|
|
Line 4: |
Line 4: |
| {{notes|}} | | {{notes|}} |
| {{compiler|Labangalatika}} | | {{compiler|Labangalatika}} |
| {{complete|}} | | {{complete|ALL}} |
| {{goal|9}}
| |
| {{first|06Jun11}} | | {{first|06Jun11}} |
| {{last|06Jun11}} | | {{last|06Jun11}} |
Line 11: |
Line 10: |
| {{total|9}} | | {{total|9}} |
| {{toc right}} | | {{toc right}} |
| [[Category:Law]] | | [[Category:Law of Identity|1]] |
| [[Category:Identity]]
| |
| </div> | | </div> |
| <div id="Lectures" class="section" sec_index="4" parent="compilation" text="Lectures"><h2>Lectures</h2> | | <div id="Lectures" class="section" sec_index="4" parent="compilation" text="Lectures"><h2>Lectures</h2> |
Line 21: |
Line 19: |
| <div class="heading">Ahaṅkāra means law of identity. "I am Indian," this is ahaṅkāra. "I am American," this is ahaṅkāra. "I am rich man," this is also ahaṅkāra. "I am poor man." There are so many ahaṅkāras, law of identification. So this ahaṅkāra is the basis of getting a type of body. | | <div class="heading">Ahaṅkāra means law of identity. "I am Indian," this is ahaṅkāra. "I am American," this is ahaṅkāra. "I am rich man," this is also ahaṅkāra. "I am poor man." There are so many ahaṅkāras, law of identification. So this ahaṅkāra is the basis of getting a type of body. |
| </div> | | </div> |
| <span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 13.6-7 -- Bombay, September 29, 1973|Lecture on BG 13.6-7 -- Bombay, September 29, 1973]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Why we have got different types of bodies? Why we haven't got, everyone, the same type of body? Somebody is fat, somebody is very thin, somebody white, somebody black, somebody very beautiful, somebody very ugly. There are so many varieties of bodies. Why? Saṅghāṭa. This is combination, color combination. There are three guṇas. Prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni guṇaiḥ karmāṇi sarvaśaḥ ([[Vanisource:BG 3.27|BG 3.27]]). As you are associating with the guṇas, you are getting different types of body.</p> | | <span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 13.6-7 -- Bombay, September 29, 1973|Lecture on BG 13.6-7 -- Bombay, September 29, 1973]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Why we have got different types of bodies? Why we haven't got, everyone, the same type of body? Somebody is fat, somebody is very thin, somebody white, somebody black, somebody very beautiful, somebody very ugly. There are so many varieties of bodies. Why? Saṅghāṭa. This is combination, color combination. There are three guṇas. Prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni guṇaiḥ karmāṇi sarvaśaḥ ([[Vanisource:BG 3.27 (1972)|BG 3.27]]). As you are associating with the guṇas, you are getting different types of body.</p> |
| <p>That is, Kṛṣṇa is explaining here, that mahā-bhūtāny ahaṅkāra. The ahaṅkāra is very important thing. False ahaṅkāra and real ahaṅkāra. Ahaṅkāra means law of identity. "I am Indian," this is ahaṅkāra. "I am American," this is ahaṅkāra. "I am rich man," this is also ahaṅkāra. "I am poor man." There are so many ahaṅkāras, law of identification. So this ahaṅkāra is the basis of getting a type of body, And... This is the subtle basis, ahaṅkāra. Mano buddhir ahaṅkāra. There are eight material elements: bhūmir āpo 'nalo vāyuḥ khāṁ mano buddhir eva ca ([[Vanisource:BG 7.4|BG 7.4]]). That is stated in the seventh chapter. This earth, water, fire, air, sky, mind, intelligence, and ahaṅkāra. This is creating my different types of body.</p> | | <p>That is, Kṛṣṇa is explaining here, that mahā-bhūtāny ahaṅkāra. The ahaṅkāra is very important thing. False ahaṅkāra and real ahaṅkāra. Ahaṅkāra means law of identity. "I am Indian," this is ahaṅkāra. "I am American," this is ahaṅkāra. "I am rich man," this is also ahaṅkāra. "I am poor man." There are so many ahaṅkāras, law of identification. So this ahaṅkāra is the basis of getting a type of body, And... This is the subtle basis, ahaṅkāra. Mano buddhir ahaṅkāra. There are eight material elements: bhūmir āpo 'nalo vāyuḥ khāṁ mano buddhir eva ca ([[Vanisource:BG 7.4 (1972)|BG 7.4]]). That is stated in the seventh chapter. This earth, water, fire, air, sky, mind, intelligence, and ahaṅkāra. This is creating my different types of body.</p> |
| </div> | | </div> |
| </div> | | </div> |
Line 28: |
Line 26: |
| <div class="heading">There are so many commentators, so many swamis, they put Kṛṣṇa in a different way. But Kṛṣṇa is Kṛṣṇa. Law of identity. You cannot comment on the Kṛṣṇa's personality. He says that "I am the Supreme Personality of Godhead." | | <div class="heading">There are so many commentators, so many swamis, they put Kṛṣṇa in a different way. But Kṛṣṇa is Kṛṣṇa. Law of identity. You cannot comment on the Kṛṣṇa's personality. He says that "I am the Supreme Personality of Godhead." |
| </div> | | </div> |
| <span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 16.2-7 -- Bombay, April 8, 1971|Lecture on BG 16.2-7 -- Bombay, April 8, 1971]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Duality. Our position in this dual world is we are always doubtful. Kṛṣṇa says, sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja ([[Vanisource:BG 18.66|BG 18.66]]), but we are doubtful. That is material influence. "How it is that simply by surrendering to Kṛṣṇa I become free from all material contamination or sinful activities results?" Doubt. But actually, you should not be doubtful. You should accept because Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. You should accept His word as it is. And because we are doubtful, we are presenting Kṛṣṇa in a different way. And there are so many commentators, so many swamis, they put Kṛṣṇa in a different way. But Kṛṣṇa is Kṛṣṇa. Law of identity. You cannot comment on the Kṛṣṇa's personality. He says that "I am the Supreme Personality of Godhead." Mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat kiñcid asti dhanañjaya: ([[Vanisource:BG 7.7|BG 7.7]]) "There is no more superior authority than Me." We accept that. Then we can understand Bhagavad-gītā and take advantage of it; otherwise (it is) not possible. And that requires daivī sampat, godly characteristics.</p> | | <span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 16.2-7 -- Bombay, April 8, 1971|Lecture on BG 16.2-7 -- Bombay, April 8, 1971]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Duality. Our position in this dual world is we are always doubtful. Kṛṣṇa says, sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja ([[Vanisource:BG 18.66 (1972)|BG 18.66]]), but we are doubtful. That is material influence. "How it is that simply by surrendering to Kṛṣṇa I become free from all material contamination or sinful activities results?" Doubt. But actually, you should not be doubtful. You should accept because Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. You should accept His word as it is. And because we are doubtful, we are presenting Kṛṣṇa in a different way. And there are so many commentators, so many swamis, they put Kṛṣṇa in a different way. But Kṛṣṇa is Kṛṣṇa. Law of identity. You cannot comment on the Kṛṣṇa's personality. He says that "I am the Supreme Personality of Godhead." Mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat kiñcid asti dhanañjaya: ([[Vanisource:BG 7.7 (1972)|BG 7.7]]) "There is no more superior authority than Me." We accept that. Then we can understand Bhagavad-gītā and take advantage of it; otherwise (it is) not possible. And that requires daivī sampat, godly characteristics.</p> |
| </div> | | </div> |
| </div> | | </div> |
Line 42: |
Line 40: |
| <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. | | <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. |
| </div> | | </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 style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">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."</p> | | <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 style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">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 (1972)|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."</p> |
| </div> | | </div> |
| </div> | | </div> |