Vivekananda (Lectures)

Expressions researched:
"vivekananda" |"vivekananda's" |"vivekanandas"

Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures

Lecture on BG 1.20 -- London, July 17, 1973:

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."

Lecture on BG 2.46-62 -- Los Angeles, December 16, 1968:

You mark this. When there is miseries, a Kṛṣṇa conscious person takes the responsibility himself, and when there is happiness, it is due to Kṛṣṇa. But the materialistic person is just the opposite. When he is in miseries, he'll say, "Oh, God has put me into such miseries." And when he's happiness, his friend says, "Oh, you are now well-to-do." "Yes, you do not know how much I have worked hard." When he's happiness, he takes the credit for himself, and when he's in distress, he gives the discredit to Kṛṣṇa. "Oh, Kṛṣṇa has put me into such miserable..." But a Kṛṣṇa conscious person, when he's in distress, he'll say, "Yes, due to my misdeeds I should have suffered a hundred times more than this distress, but Kṛṣṇa is so kind, He has given me little. That's all." And when he's happiness, "Oh, it is all given by Kṛṣṇa. Therefore all the opulence should be utilized for Kṛṣṇa's service." This is the difference. He's asking, Arjuna is asking, what are the symptoms of Kṛṣṇa conscious person. Sthita-prajña. Sthita-prajña means steadfast in intelligence. So these are the difference. I have read one speech, Chicago speech by late Vivekananda Swami. He's talking to the audience that "You work so hard, why you give credit to God?" You see? If you find his Chicago speech, you'll see.

Lecture on BG 1322 -- Hyderabad, August 17, 1976:

Indian: Prabhu, Vivekananda also stated, "Awake. Arise. Stop not until the goal is reached." What goal did he preach?

Prabhupāda: Ask him, I do not know. (laughter) Call Vivekananda and ask him. You are devotee of Vivekananda, you do not know what did he mean? What kind of devotee you are? You are asking me? What? You do not know? This is going on. He does not know Vivekananda and he is a devotee of Vivekananda. This is not good. You must know what Vivekananda said, what is his ultimate goal of life. You must be intelligent.

Now we are speaking of Kṛṣṇa and the Supreme Person. Mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat (BG 7.7). So there is no need of Vivekananda. When the Supreme Person is speaking, accepted by all.

Lecture on BG 16.6 -- South Africa, October 18, 1975:

Therefore sometimes we find that although they say it is mithyā, jagan mithyā, and take sannyāsa and for some days they remain meditation or aloof from any worldly affairs, but later on, when they do not find Brahman, they come again to this māyā to open hospitals, schools, as sannyāsī. Just like in our country there are many. The beginning we see that... Vivekananda Swami, he took sannyāsa and meditation. Later on, after his touring in the Western countries, he came to India to open hospitals, schools, like that. But if the world is false, then why you are coming to open school and hospitals? Because they could not get... And some other sannyāsī also, he is now taking part in politics. If jagat is mithyā, why you are taking part in politics? These question are there.

Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures

Lecture on SB 1.5.8-9 -- New Vrindaban, May 24, 1969:

The exact analogy of phantasma..., equivalent word in Sanskrit of phantasmagoria, which has no actual existence, is called ākāśa-puṣpa, "flower of the sky." There is no flower in the sky, but you can say. Or in common Bengali words, "eggs of the horse." Now, horse never gives eggs, but there are words like that. (chuckles) Just like Vivekananda has manufactured: daridra-nārāyaṇa. How Nārāyaṇa can be daridra? So it is something like horse eggs. You see?

Lecture on SB 1.5.13 -- New Vrindaban, June 16, 1969:

Āsuri-bhāva means the attitude of a demon. "What is God? Oh, this is all nonsense. Who is God? I am God. Everyone is God. Oh, don't you see? So many Gods are loitering in the street. Why you are finding out another God?" These are the going on. Vivekananda said that "Why you are bothering yourself, finding out God? Don't you see, so many Gods are loitering in the street?" You see? So "God is loitering in the street, daridra-nārāyaṇa. God has become daridra, poor, and He has come to my door to beg. God is suffering. God is..." Like that. Lakṣmī-sahasra-śata-sambhrama-sevyamānam (Bs. 5.29). We read from Vedic literature that "God is being served by millions of goddesses of fortune"—and He has become daridra, poor. Wherefrom he got this language, where, how he applied, I do not know.

Lecture on SB 1.5.22 -- Vrndavana, August 3, 1974:

Baladeva, in the strength. Nāyam ātmā bala-hīnena labhyaḥ. You cannot understand, realize yourself without the help of Baladeva. Therefore in the Vedic literatures: nāyam ātmā bala-hīnena labhyaḥ. You cannot become self-realized without the help of, without the mercy of Baladeva. Now, our Vivekananda Swami, he interpreted that "Unless you become stout and strong like the bulls and the buffalo, you cannot realize self." He interpreted like that. So he engaged people to make gymnastics, exercise. "You become very stout and strong, eat meat, and..." This is going on. This philosophy is going on. Bala-hīnena... "Unless you become as strong as a tiger, you cannot realize yourself." This interpretation is going on. Bala-hīnena labhyaḥ. Therefore they are... Always they put this argument, that "Our countrymen is suffering. There is no food. First of all we must give them food, make them strong, stout. Then we shall talk about Kṛṣṇa consciousness."

Lecture on SB 1.8.44 -- Mayapura, October 24, 1974:

Indian: "Daridra-nārāyaṇa" was told by who? Is it śāstra or it is...?

Prabhupāda: It is not in the śāstra. But somebody, some swami has told it.

Indian: Ramakrishnan...?

Prabhupāda: Yes. Not Ramakrishnan. Vivekananda.

Lecture on SB 2.9.4 -- Japan, April 22, 1972:

In the Bhagavad-gītā we don't find anywhere a single line that "You raise funds for," I mean to say, "giving relief to the poor" or "to the suffering." Is there any instruction in Bhagavad-gītā? You have read. Can you find out? But these people, they have become more learned than Kṛṣṇa. In our country, Vivekananda: daridra-nārāyaṇa-sevā. The whole Ramakrishna Mission is collecting funds only on this rascal plea.

Lecture on SB 2.9.16 -- Tokyo, April 30, 1972:

Just like this Vivekananda society, their daridra-nārāyaṇa-sevā. The daridras are lying on the street, but they collect money in the name of serving the poor, and they live very comfortably—big, big belly. You see. All the sannyāsīs are eating and sleeping and doing everything, all nonsense. But they are collecting money. They have no other source. We don't say that we are collecting money for daridra-nārāyaṇa-sevā, no. We collect money directly for serving Kṛṣṇa. We give directly, that "We have got our Kṛṣṇa. We have to serve. We have to do this. Kindly give us some contribution, and you take this book."

Lecture on SB 6.1.22 -- Indore, December 13, 1970:

Prabhupāda: Simply by declaring, if somebody declares falsely that "I am God..." Just like this Ramakrishna. He declared that "I am the same Kṛṣṇa and Rāma." Is it not? You do not know?

Guest (2): I haven't got a basic idea, but he was taken in the world...

Prabhupāda: That is the... How he has taken? How he was taken? There is no, in the śāstras, any confirmation. He was accepted by Vivekananda. He said that "I am the same Rāma and Kṛṣṇa," and Vivekananda accepted. So anyone can say like that; anyone can accept. But that is the test? What is the proof?