|
|
Line 11: |
Line 11: |
| {{toc right}} | | {{toc right}} |
| [[Category:Religiousness - different aspects of - Umbrella Category]] | | [[Category:Religiousness - different aspects of - Umbrella Category]] |
| [[Category:Place]] | | [[Category:Place|2]] |
| </div> | | </div> |
| <div id="Srimad-Bhagavatam" class="section" sec_index="1" parent="compilation" text="Srimad-Bhagavatam"><h2>Srimad-Bhagavatam</h2> | | <div id="Srimad-Bhagavatam" class="section" sec_index="1" parent="compilation" text="Srimad-Bhagavatam"><h2>Srimad-Bhagavatam</h2> |
Line 44: |
Line 44: |
| <div class="heading">Why this house? Before our occupation, why this house was an ordinary house? Now it is temple. It is dharma-kṣetra, it is a religious place. Why? Because Kṛṣṇa is there. | | <div class="heading">Why this house? Before our occupation, why this house was an ordinary house? Now it is temple. It is dharma-kṣetra, it is a religious place. Why? Because Kṛṣṇa is there. |
| </div> | | </div> |
| <span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 1.1 -- London, July 7, 1973|Lecture on BG 1.1 -- London, July 7, 1973]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">So when the planning was complete and the warfield was set up at dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre ([[Vanisource:BG 1.1|BG 1.1]]). Dharma-kṣetre means, kuru-kṣetre, that place is a pilgrimage. People still go to observe religious ritualistic performances. And in the Vedas there is injunction, kuru-kṣetre dharmam ācaret: "If you want to perform some ritualistic ceremonies, religious, then go to Kurukṣetra." So Kurukṣetra is a dharma-kṣetra. It is a not fictitious thing, just like rascal commentators, so-called, they say, "Kurukṣetra means this body." It is not that. As it is. Try to understand Bhagavad-gītā as it is. Kurukṣetra, dharma-kṣetra. It is a place of religion. And especially when Kṛṣṇa was present there, it is already. Why this house? Before our occupation, why this house was an ordinary house? Now it is temple. It is dharma-kṣetra, it is a religious place. Why? Because Kṛṣṇa is there. Kṛṣṇa is there. So either you take Kurukṣetra, ordinary place. But because in the battlefield Kṛṣṇa was there directing Arjuna. So it is already dharma-kṣetra.</p> | | <span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 1.1 -- London, July 7, 1973|Lecture on BG 1.1 -- London, July 7, 1973]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">So when the planning was complete and the warfield was set up at dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre ([[Vanisource:BG 1.1 (1972)|BG 1.1]]). Dharma-kṣetre means, kuru-kṣetre, that place is a pilgrimage. People still go to observe religious ritualistic performances. And in the Vedas there is injunction, kuru-kṣetre dharmam ācaret: "If you want to perform some ritualistic ceremonies, religious, then go to Kurukṣetra." So Kurukṣetra is a dharma-kṣetra. It is a not fictitious thing, just like rascal commentators, so-called, they say, "Kurukṣetra means this body." It is not that. As it is. Try to understand Bhagavad-gītā as it is. Kurukṣetra, dharma-kṣetra. It is a place of religion. And especially when Kṛṣṇa was present there, it is already. Why this house? Before our occupation, why this house was an ordinary house? Now it is temple. It is dharma-kṣetra, it is a religious place. Why? Because Kṛṣṇa is there. Kṛṣṇa is there. So either you take Kurukṣetra, ordinary place. But because in the battlefield Kṛṣṇa was there directing Arjuna. So it is already dharma-kṣetra.</p> |
| <p>So formerly people were religiously trained up. So they could not speak lies in a dharma-kṣetra. That is still the practice. Just like in the western world, the Christians go to the church, they admit, confession, "Yes, I have done it." But that has become a formality. But actually, one should admit in religious place that "Yes, I have done this." But that does not mean you admit and again do it. No. You admit once, then you are excused. But don't do it again.</p> | | <p>So formerly people were religiously trained up. So they could not speak lies in a dharma-kṣetra. That is still the practice. Just like in the western world, the Christians go to the church, they admit, confession, "Yes, I have done it." But that has become a formality. But actually, one should admit in religious place that "Yes, I have done this." But that does not mean you admit and again do it. No. You admit once, then you are excused. But don't do it again.</p> |
| <p>So here Dhṛtarāṣṭra says, samavetā yuyutsavaḥ ([[Vanisource:BG 1.1|BG 1.1]]). "All these people, my sons, māmakāḥ..." Māmakāḥ. That means "my sons," and pāṇḍava, "my brother Pāṇḍu's sons." Samavetā, "they assembled." What is the purpose? The purpose is yuyutsavaḥ. This word yuyutsu is still used in Japan. Perhaps you know, yuyutsa, fighting. So yuyutsu, those who are desirous of fighting. Now, both the parties were desiring to fight, and they assembled. Why he is asking question, kim akurvata: "What did they do"? Because he was little doubtful that "These boys, after being assembled in dharma-kṣetra kuru-kṣe..., they might have changed their ideas. They might have settled up." Actually, the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra might have admitted, "Yes, Pāṇḍavas, you are actually the owner. What is the use of unnecessarily fighting?" So he was very much anxious whether they had changed their decision. Therefore he is asking. Otherwise there was no question of asking, kim akurvata. He... Just like if you are given food, if I ask somebody that "Such and such gentleman was served with nice dishes. Then what did he do?" This is foolish question. He would eat. That's all. (laughter) What is the question of "What did he do?" Similarly, when it is already settled up that they were to fight, there was no such question as kim akurvata, "What did they do?" But he asked this question because he was doubtful whether they had changed their opinion.</p> | | <p>So here Dhṛtarāṣṭra says, samavetā yuyutsavaḥ ([[Vanisource:BG 1.1 (1972)|BG 1.1]]). "All these people, my sons, māmakāḥ..." Māmakāḥ. That means "my sons," and pāṇḍava, "my brother Pāṇḍu's sons." Samavetā, "they assembled." What is the purpose? The purpose is yuyutsavaḥ. This word yuyutsu is still used in Japan. Perhaps you know, yuyutsa, fighting. So yuyutsu, those who are desirous of fighting. Now, both the parties were desiring to fight, and they assembled. Why he is asking question, kim akurvata: "What did they do"? Because he was little doubtful that "These boys, after being assembled in dharma-kṣetra kuru-kṣe..., they might have changed their ideas. They might have settled up." Actually, the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra might have admitted, "Yes, Pāṇḍavas, you are actually the owner. What is the use of unnecessarily fighting?" So he was very much anxious whether they had changed their decision. Therefore he is asking. Otherwise there was no question of asking, kim akurvata. He... Just like if you are given food, if I ask somebody that "Such and such gentleman was served with nice dishes. Then what did he do?" This is foolish question. He would eat. That's all. (laughter) What is the question of "What did he do?" Similarly, when it is already settled up that they were to fight, there was no such question as kim akurvata, "What did they do?" But he asked this question because he was doubtful whether they had changed their opinion.</p> |
| </div> | | </div> |
| </div> | | </div> |
Line 70: |
Line 70: |
| :māmakāḥ pāṇḍavāś caiva | | :māmakāḥ pāṇḍavāś caiva |
| :kim akurvata sañjaya | | :kim akurvata sañjaya |
| :([[Vanisource:BG 1.1|BG 1.1]]) | | :([[Vanisource:BG 1.1 (1972)|BG 1.1]]) |
| <p>What is the difficulty to understand Kurukṣetra is a religious place, acknowledged by the Vedas, and it is going on still? Why do they interpret, "Kurukṣetra means this body"? Is it not rascal? Why there is interpretation when you understand a thing very clearly? Eh?</p> | | <p>What is the difficulty to understand Kurukṣetra is a religious place, acknowledged by the Vedas, and it is going on still? Why do they interpret, "Kurukṣetra means this body"? Is it not rascal? Why there is interpretation when you understand a thing very clearly? Eh?</p> |
| <p>Guest (3): Because Kurukṣetra is to be taken as a particular place.</p> | | <p>Guest (3): Because Kurukṣetra is to be taken as a particular place.</p> |
Line 85: |
Line 85: |
| <div class="heading">Dharmakṣetra, that is a religious place, place of pilgrimage. Still, people go for religious performances. In the Vedas it is stated, kuru-kṣetre dharmam ācaret. One should perform religious rituals in the Kurukṣetra. | | <div class="heading">Dharmakṣetra, that is a religious place, place of pilgrimage. Still, people go for religious performances. In the Vedas it is stated, kuru-kṣetre dharmam ācaret. One should perform religious rituals in the Kurukṣetra. |
| </div> | | </div> |
| <span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on SB 7.6.1 -- Montreal, June 10, 1968|Lecture on SB 7.6.1 -- Montreal, June 10, 1968]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">...and so far occupation is concerned, just see whether by your occupation you are satisfying God. That is your perfection. (break) Kṛṣṇa does not say that you change your occupation. Just like Arjuna. He is a kṣatriya. His business is to fight. The division of human society, brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya and śūdra, is very scientific. A kṣatriya is meant for fighting. A brāhmaṇa is meant for intelligent work. A vaiśya is meant for business. A śūdra is meant for labor. But because there is no such division, people are not trained from the very beginning. Therefore a śūdra is called by the draftboard, "Come on," to fight. Now, how he can fight? He is not a kṣatriya. So they are flying away. They're taking visa for another country and going away. How he can fight? He is not kṣatriya. So Kṛṣṇa said Arjuna that, "You are kṣatriya." He did not say... Kṛṣṇa wanted, Arjuna wanted to become a false brāhmaṇa. He said, "Oh, I shall become nonviolent, and even though I don't get my kingdom I shall beg like a brāhmaṇa and shall live away. Kṛṣṇa, don't ask me to fight." This is false brahmanism. "Oh," Kṛṣṇa said, "you are kṣatriya. You must fight." It cannot imitate a brāhmaṇa's business. This is false. So anyone has got a particular duty, as I explained in the beginning. So he, let him do that particular duty. He doesn't require to change. Sva-karmaṇā tam abhyarcya ([[Vanisource:BG 18.46|BG 18.46]]). But try to see whether by execution of your particular type of duty you have satisfied God. That is your perfection. (break) ...life. That is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Kṛṣṇa consciousness, we do not say that you give up all your engagements, come here in the temple and simply go on chanting. Consciousness, you must come to the perfection of consciousness that I am eternally related with Kṛṣṇa and God... (break) So Vedic literature does not say like that. It is order. You have to accept it. If you do not understand, try to understand it. That is a different thing. Just like in the Bhagavad-gītā there is no question of interpretation. In the beginning it is said</p> | | <span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on SB 7.6.1 -- Montreal, June 10, 1968|Lecture on SB 7.6.1 -- Montreal, June 10, 1968]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">...and so far occupation is concerned, just see whether by your occupation you are satisfying God. That is your perfection. (break) Kṛṣṇa does not say that you change your occupation. Just like Arjuna. He is a kṣatriya. His business is to fight. The division of human society, brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya and śūdra, is very scientific. A kṣatriya is meant for fighting. A brāhmaṇa is meant for intelligent work. A vaiśya is meant for business. A śūdra is meant for labor. But because there is no such division, people are not trained from the very beginning. Therefore a śūdra is called by the draftboard, "Come on," to fight. Now, how he can fight? He is not a kṣatriya. So they are flying away. They're taking visa for another country and going away. How he can fight? He is not kṣatriya. So Kṛṣṇa said Arjuna that, "You are kṣatriya." He did not say... Kṛṣṇa wanted, Arjuna wanted to become a false brāhmaṇa. He said, "Oh, I shall become nonviolent, and even though I don't get my kingdom I shall beg like a brāhmaṇa and shall live away. Kṛṣṇa, don't ask me to fight." This is false brahmanism. "Oh," Kṛṣṇa said, "you are kṣatriya. You must fight." It cannot imitate a brāhmaṇa's business. This is false. So anyone has got a particular duty, as I explained in the beginning. So he, let him do that particular duty. He doesn't require to change. Sva-karmaṇā tam abhyarcya ([[Vanisource:BG 18.46 (1972)|BG 18.46]]). But try to see whether by execution of your particular type of duty you have satisfied God. That is your perfection. (break) ...life. That is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Kṛṣṇa consciousness, we do not say that you give up all your engagements, come here in the temple and simply go on chanting. Consciousness, you must come to the perfection of consciousness that I am eternally related with Kṛṣṇa and God... (break) So Vedic literature does not say like that. It is order. You have to accept it. If you do not understand, try to understand it. That is a different thing. Just like in the Bhagavad-gītā there is no question of interpretation. In the beginning it is said</p> |
| :dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre | | :dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre |
| :samavetā yuyutsavaḥ | | :samavetā yuyutsavaḥ |
| :māmakāḥ pāṇḍavāś caiva | | :māmakāḥ pāṇḍavāś caiva |
| :kim akurvata sañjaya | | :kim akurvata sañjaya |
| :([[Vanisource:BG 1.1|BG 1.1]]) | | :([[Vanisource:BG 1.1 (1972)|BG 1.1]]) |
| <p>"My dear Sañjaya," Dhṛtarāṣṭra is asking his private secretary, Mr. Sañjaya, "my sons and my brother's sons, Pāṇḍava..." His brother's name was Pandu, therefore they are Pāṇḍava. Māmakāḥ means "my sons." Where is the scope for interpretation? Kuru-kṣetre. There is still one place, you know better, you are Indian, there is place Kurukṣetra still existing. Dharmakṣetra, that is a religious place, place of pilgrimage. Still, people go for religious performances. In the Vedas it is stated, kuru-kṣetre dharmam ācaret. One should perform religious rituals in the Kurukṣetra. So where is the scope for interpretation? Interpretation means when you cannot understand something. Then you can interpret. But here Kurukṣetra you can understand, dharma-kṣetra you can understand, māmakāḥ you can understand, pāṇḍava you can understand, they assembled for fighting you can understand. Why do you interpret? What is the necessity of interpretation? That means he wants to show that he has got some better intelligence than the speaker of the Bhagavad-gītā. We do not accept such things, nonsense.</p> | | <p>"My dear Sañjaya," Dhṛtarāṣṭra is asking his private secretary, Mr. Sañjaya, "my sons and my brother's sons, Pāṇḍava..." His brother's name was Pandu, therefore they are Pāṇḍava. Māmakāḥ means "my sons." Where is the scope for interpretation? Kuru-kṣetre. There is still one place, you know better, you are Indian, there is place Kurukṣetra still existing. Dharmakṣetra, that is a religious place, place of pilgrimage. Still, people go for religious performances. In the Vedas it is stated, kuru-kṣetre dharmam ācaret. One should perform religious rituals in the Kurukṣetra. So where is the scope for interpretation? Interpretation means when you cannot understand something. Then you can interpret. But here Kurukṣetra you can understand, dharma-kṣetra you can understand, māmakāḥ you can understand, pāṇḍava you can understand, they assembled for fighting you can understand. Why do you interpret? What is the necessity of interpretation? That means he wants to show that he has got some better intelligence than the speaker of the Bhagavad-gītā. We do not accept such things, nonsense.</p> |
| </div> | | </div> |
Line 101: |
Line 101: |
| <span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Johann Gottlieb Fichte|Philosophy Discussion on Johann Gottlieb Fichte]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: But thing is that what is morality? If he cannot define what is morality, simply saying on moral principles, what is this morality? First of all you have to understand what is morality. Simply imaginary moral principle. We want practical understanding what is morality. That they have not defined.</p> | | <span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Johann Gottlieb Fichte|Philosophy Discussion on Johann Gottlieb Fichte]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: But thing is that what is morality? If he cannot define what is morality, simply saying on moral principles, what is this morality? First of all you have to understand what is morality. Simply imaginary moral principle. We want practical understanding what is morality. That they have not defined.</p> |
| <p>Hayagrīva: Not, not specifically.</p> | | <p>Hayagrīva: Not, not specifically.</p> |
| <p>Prabhupāda: Then what is immoral? Everyone will say this is morality. Just like we say, following the Vedic scripture, we say kṛṣi-go-rakṣya-vāṇijyam ([[Vanisource:BG 18.44|BG 18.44]]), go-rakṣya, to give protection to the cows. So according to the scripture we would say it is morality, and somebody will say no, killing a cow in some religious place, mosque or synagogue, this is morality. So which one is morality?</p> | | <p>Prabhupāda: Then what is immoral? Everyone will say this is morality. Just like we say, following the Vedic scripture, we say kṛṣi-go-rakṣya-vāṇijyam ([[Vanisource:BG 18.44 (1972)|BG 18.44]]), go-rakṣya, to give protection to the cows. So according to the scripture we would say it is morality, and somebody will say no, killing a cow in some religious place, mosque or synagogue, this is morality. So which one is morality?</p> |
| <p>Hayagrīva: Well he, following Kant, he emphasized inner reality...</p> | | <p>Hayagrīva: Well he, following Kant, he emphasized inner reality...</p> |
| <p>Prabhupāda: He may, he may follow Kant and I may follow Kṛṣṇa, but if there is contradiction, then which one is morality? How it will be decided, and who will decide? He may follow somebody. That this question I asked Professor Kotovsky in Moscow, that "You are following Communism, and we are following, say, Kṛṣṇa-ism, but your leader is Lenin and our leader is Kṛṣṇa, that so far the philosophy is concerned we have to accept a leader." So there is no difference in the basic principle of philosophy that we must have a leader. Now who shall be the leader and who will decide it? Regards to both of us, we have got a leader. Now which leader is perfect? If both of them are perfect, then why there is difference of opinion—one leader does not agree with the other leader? So who will answer this question that who is the best leader? Leader you have to follow. That you cannot avoid. Either you follow Kant or you follow Kṛṣṇa. Either you follow Lenin or you follow Kṛṣṇa. What is the answer? Who is the perfect leader? You cannot avoid leader, either you say according to Kant, I say according to Kṛṣṇa.</p> | | <p>Prabhupāda: He may, he may follow Kant and I may follow Kṛṣṇa, but if there is contradiction, then which one is morality? How it will be decided, and who will decide? He may follow somebody. That this question I asked Professor Kotovsky in Moscow, that "You are following Communism, and we are following, say, Kṛṣṇa-ism, but your leader is Lenin and our leader is Kṛṣṇa, that so far the philosophy is concerned we have to accept a leader." So there is no difference in the basic principle of philosophy that we must have a leader. Now who shall be the leader and who will decide it? Regards to both of us, we have got a leader. Now which leader is perfect? If both of them are perfect, then why there is difference of opinion—one leader does not agree with the other leader? So who will answer this question that who is the best leader? Leader you have to follow. That you cannot avoid. Either you follow Kant or you follow Kṛṣṇa. Either you follow Lenin or you follow Kṛṣṇa. What is the answer? Who is the perfect leader? You cannot avoid leader, either you say according to Kant, I say according to Kṛṣṇa.</p> |
Line 118: |
Line 118: |
| <p>Prabhupāda: Kurukṣetra, battlefield.</p> | | <p>Prabhupāda: Kurukṣetra, battlefield.</p> |
| <p>Dr. Weir: Oh, I'm sorry, that's the place (indistinct) I thought you meant the battle was still on.</p> | | <p>Dr. Weir: Oh, I'm sorry, that's the place (indistinct) I thought you meant the battle was still on.</p> |
| <p>Prabhupāda: No. Battlefield, where the battle was fought, took place, that is still there. There is a railway station, Kurukṣetra. And that Kurukṣetra is still dharmakṣetra, a religious place. People go on pilgrimage, and in the Vedas also it is stated that Kurukṣetra is (Sanskrit), you perform religious rituals in Kurukṣetra. Therefore in the Bhagavad-gītā it is said dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre ([[Vanisource:BG 1.1|BG 1.1]]). It is fact, historical fact. It is not imagination. But many commentators have taken as imagination. Therefore they are misled. It is historical.</p> | | <p>Prabhupāda: No. Battlefield, where the battle was fought, took place, that is still there. There is a railway station, Kurukṣetra. And that Kurukṣetra is still dharmakṣetra, a religious place. People go on pilgrimage, and in the Vedas also it is stated that Kurukṣetra is (Sanskrit), you perform religious rituals in Kurukṣetra. Therefore in the Bhagavad-gītā it is said dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre ([[Vanisource:BG 1.1 (1972)|BG 1.1]]). It is fact, historical fact. It is not imagination. But many commentators have taken as imagination. Therefore they are misled. It is historical.</p> |
| </div> | | </div> |
| </div> | | </div> |
Line 132: |
Line 132: |
| <p>Prabhupāda: He was present five thousand years ago. He came on this planet and gave instruction, Bhagavad-gītā. So that is recorded.</p> | | <p>Prabhupāda: He was present five thousand years ago. He came on this planet and gave instruction, Bhagavad-gītā. So that is recorded.</p> |
| <p>Reporter (1): Why have you written Bhagavad-gītā as it really is? Why?</p> | | <p>Reporter (1): Why have you written Bhagavad-gītā as it really is? Why?</p> |
| <p>Prabhupāda: As it is, because there are many foolish rascals, they interpret unnecessarily. Just like Kurukṣetra. Kurukṣetra is a place in India, still existing. So in the Bhagavad-gītā it is said, dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre samavetā yuyutsavaḥ ([[Vanisource:BG 1.1|BG 1.1]]). The meaning is clear, that "Kurukṣetra is a religious place and there, the Pāṇḍavas and the Kurus, they assembled together for fighting." But many so-called leaders, political leaders, scholars, they have interpreted, "Kurukṣetra means the body."</p> | | <p>Prabhupāda: As it is, because there are many foolish rascals, they interpret unnecessarily. Just like Kurukṣetra. Kurukṣetra is a place in India, still existing. So in the Bhagavad-gītā it is said, dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre samavetā yuyutsavaḥ ([[Vanisource:BG 1.1 (1972)|BG 1.1]]). The meaning is clear, that "Kurukṣetra is a religious place and there, the Pāṇḍavas and the Kurus, they assembled together for fighting." But many so-called leaders, political leaders, scholars, they have interpreted, "Kurukṣetra means the body."</p> |
| <p>Reporter (1): Can you tell me the chant? Will you recite the chant to me? And then tell me why it's used so often by the followers?</p> | | <p>Reporter (1): Can you tell me the chant? Will you recite the chant to me? And then tell me why it's used so often by the followers?</p> |
| <p>Prabhupāda: Which one?</p> | | <p>Prabhupāda: Which one?</p> |