View source for So our standard of morality and immorality is to see whether Krsna is satisfied. If Krsna is satisfied, then it is morality. If Krsna is dissatisfied, then it is immoral. And Krsna's representative also

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"So our standard of morality and immorality is to see whether Krsna is satisfied. If Krsna is satisfied, then it is morality. If Krsna is dissatisfied, then it is immoral. And Krsna's representative also"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|Krsnadas}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|13Dec11}}
{{last|13Dec11}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=1|Con=0|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:Our Standards (Disciples of SP)]]
[[Category:Standard of Morality]]
[[Category:see]]
[[Category:whether]]
[[Category:Krsna Is Fully Satisfied]]
[[Category:If Krsna Is]]
[[Category:Krsna's Morality]]
[[Category:Krsna's Dissatisfaction]]
[[Category:Krsna's Representative]]
</div>
<div id="Lectures" class="section" sec_index="4" parent="compilation" text="Lectures"><h2>Lectures</h2>
</div>
<div id="Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is_Lectures" class="sub_section" sec_index="0" parent="Lectures" text="Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures"><h3>Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures</h3>
</div>
<div id="LectureonBG22627LondonAugust291973_0" class="quote" parent="Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is_Lectures" book="Lec" index="93" link="Lecture on BG 2.26-27 -- London, August 29, 1973" link_text="Lecture on BG 2.26-27 -- London, August 29, 1973">
<div class="heading">So our standard of morality and immorality is to see whether Kṛṣṇa is satisfied. If Kṛṣṇa is satisfied, then it is morality. If Kṛṣṇa is dissatisfied, then it is immoral. And Kṛṣṇa's representative also. Therefore, it is said yasya prasādād bhagavat-prasādo yasyāprasādān na gatiḥ kuto 'pi **. Our morality is to satisfy Kṛṣṇa or His representative, guru. Yasya prasāda. If he's satisfied, then it is moral. If he's not satisfied, then it is immoral. Na gatiḥ kuto 'pi. So this karma-vāda, that you act nicely and you'll get nice result, that is all right, but there may be some mistakes. There are so many instances. One very great charitable king, he was giving in charity so many cows to the brāhmaṇas. So there was some mistake, and for that purpose, although he was all throughout his whole life he was giving in charity, a little mistake, he became a big lizard in the well. Therefore the conclusion is that this material morality has no value. Spiritual morality. Spiritual morality means to abide by the order of Kṛṣṇa.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 2.26-27 -- London, August 29, 1973|Lecture on BG 2.26-27 -- London, August 29, 1973]]: </span><div class="text" style="display: inline; "><p style="display: inline; ">So the decision of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is harāv abhaktasya kuto mahad-guṇāḥ. Mahad-guṇāḥ. We can find it easily, just like we say that no illicit sex, no meat-eating, we consider this is sinful. But there are others, big, big leaders, politicians, philosophers, even religious priests, they do not think that this is immoral or this is sinful. Meat-eating is sinful. Why? What is the sin there? Illicit sex, what is the wrong there? Intoxication, what is wrong there? They do not find any immorality. So this standard of morality, there cannot be fixed up if one is not God conscious. There cannot be. Standard of morality, standard of goodness, cannot be. That is the decision of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Harāv abhaktasya kuto mahad-guṇāḥ. Lack of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. They think that animal has no soul. They do not accept this morality that animal cannot be killed, it is sinful, it is immoral. They have created their own theory. So without being standardized by Kṛṣṇa consciousness, or God consciousness, you cannot find the standard platform of morality, honesty. These things you cannot find. This is not possible. Therefore, the verdict of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is harāv abhaktasya kuto mahad-guṇāḥ. Just like if you do not follow a standard law, how you can fix up "This is morality" or "This is honesty or dishonesty." There must be standard law. And who can give you the law unless he is the greatest authority? So law changes according to different countries, climate, situation. So man-made law cannot give you standard morality, honesty or... It is not possible. Because one will think "This is morality," another will think, "No, this is not morality." Same thing. Keep to the left, keep to the right. Somebody says "Keep to the left is right," somebody says "Keep to the left, it is wrong." Manorathenāsati dhāvato bahiḥ ([[Vanisource:SB 5.18.12|SB 5.18.12]]). Because those who are not Kṛṣṇa conscious, they are hovering on the mental plane. They cannot, there cannot be any fixed up morality, honesty, dishonesty. No. And rascals will also say yato mata tato patha. Means, whatever you think is all right, that is all right. According to you, your conception this is right, and according to my conception, both of them are right. How both of them can be right?</p>
<p>So this contradiction, opposing elements, will continue unless there is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. So this is not a fact that the karma-vādīs simply by discharging your duties nicely... This is... On principle, it is all right. But we must know what is actual morality. There are so many examples. Just like when there is war, to kill the enemies, that is morality. But in peaceful condition if you kill a person that is immorality or sinful. The process is the same, morality or immorality, the process is the same. But sometimes it is moral, sometimes immoral. So how it will be standardized? Therefore Bhāgavata says dharmaṁ tu sākṣād bhagavat-praṇītam ([[Vanisource:SB 6.3.19|SB 6.3.19]]). Real dharma, real religion, morality, honesty, they can be decided on the words of the Supreme Lord. That is the... When Kṛṣṇa says "This is all right," then it is all right. When Kṛṣṇa says it is not right, then it is not right. This is our decision. We Kṛṣṇa conscious men, we simply accept. And that is a fact. That is a fact in this way because Kṛṣṇa is the greatest authority, Supreme Being. Supreme means the greatest authority. Just like state says "Now it is wartime. If you kill a number of enemies then you will be awarded with gold medal." The same process of killing. But at another time, when there is no war, if you kill one person you'll be hanged. The killing process is the same, but the judgement is given by the greatest authority, the government. "This is all right, this is not right." Therefore, standard of morality means to abide by the orders of the greatest authority. That is standard of morality. This is the conclusion. You cannot make your own morality. No. If Kṛṣṇa says "This is all right," then it is all right. Otherwise, it is not.</p>
<p>Kṛṣṇa says patraṁ puṣpaṁ phalaṁ toyaṁ yo me bhaktyā prayacchati ([[Vanisource:BG 9.26 (1972)|BG 9.26]]). "If somebody offers Me vegetables, leaves, grains, milk, water, flowers, then I accept." So this is nice foodstuff, it is to be accepted. Because Kṛṣṇa likes to eat this. Kṛṣṇa can eat anything because He is the supreme, He is omnipotent, He can eat anything, but He particularly mentions this. Therefore, foodstuff made of these ingredients is nice, sāttvika, goodness. So the karma-vāda, that you follow morality you'll get good results... But where is your morality? Because you are disobedient to God. In the beginning of your life, you are immoral. You are disobeying the greatest authority. There is another example, a story, that a gang of thieves, they stolen some property from different houses, then out of the village they are dividing amongst themselves the booties. So one thief is saying, "Please divide it morally so that one may not be cheated." Now just imagine, the property is stolen. Where is the morality there? But when dividing, they are thinking of morality. The basic principle is immoral. Where you can have morality? Similarly, according to Vedic injunction, īśāvāsyam idaṁ sarvam ([[Vanisource:ISO 1|ISO 1]]). Everything belongs to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. It is His property. So the whole planet is God's property, whole universe is God's property. But when we are claiming that this is my property, then where is morality? If you claim other's property as your property, then where is the morality?</p>
<p>So in this material world, such kind of morality, honesty, is going on. But our morality is if Kṛṣṇa is satisfied, then it is honesty, morality, everything. There are many examples. Just like Prahlāda Mahārāja. Prahlāda Mahārāja is standing and his father is being killed by Nṛsiṁha-deva in his presence. So do you think it is morality that one's father is being killed in the presence of his son, and the son without protest is seeing, with a garland, that "As soon as my father is killed, I shall offer this garland to Nṛsiṁha-deva"? Is it morality? From material point of view? We are worshiping... Prahlāda Mahārāja has become mahājana, the greatest authority in devotional service, but if we study his morality that he did not protest the killing of his father, rather he was waiting with a garland, that "As soon as the killing business is finished I'll reward this." You see? Where is material morality, there is no morality.</p>
<p>The gopīs, they were young girls, wife of somebody, sister of somebody, daughter of somebody, but when Kṛṣṇa was playing on His flute at dead of night, they gave up all their engagement and began to run, "Where Kṛṣṇa is present?" So from Vedic standard of view, this is immorality. They are going to another young boy and leaving family. Even somebody, some of the gopīs, they left their sons also, and went to Kṛṣṇa. From material point of view this is immoral. So you'll find in such a way that what is from material point of view immoral, it is the most magnificent morality in relationship with Kṛṣṇa. And similarly, from material point of view, what is moral, that is most, I mean to say, abominable from the point of view... Just like Yudhiṣṭhira Mahārāja. Yudhiṣṭhira Mahārāja became very moral. Kṛṣṇa advised him, "Just go and tell Droṇācārya that 'Your son is dead,' " although his son was not dead. Because Droṇācārya will not die unless he hears the news of the death of his son. He'll not die. So he would not believe anyone, but Yudhiṣṭhira Mahārāja is famous, very moral. So Kṛṣṇa asked him that "You go, otherwise he'll not believe anyone." So Yudhiṣṭhira Mahārāja hesitated, "How can I say lies?" So for this he had to see hell. He became immoral. Man-nimitte kṛtaṁ pāpaṁ puṇyāya eva kalpate.</p>
<p>So our standard of morality and immorality is to see whether Kṛṣṇa is satisfied. If Kṛṣṇa is satisfied, then it is morality. If Kṛṣṇa is dissatisfied, then it is immoral. And Kṛṣṇa's representative also. Therefore, it is said yasya prasādād bhagavat-prasādo yasyāprasādān na gatiḥ kuto 'pi **. Our morality is to satisfy Kṛṣṇa or His representative, guru. Yasya prasāda. If he's satisfied, then it is moral. If he's not satisfied, then it is immoral. Na gatiḥ kuto 'pi. So this karma-vāda, that you act nicely and you'll get nice result, that is all right, but there may be some mistakes. There are so many instances. One very great charitable king, he was giving in charity so many cows to the brāhmaṇas. So there was some mistake, and for that purpose, although he was all throughout his whole life he was giving in charity, a little mistake, he became a big lizard in the well. Therefore the conclusion is that this material morality has no value. Spiritual morality. Spiritual morality means to abide by the order of Kṛṣṇa. That is morality. Whatever Kṛṣṇa says, if we accept, saṁsiddhir hari-toṣaṇam. Many places.</p>
:ataḥ pumbhir dvija-śreṣṭhā
:varṇāśrama-vibhāgaśaḥ
:svanuṣṭhitasya dharmasya
:saṁsiddhir hari-toṣaṇam
:([[Vanisource:SB 1.2.13|SB 1.2.13]])
<p>In many places. Svanuṣṭhitasya dharmasya saṁsiddhir hari-toṣaṇam. In another place, that, if you execute your morality principles but if by executing such morality principle you do not, I mean to say, awaken your Kṛṣṇa consciousness, it is simply waste of time. Wherever you go, the Bhāgavata conclusion, harāv abhaktasya kuto mahad-guṇāḥ. We have to keep in point of view that to become... Kṛṣṇa also says in Bhagavad-gītā: api cet su-durācāro bhajate mām ananya-bhāk sādhur eva sa mantavyaḥ ([[Vanisource:BG 9.30 (1972)|BG 9.30]]). Even one is found su-durācāraḥ, not very strictly following moral principles, but he is an unflinching devotee of Kṛṣṇa, he's sādhu. These things are there. Therefore the point should be that we should not accept this karma-vāda or the bauddha-vāda or Māyāvāda, there are so many vādas. We shall simply take kṛṣṇa-vāda. Simply, simply accept Kṛṣṇa. And whatever He orders, whatever He likes, for His satisfaction, we shall do anything and everything. That is our morality.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>