Impious life cannot inquire about God or can understand about God. We have several times repeated the verse,
- yeṣāṁ tv anta-gataṁ pāpaṁ
- janānāṁ puṇya-karmaṇām
- te dvandva-moha-nirmuktā
- bhajante māṁ dṛḍha-vratāḥ
- (BG 7.28)
Pāpīs, sinful men, they cannot understand. They understand, only think that "Kṛṣṇa is Bhagavān; so I am also Bhagavān. He's an ordinary man, maybe little powerful, historically very famous man. So He is, after all, a man. So I am also man. So why not I am God?" This is the conclusion of the abhaktas, non-devotees and sinful men.
So anyone who is declaring himself God, immediately you should know he is the greatest sinful man. And if you study his private life, you will see that he is number one sinful man. This is the test. Otherwise nobody will say that I am God, this false representation. Nobody. Any pious man will not do it. He knows, "What I am? I am ordinary human being. How can I claim to take the position of God?" And they become famous among rascals.
As it is stated in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, śva-viḍ-varāhoṣṭra kharaiḥ (SB 2.3.19). What is that verse? Uṣṭra-kharaiḥ, saṁstutaḥ puruṣaḥ paśuḥ. They.... in this world we see there are many great men, so-called great men, and they are very much praised by the general people. So Bhāgavata says, that anyone who is not a devotee, who never chants the Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra, he may be very great man in the estimation of rascals, but he is nothing but an animal. Śva-viḍ-varāha-uṣṭra-kharaiḥ. "So how you can say such a great man. You are saying that animal." Our business is very thankless task. We say any man who is not a devotee, he is rascal. We say generally. It is very harsh word, but we have to use it. As soon as we see that he is not a devotee of Kṛṣṇa, then he's a rascal. How do we say? He is not my enemy, but we have to say because it is stated by Kṛṣṇa.
If we are really Kṛṣṇa conscious, then our business is to repeat the words of Kṛṣṇa. That's all. What is the difference between a Kṛṣṇa's representative and non-representative? The representative of Kṛṣṇa will simply repeat what Kṛṣṇa says. That's all. He becomes representative. It doesn't require much qualification. You simply repeat with firm conviction. As Kṛṣṇa says, sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja (BG 18.66). So one who has accepted this fact, that, "If I surrender to Kṛṣṇa, my all business is successful," he is Kṛṣṇa's representative. That's all.
You don't require to be very highly educated or advanced. Simply if you simply accept that what Kṛṣṇa says... Just like Arjuna said, sarvam etaṁ ṛtam manye yad vadasi keśava: (BG 10.14) "My dear Kṛṣṇa, Keśava, whatever You are saying, I accept it, without any change." That is bhakta. Therefore Arjuna is addressed, bhakto 'si. This is the bhakta's business. Why shall I think of Kṛṣṇa as like me, ordinary man? This is the difference between a bhakta and not bhakta. A bhakta knows that "I am insignificant, a small spark of Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa is individual person. I am also individual person. But when we consider about His power and my power, I am most insignificant." This is understanding of Kṛṣṇa.
There is no difficulty. Simply one must be sincere, not sinful. But a sinful man cannot understand Him. The sinful man, he will say, "Oh, Kṛṣṇa is also man. I am also man. Why I am not God? He is simply God? No, I am also. I am God. You are God, you are God, every God." Just like Vivekananda said, "Why you are searching after God? Don't you see so many gods are loitering in the street?" You see. This is his God realization. This is his God realization. And he became a big man: "Oh, he is seeing everyone God."
This foolishness, this rascaldom, is going on all over the world. One does not know what is God, what is power of God, what is meant by God. They are accepting some rascal as God. As nowadays, that is going on. Another rascal has come. He is also declaring himself God. So it has become very cheap thing. But they have no brain to think that "I am claiming God; what power I have got?"
So this is the mystery. This is the mystery. Without becoming devotee, the mystery of understanding God is not possible. And Kṛṣṇa has said in the Bhagavad-gītā how one can know Him. Bhaktyā mām abhijānāti yāvān yaś cāsmi tattvataḥ (BG 18.55). Only by devotion, simply. He could have said, "By high, topmost knowledge" or "By yogic process" or "By acting, becoming a very great karmī, worker, one can understand Me." No, he has never said, never said. So the karmīs, jñānīs, yogis, they are all rascals. They cannot understand Kṛṣṇa. All rascals. Karmīs are third-class rascals, the jñānīs are second-class rascal, and the yogis are first-class rascal. That's all.
You should understand, the so-called yogis, they are first-class rascal because they do not understand Kṛṣṇa. The jñānīs they are also second-class rascal. Even a big scholar like Dr. Radhakrishnan, he is how, I mean to say, deforming the meaning of Bhagavad-gītā. Kṛṣṇa says man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru: (BG 18.65) "You always think..." This is Kṛṣṇa consciousness, man-manā: "Always think of Kṛṣṇa, Me, about Me," Kṛṣṇa says. And they will make meaning that you can say also. "Kṛṣṇa says that you always think of Him; you can say also, Think of me." This meaning, they are distorting. So Kṛṣṇa says man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru (BG 18.65), and this Dr. Radhakrishnan says, "It is not to the Kṛṣṇa person." Just see. Just a big scholar, doctor of philosophy, he cannot understand Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa says directly, man-manā bhava mad-bhaktaḥ (BG 9.34). He is interpreting in a different way.
Therefore this word is used here, hṛṣīkeśa. Hṛṣīkeśam idaṁ vākyam, hṛṣīkeśam tadā vākyam idam āha mahī-pate (BG 1.20). Mahī-pate, "O King..." Sañjaya was addressing Dhṛtarāṣṭra. He's a king. So mahī-pate. Hṛṣīkeśaṁ kapi-dhvajaḥ. Kapi-dhvajaḥ is nominative. So "He said..." Kapi-dhvajaḥ. Kapi-dhvajaḥ is also significant. Kapi-dhvajaḥ, Arjuna, on his... Just like nowadays also, every nation has different types of flags, so Arjuna also had his flag on the... Dhvajaḥ. Dhvajaḥ means the flag. The flag was on the top of his chariot. And it was marked with Hanumān, Vajrāṅgajī, Vajrāṅgajī, Hanumān, who fought for Lord Rāmacandra. He is fighting for Kṛṣṇa. So he is also following the footsteps of Vajrāṅgajī.
Vaiṣṇavism is like that. Mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ (CC Madhya 17.186). Mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ. Vaiṣṇava should follow his previous mahājana, authority. That is Vaiṣṇavism. We don't manufacture ideas. We don't commit such rascaldom. We simply accept the behavior or the activities of previous ācāryas. There is no difficulty. There is no difficulty.
So in the fighting principle, Arjuna is fighting for Kṛṣṇa. He is following the previous fighting ācārya, Hanumānji. Therefore he has depicted his flag with Hanumān, that "Hanumānji, Vajrāṅgajī, kindly help me." This is Vaiṣṇavism. "I have come here to fight for Lord Kṛṣṇa. You fought also for the Lord. Kindly help me." This is the idea. Kapi-dhvajaḥ. So any activities of the Vaiṣṇava, they should always pray to the previous ācārya, "Kindly help me. Kindly..." This is, Vaiṣṇava is always thinking himself helpless, helpless. And begging help from the previous ācārya.
Just like in Caitanya-caritāmṛta you will find, the author, at the end of every chapter:
- śrī rūpa-raghunātha-pade yāra āśa
- caitanya-caritāmṛta kahe kṛṣṇadāsa
- (CC Adi 1.110)
His every line, he is thinking of Rūpa-Raghunātha, previous ācāryas. "So let me surrender to the gosvāmīs and they will help me how to write." You cannot write. That is not possible.