Handless: Difference between revisions
Visnu Murti (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
(Conversion/restructure for compatibility with the version 2.0 of the compile tools) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<div id="compilation"> | |||
<div id="facts"> | |||
{{terms|handless}} | {{terms|handless}} | ||
| Line 20: | Line 22: | ||
[[Category:impersonalist]] | [[Category:impersonalist]] | ||
</div> | |||
== Lectures = | <div class="section" id="Lectures" text="Lectures"><h2>Lectures</h2></div> | ||
=== Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures | <div class="sub_section" id="Srimad-Bhagavatam_Lectures" text="Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures"><h3>Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures</h3></div> | ||
<span class="q_heading">'''Kṛṣṇa is sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha [Bs. 5.1], and the Māyāvādīs always trying to make Him handless, legless, headless, earless, and this-less, that-less, less, less, less. Then what is remaining? Say zero. '''</span> | <span class="q_heading">'''Kṛṣṇa is sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha [Bs. 5.1], and the Māyāvādīs always trying to make Him handless, legless, headless, earless, and this-less, that-less, less, less, less. Then what is remaining? Say zero. '''</span> | ||
< | <div class="quote" book="Lec" link="Lecture on SB 1.7.30-31 -- Vrndavana, September 26, 1976" link_text="Lecture on SB 1.7.30-31 -- Vrndavana, September 26, 1976"> | ||
So what is the use of approaching a guru who is offender to Kṛṣṇa? Tān ahaṁ dviṣataḥ krūrān kṣipāmy ajasram aśubhān āsurīṣv eva yoniṣu [Bg. 16.19]—those who are envious... Kṛṣṇa is sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha [Bs. 5.1], and the Māyāvādīs always trying to make Him handless, legless, headless, earless, and this-less, that-less, less, less, less. Then what is remaining? Say zero. Why don't you say zero? No. They are very careful. These śūnyavādīs, the Buddhists, they clearly say there is no God. Zero. Śūnyavādī. So we can understand their position, and the Māyāvādīs, they're so dangerous that they will not say that God is zero. They will say, "Yes, there is God, but He's handless, legless, eyeless, this-less, that-less, that less." What is the meaning? Say zero. We can understand. But why you say indirectly zero? Therefore Caitanya Mahāprabhu has said that veda nā māniyā bauddha haya ta' nāstika. Nāstika means one who does not believe in the statement of the Vedas. He's nāstika, atheist. Just like here, in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Kṛṣṇa is person. This is Vedic literature. Bhagavad-gītā, Kṛṣṇa is person, aham. Always He says. Aham ādir hi devānām [Bg 10.2]. Man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru [Bg. 18.65]. Sarva-dharmān parityajya [Bg. 18.66]. He's person.</ | <div class="text">'''[[Vanisource:Lecture on SB 1.7.30-31 -- Vrndavana, September 26, 1976|Lecture on SB 1.7.30-31 -- Vrndavana, September 26, 1976]]:''' The Māyāvādīs, they are offenders to Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Person, and the Māyāvādī wants to make Him imperson; therefore they are offenders. | ||
So what is the use of approaching a guru who is offender to Kṛṣṇa? Tān ahaṁ dviṣataḥ krūrān kṣipāmy ajasram aśubhān āsurīṣv eva yoniṣu [Bg. 16.19]—those who are envious... Kṛṣṇa is sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha [Bs. 5.1], and the Māyāvādīs always trying to make Him handless, legless, headless, earless, and this-less, that-less, less, less, less. Then what is remaining? Say zero. Why don't you say zero? No. They are very careful. These śūnyavādīs, the Buddhists, they clearly say there is no God. Zero. Śūnyavādī. So we can understand their position, and the Māyāvādīs, they're so dangerous that they will not say that God is zero. They will say, "Yes, there is God, but He's handless, legless, eyeless, this-less, that-less, that less." What is the meaning? Say zero. We can understand. But why you say indirectly zero? Therefore Caitanya Mahāprabhu has said that veda nā māniyā bauddha haya ta' nāstika. Nāstika means one who does not believe in the statement of the Vedas. He's nāstika, atheist. Just like here, in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Kṛṣṇa is person. This is Vedic literature. Bhagavad-gītā, Kṛṣṇa is person, aham. Always He says. Aham ādir hi devānām [Bg 10.2]. Man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru [Bg. 18.65]. Sarva-dharmān parityajya [Bg. 18.66]. He's person.</div> | |||
</div> | |||
< | <div class="quote" book="Lec" link="Lecture on SB 6.2.16 -- Vrndavana, September 19, 1975" link_text="Lecture on SB 6.2.16 -- Vrndavana, September 19, 1975"> | ||
<div class="heading">That is the greatest offense. Suppose you are a gentleman, and if I say, "You are blind. You are lame. You are handless. You are armless. You have no head. You are...," will you be sat..., happy? Will anybody be happy?</div> | |||
< | <div class="text">'''[[Vanisource:Lecture on SB 6.2.16 -- Vrndavana, September 19, 1975|Lecture on SB 6.2.16 -- Vrndavana, September 19, 1975]]:''' Why an impersonalist, although very advanced in knowledge, in Vedic knowledge, still he does not know what is Kṛṣṇa? He inquires, "What is God?" Just see. God is canvassing, "Here I am," and he is inquiring, "What is God?" So this is our misfortune. Why they cannot realize? Duṣkṛtina. Duṣkṛtina means acting sinfully. Specifically denying the existence of God. That is the greatest offense. Suppose you are a gentleman, and if I say, "You are blind. You are lame. You are handless. You are armless. You have no head. You are...," will you be sat..., happy? Will anybody be happy? Similarly, those persons who are describing the Absolute Personality of Godhead, "He has no eyes..." In other words, he is blind. "He has no hand" mean armless. "He has no leg," then he is lame man. "He has no tongue." In this way it is the definition by negation, and after all, make it zero. If you cut my hand, leg, my head, my eyes, ears, then what I remain?</div> | ||
</div> | |||
=== Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures | <div class="sub_section" id="Sri_Caitanya-caritamrta_Lectures" text="Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures"><h3>Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures</h3></div> | ||
< | <div class="quote" book="Lec" link="Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 25.31-38 -- San Francisco, January 22, 1967" link_text="Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 25.31-38 -- San Francisco, January 22, 1967"> | ||
<div class="heading">So these impersonalists, they are always, I mean to..., trying to understand how God is eyeless, handless, legless, all less. Simply he has got eyes to see beautiful things. He has got his hands to touch nice things. No. These are offenses. </div> | |||
< | <div class="text">'''[[Vanisource:Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 25.31-38 -- San Francisco, January 22, 1967|Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 25.31-38 -- San Francisco, January 22, 1967]]:''' Now the disciple of Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī is admitting that "God is person, His body is spiritual, but we do not accept it." It is the greatest offense. It is the greatest offense. How it is offense? Suppose you are my friend, and if I say, "Oh, you have no eyes. You have no hand. You have no leg. You have no tongue..." "You have no leg" means you are lame man. "You have no eyes" means you are blind man. "You have no hand" means... That means I am calling you by all ill names. "You are blind. You are lame. You are nonsense. You are rascal." So are they not offenses against the friend? If I say, "You have no eyes," it is gentlemanly speaking that "You are blind." If I directly say, "You are blind," oh, will you be very happy upon me? No. If I say, if "You have no leg..." Suppose if I say if "You have no brain," that means "You are rascal. You are fool." So these impersonalists, they are always, I mean to..., trying to understand how God is eyeless, handless, legless, all less. Simply he has got eyes to see beautiful things. He has got his hands to touch nice things. No. These are offenses. According to Caitanya Mahāprabhu these are great offense against God. So therefore they are, life after life, they are studying this impersonalism, but there is no perfection.</div> | ||
</div> | |||
</div> | |||
Latest revision as of 14:26, 4 October 2009
Lectures
Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures
Kṛṣṇa is sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha [Bs. 5.1], and the Māyāvādīs always trying to make Him handless, legless, headless, earless, and this-less, that-less, less, less, less. Then what is remaining? Say zero.
Lecture on SB 1.7.30-31 -- Vrndavana, September 26, 1976: The Māyāvādīs, they are offenders to Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Person, and the Māyāvādī wants to make Him imperson; therefore they are offenders.
So what is the use of approaching a guru who is offender to Kṛṣṇa? Tān ahaṁ dviṣataḥ krūrān kṣipāmy ajasram aśubhān āsurīṣv eva yoniṣu [Bg. 16.19]—those who are envious... Kṛṣṇa is sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha [Bs. 5.1], and the Māyāvādīs always trying to make Him handless, legless, headless, earless, and this-less, that-less, less, less, less. Then what is remaining? Say zero. Why don't you say zero? No. They are very careful. These śūnyavādīs, the Buddhists, they clearly say there is no God. Zero. Śūnyavādī. So we can understand their position, and the Māyāvādīs, they're so dangerous that they will not say that God is zero. They will say, "Yes, there is God, but He's handless, legless, eyeless, this-less, that-less, that less." What is the meaning? Say zero. We can understand. But why you say indirectly zero? Therefore Caitanya Mahāprabhu has said that veda nā māniyā bauddha haya ta' nāstika. Nāstika means one who does not believe in the statement of the Vedas. He's nāstika, atheist. Just like here, in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Kṛṣṇa is person. This is Vedic literature. Bhagavad-gītā, Kṛṣṇa is person, aham. Always He says. Aham ādir hi devānām [Bg 10.2]. Man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru [Bg. 18.65]. Sarva-dharmān parityajya [Bg. 18.66]. He's person.
That is the greatest offense. Suppose you are a gentleman, and if I say, "You are blind. You are lame. You are handless. You are armless. You have no head. You are...," will you be sat..., happy? Will anybody be happy?
Lecture on SB 6.2.16 -- Vrndavana, September 19, 1975: Why an impersonalist, although very advanced in knowledge, in Vedic knowledge, still he does not know what is Kṛṣṇa? He inquires, "What is God?" Just see. God is canvassing, "Here I am," and he is inquiring, "What is God?" So this is our misfortune. Why they cannot realize? Duṣkṛtina. Duṣkṛtina means acting sinfully. Specifically denying the existence of God. That is the greatest offense. Suppose you are a gentleman, and if I say, "You are blind. You are lame. You are handless. You are armless. You have no head. You are...," will you be sat..., happy? Will anybody be happy? Similarly, those persons who are describing the Absolute Personality of Godhead, "He has no eyes..." In other words, he is blind. "He has no hand" mean armless. "He has no leg," then he is lame man. "He has no tongue." In this way it is the definition by negation, and after all, make it zero. If you cut my hand, leg, my head, my eyes, ears, then what I remain?
Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures
So these impersonalists, they are always, I mean to..., trying to understand how God is eyeless, handless, legless, all less. Simply he has got eyes to see beautiful things. He has got his hands to touch nice things. No. These are offenses.
Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 25.31-38 -- San Francisco, January 22, 1967: Now the disciple of Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī is admitting that "God is person, His body is spiritual, but we do not accept it." It is the greatest offense. It is the greatest offense. How it is offense? Suppose you are my friend, and if I say, "Oh, you have no eyes. You have no hand. You have no leg. You have no tongue..." "You have no leg" means you are lame man. "You have no eyes" means you are blind man. "You have no hand" means... That means I am calling you by all ill names. "You are blind. You are lame. You are nonsense. You are rascal." So are they not offenses against the friend? If I say, "You have no eyes," it is gentlemanly speaking that "You are blind." If I directly say, "You are blind," oh, will you be very happy upon me? No. If I say, if "You have no leg..." Suppose if I say if "You have no brain," that means "You are rascal. You are fool." So these impersonalists, they are always, I mean to..., trying to understand how God is eyeless, handless, legless, all less. Simply he has got eyes to see beautiful things. He has got his hands to touch nice things. No. These are offenses. According to Caitanya Mahāprabhu these are great offense against God. So therefore they are, life after life, they are studying this impersonalism, but there is no perfection.