he say "my God." Why "my God"?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then what shall he say?</p>
<p>Himāvatī: I don't understand then how can he say it? If you understand nothing belongs to you, then how can you say "mine," anything "mine"?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Anything mine?</p>
<p>Himāvatī: How can you say that "God is mine"?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So? What is your idea? He should be addressed? He should not say "my Lord"?</p>
<p>Himāvatī: I don't know.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No. You know it. He's Lord of everyone. Therefore everyone can say "my Lord." That does not mean if somebody says "my Lord," He becomes monopolized. (chuckles) It does not mean. You are speaking on the platform of monopolizing, "mine." But God is never monopolized. He's everyone's, so everyone has the right to say "my God," "my Lord." It does not mean... Generally, in the material sense, when I say, "This is my spectacle," it does not belong to you. Is it not? So this "my" is not that "my." When I say "my God," that does not mean He's not your God. That is the difference. In the material sense, when I say "It is my wife," then it is not any other's wife. But God is not like that. If I say "my God," so you can say "my God," he can say "my God," everyone can say "my God." This is spiritual "my," absolute "my." Try to understand this way, that in the material sense, when I saying something "my," that is different from when I say "my God." That is different. That is not exactly... As we think in the material way, "my thing," "my God," "my home," "my wife," "my wealth," "my bank," it is not like that. But the relationship... Just like I say "my hand." So how can I express? Just like Kṛṣṇa says mamaivāṁśo ([[Vanisource:BG 15.7|BG 15.7]]). Mama means "Mine." "These, all these living creatures, they are My part and parcels." So why the living creatures shall not say "my God"? Do you follow? Kṛṣṇa says "You are Mine." Why shall you not say, "Kṛṣṇa, You are mine." Your husband says, "You are mine." Why shall you not say, "You are mine"? But don't take it in the material sense. In material sense, as soon as I say it is mine, it is nobody else's. It is my property. Law of identity or something like that. So Kṛṣṇa is not like that. So you can say Kṛṣṇa, "my," there is no harm. Rather, if anyone wants to possess something as his, then that should be, that possession should be Kṛṣṇa. That is the ultimate conception of "mine." That is the perfection of the word "mine." So it is quite nice, quite fit to... Teṣu te mayi, in the Bhagavad-gītā. "He is Mine and I am his," Kṛṣṇa says. So this is not wrong. And what is your idea, that because everything belongs to Kṛṣṇa, therefore I shall not say "my"? That's your idea?</p>
<p>Himāvatī: No, I didn't understand it like this, that Kṛṣṇa is the Lord. So my Lord is everyone else's Lord, and He's the controller, and that's why He's mine.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: He's mine, He's your, everyone's. That's all.</p>
<p>Himāvatī: I can understand it now.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>