So when we engage ourself in the service of Kṛṣṇa... The whole Bhagavad-gītā is spoken on this basis. Arjuna was artificially declining to serve Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa wanted him to fight, and Arjuna was putting so many reasons, "How he could fight and kill the other side who are his kinsmen, who are nephews, who are brothers, grandfather?" This argument were being put. So that means he refused to serve Kṛṣṇa. That is material condition. He was thinking in his own terms. He wanted to enjoy the family members, the so-called nephews, brothers, that "If they are killed, then what is the use of my, this kingdom?" (break) ...but people thinks that I get kingdom I enjoy myself. That is condition. But a liberated soul will take the kingdom, but it will be used for Kṛṣṇa's service. That is liberated, soul.
Argument (Lectures, BG)
Expressions researched:
"Argumentum baculam"
|"Argumentum baculum"
|"Argumentum vaculam"
|"Argumentum vaculum"
|"argument"
|"argument's"
|"argumentative"
|"argumentativeness"
|"arguments"
|"argumentum ad baculum"
Lectures
Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures
Here is a technique. The same Kṛṣṇa and same Arjuna, they are talking as friends. Then what was the necessity of Arjuna accepting Kṛṣṇa as spiritual master? The same Arjuna and same Kṛṣṇa, they'll talk, but what is the necessity of accepting as spiritual master? That means after accepting spiritual master he'll not argue. He'll simply accept whatever He says. That is the technique. Friendly talks, equal level, He, Kṛṣṇa was talking something and he was replying. So that argument has no end. But when he accepts Him as spiritual master, there is no more argument. One has to accept whatever He says. Therefore he's accepting as spiritual master. After this, Arjuna will never say, "This is wrong, this is, no," or "I don't agree." No. He'll accept. So acceptance of spiritual master means to accept anything, whatever he says. Therefore one has to select a spiritual master whom he can completely surrender. That is the technique. Veda-vākya. Just like in the Vedic injunction, nobody can deny.
So pure devotee does not mean one has to become immediately cent percent pure. But if he sticks to the principle that "We'll follow a pure devotee," then his actions are... He is as good as a pure devotee. It is not I am explaining in my own way. It is the explanation of Bhāgavata. Mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ (CC Madhya 17.186). We have to follow the footprints of pure devotees. It is said that tarkaḥ apratiṣṭhaḥ. If you want to become pure by your arguments and logic, that is not possible. I may be defeated by another strong man who is stronger in argument than me, so this is not the way of becoming purified, tarka, simply arguing. Tarkaḥ apratiṣṭhaḥ smṛtayo vibhinnāḥ (CC Madhya 17.186) . Śrutayaḥ, scriptures. Suppose somebody sticks to the scriptures. So scriptures, there are different types of scripture. So they are vibhinna. Vibhinna means different types.
Therefore to become pure or to understand the essence of purity is very confidential. It is not to be acquired by our own efforts, by argument or by being expert in scripture or by becoming a philosopher or a similar way. It is very confidential. Then how? Mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ (CC Madhya 17.186). You have to follow a pure devotee, acknowledged devotee. Similarly, in the Bhagavad-gītā, if we follow Arjuna, then we understand Bhagavad-gītā as it is. But if we don't follow Arjuna, if we follow somebody, Dr. Frog, or create our own interpretation, then we remain impure. So mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ. We have to follow the footprints of mahājana, great soul. So here is directly you are meeting great soul, Arjuna. He is directly being taught Bhagavad-gītā by the original teacher. Who can be greater authority than Arjuna? So as Arjuna accepts Bhagavad-gīta, if you accept Bhagavad-gītā in that way, then your study of Bhagavad-gītā is perfect. It is very simple. Therefore I'm saying here that Kṛṣṇa is the original teacher, and Arjuna is the original student. So you follow the original student, you understand Bhagavad-gītā. Even Kṛṣṇa is not present before you. He is present by His words. This is the way of following what is pure. Yes?
So one who has learned to think of Kṛṣṇa always, he is already on the perfectional stage. Ārādhito yadi haris tapasā tataḥ kim (Nārada Pañcarātra). If one has come to this stage, just to understand Kṛṣṇa the great, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and he's surrendered soul, "Kṛṣṇa, whatever You like You do. I am surrendered."... This is ārādhana. Then he doesn't require to undergo any austerities or penance. His everything is finished. And nārādhito yadi haris tapasā tataḥ kim. And if he does not come to this stage, his so-called scholarship, learned argument, this or that—all nonsense, finished. Useless. One has to come to this stage. Therefore Lord Caitanya embraced the brāhmaṇa, "Yes, your study of Bhagavad-gītā is perfect." Because one has to come to this stage, thinking of Kṛṣṇa always. So if one does not come to this stage, simply by academic education, he says "It should be like this. The interpretation should be like this," he's simply wasting time. Frog philosopher. One has to come to this stage.
Then Arjuna decided to accept Kṛṣṇa as his guru. He... Śiṣyas te 'ham: "I become your disciple." To become disciple means no more argument. When we talk friendly there is argument, counterargument. But when there is order from guru there is no more argument. Therefore Arjuna says that kārpaṇya-doṣopahata-svabhāvaḥ: "Actually my behavior should be exactly like a kṣatriya, to fight for the just cause, but in this case I am denying. Therefore I am kṛpaṇa." Kṛpaṇa means one who does not properly use his position. One man is very rich, but he does not use his money, simply sees the money. He is called kṛpaṇa. Similarly, Arjuna is powerful, he can fight, he is a kṣatriya, but he is denying his ability. Therefore he is thinking that "I have become kṛpaṇa, miser. Although I have got strength, I am denying to fight." "Although I have got money, I do not spend." These are called kṛpaṇa. So kārpaṇya-doṣopahata: "Now I am infected with kārpaṇya-doṣa." Kārpaṇya-doṣopahata-svabhāvaḥ.
Now Kṛṣṇa was encouraging to fight; Arjuna was also very intelligently replying. He addressed Kṛṣṇa as Madhusūdana, Arisūdana. Madhusūdana means "the killer of Madhu demon" or "the killer or enemy." So his purpose is that "I have to kill Bhīṣmadeva, who is my so kind grandfather, and I have to kill Droṇācārya, who is my teacher, from whom I have learned this military art. So You have killed the demons and Your enemy, and why You are inducing me to kill my guru and my grandfather?" This is his argument. Kathaṁ bhīṣmam ahaṁ saṅkhye droṇaṁ ca madhusūdana, iṣubhiḥ pratiyotsyāmi: (BG 2.4) "They, my grandfather, my teacher, may chastise me, but how I can pierce with arrows their body?"
Hatvārtha-kāmāṁs tu gurūn ihaiva bhuñjīya bhogān rudhira-pradigdhān. (BG 2.5) So Arjuna is giving his nice argument that "If I kill my such great-grandfather and such noble, my teacher, then after killing them, if I enjoy this world, it will be mixed with blood and fire. So I cannot fight. I can..." Arjuna clearly declined to fight. Then again he said,
- na caitad vidmaḥ kataran no garīyo
- yad vā jayema yadi vā no jayeyuḥ
- yān eva hatvā na jijīviṣāmas
- te 'vasthitāḥ pramukhe dhārtarāṣṭrāḥ
- (BG 2.6)
He said that "After killing my family men..." Dhṛtarāṣṭra, dhārtarāṣṭrāḥ, pāṇḍavāḥ... Dhṛtarāṣṭra and Pāṇḍu, they were two brothers, and their sons, cousin-brothers. So generally, people want to increase his material opulence to show to his friends and relatives.
So Kṛṣṇa has got enemies also, what to speak of ourself. This material world is so made, that you must have some enemies. Matsaratā. Matsaratā means enviousness, jealousy. This material world is like that. So there are jealous enemies of God also. They are called demons. Ordinary jealousy or enemy, that is natural. But even to God. Just like yesterday night, evening, somebody came to see me. He was arguing that "Why Kṛṣṇa should be accepted as God?" That was his argument. So Kṛṣṇa has enemies. Therefore Kṛṣṇa... Not only He, but everyone who is in the material world is enemy of Kṛṣṇa. Everyone. Because they want to be competitor of Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa says that bhoktāram: "I am the supreme enjoyer." Sarva-loka-maheśvaram: (BG 5.29) "I am the Supreme proprietor." And the Vedas also confirm, īśāvāsyam idaṁ sarvam (ISO 1). "Everything is the property of the Supreme Lord." Sarvaṁ khalv idaṁ brahma. These are Vedic injunctions. Yato vā imāni bhūtāni jāyante: "From whom everything has come." Janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1). These are Vedic versions. But still, we, because we are enemies, "No, why Kṛṣṇa shall be the proprietor? I am the proprietor. Why Kṛṣṇa shall be God only. I have got another God. Here is another God."
Prabhupāda: Now Arjuna is perplexed. He is perplexed in the matter, whether to fight or not to fight. That was his perplexity. After seeing his relatives in front of him, with whom he was to fight, he was perplexed. And there was some argument also with Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa, of course, did not encourage him. Now, here is a point, that Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. What is that?
Young man: What?
Prabhupāda: What is this book?
Young man: Well, this is the, the, the translation to the Bhagavad-gītā.
Prabhupāda: Well, no, you can hear me.
Young man: I am hearing. I am hearing.
Prabhupāda: Yes. Don't turn your attention. Just hear me. Kṛṣṇa, although He is present there, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but still, He did not encourage him. From worldly point of view, when somebody says that "I'll... I give it up. I don't want it. I don't want to fight with my friends or my relatives. Better let them enjoy. I shall forego my claim," from worldly point of view, this is a very, I mean, gentlemanly behavior, that one is foregoing his claim for the matter of his relatives or friends. But Kṛṣṇa is not encouraging that proposal. We have to mark it. Kṛṣṇa is not encouraging. Kṛṣṇa is rather... Kṛṣṇa is, rather, inducing Arjuna that "It is not a very good proposal. It is not befitting your position. You belong to the Āryan family. You belong to the kṣatriya, royal family. And you are denying to fight? No, no, this is not good. And I am your friend. I have taken the responsibility of your chariot driver, and, if you do not fight, what people will say?" So He is not encouraging. Just see.
Śūdras means the laborer class. So these four divisions are always. Now you can name in a different way. That doesn't matter. But in every society and for all time these divisions are there. So according to Vedic system, this system is observed by generation. So he was a kṣatriya. Now, kṣatriya's duty was to fight with the enemy, and he was not executing that, I mean to say, injunction. Therefore, he is conscious that dharma-sammūḍha-cetāḥ: (BG 2.7) "Oh, I am deviating from my religion also. It is the duty of kṣatriya. No. So I am now perplexed." So yac chreyaḥ syān niścitam: "Now You should kindly, definitely say." Now, here is a position: "I do not understand what is to be done. You kindly..." Yac chreyaḥ syān niścitam. Niścitam means definitely what is right. Brūhi tan me. Now Kṛṣṇa can say, "Well, I have already saying you that you should fight, but you are not carrying out the order." So he says that śiṣyas te 'haṁ śādhi māṁ tvāṁ prapannam (BG 2.7). So he accepted that "All right, whatever arguments we have done so far, let us forget that. Now I accept You as my spiritual master, not my friend."
Now here Kṛṣṇa is addressed as Hṛṣīkeśa. Hṛṣīkeśa... We should always remember that Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He is present as incarnation. Now, God is all-powerful. God is all-powerful. So if He comes before you, you cannot deny, that "How is that, God has come?" You cannot say that. If God is all-powerful, then it is His choice. It is His free will. He can come before you, come before you, provided you are such qualified devotee. So there cannot be any solid argument that "God cannot come" or "God..." Of course, so far Vedic literatures are concerned, they accept the incarnation of God. So Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and so He is addressed as Hṛṣīkeśa. Hṛṣīka... Hṛṣīkeśa, it has got a significant, significant meaning. Hṛṣīka. Hṛṣīka means the senses, hṛṣīka. And īśa. Īśa means Lord. Īśa means Lord. So He is the Lord of the senses. He is the Lord of the senses. Similarly, Govinda, Govinda... Here also, Govinda name is also there. Yes. Na yotsya... Na yotsya iti govindam uktvā tūṣṇīṁ babhūva ha (BG 2.9). Govindam. Govinda. Go means also senses.
Śvetāśvatara. There are many Upaniṣads, they are called Vedas. Upaniṣads are the headlines of the Vedas. Just like in a chapter there is a headline, similarly these Upaniṣads are the headlines of the Vedas. There are 108 Upaniṣads, principal. Out of that, nine Upaniṣads are very important. So out of those nine Upaniṣads, Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad, Taittireya Upaniṣad, Aitareya Upaniṣad, Īśopaniṣad, Īśa Upaniṣad, Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad, Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad, Kaṭhopaniṣad, these Upaniṣads are very important. And whenever there is argument on some point, one has to give reference from these Upaniṣads. If one can give reference from the Upaniṣads, then his argument is very strong. Śabda-pramāṇa. Pramāṇa means evidence. Evidence... If you want to gain in your case... Just like you have to give very nice evidence in a court, similarly, according to Vedic culture, the evidence is pramāṇa. Pramāṇa means evidence. Śabda-pramāṇa. There are three kinds of evidences accepted by the learned scholars in Vedic culture. One evidence is pratyakṣa. Pratyakṣa means direct perception.
If bone of an animal is impure, how you can place it in the Deities' room? And if bone of an animal is pure, then what is the meaning of becoming impure and take bath?" You'll find similar contradiction in the Vedic injunctions. But because it is said by the Vedas that bone of an animal is impure, you have to accept. But this bone of an animal, conchshell, is pure. Just like sometimes our students are perplexed when we say that onion is not to be taken, but onion is a vegetable. So śabda-pramāṇa means the Vedic evidence should be taken in such a way that no argument. There is meaning; there is no contradiction. There is meaning. Just like several times I have told you that cow dung. Cow dung is, according to Vedic injunction, is pure. In India it is actually used as antiseptic. In villages especially, there is large quantity of cow dung, and they're, all over the house they have smeared to make the house antiseptic. And actually after smearing cow dung in your room, when it is dried, you'll find refreshed, everything antiseptic. It is practical experience.
This is the statement of authority. Now, apart from statement of authority, you have to apply your reason and arguments. Can you say anywhere there is agreement between two parties? No. You go, study. In the state, in the family, in the community, in the nation, there is no agreement. Even in the assembly, even in your country. Suppose there is Senate, everyone has got country's interest, but he's thinking in his individual way. One is thinking that "My country's welfare will be in this line." Otherwise, why there is competition during election of president. Everyone is saying that "America needs Nixon." And another person, he also says, "America needs me." So, but why two? If America you, and you are both... No. There is individuality. Mr. Nixon's opinion is something else. Mr. another candidate's opinion is something else. In the assembly, in the Senate, in the Congress, in the United Nations, everyone is fighting with his individual view. Otherwise why there are so many flags in the world? You cannot say anywhere impersonalism. Personality is predominating everywhere. Everywhere, the personality, individuality, is predominant. So we have to accept. We have to apply our reason, arguments, and accept the authority. Then the question is solved. Otherwise it is most difficult.
Devotee: "The Māyāvādī may argue that the individuality spoken of by Kṛṣṇa is not spiritual but material. Even accepting the argument that the individuality is material, how can one distinguish Kṛṣṇa's individuality?"
Prabhupāda: They also think of Kṛṣṇa, therefore, as material. That is also condemned by Kṛṣṇa. You'll find, avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritam (BG 9.11). "Because I have appeared just like a human being, these rascals deride at Me that I am also one of them." Mūḍha. Mūḍha means rascal. Just like Dr. Radhakrishnan says, "It is not to Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa... It is the soul within the Kṛṣṇa." That means he identifies Kṛṣṇa as one of us. His body and His soul different. But Kṛṣṇa is not... Kṛṣṇa said, sambhavāmy ātma-māyayā (BG 4.6). "I appear in My own, original stature. I do not change." We change. The individual soul... Prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni (BG 3.27). He's conducted by, influenced by this prakṛti, nature, but He's not conducted or influenced by the nature. He comes in His own influence, as He is, ātma-māyayā. This is the distinction. Therefore He does not change body. When I come, I change bodies. This time I may have this body; next time I may have another body. That is material, and therefore I forget. Just like Kṛṣṇa says in the Fourth Chapter that "Many times you and I came. You have forgotten (BG 4.5)." Because we change our material body therefore we forget. These things all will be explained. Go on.
Ladies and gentlemen, I thank you very much for your coming here and participate in this great movement. So this evening I shall present before you topics between Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna. I think most of you know the Bhagavad-gītā. The subject matter of Bhagavad-gītā is talking between Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna. Kṛṣṇa was driver of the chariot. Both of them were in the Battlefield of Kurukṣetra. Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, He played just like an ordinary human being as friend of Arjuna. And when Arjuna was little disturbed... Because this battle was arranged between two parties of cousin-brothers... And when Arjuna saw the other party, all his relatives, family members, so he hesitated to fight, and there was some argument. Kṛṣṇa said that "You are a kṣatriya. You are king. It is your duty to fight."
We are imperfect. We accept we are imperfect. But we are distributing the perfect knowledge. Kindly try to understand. We may be imperfect, but perfection means one who assimilates the perfect knowledge, he is perfect. I shall give you one example. Just like a post peon delivers you one hundred dollars. The post peon is not rich man. He cannot deliver you the hundred dollars. But he... The money is sent by some, your friend. He is honestly carrying that money and delivering you. That is the post peon's business. Similarly, our duty to receive perfect knowledge from Kṛṣṇa and distribute it. Then it is perfect. This knowledge, what we are distributing, it is not that we have created this knowledge by research work or by so many other ways, by inductive process. No. Our knowledge is from the deductive process. Kṛṣṇa said, "This is this." We accept. That is our movement, Kṛṣṇa consciousness. We may be imperfect, but Kṛṣṇa is perfect. Therefore, whatever Kṛṣṇa says, if we accept it and if we.... Not accept blindly, but you can employ your logic and argument and try to understand, then your knowledge is perfect.
Because Arjuna was hesitating to fight in bodily relationship. He was thinking that he is this body, his other side, the relatives, brothers or nephews or grandfather, the other side, they are also the bodies. Because bodily concept of life, we hesitate. Because every one of us in bodily concept. That is animal life. And so long we are in the bodily relationship... Dog, he does not know anything else. He simply knows that he is this body. But a human being, by cultivation of knowledge, by logic, by argument, he can understand that "I am not this body." Therefore a human being says, as soon as you inquire... Even a child. You ask child, you show him the finger, "What is this?" The child will reply, "It is my finger." The child will never say, "I finger." He will say, "my." So everything is "mine." "My body, my head, my leg." Everything is "mine," but where is the "I?" That should be the inquiry, that "Everything, I am speaking 'mine.' Where is that 'I'?" As soon as we come to this point, "Where is that 'I'?" then our human sense is developed. Otherwise we are in the animal sense of life. So Kṛṣṇa is, I mean to say, instructing Arjuna that aśocyān anvaśocas tvam: (BG 2.11) "My dear Arjuna, you are lamenting on the subject matter which is not the subject matter of lamentation." Aśocyān anvaśocas tvaṁ prajñā-vādāṁś ca bhāṣase. Prajñā-vādāṁś ca bhāṣase. "You are talking like a very intelligent, learned scholar." Because in the previous chapter he was arguing with Kṛṣṇa, giving evidences from śāstra on the bodily concept of life. But he does not know the śāstras say, "One who is in the bodily concept of life, he is no better than an ass or cow." That he did not know.
"One who is actually learned, he does not, he has no concern of this body. He's concerned with the activities of the soul. So you are speaking of so many things that 'If these, my friends, die, the, I mean to say, their wives will become widow.' These are all... According to the bodily relation, you are speaking. And you are posing yourself just like a very learned man, but you are a fool number one because your whole conception is on the body. Your whole conception of argument with Me was on the body, but you are, you are posing himself just as if you are very learned man." So anyone who has got conception, the identification of this body, he's not a learned man. He's a fool. He may be, in the calculation of academic education, he may be B.A., M.A., Ph.D., DAC, or something like, doctors and..., but if he has got his identification with this body, he's not a learned man according to Bhagavad-gītā. Not only according, according to whole Vedic literature. This is the first instruction.
So many arguments. So Kṛṣṇa, when He saw that Arjuna is very much afflicted with the material ideas, so He wanted to teach him this Bhagavad-gītā. So first punishment... Not punishment, chastisement. Because Arjuna accepted that "The perplexities which I am facing is not possible to be solved except Yourself." He knew that Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. So he surrendered himself to Kṛṣṇa, śiṣyas te 'haṁ śādhi māṁ prapannam, kārpaṇya-doṣopahata svabhāvaḥ: (BG 2.7) "I am a kṣatriya. It is my duty to fight in right cases, and I am declining. This is my weakness. So kindly instruct me how I can give up this weakness. I am accepting You as my guru." Śiṣyas te 'ham. Śiṣya means who voluntarily accepts to be ruled by a person who is guru. He is called śiṣya.
So Arjuna and Kṛṣṇa, they were friends, but still, to take right instruction without any argument, he accepted He is guru.
Now, how to understand that which is beyond our conception? The scriptures says like this, acintyaḥ khalu ye bhāvā na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet: "Anything which is beyond our conception, beyond our reasoning power, beyond our approach of the material senses, such things we should not try to have conception simply by arguments." So in the Vedic injunction it is said that tarkaḥ apratiṣṭha: "By... What should be the... What should be our real understanding, that we cannot establish simply by argument." Tarkaḥ apratiṣṭhaḥ smṛtayo vibhinnāḥ: (CC Madhya 17.186) "If we consult different scriptures, then we'll find that one scripture is speaking something, another scripture is speaking something else." Just like cow-killing. Take, take it for example. The Hindus, they say that cow-killing is irreligious. The Muhammadans say, "No, cow-killing is religious." There is some adjustment, but... Now, in the scripture I see that the cow-killing, in some scriptures it is said that cow-killing is irreligious, and another scripture says that cow-killing is religious.
So therefore it is said that smṛtayo vibhinnāḥ. If you consult different scriptures, you'll find different contradictory statements. Your scripture may be different from my scripture. And nāsau munir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. If you consult philosophers, you'll find one philosopher is differing from another philosopher. A big philosopher means who has cut down other philosophers and put up his own theory, "This is true." This is going on. So tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ smṛtayo vibhinnā nāsau munir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. Then how to conclude what is the right path? I cannot establish it by my imperfect arguments. I cannot consult even the scriptures. Neither I can take real instruction from different philosophers. Then what, what is the way of having the real thing? So it says that dharmasya tattvaṁ nihitaṁ guhāyām: "The truth of religiosity is very confidential, very secret." So how to know it? Mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ: (CC Madhya 17.186) "We have simply to see that great personalities, as they have taken up, we have to follow. That's all."
So Śrī Kṛṣṇa, He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, He's in full knowledge, and therefore as He says that "Either Myself or yourself or all these persons, kings and soldiers, who are assembled here, they're all individuals. In the past they were individuals, in the present we are individuals, and in the future they will continue to be individuals." Now, one thing... Suppose another argument is that due to ignorance... Just like an animal. It thinks that there is water in the desert, on the reflec...
The Vaiṣṇava Purāṇa says, yas tu nārāyaṇaṁ devaṁ brahma-rudrādi-daivataiḥ, samatvenaiva vīkṣeta sa pāṣaṇḍī bhavad dhruvam: (CC Madhya 18.116) "Anyone who calculates Nārāyaṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, equal with such demigods, not, what to speak of ordinary human beings, even big, big demigods like Lord Śiva, Lord Brahmā, he immediately becomes a pāṣaṇḍī, atheist." So if... The Māyāvādī philosophy, they put forward this argument that "Because we are now in māyā, we are thinking that we are different from God." But Kṛṣṇa is making thus such differentiation that... He's making, He's saying, "You and I and all these." So does it mean that Kṛṣṇa is also covered by māyā or illusion? Because He is very clearly differentiating between Him and the living entities, all individuals. So if the Māyāvādī philosopher is right that this differentiation is due to our illusion, then we have to accept Kṛṣṇa is also in illusion. Because He's making differentiation. So if Kṛṣṇa is in illusion, then what is the use of taking His version? Because our proposition is that we have to take knowledge from the perfect person. So if Kṛṣṇa is in illusion, then how He can become perfect person, and the knowledge delivered by Him is perfect? No. Kṛṣṇa is not illusioned. We are in illusion. Kṛṣṇa is not in illusion. Kṛṣṇa cannot be in illusion.
So we request simply people that you accept this authoritative knowledge and try to assimilate it by your intelligence. It is not that you stop your argument and intelligence, simply blindly accept something. No. We are human beings, we have got intelligence. We are not animals that we shall be forced to accept something. No. Tad viddhi praṇipātena paripraśnena sevayā (BG 4.34). In this Bhagavad-gītā you'll find. You try to understand, tad viddhi. Viddhi means try to understand. Praṇipāta. Praṇipātena means surrendering, not by challenge. A student should be very submissive to the spiritual master. Otherwise, he will be, I mean to say, bewildered. Submissive reception.
So in order to understand... Just like Kṛṣṇa is teaching Arjuna. Before this, Kṛṣṇa surrendered himself. Śiṣyas te 'haṁ śādhi māṁ prapannam (BG 2.7). Although they were friends, Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna were friends... First of all, they were talking like friends, and Arjuna was arguing with Kṛṣṇa. This argument has no value because if I am imperfect, what is the meaning of my argument? Whatever I shall argue, that is also imperfect. So what is the use of wasting time by imperfect argument? This is not process. The process is that we must approach to a perfect person and take his instruction as it is. Then our knowledge is perfect. Without any argument. We accept Vedic knowledge like that. For example, just like stool of an animal. It is stated in the Vedic literature that it is impure. If you touch stool... According to Vedic system, even after passing my own stool, evacuating, I have to take bath. And what to speak of others' stool. That is the system. So stool is impure. One, after touching stool, he must take bath. This is Vedic injunction. But in another place it is said that the stool of the cow is pure, and if cow dung is applied in some impure place, it will be pure. Now, by your argument, you can say that "The stool of an animal is impure. Why it is said in one place pure and in another place impure? This is contradiction." But this is not contradiction. You practically make experiment. You take cow dung and apply anywhere, you'll find it is pure. Immediately purified. So this is Vedic injunction. They are perfect knowledge.
So, therefore, you should see through the śāstra, authoritative śāstra, books. What we are speaking about the moon planet, sun planet, or God, His abode is Vaikuṇṭhaloka, spiritual world, so many things we are talking. How we are talking? We are talking through the Vedic literature. Because Vedic literature is authoritative. According to Vedic civilization, we don't accept any book written by rascal. We take, we accept the authority of the Vedas. What is stated there in the Vedas we accept, without any argument. For example... There are many examples. One of the example is that the Veda says that if you touch the stool of an animal, even your own stool... That is the system. In India still they are..., not in the city, but in the villages, you will see even ordinary man, he goes to pass stool in the field, and just after passing stool he will take bath just to purify himself, change his cloth. That is the śāstric injunction. In one place it is said that the stool of the cow is pure. Now if you argue that one place you say that the stool of an animal is impure, even your own stool if you touch you have to take bath, how is that another animal's stool is pure? This is superficially contradiction.
According to our Vedic principle, nobody has got the right to question anyone unless that person is accepted as spiritual master. Otherwise, it is waste of time. Spiritual... If you want to question somebody, you must accept his answer. You cannot argue. That is acceptance of authority. Just like in Vedas, whatever injunctions are there, we accept it without any argument. That is Vedic instruction. People sometimes say: "Is it Vedic instruction, that I have to accept it without argument?" Actually, that is Vedic instruction. Just like, for example, the Vedas says cow dung is pure. Now actually we are accepting, those who are following the Vedic principles, they accept cow dung as pure. Actually, it is pure. But if we argue: "How is that, that animal stool is impure, even human stool is impure. How cow dung, which is stool of another animal, is pure?" It is contrary. But actually, we accept. Actually we accept. Similarly, conchshell, conchshell is nothing but bone of an animal.
So Arjuna accepted Kṛṣṇa as spiritual master. In the beginning, he was talking like friend. Friend to friend, talking, sometimes it comes to nil, no conclusion, simply waste of time. It is called vitaṇḍā. That sort of argument has no value. Because it will never come into conclusion. But when we talk with authority, the spiritual master, representative of Kṛṣṇa, then we cannot argue. We have to accept. Guru-vākya. Guru-vākya, you cannot deny it. It may not be agreeable to you in the beginning, but you cannot deny it. That is it: system of Vedic system. Here Arjuna has accepted Kṛṣṇa as the spiritual master. Śiṣyas te aham. "I become Your disciple. Because we were talking till now as friends, but this will not decide the case. My case is very serious. My duty is to fight, but I do not like to fight. Some affection, some family relationship, is deterring me to fight, making me coward. So therefore it is a very complex position. And I find that You can make a solution of this complex position. I therefore accept You as my spiritual master. And I fall down under Your lotus feet as Your disciple." Śādhi māṁ prapannam. "I am surrendered. Now You kindly protect the surrendered soul."
This is the absolute and relative relationship. It is stated in the Vedic literature that nāma cintāmaṇiḥ kṛṣṇaś caitanya-rasa-vigrahaḥ, pūrṇaḥ śuddho nitya-mukto 'bhinnatvān nāma-nāminoḥ (CC Madhya 17.133). The name of God and God is equally pūrṇa, perfect; śuddha, purified. Pūrṇaḥ śuddho nitya, eternal, and muk... Pūrṇaḥ śuddho nitya-muktaḥ, and liberated from material contamination. So it is not the question of argument. You can try. There is no loss on your part. Chant the holy name of God and see the result yourself. So there is no difference between Kṛṣṇa and Christo: In India also sometimes Kṛṣṇa is enounced as "Krishta." Or you enounce as "Christa." It does not make... Because God will take your mind, not your pronunciation. If you mean to pronounce God's name, even it is not, I mean to say, formally or perfectly pronounced, still, God will understand that you are trying to chant His name. That is your perfection. So God is one. There is no two God. So either you call Him Christ's or Krishta or Kṛṣṇa, if He understands that you are hankering after Him, He'll give the resultant action. And this is the easiest process in this age for God realization. Thank you very much. Let us chant. (end)
Now here is another argument, that "Why you are going to lament on the body of your grandfather? He's grand old man. If he does not die, if you do not kill him, how long he will live? So you kill him or not kill him, he will die. And you should be rather joyful because your grandfather is going to have again..." This is only for argument. "...again have a new body." The... When Caitanya Mahāprabhu met Chand Kazi... I think I have explained this story many times. Chand Kazi was Mohammedan. So you know the story that Caitanya Mahāprabhu started civil disobedience, disregarded the section, I mean to say, imposed by the magistrate Chand Kazi that "You cannot hold the saṅkīrtana. The people are disturbed." Just like you are being threatened by the police. So this is not new thing. This thing is going on from the very beginning, even Caitanya Mahāprabhu's time. But Caitanya Mahāprabhu disregarded the notice. "Don't care for this Kazi. Go on." And when people... He was very popular, but we are not popular. Caitanya Mahāprabhu (laughs) was Kṛṣṇa. He had attraction. He was, although a boy of twenty years old, He had many followers. He ordered, "Oh, Kazi has ordered to stop. Now I order that hundreds of thousands of people shall assemble this night, and we shall go to the Kazi's house." This is civil disobedience.
Caitanya Mahāprabhu immediately said, "No, that is not killing. That was giving a new body to show the strength of the Vedic mantras." A cow was sacrificed in the fire and by mantra, by chanting of the mantra, the cow will come out with a new body, young body. That was not killing. So similarly, here also, Kṛṣṇa is giving the same argument, that "You are lamenting on your grandfather. He has got old body, but if he is killed in this battle, he'll have a new, fresh new body. So you should be joyful. Why are you lamenting?" So this argument was forwarded by Kṛṣṇa, that... Now, just like this child. This child can hope many things. He has got immense duration of life now beginning, and what hope I have got? I am now this old body, say five years or ten years more. So I cannot expect, hope anything more, than this child. So Kṛṣṇa is giving that "There is no question of lamentation for your grandfather. Your grandfather is going to have a new lease of life. Why should you be sorry?" So this argument He is forwarding, but nobody will agree to this argument. Yes. Go on.
No, that is no argument. If you are diseased, you can be cured if you take the proper medicine, treatment. That's all. Disease is not hopelessness. Otherwise why the people go for treatment to a physician? Similarly, out of ignorance you are now in this miserable condition, but if you become treated by bona fide spiritual master, then you'll be cured. Originally every one of us—pure. Now, by material condition we are now contaminated. That... But there is process to get out of this material contamination. Then again we become pure. And as soon as we become pure, there is no more birth, death, old age, and disease. Finished.
So Kṛṣṇa says, "That consciousness is avināśi." After the death of, after the annihilation of this body, which we call dead, the consciousness is not dead. That we do not understand. There is no science; there is no philosophy. Everything based on a foolish assumption. They say the consciousness is made possible by combination of matter. The combination of matter, five elements, gross, the subtle elements, they cannot see. Even they see. So their... (aside:) Not now. Their proposition is that this consciousness is a symptom of combination of matter. That is Buddhist philosophy. They do not accept the existence of soul. "The consciousness is a combination of matter." But if it is a fact, then why don't you, if some matter is lacking, why don't you bring that matter or chemical and inject in the dead body and make it again conscious? Why it is not possible? What is your argument? If you say consciousness is combination of matter...
At all, no progress, practically. They have no knowledge. That is their position. They have no knowledge. So we have to understand from the authority. There are so many arguments. Now, if you say "This body's dead because the blood has become white. Blood corpuscles, they are now become white instead of becoming red." So if that is the possible, so why don't you make the blood red? By some chemical injection or by adding some color, as soon as the blood becomes red... Why don't you do that? No. If you say "That was 'natural' redness. That natural redness cannot be brought," then your science is defective. And even if we accept that natural redness is the cause of living force, there are many natural redness in the flower, in the jewels. Why does it not move? So all the arguments of these foolish scientists, or so-called logicians, that can be, I mean to say, nullified, if you are intelligent. We have to take..., accept it, because it is said by Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality. Because we cannot say anything, why it is avināśi, why this body's not avināśi, but the consciousness is avināśi, that we cannot explain; therefore we have to accept the version of the supreme authority. That is education. That is education. We, we cannot deny. Because we cannot give any counterproposal. So how we can deny Kṛṣṇa's proposal? Avināśi tu tad viddhi yena sarvam idaṁ tatam. Yena sarvam idaṁ tatam. This is also very significant. Idaṁ śarīram.
So we have to see through the authorized books the description which is beyond our perception. Acintyāḥ khalu ye bhāvā na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet. Tarkeṇa, by argument, which is beyond your sense perception. So many things. Even we see daily so many planets, stars in the sky, but we have no information. They are going directly to see the moon planet, but hopelessly coming back. It is very doubtful to say so. And they have got dogmatic impression: "Except this planet, in other planets, so many, there is no life." These are not perfect understanding. From śāstra-yoni, if you want to see through the śāstra... Just like moon planet. We have got information from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam that there, the people, they live for ten thousands of years. And what is that measurement of year? Our six months equal to their one day. Now such ten thousands of years, just imagine. It is called daiva-varṣa. Daiva-varṣa means year according to the demigods' calculation. Just like Brahmā's day, that is demigods' calculation. Sahasra-yuga-paryantam ahar yad brahmaṇo viduḥ (BG 8.17). We have got information from Bhagavad-gītā, Kṛṣṇa says that they calculate the years of the demigods.
So, immeasurable. You cannot measure what is the soul, but the soul is there, and the body is perishable. "If you, even if you do not fight, you save the bodies of your grandfather and teacher and others as you are so much overwhelmed, so they are perishable. Antavanta means today or tomorrow. Suppose your grandfather is already old. So you do not kill him just now or, say, after one year or six months, he may die because he's already old. These are the arguments put forward. The main point is Kṛṣṇa wants Arjuna that he must fight. He must, he must not deviate from his duty as a kṣatriya. He should not be overwhelmed by the bodily destruction. Therefore He is giving instruction: "The body is different from the soul. So don't think that the soul will be killed. You stand up and fight." This is the instruction.
So this argument the butchers or the animal killers or any kind of killer, they cannot put argument. That "Here, Bhagavad-gītā says that soul is never killed, na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre (BG 2.20), even after destroying the body. So why you are complaining that we are killing?" So this is the argument, that you cannot even kill the body. That is not allowed. That is sinful. Ubhau tau na vijānīto nāyaṁ hanti na hanyate. So nobody kills anybody, neither anybody is killed by others. This is one thing. Again, in a different way, Kṛṣṇa says, na jāyate: the living entity never takes birth. The birth is of the body or the death is of the body. Living entity, the spiritual spark, then that being Kṛṣṇa's part and parcel, as Kṛṣṇa does not take birth, does not die... Ajo 'pi sann avyayātmā. You'll find in the Fourth Chapter. Ajo 'pi. Kṛṣṇa is aja. Aja means who never takes birth. Similarly, we being part and parcel of Kṛṣṇa, we also never take birth. The birth and death is of this body, and we are so absorbed in the bodily concept of life that when there is birth or death of the body we feel the pains and pleasures. There is no pleasure of course.
My coat or shirt has got a form because my body has got a form. I have got two hands. Therefore my dress, my coat, has also two hands. My shirt has also two hands. So if this is dress, this body, as it is described in the Bhagavad-gītā—vāsāṁsi jīrṇāni yathā vihāya (BG 2.22)—so if it is dress, then I must have a form. Otherwise how this dress is made? It is very logical conclusion and very easy to understand. Unless I have got my own form, how the dress has got form? What is the answer? Anyone can say? How the original living entity can be without hands and legs? If this body's my dress... Just like you go to a tailor. He takes measurement of your hand, of your leg, of your chest. Then your coat or shirt is made. Similarly, when you have got a particular type of dress, it is to be assumed that I have got my form, spiritual form. Nobody can refute this argument. And apart from our so-called argument, we have to accept the statement of Kṛṣṇa. The... Because He's authority.
These are the statements of Kṛṣṇa. Now the constitution of the soul... So far materialists are concerned, they cannot even find out where is the soul. Therefore there are so many theories. Actually, they cannot find out where the soul is situated because material senses cannot approach. The measurement of the soul is stated in the Vedic literature as one ten-thousandth part of the tip of the hair. So there is no possibility of understanding what is soul by material scientists. The only process is to take it from higher authorities like Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa here gives definition of the soul. So we have to accept it. And not blindly accept it, but try to understand as far as possible with your arguments and reason, but this is the actual fact. What is that statement? The soul, definition of soul, Kṛṣṇa is giving?
So why not in the fire? Fire is one of the elements like air, water, land. So if in other elements there is possibility of living beings, why not in one? What is the reason? What is the argument? And Vedic literature gives us information that in the fire there is germ also. Just like in water there is germ; in the earth there is germ; in the air there is germ, living entities. Similarly in the fire there is also. And here it is said it cannot be burned. Even it is in the fire, there is no possibility of being burned. So why not in the fire? It requires a different type of body only. That's all. Just like the fish. It has got a different type of body. It is living very comfortably in the water. You have got a different type of body. You are living in the land very comfortably. You cannot live in the water. The fish cannot live in the land. Similarly, in the fiery planet, just like sun, there must be living entities. There must be. You cannot say by any reason that there is no living entities. How you can say? If it is a fact that living entity cannot be burned. Is it not? Just try to understand. Yes.
Yes. This is a common sense argument. How it can be? If it is equal to the infinite, how he has become finite? They cannot answer. The impersonalists cannot answer. How he has become finite? They'll simply answer, "It is māyā." Then māyā is greater than the infinite? Then māyā becomes greater than the infinite. Then that God is no more infinite because māyā covers the Supreme, so how He is infinite? He becomes finite? The common sense is that finite Brahman is covered by māyā. Not the infinite. Therefore duality. Finite and infinite living entities. Kṛṣṇa is infinite, and the ordinary living entities are finite.
We accept śāstra, means which is infallible. There is no mistake. Just like when I was walking near the cowshed, heaps of, piles of cow dung was there. So I was explaining to my followers that if such heaps of animal, I mean to say, man stool was heaped up here, nobody would come here. Nobody would come here. But the cow dung, there are so much heaps of cow dung, still, we find it pleasure to go through it. And in the Vedas it is said, "Cow dung is pure." This is called śāstra. If you argue, "How it can, it has become pure? It is an animal stool." But the Vedas, they... Because the knowledge is perfect, that even in argument we cannot prove how animal stool becomes pure, but it is pure. Therefore Vedic knowledge is perfect. And if we take knowledge from the Vedas, we save so much time for investigating, or researching. We are very much fond of research. Everything is there in the Vedas. Why do you waste your time?
If I say... Just like they put the arguments: ghaṭākāśa-poṭākāśa, that "The sky within the pot and the sky outside the pot, on account of the wall of the pot, the sky within the pot is separated." But how it can be separated? It cannot be cut into pieces. For argument's sake... Actually, we are very, very small particle, molecular parts of the spirit. So... And they are eternally part. Not that circumstantially it has become part, and again it can join. It can join, but not that in a homogeneous way, mixed-up way. No. Even it is joined, it, the soul keeps his separate existence. Just like a green bird, when he enters into the tree, it appears that the bird is now merged into the tree, but it is not that. The bird keeps its identity within the tree. That is the conclusion. Although both the tree and the bird being green, it appears that the bird is now merged into the tree, this merging does not mean that, that the bird and the tree has become one. No. It appears like that. Because both of them are the same color, it appears that the bird has..., there is no more existence of the bird. But that is not a fact. The bird is... Similarly, we are individual spirit soul.
Indian (2): Lord Kṛṣṇa says, Swamiji, karmaṇy evādhikāras te mā phaleṣu kadācana...
Prabhupāda: Yes. Are you doing that? Are you doing that?
Indian (2): No, I am asking... That is the doubt.
Prabhupāda: That is doubt. Why? You are creating why unnecessary arguments? If you understand that Kṛṣṇa says karmaṇy evādhikāras te mā phaleṣu kadācana, you work hard, earn lakhs of rupees, and give it to Kṛṣṇa. Then you understand. Yat karoṣi yaj juhoṣi yad aśnāsi yat tapasyasi kuruṣva tad mad-arpaṇam (BG 9.27). So are you doing that? As soon as you get money, "Oh, it is for me. I shall go to hotel."
Indian (2): No, my doubt is, Swamiji, why...?
Prabhupāda: You will be always in doubt. You have to go to a spiritual master. And don't bother and waste my time in that way. You have got so many doubts. If you want to clear your doubts, then you have to surrender somewhere. You will keep yourself as you are, and I am meant for clearing your doubts. (laughter)
Indian (2): I am trying to(?) I surrender.
Prabhupāda: That's all right. Come on. Live with him. Come on. You are welcome, very welcome.
Just like you combine some chemicals and you get some product, similarly the modern scientist says that carbon dioxide, soda bicarb—they name so many chemicals—is the combination of this body. That is chemical analysis of this body. But can you produce? You have got all the chemicals. Can you produce even the body of an ant by combination of carbon dioxide, soda bicarb and so many chemicals? Just produce, not human being, just produce even a small ant which is moving. Combine. That you cannot. So such theories, at least we cannot accept. But Kṛṣṇa is giving argument to Arjuna, "If you think that this is an accidental combination of several chemicals, then where there is cause of lamentation?" Suppose in a bottle you have got certain combination of chemicals. If that bottle is broken, is there any cause of lamentation? All right, we shall get another bottle of this chemical combination. So Kṛṣṇa is forwarding this argument, that if you think that this body, there is no soul, there is no transmigration of the soul, simply it has happened under certain accidental chemical combination and it will dis..., what is called, dislocated, or dismantle at a certain period, so where is the cause of lamentation? Why you are lamenting? This is His argument. Go on.
Devotee: "Even if Arjuna did not believe in the existence of the soul, as in the vaibhāṣika philosophy, there would still have been no cause for lamentation. Nobody would lament the loss of a certain bulk of chemicals and stop discharging his prescribed duties (BG 2.26)."
Prabhupāda: Yes. Suppose some chemical combined bottle is there; by accident it is broken. Does it mean that I shall give up all my duties to be done? And lament for the bottle only? What is this? (laughs) "Arjuna, you are My friend," he was friend of Kṛṣṇa. "You have become so fool that you are lamenting for loss of a chemical bottle?" This is the argument. Yes.
Devotee: "On the other hand, in modern science and scientific warfare so many tons of chemicals are wasted in achieving victory over the enemy."
Prabhupāda: Yes. They are manufacturing so many atomic bomb and hydrogen bomb, this bomb—huge expensive chemical. So that is lost, so who is crying for that? Go on.
Yes. Material creation, just like bubbles in the ocean. You have seen standing on the bank of the Pacific Ocean, oh, so many thousands of bubbles created in a second, and again thousands of bubbles gone, in a second. Now, who is crying there? "Oh, so many bubbles were created, and they are gone, they are gone, they are gone." (laughter) It's nonsense. (laughs) So Kṛṣṇa is very nicely giving argument that "If you think there is no soul, it is being manufactured by the interaction of the physical element, so it is just like bubbles in the ocean. So many bubbles are created and destroyed every moment. So what is there cause of lamentation? What is your reason?" Then?
So this is the opinion of the modern scientists or the Buddha philosophy, that soul, there is nothing like soul separately, but by combination of matter, at a certain stage, the living symptoms are manifest. And as it is combination of several chemicals, so it is also finished as soon as the body is finished. There is no, nothing as soul. That is their opinion. So for argument's sake, Kṛṣṇa says, "If you think like that, that the body is all in all..., by certain condition, the material elements combine, and again it is finished..." So Arjuna was declining to fight. So the, for argument's sake, Kṛṣṇa says that "If you think like that, the body's everything, so it will be destroyed automatically. So why you are so much afraid?" Suppose I have combined some chemicals and it is destroyed... Say, bottles of chemicals, some way or other, it is destroyed. So who laments for that? You can purchase another bottle. That is simply for argument's sake. Actually, that is not the position. Now, if you think that the combination of chemicals can produce living force, then why don't you do it in the laboratory? The chemicals are there. You can combine and just produce a small ant, moving. Then it is... Science means observation and experiment. So if you simply observe, and cannot make any experiment, practical, so then that is not science. That is only theory. That is not possible. No scientist has ever made any living entity by combination of chemicals in the laboratory. Nobody can do that.
So in this way we cannot understand which is beyond the perception of our knowledge. Acintyāḥ khalu ye bhāvā na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet. Things which are beyond our perception, you, we should not simply try to understand by logic and argument. It is useless waste of time, because nobody can decide theory. The modern so-called scientists, they also write like that: "Perhaps," "It may be," like that. "It may be millions of years. It was like this." "It may be." What is the value of saying "It may be." Say definitely. That they cannot do. All the scientists" theory like "Perhaps," "Maybe." "Perchance, if it comes to be true..." So such kind of argument has no value. Therefore our śāstra says: acintyāḥ khalu ye bhāvāḥ. Beyond your perception, beyond your sense perception, don't try to understand it by argument and logic. Then how to know it? Know it from the person who knows it. That is knowledge. Just like we are trying to get knowledge about the soul, not by experiment, but we are trying to understand from the words of Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa is the authority. So He says, in the beginning: dehino 'smin yathā dehe kaumāraṁ yauvanaṁ jarā (BG 2.13). We can... Kṛṣṇa says, and we can think over it and ponder over it. Then we come to conclusion.
That is karma-vāda. If, just like so many people, they argue that if we discharge our duties nicely, then where is the need of accepting God? The karma-vāda philosophy is that if there is God, then he's giving us the result of our activities, and if I do nicely, then He gives me nice opportunity, and if I do not do things very nicely, I am put into suffering. So there is a karma-phala-datta, decides... Just like the high-court judge, he is giving judgement according to the case, different cases. Similarly, our goodness or badness will be decided according to our karma. That is also fact. Then what is the use of accepting one God? If I do my duties very nicely, then He must give me nice result. Why shall I worship Him? Why shall I become a devotee of God? It is His duty. This is karma-vāda. Everyone is trying to avoid the principle of devotional service. It is only we, the Kṛṣṇa conscious persons, we are advocating the philosophy of Bhagavad-gītā, man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru (BG 18.65). Kṛṣṇa says that "Always think of Me." These karma-vādīs, they will say, "Why shall I waste my time thinking of Kṛṣṇa? If I do my duty nicely then I will get good result. Why shall I be devotee of Kṛṣṇa?" This is their argument.
This another theory, that voidism, that before our, this manifested life, there was void, and after this manifestation is over, still there will be void. Because according to voidism, everything is manifested originally void. So Kṛṣṇa puts forward this argument that before this manifested form of life there was void, and after this manifested life, there will be void, according to the void philosophy. Then where is the cause of lamentation? There is no cause of lamentation. It was void and it is going to be void. So where is the cause of lamentation? But actually that is... Originally, it was not void. That is a Bhagavad-gītā and Vaiṣṇava theory. Just like Kṛṣṇa said that there was "No such time when we did not exist." That means not there was... There was no void. There was life. And in future also, there will be life. But accepting the theory of voidism, this manifested body is combination of matter. Originally, void means the matters, elementary matters, were not combined. Just like here is an open land. Now, if you combine some bricks and stones and wood, it will appear a big skyscraper building. And if you dismantle, then again it becomes a vacant land. Similarly, in the beginning it was vacant land, and after finishing this body it will be vacant land. So where is the cause of lamentation? For argument's sake, Kṛṣṇa is putting this reason. Yes. Go on.
Now, after putting forward all definitions and arguments from different angles of vision, of different philosophers, thesis, now Kṛṣṇa concludes, "My dear Arjuna, take it for certain that the soul within is eternal." So because we are in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, even if we do not understand what is the constitutional position of the soul, here, because Kṛṣṇa says, we should accept it. This is called paramparā. Evaṁ paramparā-prāptam (BG 4.2), disciplic succession. What does He say? Yes. The same verse repeat.
Devotee: 33: "If however you do not fight this religious war, then you will certainly incur sins for neglecting your duties and thus lose your reputation as a fighter (BG 2.33)."
Prabhupāda: And on the other hand, if you don't fight, then... You are known as a great warrior, a great soldier. If you go away, people will say against your reputation: "Oh, Arjuna has become a coward. He has fled away from the fight." So it is better to die than to have bad reputation. That is another argument. Yes.
Devotee: 34: "People will always speak of your infamy, and for one who has been honored, dishonor is worse than death (BG 2.34)."
Prabhupāda: "Now, you are so much honored as Arjuna the great fighter, Dhanañjaya, and if you leave, you go away from this fighting and leave and people will say, 'Oh, Arjuna has become coward. He did not fight,' then what is the use of your living in such a way? Better die. Fight and die. That is good for you." Yes.
Yes. Durgā is the material energy. So Lord Śiva is directly connected with the material energy. Therefore he's less than Lord Viṣṇu. Viṣṇu is not directly related with the material energy. The example is given in the Brahma-saṁhitā. Just like milk, as soon as in touch with something sour, it becomes yogurt. The yogurt is nothing but milk, but in connection with some sour material, it is yogurt. So yogurt is milk, but it is not milk also. Your child requires milk. You cannot give yogurt. Nobody can argue, "Oh, yogurt is milk preparation, why not give?" No. It will be not beneficial for him. Similarly, if you want release from this material world, you have to take to Viṣṇu, no other demigod. If you want strength, then you have to drink milk, not yogurt. Yogurt, at times you can eat for some taste or some particular purpose. The milk is general drinking. Just take the statistics, how many bottles of milk are sold in the store and how many bottles of yogurt is sold. The yogurt and milk is the same thing. Why they'll demand milk and not the yogurt? Is that right? Yes. But nobody can put argument, "Oh, why do you take milk? Take the yogurt." No. Yes?
Prabhupāda: ...believing in the existence of soul. So soul is eternal. So there is nothing, no cause for lamentation, because soul will remain. Even the body is destroyed, there is no cause for lamentation. And those who do not believe that "There is no soul; everything was void in the beginning,..." So in the beginning there was void and in the middle it is manifested. Then again it is void. So void to void, where there is lamentation? This is the argument Kṛṣṇa is giving. Both ways you cannot lament. Then?
Pradyumna: (purport) "Yet even if, for argument's sake, we accept the atheistic theory, there is still no cause for lamentation. Apart from the separate existence of the soul, the material elements remain unmanifested before creation. From this subtle state of unmanifestation comes manifestation. Just as from ether, air is generated; from air, fire is generated; from fire, water is generated; and from water, earth becomes manifested. From the earth, many varieties of manifestations..."
Prabhupāda: This is the process of creation. From ether, then sky, then air, then fire, then water, then earth. This is the process of creation. Yes.
So these things should be observed. Brāhmaṇa, a brāhmaṇa's duty is to present himself an ideal human being. Satyaṁ śamo damas titikṣā. Titikṣā means toleration. "Oh, it is very cold. No, I cannot take bath." No. You must tolerate. You must tolerate. Titikṣā. Ārjavam, simplicity; jñānam, full knowledge; vijñānam, practical application. Jñānaṁ vijñānam āstikyam. Āstikyam means completely convinced of God and his relationship with God. That is called āstikyam. Or full faith in the statement of the Vedas. Whatever Veda says, that's right. Yes. No argument. That is called āstikyam. No argument.
Just like we belong to the devotee group of philosophers. Then there are others who are impersonalists. But they, or both of them, they do not deny the presence of the soul, presence of the soul. The Buddha philosophy, they do not recognize the soul. They, according to them, that the combination of matter at a certain stage produces consciousness. But that philosophy, that argument, can be refuted that with matter, you cannot produce consciousness. Because... Take the example of a dead man. The dead man is there. All the elements, material elements, are all there present. But you cannot revise, you cannot revoke that man to consciousness. The elements are there, the ingredients are there. Now, if you think this ingredient has been decomposed or deteriorated, then replace that ingredient. Just like in a machine. In a machine some part is wear and tear. It is not working, stopped. You can replace that part into new part, and the machine will work. But this is not like that. If you think that something has deteriorated in this body, therefore it has become dead. Say, for example, that they say generally, due to heart failure. Now, heart... Medical practitioners they know it that heart is always pumping like this, pumping like this. Now, can you produce heart action by artificial pumping? No. It is not possible. They give respiratory oxygen gas and so many things, but it cannot be revived.
Now, the beginning. In the beginning of the Bhagavad-gītā, Arjuna, in the battlefield, he was perplexed whether to fight or not to fight. That was his problem. First of all he thought that "My cousin-brothers, they have given me so much trouble. They have usurped my kingdom. So I must fight with them and retake my lost kingdom." That is determination. Again, when actually in the battlefield he saw his brothers and his friends... Because it was a family quarrel, so in both the sides all the friends and relatives, they joined, either to this party or that party. But the beauty is that Arjuna became compassionate, that "Why should I fight simply for the kingdom? How long I shall remain in the kingdom? Let me not to, not fight, let me not to fight. I'll not... I shall not fight." That was his decision. Because he was a devotee of the Lord, this good compassion came into his mind. The other party, they did not consider it. The other party was determined to fight. Now, Arjuna was hesitating, and therefore the Bhagavad-gītā was explained. The Lord first of all tried to engage him in the battle in the ordinary way, and when he, when it was not possible and there was some arguments between Arjuna and Kṛṣṇa in favor and in, against the fighting... But at last Arjuna decided that "Let me appoint Kṛṣṇa, the best amongst us, to advise me what to do and what not to do." Then the Bhagavad-gītā was begun. That is the history. You have already discussed it, and you know it.
Now, we should always understand that we are meant for serving the supreme whole. That is our position. So this, this position, maintaining, and mental speculation, that "I am the Lord," by argument, by jugglery of words, the Lord says, Kṛṣṇa says, you should give up all these things. Mano-gatān. Mano-gatān. There is another instruction in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam that harāv abhaktasya kuto mahad-guṇā manorathenāsati dhāvato bahiḥ (SB 5.18.12). Yasyāsti bhaktir bhagavaty akiñcanā sarvair guṇais tatra samāsate surāḥ: "If one is situated in pure devotional service of the Lord, then, whatever he may be, all the good qualities of the Lord will develop in him, will develop, all the good qualities." And harāv abhaktasya kuto mahad-guṇāḥ: "And one who is not a devotee of the Lord, however academically he may be educated, his qualification has no value." Why? Now, manorathena: "Because he's on the platform of mental speculation, and due to his mental speculation, he is sure to be influenced by this material nature." He's sure to. So if we want to be free from the influence of the material nature, then our habit of mental speculation may be given up. That is the instruction in this verse.
Now, that agreement of fighting and in the beginning of Bhagavad-gītā, not to fight, that is the difference. In the beginning he was not in agreement with Kṛṣṇa. He made so many arguments with Kṛṣṇa against fighting. And at the end, he agreed. "Yes," he said. He became a yes man. So we have to become a yes man to the Supreme Lord. That's all. That is the perfection of our spiritual life. Now we are all "no men." God says this, I say "no." Stubborn. I say, "no." Now simply we have to say "yes". That's all. In everything we say, "no" at the present. Present formation of our existence is to say "no." Anything godly, we say "no." We shudder even by the name of God. We have come to a certain stage of our civilized life, that we want to banish God altogether. Not only saying "no," but we now prepare to agree to the point that there is no existence of God. So how much foolish we are becoming day by day in the name of advancement of civilization. You see?
Prabhupāda: There is no cause of disappointment. You have to do your duty, that's all. Kāryam. Kāryam means "It is my duty, I have to do it." Go on.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Purport: "Kings like Janaka and others were all self-realized souls, consequently they had no obligation to perform the prescribed duties in the Vedas. Nonetheless they performed all prescribed activities just to set examples for the people in general. Janaka was the father of Sītā and father-in-law of Lord Śrī Rāma. A great devotee of the Lord like King Janaka was transcendentally situated. But because he was the king of Mithilā (a subdivision of Bihar province in India) he had to teach his subjects how to act. In the Battle of Kurukṣetra, the Lord wanted to teach people in general that violence is also necessary in a situation where good arguments fail. Before the Battle of Kurukṣetra there was every effort to avoid the war, even by the Supreme Personality of Godhead but the other party was determined to fight. So for such a right cause there is a necessity for fighting. Therefore although one who is situated in Kṛṣṇa consciousness may not have any interest in the world, he still works to teach the people how to live and how to act. Experienced persons in Kṛṣṇa consciousness can act in such a way that others will follow and this is explained in the following verse."
Prabhupāda: Yes.
It has been described in the Bhāgavata that tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ. If you want to establish religious truth, you cannot establish it by your logic and argument. It is not possible because I may be a very perfect religious man, but I may not be a very good arguer; another strong man who can argue very strongly, who knows logic very nicely, he can defeat me. He can make my all conclusion null and void. So therefore, simply by argument or logical conclusion one cannot reach to the truth, to the religious truth. It is not possible. Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnāḥ. Śrutayaḥ means revealed scriptures. Revealed scriptures. Just like in the world there are many revealed scriptures. There are Vedas, Purāṇas, the Bible, the Koran, and there are so many religious scriptures also. And if you go on reading them, although the aim is one, still, you will find some discrepancy from one to another. Śrutayo vibhinnāḥ. Vibhinnāḥ means they are diverse. They are diverse. Śrutayo vibhinnā nāsāv ṛṣir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. And so far philosophers are concerned, one philosopher tries to defeat another philosopher. That is the philosophical way. So nāsāv ṛṣir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam, dharmasya tattvaṁ nihitaṁ guhāyām. Therefore this truth of religion is very confidential. Nihitaṁ guhāyām. Guhāyām means it is very confidential.
Suppose if you are called for fighting with your enemies, you are ready. But if somebody says that "You fight with your sons and daughters and wives and your friends," oh, you'll hesitate. That is quite natural. So Arjuna was placed in such a position, that "I have to fight with my relatives." So he was perplexed. He was perplexed and there was some arguments. We have already discussed. And Kṛṣṇa said that when the question of fighting is there, it doesn't matter who are they on the opposite party. "You are a kṣatriya. You are a fighting man. It is your duty to fight. You should not hesitate."
But Arjuna could not be satisfied with such arguments, and... Arjuna could not be satisfied with such arguments. He declined to fight, and then he surrendered to Kṛṣṇa, surrendered to Kṛṣṇa, "Kṛṣṇa, we are now talking as friends. Now I am, I am serious about learning from You." Because Arjuna knew it perfectly well that Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. "So whatever instruction I'll have from Kṛṣṇa, that will be perfect. That will be perfect."
So therefore Kṛṣṇa advised Arjuna that avināśi tu tad viddhi yena sarvam idaṁ tatam: "Arjuna, My dear Arjuna, you have, so long you have spoken, you have argued with Me in so many ways, but such argument is not for, not to be entertained in learned circle. Now just try to be a learned man." And what is that? Now, avināśi tu tad viddhi yena sarvam idaṁ tatam: "You just try to understand. In your body there is some thing which is spread all over body, all over your body. And that is eternal. And what is that thing which is spread all over your body? That is your consciousness. Your consciousness."
Just like this electric bulb is here, and the light of the electric bulb is diffused all over the, I mean to say, room. We can see. Similarly, the spirit soul is within your heart. It is situated there. But it is so powerful that its light is spread all over this body so that wherever you pinch, you feel, by consciousness, "Oh, I am feeling some pain." That consciousness. And as soon as that consciousness is gone from this body, if your head is cut off, or your leg is cut off, by chopped off, you don't feel anything.
Now, you'll find in the Tenth Chapter how Arjuna understood Bhagavad-gītā. So you have to follow the footprints. The whole thing is... I have several times repeatedly saying to you that mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ (CC Madhya 17.186). Mahājana. Dharmasya tattvaṁ nihitaṁ guhāyāṁ mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ. Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnāḥ. It is said that you cannot reach to the right conclusion of the Vedic literature simply by your argument, by your force of argument or logic. That is not possible. Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ. There are many things which do not come within our argument, within our sense of logic. So tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ. You cannot understand the Supreme Truth simply by argument. Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnāḥ.
And there are, so far scriptures are concerned, you'll find different scriptures describing in a different way. So that also, you'll be bewildered. Nāsāv ṛṣir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. And there are different philosophers who are always contradictory. One philosopher is deviating. He's not in agreement with another philosopher. He has got a different theory. Another has got different theory. So philosophers also cannot give you the real truth. So neither you can understand the real truth simply by going through different scriptures, nor you can understand the real truth simply by your logical force or argument. So dharmasya tattvaṁ nihitaṁ guhāyām. The, the, I mean to say, the mystery of Absolute Truth is very confidential, very confidential. Then how I can understand? Mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ: (CC Madhya 17.186) "If you follow the mahājana, the authorities, then you can understand." Therefore, this authority, this disciplic succession...
In India there are disciplic successions. Now, so far we are concerned, we are following the disciplic succession. Just like Rāmānujācārya and the Madhvācārya and Nimbārka, Viṣṇu Svāmī. So we try to understand the Vedic literatures from our superior spiritual master. That is the process. Just like Arjuna is trying to understand from Bhagavad-gītā, or from Kṛṣṇa, similarly, if we want to understand Bhagavad-gītā, then we have to understand it from Arjuna, not from any other person.
The Māyāvādī philosopher says that "I am God, but I have forgotten myself, that I am God." So how God can forget? Here it is the evidence. How God can forget? If you forget, then you are not God, immediately. There is no other argument. God cannot forget. God remembers always. Acyuta. Acyuta means infallible. God cannot be entrapped by māyā. The Māyāvādī philosopher says that "I am God. Now I am under illusion of māyā. I have forgotten myself, that I am God, and by meditation I shall become God." This is all nonsense. Nobody... God cannot forget Himself. Then He is not God, immediately. God cannot forget Himself. Go on.
That means if you change your body, then you forget. But Kṛṣṇa remembers. That means Kṛṣṇa does not change His body. That is another argument. Kṛṣṇa remembers means He... And it is said... You will find in the Bhagavad-gītā. He says, tadātmānaṁ sṛjāmy aham: "I appear. I appear as I am," ātma-māyayā, "by My own internal energy." Just like I appear or any living entity appears in this material world. That is not under my control. As soon as I give up this body, I am fully under the control of nature. The nature will offer me a particular type of body according to my work. That is the way. Prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni guṇaiḥ karmāṇi sarvaśaḥ (BG 3.27).
Similarly, in the temple of Guru-dvāras, Sikhs... (break) ...like the Hindus. And they also offer flower, fruits, and sweetmeat, but they read their Granthasahib. As we are reading Bhagavad-gītā they read Granthasahib enunciated by Guru Nanak. So this temple worship or accepting some authority, either you accept Kṛṣṇa or you accept Lord Jesus Christ or Jehovah or Lord Buddha or Guru Nanak, that is a different, I mean to say, kinds of faith, but this acceptance of authority is there in everywhere. Now who is the highest authority, that we have to see by understanding Vedic literature, by our arguments, by our sense, by our understanding. But this acceptance of authority is there.
Just like two lawyers are arguing in the court. The medium is the law court. So neither of them can deny the law court, but one has to establish his convictions by argument, by logic. So similarly, tat tvam asi is the code of Vedic principle or Vedas, "You are that." Tat tvam asi. Tat means that supreme spirit. "You are." So our philosophy, Vaiṣṇava philosophy, we begin from this point. As Kṛṣṇa began Bhagavad-gītā from the point that "You are not this body," we begin from this version, tat tvam asi. Tat tvam asi. "You are not this." That means "What I am?" Then I must be something; otherwise what is my identity? That reply is your identity is that "You are as good as God." That means you are qualitatively the same. Tat tvam asi. Qualitatively you are...
But fortunately we have got these instructions of Bhagavad-gītā, and the teacher is Lord Caitanya. If we follow these principles and try to understand it with all our knowledge, all our logic and argument, then our life is successful. Here is an opportunity the movement of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. And it is very easy. You simply sit down. If you don't like to come to this temple, it doesn't matter. At, in your home only, you sit down with your friends, with your boyfriend or girlfriend or family members, children. Sit down and chant Hare Kṛṣṇa. If you have got a nice musical instrument it is all right. Otherwise, God has given you these hands. You can clap, Hare Kṛṣṇa. Very easy. Just try it and you will understand everything gradually.
At the present moment people are denying the existence of God, or they are thinking that God is dead. That means imperfection of knowledge. They have to still make progress to the perfectional point. And that test is to understand, "Here is God, and He is the fountainhead of everything." That perfection of knowledge you will have simply by reading... Any scripture you can read. The same conception is there. But in the Bhagavad-gītā it is more clearly explained so that you can understand with all reason, arguments, and scrutiny too. It is not dogmatic. That is the beauty of Bhagavad-gītā.
Now, we have received this news, very pleasing. Now next duty? Taj-joṣaṇāt. Now, if you little try to assimilate it. And what is that assimilation? Smaraṇam. Simply by thinking, "Oh, this has been spoken." Try to argue whether it is true or not. So you have to think over. Satāṁ prasaṅgān, taj-joṣaṇād āśv apavarga-vartmani. And if you do that... Suppose you hear something of the Bhagavad-gītā, and it appeals to you, or even does not appeal to you. Just try to think over: "What Bhagavad-gītā says? How Swamiji has discussed this matter?" Apply your arguments. Apply your logic. Don't take it as a sentiment or as a blind faith. You have got reason; you have got arguments; you have got sense. Apply it and try to understand it. Neither it is bogus. It is scientific. Then you will feel... Taj-joṣaṇād āśv apavarga-vartmani śraddhā ratir bhaktir anukramiṣyati. You will gradually develop your attachment for hearing it, and devotional service will be invoked in your heart, and then, gradually, you will make progress.
So the śāstra says, tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ: "If you simply want to know what is self-realization, what is religion, simply by argument, logic, it is not possible." Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnāḥ: "If you want to learn by studying scriptures, Vedic literature, you will find different scriptures." Sāma, Yajur, Ṛg, Atharva, then different Purāṇas. There are eighteen Purāṇas, Mahābhārata. That is also impossible, means you cannot understand.
The example, as I gave you the other day, that a soldier is fighting and killing many enemies or killing many persons, but he is not responsible for killing. The same man, when he is not fighting for the country or for the government, if he kills one man, he is hanged. He is to be hanged. Try to understand. So because he is fighting or killing on the order of higher authority, the government, he is not responsible for all those killings. Rather sometimes he is recognized by giving some medal: "Oh, you have killed so many enemies. Very good." And similarly, if he kills outside the warfield, at home... That is also enemy. Nobody kills nobody unless the other is his enemy. But he will be hanged. If he argues in the court that "In the battlefield I killed so many enemies. I was given recognition. But at home I have killed only one enemy and for which I am going to be hanged. What is this law?" This argument will not stay. So for higher authority's order, if you do something, you are not responsible.
So how you become desireless? Very nice argument he gave. Our Caitya-guru gave it. I was very much pleased. It is not possible to become desireless. This is foolishness, to give up desire. You cannot give (up) desire. That is not... If you give up desire, then you are a dead man. A stone has no desire. Do you like to become a stone-like? No. Desire cannot be less. That is not possible. Anyābhilāṣitā-śūnyam (CC Madhya 19.167). Abhilāṣitā-śūnyam, anya. Anyābhilāṣitā-śūnyam: "Except Kṛṣṇa, any other desires should be given up." That is anyābhilāṣa. Abhilāṣitā-śūnyam, the ācārya, Rūpa Gosvāmī, does not say. That is not possible. I must have desires because I am living entity. I am not a stone. I am not a wood. So this is a false philosophy, to become desireless. That is not possible. To become desireless—other desires. Other means except Kṛṣṇa.
Now, Kṛṣṇa is concluding these different types of yajña. He says that śreyān dravyamayād yajñāj jñāna-yajñaḥ parantapa. Jñāna-yajña, jñāna-yajña means... This is jñāna-yajña, which we are doing here. We are discussing Bhagavad-gītā very scrutinizingly and trying to understand every verse with reference to the Vedic reference and as far as our logic and argument goes. So this is called jñāna-yajña.
Never mind whether he's a brāhmaṇa or a śūdra or a sannyāsī or a householder. Never mind what he is. That doesn't matter. If he knows the science of Kṛṣṇa, then he is the bona fide spiritual master." He is the bona fide spiritual master. So here this Bhagavad-gītā is the science of Kṛṣṇa. Every one of you, if you study Bhagavad-gītā very scrutinizingly, with all your arguments, with all your sense, with all your philosophical knowledge... Because it is said here, tad viddhi praṇipātena paripraśnena (BG 4.34).
Madhudviṣa: "The path of religion is directly enunciated by the Lord. Therefore mental speculation or dry argument cannot help one progress in spiritual life. One has to approach a bona fide spiritual master to receive the knowledge. Such a teacher should be accepted in full surrender, and one should serve the spiritual master like a menial servant, without false prestige."
Prabhupāda: Yes. The brahmacārī means... These are indication. When a person... When a boy becomes brahmacārī, even if he is the son of very rich man, he should live with the spiritual master as a menial servant. These are the injunction. That, Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa, He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Apart from his Godheadship, He was a very rich man's son. Really He was a very great king's son, Vasudeva, but He was given under the protection of King Nanda, Nanda Mahārāja, His foster father. He was also very rich man, very... He was king... (break) ...training of brahmacārī. So how he can see? When... Even if he is grown up, he cannot see any other woman in other way. He thinks of "Every woman is mother." This is the training. Of course, that training is not possible at the present moment. The days have changed. But this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is so nice that even brahmacārī begins immediately, he is trained up. He is trained up very nicely. Go on.
So one has to understand. It is not to be accepted blindly. It is not forced upon anybody. Therefore the Bhagavad-gītā is there. Try it, to understand scrutinizingly, with all your arguments, and you will find it is sublime. It is sublime.
So "A faithful man who is absorbed in transcendental knowledge..." This is transcendental knowledge, that "Simply by discharging my duties in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, all other duties will be performed." Means I will be perfect in fruitive activities, I will be perfect in knowledge, I will be perfect in mystic advancement, and I will be perfect to understand the Absolute Truth. This is called firm, unflinching faith.
Faith, I do not mean faith by blind faith. This Bhagavad-gītā is not blind faith. Everything is being explained step by step, scientifically, authoritatively. So try to understand. And if you fortunately become faithful, then your life is successful. Go on.
Yes. The instruction is that "How by practicing yoga in full consciousness of Me"—this is Kṛṣṇa consciousness—"with mind attached to Me, you can know Me in full." And if you know Kṛṣṇa in full, you know everything. And you can know Kṛṣṇa simply by our concentrating mind upon Kṛṣṇa. And as soon as you know Kṛṣṇa, you know everything. Therefore your knowledge is perfect. Is that argument fallacious? You can understand Kṛṣṇa simply by concentrating upon Him. That you can do. Everyone can do that. And as soon as you understand Kṛṣṇa you know everything. So why not take this path? Simple. That is full knowledge. That means eternity.
Full opulent: complete wealth, complete strength, complete beauty, complete knowledge, complete renunciation. One who possesses all these six things completely, he is Bhagavān. Bhagavān is not so cheap thing that it can be found in the lanes and streets and road. So that is also another misunderstanding. Therefore, Vyāsadeva says, "śrī-bhagavān uvāca..." He is complete in everything. Īśvaraḥ paramaḥ. Īśvara means controller. Parama means supreme, no more better than that. That is also enunciated by Kṛṣṇa in the Bhagavad-gītā, mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat: (BG 7.7) "There is no more superior element than Me." So, if we study Bhagavad-gītā, if we understand what is the nature of Bhagavān, then our life is successful. Asaṁśayaṁ samagraṁ māṁ yathā jñāsyasi tac chṛṇu (BG 7.1). So Kṛṣṇa is describing Himself. You try to understand from the statement of Kṛṣṇa with your logic, argument, science and everything. You will find complete answer.
Not only perfect... Perfection of human consciousness is there when one understands that "I am not this body. I am spirit soul." Ahaṁ brahmāsmi. That is perfection. But if you study scrutinizingly so many men, every one is bodily conscious. In Moscow I was speaking with a great professor, Kotovsky. He's in charge of Indology department of the government. He said... Although I defeated him in argument, he said that "After finishing this body, everything is finished." Just see. No. The spiritual knowledge begins when one is perfectly aware that "After finishing this body, I am not finished." That is perfection. Not that those who are in this concept of life, that with the finishing of this body everything is finished. That is nonsense. Na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre (BG 2.20). Kṛṣṇa teaches. Na jāyate na mriyate vā kadācin..., nityaḥ śāśvato 'yaṁ purāṇo na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre (BG 2.20).
Actually, these discussions of scripture is not to be acted unless there is relationship between the speaker and the audience. So audience means the disciples. Disciple means who accepts the discipline. Śiṣya. Śiṣya. The exact Sanskrit word is śiṣya. A śiṣya means... There is a verb, Sanskrit verb, which is called śās. Śās means controlling. From śās, the "śāstra" comes. Śāstra means controlling books. And from śas, śastra. Śastra means weapons. When argument fails, reason fails... Just like the state controls. First of all they give you the laws. If you break the laws, if you don't follow the regulation books, means śāstra, then next step is śastra. Śastra means weapons. If you don't follow the regulation of the government, keep to the right, then there is police batons—śastra. You have to be controlled. If you are gentleman, then you be controlled under the instruction of the śāstras. And if you are defying, then there is trident of Durgādevī.
So there is control. But foolish people, they do not see it. Everything is controlled. So to know God and how things are working and how it is being controlled, these things are to be known. We should not go simply by sentiment. Religious sentiment is good for persons who follow blindly. But at the present moment, people are advanced in so-called education. So Bhagavad-gītā gives you full information so that you can accept God with your reason, with your argument, with your knowledge. It is not blind following. Kṛṣṇa consciousness is not a sentiment. It is backed by knowledge and practical knowledge. Vijñānam. Jñānaṁ vijñāna sahitam. So without vijñāna sahitam... And the process is to understand this knowledge is to be a surrendered soul. Therefore we disciple... Disciple means one who accepts the discipline. Without accepting discipline, we cannot make any progress. It is not possible. Any field of knowledge, any field of activities, if you want to be aware, scientifically and factually, then you should accept the controlling principle. Samagreṇa vakṣ ya svarūpaṁ sarvokaraṁ yatra dhiyaṁ tad ubhaya-viṣayakaṁ jñānaṁ vyaktum.
To become God is not easy thing. There are some qualification, yesterday we discussed, that He must be the richest, He must be the most powerful, He must be the most famous, He must be the most learned, He must be the most beautiful, and He must be the most renounced. This is the definition of God. A poor man, begging from door to door, he cannot become God, as it is misconceived, daridra-nārāyaṇa. Why Nārāyaṇa can be daridra? What is this nonsense? He is the richest. He is the richest. And why He can, He will be daridra? The argument is forwarded that "God is in everyone's heart; therefore everyone is God." What is this argument? Everyone's heart, God is there. God said, īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānāṁ hṛd-deśe 'rjuna tiṣṭhati (BG 18.61). Where God says that because īśvara, the Supreme Being, is situated in everyone's heart, therefore everyone is God? What is this argument? Where Kṛṣṇa says that because īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānāṁ hṛd-deśe 'rjuna tiṣṭhati (BG 18.61), therefore everyone is God? Is that very sound argument?
So this is going on. They do not know what is God, and still, there are so many incarnations of God. And foolish people accept that "Here is an incarnation of God." He does not know what is God, and he accepts, "Here is incarnation." We do not do so. If there is incarnation of God... That is mentioned in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Their activities are mentioned, wonderful activities. We accept Lord Rāmacandra as God, Lord Kṛṣṇa as God, Caitanya Mahāprabhu as God, because They are mentioned in the śāstras, all the incarnations, even this age. One may say that "Lord Rāmacandra is accepted God, Lord Kṛṣṇa is also accepted, but Caitanya Mahāprabhu, He is the greatest devotee of God, but..." There are some persons in the Nimbārka-sampradāya, they put this argument. But Caitanya Mahāprabhu's name is there in the śāstra, many Upaniṣads, especially in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, that in the Kali-yuga this incarnation of God should be worshiped. What is that description?
So that requires little intelligence. It does not require many, many births. It requires little intelligence. Take to this Kṛṣṇa consciousness seriously; your problems are solved. Now, if you don't believe in it, then come to argument, come to philosophy, come to reason. Go on arguing. There are volumes of books. You can be convinced. You can learn it. Every answer is there in the Bhagavad-gītā. You can try to understand it with your reason, with your arguments. It is open. (break) ...like Arjuna. Arjuna was taught Bhagavad-gītā, how much time? At most, within half an hour. Because he was very intelligent. This Bhagavad-gītā, the people of the world are reading. Very, very learned scholar, wise men, they are reading. They are trying to understand, giving different interpretation. And there are thousands of edition, commentaries. But Arjuna was intelligent; he understood it within half an hour.
So this Kṛṣṇa consciousness is a science. You have to take it scientifically, as they are described in the authoritative books, and test it by your reason and argument and knowledge, and follow it. It is science. It is not sentiment. Whatever we are doing here, the dancing, singing and everything, that is all scientific. Simply you have to understand it. Therefore jñānī, only a person who is in knowledge, who is in knowledge of the science of Kṛṣṇa, he can make an rapid advancement, and he is very dear to Kṛṣṇa. Because slow but sure, he is making sure progress. It is no sentiment. So jñānī. Priyo hi jñāninaḥ atyartham. Atyartham means very... Aham. Kṛṣṇa is very dear to the person in knowledge, and that man is also very dear to Kṛṣṇa. Reciprocal. If you love Kṛṣṇa, then Kṛṣṇa will love more than you. You can... What capacity you have got to love Kṛṣṇa? But Kṛṣṇa will love. He has got immense capacity. So that is a science.
So as we have several times explained that we are all Brahman, but we are part and parcel of the Brahman. Now here it is said that paramaṁ brahma, the Supreme Brahman. The Supreme Brahman means one who does not come into this material contamination. He is called Supreme Brahman. The impersonalist school, they do not distinguish between these two Brahmans. They say, "Brahman is one. This individual Brahman, this conception of individual Brahman, is māyā, illusion." That is their doctrine. But according to Vaiṣṇava doctrine, they do not accept this. Their question is, "If Brahman is Supreme, then how He comes in contact with the māyā?" A Supreme cannot be under the subordinate, subordination of anything else. If something is under subordination, he cannot be Supreme. He cannot be Supreme. That is their argument.
The śāstra says that knowledge... Because our receptive power of knowledge is very limited... We are not perfect. Our senses are not perfect. Therefore whatever we acquire by these blunt senses, they cannot be perfect. The direction is, therefore, tarkaḥ apratiṣṭhaḥ: "If you want to reach to the ultimate conclusion simply by arguments and speculation, that is not possible." Because argumentative power is a special gift. Suppose you can argue very nicely. That's all. I cannot. But somebody may come—he's more powerful in arguments. He can defeat you. So don't depend on your speculative function or arguments. Don't depend on that. They're all imperfect. Tarkaḥ apratiṣṭhaḥ. These are the directions of higher authorities.
So mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ (CC Madhya 17.186). We have to accept the path of great personalities. Otherwise, if we want to understand the Absolute Truth simply by arguments and logic, oh it will never be achieved.
- athāpi te deva padāmbuja-dvaya-
- prasāda-leśānugṛhīta eva hi
- jānāti tattvaṁ bhagavan-mahimno
- na cānya eko 'pi ciraṁ vicinvan
- (SB 10.14.29)
The path of spiritual realization is for him who has a slight mercy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Athāpi te deva padāmbuja-dvaya-prasāda-leśānugṛhīta. Prasāda means mercy; leśa, a slight. If one has achieved a slight benediction of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, he can understand what he is. Na cānya eko 'pi. And others, eko 'pi. Those who have not achieved that causeless mercy, na cānya eko...ciraṁ vicinvan. For lives together, if they go on contemplating and meditating and speculating, it is not possible. It is not possible. Therefore Bhagavad-gītā says, bahūnāṁ janmanām ante (BG 7.19). After such so-called meditation and so-called speculation... That is also valid, but it takes long, long, long way.
Therefore in the Bhagavad-gītā the material forms, they have been described as inferior, and spiritual forms... There is spiritual world also. That is called parā-prakṛti. There is another nature. So we have no information. But information means we have in the Vedic literature. In other literatures also there are slight information, but in the Vedic literature you'll find described information of the spiritual world. So Bhagavad-gītā is the nutshell, cream of all spiritual knowledge. Here, therefore, Bhagavān, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa, He is speaking. He is giving spiritual knowledge directly. Now, śrī-bhagavān uvāca. So there cannot be any argument. The word used here...
Vedic knowledge means you cannot argue. You have to accept authoritative. Just like the government literature, government regulation, when it is published, gazette, you cannot argue. Whatever the government has decided, you have to accept because government is the authority. Similarly, Vedic knowledge means you cannot argue. You can argue, but that argument is not to defeat. That argument is for understanding. Tad viddhi praṇipātena paripraśnena sevayā (BG 4.34). If you cannot understand, then you have to put questions very humbly, praṇipātena, not by challenging. Praṇipāta. Praṇipāta means very humbly submitting oneself. Praṇipātena paripraśna. Otherwise there is no need of questioning. If you have no praṇipāta... Praṇipāta means prakṛṣṭa-rūpeṇa nipātena, fully submissive. The answers... You should approach to a person, questioning, with praṇipāta, means you cannot challenge him. Whatever answer he gives, you must be prepared to accept it. Otherwise don't put question. That is the system, Vedic system. Tad viddhi praṇipātena paripraśnena (BG 4.34). First of all you cannot argue because it is settled fact. Vinirṇītam.
So we should take advantage of these scriptures, especially the Bhagavad-gītā, which is accepted as the prime scripture in the modern world, and you'll find everything nicely. You can put your arguments, you can try to understand with your knowledge, with your intelligence. Everything will be clear. So we should take advantage of this Bhagavad-gītā and our power of intaking will be increased if we begin with this transcendental sound vibration, Hare Kṛṣṇa Hare Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa Hare Hare, Hare Rāma Hare Rāma Rāma Rāma Hare Hare. Thank you very much. Any questions? (end)
So Nārada inquired, "So do you believe that Lord can push one elephant through the holes of a needle?" "Oh, why not? I must believe." "Then what is your reason?" "Oh, my reason? I am sitting under this banyan tree, and so many fruits are falling daily, and in each fruit there are thousands of seeds, and each seed there is a tree. If in a small seed there can be big tree like that, is it very impossible to accept that Kṛṣṇa is putting one elephant through the, I mean, the holes of a needle? He has kept such a nice tree in the seed." So this is called belief. So unbelievers and believer means the believers, they are not blind believers. They have reason. If by Kṛṣṇa's process, by God's process, or nature's process, such a big tree can be put within the small seed, is it very impossible for Kṛṣṇa to keep all these planets floating in His energy? So we have to believe. We have no other explanation. But we have to understand in this way. Our reasoning, our argument, our logic should go in this way.
These are the description in the Vedic literature. So we have to learn. You cannot by your tiny effort with limited power, limited sense, I mean to say, perception, you cannot speculate. You have to understand from authoritative statements. That is called Veda. Vedas means knowledge which is perfect knowledge and if you study Vedas, then you get perfect knowledge of everything. And the cream of the Vedic knowledge is here in the Bhagavad-gītā. So if you read Bhagavad-gītā carefully, then you get all the knowledge very perfectly. Here it is said, mayā tatam idaṁ sarvaṁ jagad avyakta-mūrtinā. And that expansion, that impersonal expansion, avyakta, not manifested... You cannot see God in person in this expansion. Therefore sometimes we foolishly say that "Can you show me God?" God is there. You have to make your eyes to see. Just like God is here in the temple but somebody is thinking that "This is not God. This is a statue or an idol. They are worshiping idol." Supposing it is idol, but if God is everywhere, why He is not in the idol? What is the argument? If God is everywhere, then why He is not idol? God has the power. And actually this is not idol. This is God's energy. The same example: The sunshine is everywhere, so originally sunshine is the cause of everything.
We are not going to inquire what you are. "Are you businessman, engineer, doctor, or police, or intelligent, or educated, non-educated, black, white?"—there is no question, no question. The only thing is sthāne sthitāḥ śruti-gatām. Śruti-gatām means... Śruti means this aural reception. You have to receive this word little submissively. Namanta eva. Don't think yourself, that you are very man of knowledge. Because our knowledge is very limited, so we should not be puffed up with false thinking that I am very learned man. No. Just become a little gentle and submissive, and hear these messages from Kṛṣṇa. Sthāne sthitāḥ śruti-gatāṁ tanu-vāṅ-manobhiḥ. Tanu. Tanu means your body, and vāk means your words, and mana means mind. Just try to adjust your mind, your body, your words, and hear the Śrīmad-Bhagavad-gītā which is spoken by the Supreme Lord, and put your arguments, put your reason, whatever you have got. Don't accept it blindly. And think over it, and then you'll see what is the result. This is... So rākṣasīm.
So another name of God is Ajita. Ajita means one who is unconquerable. So that unconquerable becomes conquered. How? By this process. What is that process? Just submissively hear and try to assimilate it nicely. That's all. So God is neither Christian or Hindu or Muslim or anything. God is God. If you hear Bhagavad-gītā submissively, with your arguments and... The first thing is you must be submissive. You should not think yourself that you are a... Do not be puffed up with false knowledge. Everyone, we should think that we are ignorant. We should have to receive knowledge. That should be the first step by me(?). And receive knowledge, and try to assimilate it, and try to apply it, apply it with your body, with your mind, with your intelligence. Then the, you'll understand God so nicely that although God is unconquerable, you'll conquer Him. You'll conquer Him, by this simple process. So therefore śravaṇam, hearing, is so important. So in the devotional service the first step is hearing, hearing submissively from the authoritative source and just to assimilate it and grasp it with our body, mind and intelligence.
So for the general, people in general, the first requisition is that they must learn how to surrender unto God. Tattvena na te abhijānanti: "They do not know what is the," I mean to say, "accurate situation of the Supreme Lord." Now here it is stated,
- yānti deva-vratā devān
- pitṟn yānti pitṛ-vratāḥ
- bhūtāni yānti bhūtejyā
- yānti mad-yājino 'pi mām
- (BG 9.25)
Now, the argument that "In whatever form you worship the Supreme..." This is the Māyāvādī theory, that "God is impersonal. Now, because we cannot worship or meditate on something impersonal, therefore let us imagine something about Him and meditate upon that." Just like the impersonalist yogis. They put before them a lump of something and concentrate upon them. So here that theory is refuted by Kṛṣṇa. That impersonal conception of the Supreme and our imagination of God, that is not the way of approaching God. He says clearly herewith that yānti deva-vratā devān: "Those who are worshiping the demigods..."
So this is the question of faith. This is the question of faith. And without faith, you cannot reach the kingdom of God. Your experimental knowledge, your so-called defective reasons and arguments and philosophy, that will not be applicable in the transcendental field. You have to believe. You are believing in every sphere of your life. When you purchase a ticket for transferring yourself in the aeroplane, if you go on arguing, "Sir, I am purchasing ticket. Whether this aeroplane will reach? Whether it will not, I mean to say, crash on the way?" If you go on arguing, there is no question of, I mean to say, getting on the aeroplane. You have to believe that "Aeroplane will take me to the other side." You are doing that. There is no argument.
So similarly, you have to believe. We must have faith. And we see that many faithful, great ācāryas and devotees of the Lord, they achieved success by this faith. Why shall I not follow them? Therefore the Vedic literature says that you have to follow the footprints of great ācāryas. Ācārya means great devotees who come to teach the people in general about God consciousness or Kṛṣṇa consciousness. He is called ācārya. He behaves in his life how? To think of Kṛṣṇa and he teaches his students about that. He is called ācārya. Acinoti śāstrāṇi.(?) He knows the purport of the scriptures, and he behaves in his life and he teaches his student in that way. He is called ācārya.
So the Vedic literature teaches us that tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ: "In the spiritual matter, you cannot argue." Your argument will be failure because you may be very good arguer, but I may come. I can cut all your arguments. And somebody else comes—he cuts all my arguments. It is a question of logic. So there are many logical experts. So by arguments we cannot reach the Supreme Truth. Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnāḥ. Not by purchasing books from the market and reading it. No. That also will not help you. Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnāḥ. If you purchase Bhagavad-gītā, you purchase Bible, you purchase Koran, or... So many, there are, literatures. They are also authorized. That's all right. But you cannot learn them by your own study. Tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet (MU 1.2.12). One must go and learn it from the spiritual master, exactly you purchase some scientific book, medical science, or engineering and study at home. Oh, you will never be acknowledged as a medical practitioner. You have to admit yourself into the, that disciplic succession, medical college. You have to attend lectures. Then, when you pass degree, then you will be admitted.
Now people can say that, "What is the use of understanding God? Let God remain in His place. And let me remain in my place. What is the use?" Suppose... We cannot understand God. Now argument may be, "Yes, you don't understand God. There is no necessity of bothering for understanding God." But Kṛṣṇa says, "No." If you don't take that botheration, then you'll never be happy. Neither you'll be liberated. So it is your interest to understand God. Not that God will be profited if you understand Him. No. You'll be profited if you understand Him.
Sarva-loka-maheśvaram (BG 5.29). And He is the proprietor. He is the master. He is the proprietor of all planets, either in this material world or in the spiritual world. Sarva-loka-maheśvaram. Asammūḍhaḥ. Not by... Not accepting blindly. Don't accept blindly. You have got... God has given you power of reasoning, power of arguments. But don't argue falsely.
The process is... That is also mentioned in the Bhagavad-gītā. Tad viddhi praṇipātena paripraśnena sevayā (BG 4.34). If you want to understand that transcendental science, then you have to follow this principle. What is that? Tad viddhi praṇipātena. You have to surrender. The same thing: just like namanta eva. Unless you become submissive, you cannot be a surrendered soul.
Prabhupāda: Kṣetra-kṣetra-jñam. Just like we are living in this apartment and we know that I am not this apartment, but I am living in this apartment. The people say that because the Supersoul or the soul is living within this body therefore the body is soul. This is not very good argument. That is being cleared by Kṛṣṇa Himself. Idaṁ śarīraṁ kaunteya kṣetram ity abhidhīyate (BG 13.2). Kṣetra. Kṣetra means land or a place. So idaṁ śarīraṁ kaunteya kṣetram ity abhidhīyate (BG 13.2). And, the next line?
Pradyumna: Etad yo vetti tam...
Prabhupāda: Etad yo vetti, and one who knows it, he's kṣetra-jñaḥ. Jñaḥ means in knowledge. So we should know this, that I am not this body. It is my body. If we analyze the body, I say it is my hand, it is my leg, it is my head. Nobody says: "I head," or "I hand." "I" is different from this body. I am living in this apartment, but I am not this apartment. But the modern civilization is going on on the basic idea that "I am this body." "I am American." "I am Indian." "I am brāhmaṇa." "I am kṣatriya." "I am man." "I am woman." This is condemned. This is condemned.
So we may be very proud of advancement of knowledge, but actually we are not yet advanced, so far material science is concerned, to understand the basic principle of the moving force which is moving this body, the... On account of the presence of the soul, we have got so much intelligence, we have got so much thoughtful, psychological effect. So many things wonderful they are. But as soon as the soul is not there, everything collapses. So the Buddhist theory that the intelligence or consciousness takes place at a certain point of material mixture... But that may be an argument, but actually it is not a fact. Any amount of material mixture, you cannot produce soul. They have produced so many things by material mixture, but nobody has produced. In India, of course, we heard so many news that "In America they have produced life in chemical laboratory." And sometimes they say, "In Russia they are trying." But this is not possible. Nobody has found. And greatest scientists, they have admitted that the problem of life is beyond the scope of material science.
So Kṛṣṇa says that, ṛṣibhir bahudhā gītam. Because everyone is trying to be superior. Nāsau ṛṣir yasya mataṁ na bhinnā, that every philosopher must give his own opinion and it must be refuted by another. Therefore śāstra says that in this way you cannot ascertain what is the reality. Tarko 'pratiṣṭha. If you want to understand the reality by your arguments, reasoning power, that is not possible. Because I may be very nice arguer, but another person may be better arguer, he can defeat me. And that is going on.
Therefore simply by arguments, you cannot reach the Absolute Truth. That is not possible. Tarko 'pratiṣṭha. And if you simply depend on the śruti, śrutayo vibhinnaḥ. The Vedic literatures are different: Sāma, Yajur, Ṛg, Artharva. And not only that, other scriptures there are. So Śrutayor vibhinnāḥ nāsau ṛṣir yasya mataṁ na bhinnā, dharmasya tattvaṁ nihito guhāyām. To understand religious principle, it is very difficult.
Therefore we are presenting Bhagavad-gītā as it is. We cannot use the ardha-kukkuṭī-nyāya (Cc. Ādi-līlā 5.176)—half. I take half of the hen. I take the rear part, and the front part I reject. This kind of logic, argument, will not be very successful. You have to take as it is, in toto, and you have to understand. That is understanding of Bhagavad-gītā. If you take something to your choice, that is useless, useless waste of time. Just like Mahatma Gandhi, he wanted to prove from Bhagavad-gītā nonviolence. How it is possible? Bhagavad-gītā is spoken in the battlefield. So in this way, if we try to understand Bhagavad-gītā, it will be not Bhagavad-gītā, it will be something else. We must understand Bhagavad-gītā as it is. That is our preaching method. We are presenting Bhagavad-gītā as it is all over the world. So we accept.
Hari-śauri: Sometimes there's some discrepancy, two parties, they may both want to serve but they have different ways, different ideas how to execute the same order, so there may be some argument.
Prabhupāda: Service means you must take order from the master. That is service. Otherwise it is mental concoction. Actually, the servant requests, "How can I serve you?" So when the master orders, "You serve me like this," then you do that, that is service. And if you manufacture your service, that is not service. That is your sense gratification. Yasya prasādād bhagavat-prasādaḥ **. You have to see how he is pleased. Now if he wants a glass of water and if you bring a nice glass of milk, you can say milk is better than water, you take it. That is not service. He wants water, you give him water. Don't manufacture better thing. Just like Kṛṣṇa wanted Arjuna to fight, and he became a nonviolent saint, "No, Kṛṣṇa, I'll not fight." That is disobedience. Kṛṣṇa says fight, you must fight. Don't bring philosophy of nonviolence. That is nonsense. What He says, do it. That is service. That he did later on. Sometimes they misunderstand Bhagavad-gītā, that Arjuna is not willing to fight and Kṛṣṇa is inducing him to fight. They misunderstand that Arjuna is better than Kṛṣṇa. But that's not the fact. What Kṛṣṇa says, we have to execute that. We should not manufacture our own ideas. That is not service.
Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: But it's the living entity's choice to surrender.
Prabhupāda: Yes. He knows everything.
Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: But then they give the argument, "If He knows, then how does the living entity have choice?"
Prabhupāda: Yes, that is given to him. He knows that "I have given him the independence," so you can use your choice. That He knows also. Yathecchasi tathā kuru (BG 18.63). He knows.
Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: This is understanding things in proper light.
Prabhupāda: Yes.
Devotee (3): See, the argument could come that "If He is directing the wanderings of all living entities then I don't have to worry about surrendering. He will direct me to it."
Prabhupāda: Yes. But ye yathā māṁ prapadyante (BG 4.11). Why don't you see other verse? He is directing according to your desire—unless you surrender. There are two kinds of direction. One kind of direction is when you do not surrender, and one kind of direction, when you have surrendered, because these things are there. My position is either surrender or not surrender. So the not surrender will get one kind of direction and the surrender will get another kind of direction. Both ways, there is direction.
Sometimes these rascals put the argument that living entity does not die. Na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre (BG 2.20). Big, big sannyāsī rascals, they give this argument that "What is the wrong if it is killed?" No. He does not die. But because... Just like if somebody disturbs, we have to go out from this place. But that is criminal. You cannot disturb me. That is criminal, unlawful disturbance. So similarly, the living entity will not die after being killed or the body being annihilated. But because one disturbs him, therefore he is punishable. He becomes criminal. But because they do not know, asuras, the rules and regulation, God's law...
That is dharma. Dharma means to know the rules and regulation given by God. That is dharma. Dharmaṁ tu... Just like you must know the government's laws, similarly, you must know what is God's law. God's law is this, that everyone is evolving through different forms of body to come to the platform of human body. That is nature's law. Prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni guṇaiḥ karmāṇi (BG 3.27). So they do not know.
Otherwise don't try to become guru. Impersonalists, half-understood, partially understood, he cannot become guru. This is the Caitanya Mahāprabhu's formula. Therefore first of all try to understand Kṛṣṇa. You will understand in such a way that you can refute all others' argument, all others' opposition. There are so many opposing elements. Then you are guru. Otherwise you cannot become a guru. Guru is not so teeny thing or trifle thing that everyone becomes Guru Mahārāja, no. That is not guru. Sa mahātmā... Vāsudevaḥ sarvam iti sa mahātmā sudurlabhaḥ (BG 7.19).
Prabhupāda: This is demonic. Now any question? (pause) This demonic conclusion will not help us. Then we shall remain in ignorance; there is no knowledge. Any question? Can you put any question on behalf of the demons? (laughter)
Trivikrama: Well, I am very expert at the demon mentality, but I'm afraid you've destroyed all arguments that I might put forth.
Prabhupāda: Any of our friends, Japanese friends here?
Japanese man: Yes, I have one question. You mentioned that we can hear a car from outside, but we cannot see car. But...
Prabhupāda: No, we can see car. But just like here we are sitting. We do not see the car, but the sound is there, but you conclude that there is a car. So therefore seeing is not always the sound reasoning. Even without seeing, we can conclude there is car. That is my point.
So similarly, Arjuna's inquiry is very nice that "One who is not following the śāstra-vidhi, the direction of the śāstra, but has got some faith, some vague idea, then what will be considered? They will be taken as sattva-guṇa or rajo-guṇa or tamo-guṇa?" It is... So Kṛṣṇa... Now, this is very important question, and Kṛṣṇa... It not said, "Kṛṣṇa said." It is said, it is mentioned here, śrī bhagavān uvāca. Kṛṣṇa may be taken by low-grade person as ordinary human being as it is done sometimes. Big, big scholars, big, big philosophers, they also become bewildered. Just like in India, there is a party called Arya-samaj. They accept Kṛṣṇa as a very big person but not God, not God. There is some mistake some time. Avajānanti māṁ mūḍhāḥ: (BG 9.11) "Those who are rascals, they sometimes take Me as ordinary human being." That is mentioned in the Bhagavad-gītā. He is Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore, when there is an authoritative judgement is required, you'll find in the Bhagavad-gītā, it is said, śrī bhagavān uvāca. That means you cannot defy this judgement. Bhagavān. Because the Supreme Personality of Godhead is speaking, that is final. No argument. No commentation. This is the meaning of śrī bhagavān uvāca. Similarly, after this inquiry, śrī bhagavān uvāca. Who has this, marked rules in the scriptures?
So he does not want these rules and scriptures? He has marked this? Hm. Yes. But Kṛṣṇa, er, personally, Vyāsadeva has purposefully written here, śrī bhagavān uvāca: "Bhagavān the Supreme Person, the ultimate..." Bhagavān means the ultimate. Just like in some country there is supreme court. So when the judgement is given by the Supreme Court, that is final. And when it was monarchy, the order given by the king, that is final—no more questioning. Similarly, when it is mentioned, śrī bhagavān uvāca, that means it is final. No more argument, no more logic Logic is there argument is there but it is final. No waste of time anymore. What Bhagavān says, that is called paramparā. The first utterances, order, or statement, or judgement, is given by the Supreme Lord, and if that is followed through the disciplic chain, that is real understanding, real knowledge.
| Page Title: | Argument (Lectures, BG) |
| Compiler: | Visnu Murti, Mayapur |
| Created: | 10 of Feb, 2012 |
| Totals by Section: | BG=0, SB=0, CC=0, OB=0, Lec=117, Con=0, Let=0 |
| No. of Quotes: | 117 |